HDTV is obsolete!

munta · 06-11-2005, 23:46

Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels

.

Here

This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond.

deep_27 · 07-11-2005, 00:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by munta

Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels

.

Here

This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond.

That resolution really take the biscuit! (in a good way) But are our eyes really goona see the difference? I still cant tell the difference between normal tv and hdtv!

pad · 07-11-2005, 01:14

gigabits per second ... not expecting to see it on DTT any time soon then

CJAKershaw · 07-11-2005, 01:15

I actually think that it's more important to increase the frame rate of TV rather than the resolution. There is a very noticeable difference between 25/6fps and 60fps, which makes the picture look a lot better (at least to me).

David (2) · 07-11-2005, 10:21

Whats the point in having 7680 x 4320 resolution? 1080i pictures look good enough to me. Beyond that surely the the extra resolution will be wasted as the human eye wont be able to see the difference. Even if it was visibly slightly better, would it be worth the extra money?

Beyond 1080 resolution I think they should move to a totaly new system, a system such as 3D holographic displays, where the image floats in the middle of the room. I just would not be interested one bit in another, even sharper 2D display system.

Dave

deep_27 · 07-11-2005, 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

Whats the point in having 7680 x 4320 resolution? 1080i pictures look good enough to me. Beyond that surely the the extra resolution will be wasted as the human eye wont be able to see the difference. Even if it was visibly slightly better, would it be worth the extra money?

Beyond 1080 resolution I think they should move to a totaly new system, a system such as 3D holographic displays, where the image floats in the middle of the room. I just would not be interested one bit in another, even sharper 2D display system.

Dave

I agree totally! I do think after HDTV the future should be looking beyond a screen....

Insaneperson · 07-11-2005, 13:34

But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time.

deep_27 · 07-11-2005, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insaneperson

But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time.

But its worth looking into instead of making a tv set with a higher resolution than what our eyes can see! lol

It would take ages to develop such a thing though i agree!

***correction***
has anyone googled to find the resolution of the human eye? Im quite astounded! It seems the human eye could tell the difference between 100 x 100 pixels to 10'000 x 10'000 pixels!!

David (2) · 07-11-2005, 17:01

the last piont is subjective. Many people cant see the difference between an "average" picture and a "top quality" picture. I certainly know a few who have seen the 1080i demo on the Panasonic screen (the same one I saw), and they said it was difficult to see much improvement over their existing SD tv's running a pre-recorded dvd.

Dave

Orbitalzone · 07-11-2005, 17:52

Surely the only real reason for this high High Definition TV is for people who would use a projection system of over 100 inches or more?

nathanbrazil · 07-11-2005, 18:47

[quote=deep_27]But its worth looking into instead of making a tv set with a higher resolution than what our eyes can see! lol/QUOTE]

Quite right. It reminds me of a pillock I knew, many years ago, who spent an extra £100 per unit on Technics XL hi-fi separates, because it was above studio quality. All he got for his money was an increase in specifications that human hearing couldn't actually detect! Mugs wanted.

Quickbeam · 07-11-2005, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (2)

the last piont is subjective. Many people cant see the difference between an "average" picture and a "top quality" picture. I certainly know a few who have seen the 1080i demo on the Panasonic screen (the same one I saw), and they said it was difficult to see much improvement over their existing SD tv's running a pre-recorded dvd.

Dave

If the 1080i demo was the Comet demo then I'm not surprised they weren't impressed as I found it to be soft and blocky.

My local John Lewis currently has a demo running on a Panasonic PV500 plasma using a Japanese Hi-Vision HDD recorder, and the picture quality blows the Comet demo right out of the water.

sanderton · 07-11-2005, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insaneperson

But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time.

I've seen 3D TVs which don't require glasses. Gave me a headache mind!

camaj · 08-11-2005, 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orbitalzone

Surely the only real reason for this high High Definition TV is for people who would use a projection system of over 100 inches or more?

The real reason is to get better picture quality on whatever screen you watch. There's always room for improvement. Watching HD is like looking through a window so anything that looks real is the ultimate goal

thms · 08-11-2005, 03:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by munta

Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels

.

Here

This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond.

they should call it reality tv

camaj · 08-11-2005, 04:39

BTW, this is more or less the same story that emerged a few years ago and it was impressive then. At the time it was refered to as "Ultra high definition". The link below will tell you more

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067

deep_27 · 08-11-2005, 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by [url="http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067"

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067[/url]]
a capacity of about 3.5 terabytes, allowing them to shoot 18 minutes of UHDV footage.

An average file server would not have a capacity of 3.5TB, this vision of UHDV has quite a way to go yet! You would need 50Blu-ray disks just get Mr Bean in that format!

Carmen Queasy · 08-11-2005, 09:11

We first need everyone to convert from 4:3 to Widescreen, then we need them to convert to HD, and now it seems a new generation of HD will be popping up soon.

Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets!

munta · 08-11-2005, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carmen Queasy

We first need everyone to convert from 4:3 to Widescreen, then we need them to convert to HD, and now it seems a new generation of HD will be popping up soon.

Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets!

Well - I wouldn't think they will be popping up soon

But technology just marches on - there will always be something better just round the corner.

Carmen Queasy · 08-11-2005, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by munta

Well - I wouldn't think they will be popping up soon

But technology just marches on - there will always be something better just round the corner.

What seems to happen is that technology evolves faster than the consumers are, well, consuming.

It's clear to see that technology companies are holding back products until the market is flooded with their recent product. After that, they release the next generation, and so on... *cou... iPods ...gh*

Edit: Perhaps we'll see a mini-HD iPod

maccy · 08-11-2005, 12:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by munta

Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels

.

Here

This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond.

"The resource you are looking for cannot be found. "

munta · 08-11-2005, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccy

"The resource you are looking for cannot be found. "

Works for me.

broonale · 08-11-2005, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carmen Queasy

Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets!

Not even all our broadcasters transmit in widescreen yet. Never mind HDTV. Content is going to be a major factor.

camaj · 08-11-2005, 16:16

You can't compare this to WS. WS doesn't really offer much reason to upgrade nor is there much reason for TV to be shot in WS. I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of WS tv sales in the least.

I'd be very surprised to see a new format before 2020, it's been about 40 years since the last change, Colour TV.

sanderton · 08-11-2005, 16:56

What lack of widescreen sales? You tried to buy a 4:3 TV recently? It's like looking for a VHS tape.

06-11-2005, 23:46	#1
munta Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The United Kingdom Posts: 15,551	HDTV is obsolete! Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels . Here This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond.

07-11-2005, 00:52	#2
deep_27 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: At the bar :o) Posts: 2,842	Quote: Originally Posted by munta Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels . Here This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond. That resolution really take the biscuit! (in a good way) But are our eyes really goona see the difference? I still cant tell the difference between normal tv and hdtv!

07-11-2005, 01:14	#3
pad Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Here .. duh! Posts: 5,338	gigabits per second ... not expecting to see it on DTT any time soon then

07-11-2005, 01:15	#4
CJAKershaw Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 39	I actually think that it's more important to increase the frame rate of TV rather than the resolution. There is a very noticeable difference between 25/6fps and 60fps, which makes the picture look a lot better (at least to me).

07-11-2005, 10:21	#5
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	Whats the point in having 7680 x 4320 resolution? 1080i pictures look good enough to me. Beyond that surely the the extra resolution will be wasted as the human eye wont be able to see the difference. Even if it was visibly slightly better, would it be worth the extra money? Beyond 1080 resolution I think they should move to a totaly new system, a system such as 3D holographic displays, where the image floats in the middle of the room. I just would not be interested one bit in another, even sharper 2D display system. Dave

07-11-2005, 13:17	#6
deep_27 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: At the bar :o) Posts: 2,842	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) Whats the point in having 7680 x 4320 resolution? 1080i pictures look good enough to me. Beyond that surely the the extra resolution will be wasted as the human eye wont be able to see the difference. Even if it was visibly slightly better, would it be worth the extra money? Beyond 1080 resolution I think they should move to a totaly new system, a system such as 3D holographic displays, where the image floats in the middle of the room. I just would not be interested one bit in another, even sharper 2D display system. Dave I agree totally! I do think after HDTV the future should be looking beyond a screen....

07-11-2005, 13:34	#7
Insaneperson Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,381	But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time.

07-11-2005, 13:37	#8
deep_27 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: At the bar :o) Posts: 2,842	Quote: Originally Posted by Insaneperson But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time. But its worth looking into instead of making a tv set with a higher resolution than what our eyes can see! lol It would take ages to develop such a thing though i agree! *correction* has anyone googled to find the resolution of the human eye? Im quite astounded! It seems the human eye could tell the difference between 100 x 100 pixels to 10'000 x 10'000 pixels!!

07-11-2005, 17:01	#9
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	the last piont is subjective. Many people cant see the difference between an "average" picture and a "top quality" picture. I certainly know a few who have seen the 1080i demo on the Panasonic screen (the same one I saw), and they said it was difficult to see much improvement over their existing SD tv's running a pre-recorded dvd. Dave

07-11-2005, 17:52	#10
Orbitalzone Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Sussex Posts: 12,173	Surely the only real reason for this high High Definition TV is for people who would use a projection system of over 100 inches or more?

07-11-2005, 18:47	#11
nathanbrazil Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: AccountKiller Posts: 8,749	[quote=deep_27]But its worth looking into instead of making a tv set with a higher resolution than what our eyes can see! lol/QUOTE] Quite right. It reminds me of a pillock I knew, many years ago, who spent an extra £100 per unit on Technics XL hi-fi separates, because it was above studio quality. All he got for his money was an increase in specifications that human hearing couldn't actually detect! Mugs wanted.

