Firmware production start to become slow ... any issue?

[Sunfish]

What I want is watch 21:9 movies on a 21:9 tv to get rid of black bars. Purely native 21:9 so no anamorphic tricks. Maybe I'm getting offtopic here... 4K 16:9 tv's won't remove those hideous black bars on the top and the bottom.

I don't care much about 4K. Full HD is good enough for me. What I do like is the new 10 bit color standard with much higher brightness range to make video more realistic. As in a bright sun that really tends to blind the viewer. OLED is capable of that and displaying true black at the same time. That combined with native (square pixels) 21:9 aspect ratio is my biggest wish, much more so than simply adding more pixels.

[Sunfish]

To clarify even more: what I want is an official 21:9 resolution which with current 1080p video effectively means an official 2520x1080 resolution. And 5040x2160 for the 4K enthusiasts among us.

[jer1956]

Only 21:9 TVs get rid of black bars, to replace them with black columns for 16:9  TV broadcasts.  Or are you expecting broadcasters to shift to 21.9 as well?
21:9 TVs will always be low production niche products, so you pay more per pixel than with 16:9. Just look at the ludicrous price for the lg 21:9.  

Lg where also making a big thing of having 4k Netflix, as I suggested those with it would. There is no point having 4k with no 4k media to watch.

Crikey......you pay $100,000 , and it makes no mention of 4k HDMI for 4k bd!!!!!

[Sunfish]

Mid 90's 16:9 was a niche product and look where we are today. Our first widescreen TV was a Philips CRT and it was a huge and heavy device. It took at least another decade for widescreen to slowly become the new standard. Don't forget that current HD standards are only with us for a short period of time. Just like smartphones we take it for granted now but only a few years ago all we have today were niche products.

And like I said before: vertical bars are much less pronounced than horizontal bars especially on a 21:9 tv. 21:9 is basically the new widescreen and it will simply take time again for broadcasters to change.

[marciton]

So I'm adding a poll as I'm curious of the next step ...

[jer1956]

16:9 took off because most users appreciated the difference between it and 4:3.  Philips have been pushing 21:9 for ages, the demand is not there.   16:9 is close to the golden ratio, the ratio the Greeks found to be most pleasing and used in their architecture.  I think someone calculad is the natural aspect of the view from two eye side by side. When you go to a movie thwter you are basically your own pan/scan system, extracting your own 16:9 view from the huge image that you can't take in from a single viewpoint.

Some things pushed on us  are plain daft. Unless you have a huge curved screen, this sitting off centre will start to see more of the edge than the screen.   It's as if someone said we can make curved screens, and no one said "so what?" .  And they wonder why the TV industry  is in difficulties. 

[Sunfish]

16:9 did not take off for a long long time. It only became the standard when flat screens became the standard and people had no choice.

We cannot expect one company to set a standard with one niche product without the industry setting an official standard. Besides Philips has been a very small player on a global scale for a long time already. Philips doesn't even produce tv's anymore since they sold their branch and name to TP Vision. Philips is literally done with this market.

The natural aspect of our vision is indeed very wide. Horizontally we see more than 180 degrees around of us. This means our eyes even look backwards a few degrees. It's simple optics really. Vertically our vision is much narrower. It's not because our eyes are lined up horizontally though that we see wide. Our eyes and lenses are perfectly round. It's the shape of our heads/faces that really determines our field of view and effectively narrows vertical vision. I think though this still isn't the reason why we have widescreen tv's. After all they are still much smaller than our entire field of vision. It's the way our brain adapted to our world. As land dwellers our vision has a horizontal nature and as such we are accustomed to landscape views. And we pan and scan in our daily lives the whole time so there is nothing unnatural about that.

My preference for 21:9 is a truly personal one. No one pushed it on me in any way. I just find it very pleasing to look at and my wish for a 21:9 HD standard comes purely from my own mind. I like to watch both movies and series and I already gave the reasons why a 21:9 screen and resolution would be golden for me. As for the rest of the world I truly don't know. I guess most people don't really give it a thought.

And you say the TV industry is in difficulties but as I understood especially series have never as popular and profitable as today. It might even surpass movies, if it hasn't already. Partly due to streaming I guess.

Curved screens are ridiculous indeed. I would never buy a curved tv if only for its impracticality. The main reason though is showcasing a new technology and in that they definitely succeeded. The latest model is flat, less than 1 mm thick and meant to be stuck to the wall. That is what I call a nice concept.

[adamforeman]

Screen filling modes are found in most TVs, for SD. Even they won't do it for HD.  If the player had an auto native resolution mode, then the TV would then auto distort 4:3  SD to fill the screen, if you setup you tv to do it.  The image has to be distorted because zoom will crop off peoples heads, as zoom with just show the middle 16:9 band from the 4:3. When old 4:3 programs are re-cropped for 16:9  it takes manual pan scan to find the most sensible 16:9 part to crop out, shot by shot.

My TV has various settings, but doesn't stretch 4.3 to 16.9. Plus I find that setting my TV to Just Scan, 3D seems to work better and simplifies the 3D setup. I'm not saying remove the Zoom setting, just that I'd like to set stretch to 16.9 once in the settings and then any 4.3 video it plays it would simply display it automatically rather than having to press a button every time. I don't understand why it goes back to the original setting each new video. Why can't it stay on the last setting until changed. For example, the kids like Spongebob which until season 9 or 10, the show has always been 4.3. Each 11 minutes you have to press the button to change it to full screen. People have mentioned Zoom to Width, but that cuts off the top or bottom of the screen which is annoying and not what I want to achieve visually. If their was a setting to stretch as well as Zoom then it meet everyone's requirements. Kodi has that option in playback settings which I think is a great option.

[jer1956]

As I posted before...it is automatic "if" the aspect ratio is in the stream.  Using a manual x y zoom setting for anamorphic 16:9 was suggested for those unwilling to remux all their anamorphic 16:9 to add the missing stream data.

DVD.ISO movie  clones have the setting in their vob streams, and that shows automatic anamorphic expansion is there, and works.

[adamforeman]

As I posted before...it is automatic "if" the aspect ratio is in the stream.  Using a manual x y zoom setting for anamorphic 16:9 was suggested for those unwilling to remux all their anamorphic 16:9 to add the missing stream data.

DVD.ISO movie  clones have the setting in their vob streams, and that shows automatic anamorphic expansion is there, and works.

Sorry for my ignorance, what do you mean by the aspect ratio is in the stream? And which device is supposed to automatically change, the TV or the Mede8er? As I mentioned previously, having my TV in just scan mode, provides better 3D production. So I'm looking for a Mede8er setting solution if that's possible.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

[m3dmer3er3r_4]

poll:

i leave mede8er 1000x3d secondary unit because there is continuing problems with internal hdd and playback and scraper seem work anymore as it should be.

welcome back pch and vten

[eentje]

my med works fine. no issues. why should i switch

it does what i want. play video files. all the videowall gimmicks and stuf is nice but not essensial for me

[Fmedrano1977]

Still on 3.07, had that since day one.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[DrJon]

16:9 took off because most users appreciated the difference between it and 4:3.  Philips have been pushing 21:9 for ages, the demand is not there.   16:9 is close to the golden ratio, the ratio the Greeks found to be most pleasing and used in their architecture. 

I'm not sure 16:9, i.e. 1.777, is that close to 1.618 (14.5:9), in the ballpark, but no more...

[Stefanz]

since your software developers must have some spare time now, how about getting them to work on bringing back the screensaver which I've been asking for the last 18 months?