Ug, you're really missing the mark on that. 2.37:1 is so damned close to (depending who you talk to) the proper 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 AR for movies as not to be notable in difference. You are going to really split hairs over the difference between 2.37:1 and 2.39:1 AR?
Yes, I wan't those 20,000+ pixels.
This would be ideal for black-box removed 1920x800 Blu-ray native resolution content in a HTPC environment. 1920x800 would be proper cinema aspect ratio but for a HTPC 2560x1080 makes a lot more sense combined with functional desktop use.
I wouldn't say it is ideal. I think ideal would mean full use of the display without stretching or cropping. You are still going to have one of stretching, letterboxing, or cropping when experiencing the main selling point of these displays.
I also think that the 1200 vertical pixels of an aspect correct 2868x1200 display would be considered more ideal for desktop users than a 2560x1080 display.
1920x800
Upscaled to width 2560 uses a 1.3~ multiplier. This is 1066 vertical pixels.
Upscaled to height 1080 uses a 1.35 multiplier. That is 2592 horizontal pixels.
The difference is less with the closer 1920x802 resolution.
It is slight, and most people won't notice the difference seeing as most people don't notice what happens to a 1.85:1 movie when it is "optimized" for 16:9 televisions. If the manufacturing technology was limited I could understand but this is a cost decision.
|
