It’s game over for the hi-res hype

[FlossyThePig]

I have just read this article on The Register website. I thought others might like to read it as well

[allgonepetetong]

FlossyThePig said:

I have just read this article on The Register website. I thought others might like to read it as well

Interesting. Didn't understand most of it, but still interesting.

[mrmr96]

allgonepetetong said:

FlossyThePig said:

I have just read this article on The Register website. I thought others might like to read it as well

Interesting. Didn't understand most of it, but still interesting.

+1

I think the jist of it is that having more frames at lower res is better than more res at a lower frame rate - because they're low res interlaced frames anyway.

[ianrb]

mrmr96 said:

+1

I think the jist of it is that having more frames at lower res is better than more res at a lower frame rate - because they're low res interlaced frames anyway.

If that is true then will the next generation TV be 1 pixel with a gazillion frames per second? Obviously not, but is there some optimum resolution and frame rate? And if their assertion that SD has better resolution than HD, then why, for example, does BBC1 HD look better than BBC1 SD? Subjectively of course, as I have no measuring equipment to hand.

[rotarymazda]

ianrb said:

If that is true then will the next generation TV be 1 pixel with a gazillion frames per second? Obviously not, but is there some optimum resolution and frame rate? And if their assertion that SD has better resolution than HD, then why, for example, does BBC1 HD look better than BBC1 SD? Subjectively of course, as I have no measuring equipment to hand.

HD in the studio is 1.5Gbps, SD is 270Mbps. By the time it gets compressed and broadcast to you, HD is ~2Mbps, SD is ~1Mbps.

TV Manufacturers want people to keep buying TV's. Its easier to sell more pixels than higher frame rate.

Sky want to sell you HD services so will ensure HD looks better. This can be done by adjusting the compression ratio.

[ianrb]

rotarymazda said:

HD in the studio is 1.5Gbps, SD is 270Mbps. By the time it gets compressed and broadcast to you, HD is ~2Mbps, SD is ~1Mbps.

TV Manufacturers want people to keep buying TV's. Its easier to sell more pixels than higher frame rate.

Sky want to sell you HD services so will ensure HD looks better. This can be done by adjusting the compression ratio.

I don't have Sky so can't comment on that. Do you believe the BBC do the same thing?

[FlossyThePig]

rotarymazda said:

TV Manufacturers want people to keep buying TV's. Its easier to sell more pixels than higher frame rate.

It wasn't all that long ago when Panasonic were pushing sets with much higher refresh rates (300Hz and additional interpolated frames).

[clived]

ianrb said:

And if their assertion that SD has better resolution than HD, then why, for example, does BBC1 HD look better than BBC1 SD? Subjectively of course, as I have no measuring equipment to hand.

That isn't their assertion though, is it? They are saying that high resolution is squandered due to low frame rate. Ergo no point increasing res until the frame-rate issue is addressed