never mind 1080p, here comes 1440p!!!

carefree cook · 06-09-2007, 19:06

it will never end!!! how pointless is this??;

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17...p-lcd-in-2007/

Jarrak · 06-09-2007, 19:46

Not totally pointless but too niche for mainstream demands given the limitation of domestic HD broadcasting and pre-recorded media but then again the panel should have been with us months ago if the 2006 report was accurate

carefree cook · 06-09-2007, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrak

Not totally pointless but too niche for mainstream demands given the limitation of domestic HD broadcasting

pretty pointless for the next 5-6 yrs at least, how many 1080p broadcasts do you know of?

Blandhino · 06-09-2007, 20:10

I can understand companies always wanting to go one better and be able to brag they have a higher resolution but what I don't understand is the current trend for non-standard resolutions on TVs.

I mean why are a lot of LCD TVs 1366 x 768 instead of 1280 x 720 as per the 720p standard or 1920 x 1080 as per the 1080i/p standards?

It just means that your TV will always have to do some up/down scaling to make a 720p or 1080i/p signal fit the screen. I was under the impression that scaling is best avoided if possible and that 1:1 pixel mapping was desirable.

It's the same with 1440p, to the best of my knowledge there is currently no content available to the consumer that is 1440p, so what's the point in having a 1440 line TV? Again the TV will need to do some scaling which you should try to avoid.

You then get into the realms of screen size against viewing distance. I saw a chart on another forum that said given the distance I sit away from my TV (10 feet) I would need an 80 inch TV to get the full benefit of 1080p. What does that mean for 1440p? That I would need a 100+ inch TV? I think most people who want screens that size would use a projector, I daren't think how much a TV like that would cost!

GaryB · 06-09-2007, 20:11

It could be of benefit in 720p transmissions (2x720=1440) but they're not exactly common.

Jarrak · 06-09-2007, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by carefree cook

pretty pointless for the next 5-6 yrs at least, how many 1080p broadcasts do you know of?

As a domestic TV viewing device yes but as a niche product for running some of the more "exotic" PC/Mac apps on a large screen for corporate or work use...

I did of course point out the limitations of domestic HD broadcasting and HD DVD/Blu-ray in my post

Jimmy Riddle · 07-09-2007, 11:45

Japanese engineers have touted an even better version of HD, namely Super Hi-Vision (SHV).

4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines (4 times the current resolution of curent HDTV)

Obviously it is years away from a commercial reality, but when they reduce the size of the encoders and the bit-rate then who knows.

Still though, there are no 1080p broadcasts never mind 1440p, so I wouldn't worry about what the future holds.

berncol · 07-09-2007, 12:36

Whilst all these technical advances are very impressive, it only seems to add to the general public confusion over all things HD.
If manufacturer's expect consumers to take up their latest products they should all agree a standard and allow people the time and confidence to adopt it. DVD is a good example of that. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray clearly isn't.

Nigel Goodwin · 07-09-2007, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by berncol

If manufacturer's expect consumers to take up their latest products they should all agree a standard and allow people the time and confidence to adopt it.

They have, it's 1080i for HDTV in Europe - although it's not the 'manufacturers' it's the 'broadcasters'.

The BluRay/HD-DVD fiasco is absolutely stupid though!.

bobcar · 07-09-2007, 21:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Riddle

Japanese engineers have touted an even better version of HD, namely Super Hi-Vision (SHV).

4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines (4 times the current resolution of curent HDTV)

Obviously it is years away from a commercial reality, but when they reduce the size of the encoders and the bit-rate then who knows.

Still though, there are no 1080p broadcasts never mind 1440p, so I wouldn't worry about what the future holds.

Actually that's 16 times the resolution of current HD (4x4).

ntlhellworld · 08-09-2007, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Riddle

...4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines...

lol wrong way around.

that would be a very odd sized image

-Chris

GDK · 09-09-2007, 10:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

lol wrong way around.

that would be a very odd sized image

-Chris

No it's not.

Think about it. He's talking *lines*, not pixels. Is your screen taller than it is wide?

David (2) · 09-09-2007, 10:50

Right, so tv's (LCD) which can handle a 1440p signal.

For a start, where does it say that the UK will be going over to 1440p broadcasts? If the signal remains at 720p and 1080i - is there any point in a tv which can handle more. Even BlueRay doesnt output more than 1080p.

2, my understanding has always been that with current SD broadcasts and existing HD-Ready LCDs, that the SD broadcast often looks bad due to scaling - the LCD has to manipulate the low res image to display it, whereas it doesnt with a 720p/1080i signal. So if your tv could handle 1440p, surely current 720p and 1080i and even BlueRay 1080p pictures would have to be scaled as well. In effect any signal around today, even HD would have to scaled leading to the same downgrade as we see now with SD on regular HD-Ready screens.

Dave

ntlhellworld · 09-09-2007, 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDK

No it's not.

Think about it. He's talking *lines*, not pixels.

No, he has *definitely* got them the wrong way around. Its actually 7,680 horizontal by 4,320 vertical. Wikipedia will confirm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDK

Is your screen taller than it is wide?

No. Hence why I quoted him in the first place.

-Chris

GDK · 09-09-2007, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntlhellworld

No, he has *definitely* got them the wrong way around. Its actually 7,680 horizontal by 4,320 vertical. Wikipedia will confirm.No. Hence why I quoted him in the first place.

-Chris

I checked. You're wrong. Wiki and the official NHK Super Hi Vision site quote the horizontal pixels (the larger number) first. The smaller number (the vertical pixel count), is 4320. This *is* the number of horizontal lines in the image.

