Occasionally, we aren't aware of every last new feature a PlayStation 3 firmware update affords at the time of its release. This being the case, many believe there's at least one currently unrecognized feature in firmware 2.80, which became available for the PS3 on June 24.
When it was released, rumors began to fly that the update held something very interesting; something that would come to the forefront at a later date. Well, TheSixthAxis has a theory: it may include the option for the previously unknown capability of 21:9 gaming. The first example of a 21:9 TV was unveiled earlier this year and it's currently on store shelves if you wish to pony up the dough. Its capability to display 2560 x 1080p resolution will make those black bars disappear for good- as opposed to the standard HDTVs – and while this may not have a direct immediate impact on gaming, it'll definitely come at some point. Now, HDMI 1.3, which is the current format used in the PS3 firmware, can support the resolution, and as the article notes, "there's no reason why the PS3's OS can't too." We won't be able to confirm any of this until Sony comes forth with an official announcement, or someone with a 21:9 TV does a test session, but it's an intriguing possibility. And if this isn't the hidden feature 2.80 delivered to PS3 owners, we're still gonna wonder what it might be…
Video viewing continues to get better and better with every passing year, and although it kinda sucks that we have to make the continually expensive upgrades, we always love the beauty of awesome HD.
It would be strange if this is true. Why add a feature no one can use and yet still not have many features people are clamoring for? Still… long live HD!
Or intill something better comes along!
One would think they would make this known, just so people know they are ahead of the curve.
Makes no sense to release a 21:9 tv. Close to 80 percent of movies are shot on 1.85:1 (16:9). Why get a TV that only plays 20 percent of your DVD/blu-ray collection correctly?
Last edited by LimitedVertigo on 7/7/2009 10:09:08 PM
Releasing a tv with 21:9 ratio would not be cool, hell I've only had my sony hdtv for about a year and three months. Maybe it will just be a monitor, but I expect the majority of content to fit my tv and not some other aspect ratio.
Do you have a source your 80% figure? Im curious because I dont believe that. I still see many many theatrical releases in 2.35:1, more so than 1.85 movies.
Most of the blu-rays I own are 2.35:1. Or are you including TV movies in your figure? Then it would make sense.
Last edited by convergecrew on 7/8/2009 2:55:24 AM
Most movies are 2.35:1 on Blu-ray like in the theaters. The movies I have that are 16:9 say they were "made to fit the screen".
I think the 16:9 ratio is a good compromise for all viewing formats. I for one dont mind the additional black bars on the top and bottom. Like LV says, why spring for something you can only take full advantage of 20% of the time?
I hate how T.V.s just keep getting wider and wider. I just bought a widescreen tv this year, and now every blu-ray I've played is wider than 16:9. Why can't they just stick with 3:4 :(.
4:3 aspect ratio cuts off the left and right sides of the image, do the small black bars really bother you that much. 16:9 was stupid anyway, tv's should be cinemascope aspect ration because that is what is used in most films.
Nearly 80% of movies are 16:9, so clearly a majority of TV's released now are in the same aspect ratio.
I read somewhere that the field of view for human eyesight is 16:9
I agree in part with filehaha.
I got a damn Wide screen HDTV and still get F#@$% black bars on my movies!
If they keep on making movies thinner and wider, I'm gonna have to start using two WS HDTV side by side.
Damn Hollywood!! * Shakes fist in anger*
every movie I watch seems to be in cinema scope.
haha, 4:3 is just nasty. I dont even wanna look at anything in that aspect ratio anymore.
i don't really care, i guess i want to see it from my whole tv, so i don't really like black bars, They should only make one size and stick with it, then make all the tv's the same so then there won't be any black bars or short/fat people
Last edited by kevinater321 on 7/8/2009 4:09:37 PM
When it comes to firmware updates and the word rumor attached to the word, they have usually been 99 percent untrue.If it is true then is going to raise questions like why they keep giving features no one ask for and ignore the ones that are mostly requested.
What the…..? Something else I can't afford? Great.
Though I won't argue with LimitedVertigo's statement about 80% as 16:9, I will say that the 20% of movies that aren't are the blockbusters that I typically purchase on blu-ray. This of course includes all the big action movies worth having on blu-ray imo, like The Dark Knight, Transformers, 300, Ratatouille, etc. all of which are 2.35:1, wider than 16:9 (TDK is variable but still).
Personally, I'd be happy to see a 2.4:1 TV (which by calculation, is essentially 21:9).
The problem is, the TV's aspect ratio would fit and enhance those few blockbusters while the rest of my media, including games, 16:9 movies, and even television would be boxed with big 'ol black bars to the side.
How did this rumor even start anyway? How exactly did TheSixthAxis come up with this? It just seems so random, so out of place to be a feature Sony would release now…
What surprises me most is the sheer number of rumors I read about concerning Sony in comparison to Microsoft and 360…everyday when I hit up N4G another rumor is stirred about things like the PSP2, PS3 Slim, PS4, PS3 Price Cut, PS3 Firmware 2.XXX – 3.00, new PS3 Exclusive, etc.
Sure, it keeps me always excited and on my feet towards new gaming developments for Sony, but hype and finding out that half the stories don't come true gets quite irritating.
Then again, I suppose when the media comes up with these rumors, it sure as hell beats when they start another, "PS3 failing" or "Blu-ray failing" article.
Last edited by wquach on 7/7/2009 11:13:32 PM
Almost every Blu-ray I've rented/ bought in the past year seems to be in 2.4:1. The Dark Knight, Wall-E, PotC, Hancock, etc. It's frustrating how they force us to all go widescreen, only to make movies wider.