07-11-2005, 20:23	#12
Quickbeam Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 143	Quote: Originally Posted by David (2) the last piont is subjective. Many people cant see the difference between an "average" picture and a "top quality" picture. I certainly know a few who have seen the 1080i demo on the Panasonic screen (the same one I saw), and they said it was difficult to see much improvement over their existing SD tv's running a pre-recorded dvd. Dave If the 1080i demo was the Comet demo then I'm not surprised they weren't impressed as I found it to be soft and blocky. My local John Lewis currently has a demo running on a Panasonic PV500 plasma using a Japanese Hi-Vision HDD recorder, and the picture quality blows the Comet demo right out of the water.

07-11-2005, 21:32	#13
sanderton Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Acne Information, Acne Vulgari Posts: 2,809	Quote: Originally Posted by Insaneperson But the question is how? In theory they could project an image in a dark room in some way, but then the dark room would become light and it wouldn't work. The picture quality would be terrible. And when you say 3D, what dou you mean. The current 3D system where it is 2D with images coming out the screen. With 3D you would need to wear glasses. Even with all these things sorted out. All you would get would be a moving 3D model, looking a bit like a set. And it would be difficult to watch. I doubt they will concentrate on this as a "standard" for a long time. I've seen 3D TVs which don't require glasses. Gave me a headache mind!

08-11-2005, 03:21	#14
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	Quote: Originally Posted by Orbitalzone Surely the only real reason for this high High Definition TV is for people who would use a projection system of over 100 inches or more? The real reason is to get better picture quality on whatever screen you watch. There's always room for improvement. Watching HD is like looking through a window so anything that looks real is the ultimate goal

08-11-2005, 03:31	#15
thms Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 56,818	Quote: Originally Posted by munta Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels . Here This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond. they should call it reality tv

08-11-2005, 04:39	#16
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	BTW, this is more or less the same story that emerged a few years ago and it was impressive then. At the time it was refered to as "Ultra high definition". The link below will tell you more http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067

08-11-2005, 08:31	#17
deep_27 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: At the bar :o) Posts: 2,842	Quote: Originally Posted by [url="http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067" http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067[/url]] a capacity of about 3.5 terabytes, allowing them to shoot 18 minutes of UHDV footage. An average file server would not have a capacity of 3.5TB, this vision of UHDV has quite a way to go yet! You would need 50Blu-ray disks just get Mr Bean in that format!

08-11-2005, 09:11	#18
Carmen Queasy Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Middesbrough (via Manchester) Posts: 37,343	We first need everyone to convert from 4:3 to Widescreen, then we need them to convert to HD, and now it seems a new generation of HD will be popping up soon. Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets!

08-11-2005, 09:19	#19
munta Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The United Kingdom Posts: 15,551	Quote: Originally Posted by Carmen Queasy We first need everyone to convert from 4:3 to Widescreen, then we need them to convert to HD, and now it seems a new generation of HD will be popping up soon. Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets! Well - I wouldn't think they will be popping up soon But technology just marches on - there will always be something better just round the corner.

08-11-2005, 09:33	#20
Carmen Queasy Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Middesbrough (via Manchester) Posts: 37,343	Quote: Originally Posted by munta Well - I wouldn't think they will be popping up soon But technology just marches on - there will always be something better just round the corner. What seems to happen is that technology evolves faster than the consumers are, well, consuming. It's clear to see that technology companies are holding back products until the market is flooded with their recent product. After that, they release the next generation, and so on... cou... iPods ...gh Edit: Perhaps we'll see a mini-HD iPod

08-11-2005, 12:43	#21
maccy Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: East Midlands Posts: 6,691	Quote: Originally Posted by munta Acording to EETimes.com the next gen HDTV is on its way. The Japanese Broadcast Corporation has already demonstrated a staggering resoution of 7680 x 4320 pixels . Here This can only help push down the price of current HDTV sets and to improve the resolution of most HDTV sets from 1280 to 1920 and beyond. "The resource you are looking for cannot be found. "

DS Forums

HDTV is obsolete!

08-11-2005, 12:49	#22
munta Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The United Kingdom Posts: 15,551	Quote: Originally Posted by maccy "The resource you are looking for cannot be found. " Works for me.

08-11-2005, 13:27	#23
broonale Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 54.98N 1.6W Posts: 4,953	Quote: Originally Posted by Carmen Queasy Most people I know are just getting into Widescreen sets! Not even all our broadcasters transmit in widescreen yet. Never mind HDTV. Content is going to be a major factor.

08-11-2005, 16:16	#24
camaj Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 813	You can't compare this to WS. WS doesn't really offer much reason to upgrade nor is there much reason for TV to be shot in WS. I wouldn't be surprised at the lack of WS tv sales in the least. I'd be very surprised to see a new format before 2020, it's been about 40 years since the last change, Colour TV.

08-11-2005, 16:56	#25
sanderton Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Acne Information, Acne Vulgari Posts: 2,809	What lack of widescreen sales? You tried to buy a 4:3 TV recently? It's like looking for a VHS tape.