|
nelly1
Original Poster
4,922 posts
100 months
|
16 times sharper than HD. 5.1? 7.1? Nope - try 22.2! See here...Where will it end?
|
|
|
IforB
4,951 posts
98 months
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,631 posts
124 months
|
Why does what we have need to be better? More rip off ££££ on the horizon.
|
|
|
Shay HTFC
2,949 posts
58 months
|
How long until you can have a crisp-as-real-life image that covers the entire wall of your living room? With sport it'd be like looking directly into the stadium or whatever and it'd be amazing!
|
|
|
wormburner
6,397 posts
122 months
|
mybrainhurts said: Why does what we have need to be better? Said the representative from the Taleban.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
mrmr96
11,958 posts
73 months
|
Shay HTFC said: How long until you can have a crisp-as-real-life image that covers the entire wall of your living room? With sport it'd be like looking directly into the stadium or whatever and it'd be amazing! Zero time. Did you read the link? "Plyming says the picture is so clear it is like looking through a glass wall into the stadium or aquatic centre."
|
|
|
davepoth
19,925 posts
68 months
|
TV manufacturers need to develop technology in order to maintain profit margins. My 1080p TV cost £250 a few years ago (22"), and I reckon I could get a similar one for £150 now. That's why we got 3D TVs - so there could be a bit more margin built in. I should think we'll start seeing Quad HD (2160p) hit the market fairly soon as an intermediate step - it's pretty similar to the native resolution of the RED ONE digital camera that's becoming popular in Hollywood, so there is content available to play at 2160p.
Content will likely be delivered via the internet for these bigger resolutions, so we'll need a lot of bandwidth.
|
|
|
OldSkoolRS
2,578 posts
48 months
|
Considering that a BluRay has something like 50Gb of storage for a 1920 x 1080p film, then how much more storage would be needed for 2160p I wonder? I reckon what will happen is that they will lower the bitrate which will reduce the file sizes (but also the quality) in the same way as some HD TV channels have done.
Time was that BBC HD channel was very little worse than BluRay (except it's actually 1440 x 1080 so less horizontal resolution). These days it can be pretty poor quality on some broadcasts due to reduced bit rate, but they can still call it 'HD'. Going to 2160p or higher would be pointless IMHO if they can't provide the higher bitrate necessary, of course it satisfies those more interested in the specs than the quality...
Finally, in order to get the benefit of this higher resolution you would need to sit much closer with a typical 42" or even 50" TV, maybe only projector set ups would benefit from this higher resolution in truth as I can't see people wanting to sit maybe 4-5 feet away from a 42" TV. Of course it won't stop TV manufacturers marketing higher res TVs and punters rushing out to buy them, but there's more to a good picture than resolution alone.
|
|
|
CrabDan
568 posts
12 months
|
Doesn't matter how sharp and crisp the image is if the film's sh*t.
Waste.
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,631 posts
124 months
|
wormburner said: mybrainhurts said: Why does what we have need to be better? Said the representative from the Taleban. Dammit. How did you know that? I kill you...
|
|
|
OldSkoolRS
2,578 posts
48 months
|
CrabDan said: Doesn't matter how sharp and crisp the image is if the film's sh*t.
Waste. True, that's even more important IMHO...the number of films that look fantastic, but have no plot, crap acting, etc is very disappointing. I can't watch 3D due to headaches, but of the titles available in 3D that I've watched in 2D even more of them seem to be rubbish...
|
|
|
wormburner
6,397 posts
122 months
|
mybrainhurts said: wormburner said: mybrainhurts said: Why does what we have need to be better? Said the representative from the Taleban. Dammit. How did you know that? I kill you... I am minded of the scene where Indiana Jones calmly watches a guy with a knife do all sorts of scary whirling around, then shoots him with his pistol. I zap you, in high def.
|
|
|
mybrainhurts
71,631 posts
124 months
|
wormburner said: mybrainhurts said: wormburner said: mybrainhurts said: Why does what we have need to be better? Said the representative from the Taleban. Dammit. How did you know that? I kill you... I am minded of the scene where Indiana Jones calmly watches a guy with a knife do all sorts of scary whirling around, then shoots him with his pistol. I zap you, in high def. HA, you miss. I still kill you...
|
|
|
davepoth
19,925 posts
68 months
|
OldSkoolRS said: Considering that a BluRay has something like 50Gb of storage for a 1920 x 1080p film, then how much more storage would be needed for 2160p I wonder? I reckon what will happen is that they will lower the bitrate which will reduce the file sizes (but also the quality) in the same way as some HD TV channels have done.
Time was that BBC HD channel was very little worse than BluRay (except it's actually 1440 x 1080 so less horizontal resolution). These days it can be pretty poor quality on some broadcasts due to reduced bit rate, but they can still call it 'HD'. Going to 2160p or higher would be pointless IMHO if they can't provide the higher bitrate necessary, of course it satisfies those more interested in the specs than the quality...
Finally, in order to get the benefit of this higher resolution you would need to sit much closer with a typical 42" or even 50" TV, maybe only projector set ups would benefit from this higher resolution in truth as I can't see people wanting to sit maybe 4-5 feet away from a 42" TV. Of course it won't stop TV manufacturers marketing higher res TVs and punters rushing out to buy them, but there's more to a good picture than resolution alone. 2160p should effectively be 4 times the size of 1080p, since it has 4 times as many pixels. One use for the extra resolution is to show active 3D in full HD, which hasn't been possible up to now.
|
|
|
14-7
5,714 posts
60 months
|
I wonder how long it will be before someone decides that an app like instagram filters should be applied to modern chanels to make them look retro?
|
|
|
Driller
5,238 posts
147 months
|
TOWIE, Big Brother and the X-f  kter will still be s t on it. It's the programming they need to improve not the box.
|
|
|
silvagod
595 posts
29 months
|
|
|
Fatman2
1,445 posts
38 months
|
Personally I though the best film experience I've had in a while has been in a planetarium. Ok so it was a kids educational film but lying back and watching a picture displayed on a huge dome was amazing. Coupled with 3d would kick ass but would be almost impossible to generate in the home 
|
|
|
OldSkoolRS
2,578 posts
48 months
|
davepoth said: 2160p should effectively be 4 times the size of 1080p, since it has 4 times as many pixels. One use for the extra resolution is to show active 3D in full HD, which hasn't been possible up to now. But you still need a media or method to distribute it: If it's the internet then bit rate being cut to reduce bandwidth requirements is still going to limit the quality. Just because something has a higher resolution doesn't make the picture quality better: I could produce a high bitrate DVD that looks better than a low bit rate BluRay for example. The media or internet infrastructure would have to support it. Of course they could design a 2160p BluRay player that would go with it so another excuse to get us to upgrade. However, as I said previously I doubt that many viewers sit close enough to their TVs to benefit from 2160p anyway. I know that I sit too far back to tell 1080p from SD on my 40" TV, but the same distance from my 128" projector screen is a different matter. Personally, 3D gives me bad headaches anyway, let alone that many 3D films seem to rely on the 3D 'eye candy' rather than being good films. I wouldn't watch X Factor or TOWIE in 4D hyper high def so the content needs to be upgraded first IMHO. 
|
|
|
Morningside
16,792 posts
98 months
|
And just think they called 405 line HD  This is all very clever but is it just me or do HD pictures just look a bit sharper and thats it? They hardly wow me to be honest and going by the crap bit rate that they fling at TV these days a normal SD picture looks worse than the old analogue system. Now what would really be cool is a computer game running at this resolution.
|
|
