Philips uses the Gold’s 3D functions in another way, too. It’s great for playing two-player games. A separate pair of special 3D glasses are available which effectively have two left and two right lenses respectively. One gamer sees one picture, the other sees another. It lacks the polish of the newly announced Super OLED screen from Samsung and it’s ultimately not much more fun than regular split screen gaming, but it’s a cute gimmick.
The tactile remote has some navigation quirks that need familiarising with
The 21:9 Gold has good sound – not something you can say about all flatscreen TVs. I don’t know if it’s the size or the weight of the TV but the volume is strong, the bass rich enough and the clarity of voices noticeably better than on many TVs.
I’ve criticised Philips in the past for clunky, ugly remote controls. This one matches the oval shape and brushed metal styling of more recent models. It’s not perfect but it’s very good – though the buttons are a little clicky. It’s strikingly different from most remotes which means there’s a learning curve, but it’s a likeable and workmanlike gadget.
Perhaps not best for everyday viewing, but ideal for the film fanatic
Only film lovers need apply here. The screen’s format just doesn’t work if you mostly want to watch sitcoms originally transmitted in 4:3 ratio or even regular widescreen TV broadcasts. But if the majority of your viewing, or at least what you value watching most, is movies then this is a spectacular TV. The shape is striking and effective, the Ambilight enchanting and the image quality exceptional. Sound is stronger than on many flatscreens, too. ®
More TV Reviews
|Ten monster TVs||
Philips Cinema 21:9 Gold 50in ultra widescreen TV
Re: Stupid Aspect Ratio
Do you mind clarifying what is "Daft" and "Stupid" about a TV built to be the same aspect ratio as the majority of films? I find it hugely frustrating that I have spent good money on a widescreen TV but still get huge black bars at the top and bottom of most films. I don't watch telly (naff all on worth watching the last few times I looked) so I would love a 21:9 screen. That means either a projector or one of these.
I just can't see what is daft about having a film screen designed correctly for films? Please enlighten me?
What's so stupid about it?
Have you never been to the cinema and watched a movie shot in Cinemascope (2.35:1 / 2.55:1), Panavision (2.39:1), Cinerama (2.35:1), Super35 matted to 2.35:1, Super Panavision (2.2:1), or Ultra Panavision 70 (2.76:1), then?
That's the kind of thing this TV is intended for. To show wide-format material.
If you prefer 4:3 / 16:9, that's fine, just say so. No point in slagging off other aspect ratios just 'cos they're not what you're used to...
The country went to the dogs...
....when they stopped teaching mathematics in schools. I have to admit I didn't notice anything in the news about it; but they must have done so for you to be unable to understand something as simple as an aspect ratio.
Let me try to explain it for you. Film made 21:9 not show good on TV made 16:9 - no silly complain complain make laws of number county changey changey!
Does that clear it up for you?
"adding some lights on the back of a TV set"
There is rather more to it than that. How did you plan to get your $5 set of LED christmas lights to change colour according to what was appearing on the screen?
"daft overpriced ideas like this"
You want overpriced? Wait for those 50 inch OLED screens to hit the shops.