💃 2.35 1 Vs 16 9

Thevast majority of Wii games are made for 4:3 anyways, only a handful of games try to force you to use 16:9 aspect ratio, most of them multiplayer-centric platforming games. Playing those on 4:3 will "letterbox" the screen, adding black bars on the top and bottom. I play those with the console set to 16:9 and the TV at 4:3. Afilm in 2.35 will take up the entire 10 foot screen width, but a 16:9 image will be only 7.56 feet wide. The total square footage of that 16:9 image will be 4.25 x 7.56 = Forgames that have good optimization, 21:9 can provide an actual advantage because of the increase in pixels horizontally. However, a lot of competitive games still lack 21:9 support, so you might be stuck with black bars on the sides in some games. Another thing to consider is that 21:9 monitors can be more difficult to drive than Cinemasare set up for 1.85:1 projection, as is the workflow and the cameras designed for cinema productions. 16:9 can have slight pillars on either side if you're going through the full 2k DCP workflow,. If you don't want to shoot 1.85, no one is stopping you shooting 16:9, many low budget films are shot using that aspect ratio. Ok so you place the screen so that one screen is facing you and the other is to the side. But this is often equally awkward whereas a 32:9 curved screen is pretty comfy. Samsung's superultrawides also allow for Picture by Picture mode splitting if you want. It supports both 21:9 ultrawide + 11:9 and 2x 16:9 setups. Asa 16:9 Display: 27.06% larger diagonal 61.45% larger area: 21.30% smaller diagonal 38.06% smaller area: As a 2.35:1 Display: 66.77% larger diagonal 178.12% larger area: 40.04% smaller diagonal 64.04% smaller area : Share your Comparison: 34 inch 21x9 display vs 21.5 inch 16x9 display Ihave a 16:9 screen covering the width of my wall, but the top / bottom bars on 2.35:1 movies drives me nuts. My choices to bypass the top/bottom bars are: - Asa 16:9 Display: 0.44% larger diagonal 0.87% larger area: 0.43% smaller diagonal 0.87% smaller area: As a 2.35:1 Display: 31.82% larger diagonal 73.77% larger area: 24.14% smaller diagonal 42.45% smaller area : Share your Comparison: 30 inch 21x9 display vs 24 inch 16x9 display Asa 16:9 Display: 13.27% smaller diagonal 24.79% smaller area: 15.31% larger diagonal 32.95% larger area: As a 2.35:1 Display: 13.83% larger diagonal 29.57% larger area: 12.15% smaller diagonal 22.82% smaller area : Share your Comparison: 34 inch 21x9 display vs 31.5 inch 16x9 display Iam confused between 2.35:1 & 16:9, as in which aspect ratio screen to go with. I believe lot of Hollywood movies are in 2.35:1 and few in 16:9, also lot of Indian VLite 1.3× (2008) - The V-Lite series with a 1.3x squeeze factor, enabling the use of nearly the entire image area of 3-perf 35 mm film or the sensor area of a 16:9 digital camera to provide the 2.39:1 release format. V-Lite 16 (2008) - Lenses for 16 mm anamorphic production, in both 1.3x (for Super 16mm) and 2x (for standard 16mm). Allin all, I am doubtful that any of the above equipment will provide me the experience I seek, no overspill on a 2.39:1 screen. I will mostly be watching 2.39:1 content, letting the Lumagen perform 'NLS' with 16:9 content or just leave it be. 1) Would the OPPO-203 optically cut away the overspilled black letterboxed bars with its 21:9 feature eunA4.

2.35 1 vs 16 9