I thought "official" HD is 16:9/1080p. Did they change it and why?
Well it seems that is changing. 1080p won't always be the fullest hd resolution, because through time technology advances. Just how we double computer processing every one and a half year. One day its HD. The next its Super HD.
True, there will always be new innovations coming out.
However, the deciding factor is whether consumers/business/gov't decide to adopt or not. If they dont adopt, all these new formats and mediums will die a slow death.
I thought the human eye couldn't process much more then 1080… something i herd on discovery channel.
Of course they changed it. It's gonna keep changing till our wallets run dry and our baby's diapers floweth over. Hell, how far are games from reality? One gen away, maybe two? When games look identical to real life and VR is in every household, they can't do much more can they? Next step: The Matrix.
As several have pointed out that ratio is fairly well useless for everything except a minority of movies. Since so very few games use even the full resolution of 1080p, and those that do only just manage it, I can't really see adding another 600×1080 pixels to the render target being a good thing. That's something like a 30% increase in workload over and above 1080p. How likely does that sound?
Wouldn't that be the same situation when televisions gain higher resolutions anyway? I mean yea it would be a bigger workload,but only because it has more pixels to render in one frame.
I'm not sure that TVs will be gaining any resolution in the short/mid term anyway. Broadcast standards have just now started to move to 720p/1080i and Hollywood has standardized on 1080p with BluRay. Downloads can barely manage DVD speeds and can only handle HD material with the use of lossy compression techniques – even at 720p. There is only one environment that uses the higher resolutions and that is PCs.
This just seems to be a solution looking for a problem.
Yeah North American broadband speeds are truly pathetic.
Remember guys the PS3 is an entertainment hub and I'm pretty sure if true Sony's jus trying to keep up/go ahead of the competition. I know of a couple of people who be excited about this if true including myself.
I guess SONY wasn't lying calling their PS3 as "the next-gen" system. I don't know about 21:9 but I believe we're up for something new for the PS3.
I wished they'd stick to one ratio for televisions, its getting really annoying having some media for one ratio and others for another.
I never understood why they didnt just make HD as a 1.85:1 ratio, as opposed to 1.78:1 (16×9). The difference is minimal, but why not just make it the same?
As many anal blu-ray aficionados will likely scream at you, it's to suit the "director's vision". Which I always thought was BS. I can perceive no discernible advantage to using 2.35 or 2.40 over 1.75 or 1.80.
To me, theres a huge difference between 2.35 and 1.85 aesthetically. Im just talking about the standard of 1.85 and 1.78, which is like a sliver of difference on the top and bottom of the screen.
I have a 2.35:1 100" screen myself with my good old 720p projector so this would actually be kinda cool if true, and if you could actually play games in 21:9 / 2.35:1 aspect ratios…
I don't know about 80% of movies being 16:9, almost all of my blu-ray's as well as the ones I rent from blockbuster are probably like 80-90% 2.35:1 format…
To those of you who complain about them coming up with wider and wider formats all the time, 2.35:1 is not new at all, movies have been shot in 2.35:1 for a VERY long time, and there are a whole lot of DVDs in 2.35:1 format as well, so really this is just a question of TV's slowly adapting to what's already out there…
Actually thats a point, why cant each disc have an option for screen ratio at the beginning, Many games had ratio options such as Jak And Daxter where you could change the ratio fro 4:3 to 16:9, i think its something they need to work out.
Too Many Firmware Updates Nowadays. . . Especially To Those That Aren't Free. . .
I'm not sure I follow…
the more features the better!
I feel obligated to inform you that you will never get rid of black bars. A 16:9 TV will show bars on 4:3 broadcasts (pillar boxing) and on 2.35/2.40 movies (letter boxing), but not on 1.75/1.80 shows/movies. This new TV will only eliminate the letter boxing on 2.35/2.40 shows/movies. It would pillar box all the 1.75/1.80 stuff as well as still doing it with 4:3. All that 21:9 does is trade letter boxing on some movies for pillar boxing on others.
youve hit the nail on the head.
It just depends on whether you want to watch your 2.35 movies without blackbars, or your 1.85 movies without black bars.
itll be one or the other. Unless you like pan-and-scan 😉
Okay, so they introduce true cinema resolution which could be considered old when comparing to IMAX. Anyone seen Dark Knight on Bluray? Notice the IMAX scenes took up the full display of your standard wide-screen?
No thanks, I'd much prefer getting a non-distorted/non-cropped IMAX image.
Last edited by Nynja on 7/8/2009 1:34:14 PM
i have happy with my 16:9 1080 P sony xbrite. I dont need so called 21:9, dont even have a tv for it.
Hey why dont they just give me my 16:10 instead for my Viewsonic 120 Hz monitor that only supports 16:10 and I loose a little of my view.
cuz most people have tvs and all computer monitors (or the vast majority) are 16:10 (or 8:5 for lowest terms).
Last edited by somethingrandom on 7/12/2009 9:14:17 PM
I'm not tech savy, but I never understood why any sized picture has to have those black bars at all(Example: widescreen).
My thinking is that it diminishes my enjoyment of watching the picture, & it's viewing quality.
And even though I know I'd be seeing more of what's on the left & right sides, those black bars placed above & below just drive me absolutely frigging bonkers that they taking inches off the top & bottom of my TV's picture.
And if a movie come in both formatts, full & widescreen, I always pick the regular "full" version to watch.
So am I really missing that much by not doing it widescreen????
Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/9/2009 1:10:24 PM
Wait until they get the 16000:1 tv's… try to watch that. probably be like 32000×2 pixels lol