Might want to check with Nora Ephron and Nancy Meyers before you commit to that idea. In film, framing itself can set a mood, and for many chick flicks and comedy, 2.35:1 looks too expansive and impersonal to be considered.

I personally love 2.35:1 framing. I use it in my own videos, and I own anamorphic lenses to create this format natively… but I recognize it’s not for the masses.

Plus, it’s Phillips. Unless they’ve teamed up with Sony, Samsung, or Panasonic for some help developing a better signal processor for this over-large screen, it’s going to fall on its face. I work for a large retailer in the home theater section and I promise I’ll take everything back if one ever sells to someone who gives a damn about their picture, as opposed to someone who “hates those black bars” … but then that person will completely ignore you when you explain why they’re there, and that they’ll be there for EVERYTHING but movies…

what they really need to do is put their money into developing an amorphous blob screen that can stretch and morph into the proper screen size for the signal. seeing as we’re still in the 21st century, people are going to have to suck it up. credit to Phillips for outside thinking, but it’s going to come up very short of the mark.

So the hundreds and hundreds of professional cinematographers who choose this aspect ratio to shoot their movies in are wrong?

“Keep in mind that although many blockbusters are framed in the 2.35:1 format, most stick with 1.85:1. ”

Actually… most movies are 2.35:1. 1.85 movies are a considerable minority these days. More and more movies are being shot in 2.35.

“If they shoot in way that makes this format native, I think that they should stop.”

They’ve been doing it for well over 50 years now, and it’s only gotten more and more popular. I don’t think they’re gonna stop any time soon.

While it’s a good point that it’s really only a tv for movie buffs, and not you’re average viewer… to say that it’s a bad aspect ratio or that only a minority of movies use it is just plain wrong.
The fact is, we see wider from side to side than we do up and down, as a result of our eyes being placed side by side and not on top of each other. 2.35:1 actually fits our field of vision more naturally than 4:3 or even 16:9 does.
There’s also the fact that there’s more interesting information to contain in a wider frame than a taller one. You can hold more people’s heads in the frame without having to get too wide. Landscapes are more vast without having to get too much sky. Two-shots of people together in a frame are more eloquently framed.

On top of that… IMO, at least, 2.35:1 is just a cool looking shape. It feels grand. It feels sleek.

Now if they’ve only make a projector like this, then we’d be in business! TVs are too small for me.

hd dvd and bds gnna shine

Wrong. Cinemascope, yes… as a framing standard. 70mm, no. Dark Knight was the notable exception.

Keep in mind that although many blockbusters are framed in the 2.35:1 format, most stick with 1.85:1. 95% of the stuff you watch will feature fat bars on either side. Far more distracting in my opinion than 16:9.

This is a gimmick.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/20/philips-gives-cinema-21-9-hdtv-a-price-and-release-date/

Wow…

According to Engadget HD, Philips has no plans to ever sell these sets in North America. Boo. Hiss.

And where can i get it?