Here is the link, c/w pictures and everything:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/02_super.html

Ash_735 · 09-09-2007, 23:13

It's just experimentation, there were TVs with over a 1,000 lines in the 80s that never quite took off. The Standard now for True HD is suppose to be 1920x1080 24bit Progressive, but due to Broadcasts not being able to carry that much data, there came 720p and 1080i.

ntlhellworld · 12-09-2007, 23:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDK

The smaller number (the vertical pixel count), is 4320. This *is* the number of horizontal lines in the image.

[/url]

Ahh right I see

Well thats just plain annoying

-Chris

06-09-2007, 19:06	#1
carefree cook Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland Posts: 421	never mind 1080p, here comes 1440p!!! it will never end!!! how pointless is this??; http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17...p-lcd-in-2007/

06-09-2007, 19:46	#2
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Not totally pointless but too niche for mainstream demands given the limitation of domestic HD broadcasting and pre-recorded media but then again the panel should have been with us months ago if the 2006 report was accurate

06-09-2007, 19:58	#3
carefree cook Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wilts or saas fee,Switzerland Posts: 421	Quote: Originally Posted by Jarrak Not totally pointless but too niche for mainstream demands given the limitation of domestic HD broadcasting pretty pointless for the next 5-6 yrs at least, how many 1080p broadcasts do you know of?

06-09-2007, 20:10	#4
Blandhino Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 101	I can understand companies always wanting to go one better and be able to brag they have a higher resolution but what I don't understand is the current trend for non-standard resolutions on TVs. I mean why are a lot of LCD TVs 1366 x 768 instead of 1280 x 720 as per the 720p standard or 1920 x 1080 as per the 1080i/p standards? It just means that your TV will always have to do some up/down scaling to make a 720p or 1080i/p signal fit the screen. I was under the impression that scaling is best avoided if possible and that 1:1 pixel mapping was desirable. It's the same with 1440p, to the best of my knowledge there is currently no content available to the consumer that is 1440p, so what's the point in having a 1440 line TV? Again the TV will need to do some scaling which you should try to avoid. You then get into the realms of screen size against viewing distance. I saw a chart on another forum that said given the distance I sit away from my TV (10 feet) I would need an 80 inch TV to get the full benefit of 1080p. What does that mean for 1440p? That I would need a 100+ inch TV? I think most people who want screens that size would use a projector, I daren't think how much a TV like that would cost!

06-09-2007, 20:11	#5
GaryB Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: St Albans Posts: 4,088	It could be of benefit in 720p transmissions (2x720=1440) but they're not exactly common.

06-09-2007, 23:00	#6
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Quote: Originally Posted by carefree cook pretty pointless for the next 5-6 yrs at least, how many 1080p broadcasts do you know of? As a domestic TV viewing device yes but as a niche product for running some of the more "exotic" PC/Mac apps on a large screen for corporate or work use... I did of course point out the limitations of domestic HD broadcasting and HD DVD/Blu-ray in my post

07-09-2007, 11:45	#7
Jimmy Riddle Banned User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,447	Japanese engineers have touted an even better version of HD, namely Super Hi-Vision (SHV). 4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines (4 times the current resolution of curent HDTV) Obviously it is years away from a commercial reality, but when they reduce the size of the encoders and the bit-rate then who knows. Still though, there are no 1080p broadcasts never mind 1440p, so I wouldn't worry about what the future holds.

07-09-2007, 12:36	#8
berncol Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 564	Whilst all these technical advances are very impressive, it only seems to add to the general public confusion over all things HD. If manufacturer's expect consumers to take up their latest products they should all agree a standard and allow people the time and confidence to adopt it. DVD is a good example of that. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray clearly isn't.

07-09-2007, 12:58	#9
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by berncol If manufacturer's expect consumers to take up their latest products they should all agree a standard and allow people the time and confidence to adopt it. They have, it's 1080i for HDTV in Europe - although it's not the 'manufacturers' it's the 'broadcasters'. The BluRay/HD-DVD fiasco is absolutely stupid though!.

07-09-2007, 21:53	#10
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Jimmy Riddle Japanese engineers have touted an even better version of HD, namely Super Hi-Vision (SHV). 4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines (4 times the current resolution of curent HDTV) Obviously it is years away from a commercial reality, but when they reduce the size of the encoders and the bit-rate then who knows. Still though, there are no 1080p broadcasts never mind 1440p, so I wouldn't worry about what the future holds. Actually that's 16 times the resolution of current HD (4x4).

08-09-2007, 15:52	#11
ntlhellworld Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,649	Quote: Originally Posted by Jimmy Riddle ...4,320 horizontal picture lines and 7,680 vertical lines... lol wrong way around. that would be a very odd sized image -Chris

09-09-2007, 10:41	#12
GDK Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Wigan Posts: 4,892	Quote: Originally Posted by ntlhellworld lol wrong way around. that would be a very odd sized image -Chris No it's not. Think about it. He's talking lines, not pixels. Is your screen taller than it is wide?

09-09-2007, 10:50	#13
David (2) Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: S.West England. Posts: 18,037	Right, so tv's (LCD) which can handle a 1440p signal. For a start, where does it say that the UK will be going over to 1440p broadcasts? If the signal remains at 720p and 1080i - is there any point in a tv which can handle more. Even BlueRay doesnt output more than 1080p. 2, my understanding has always been that with current SD broadcasts and existing HD-Ready LCDs, that the SD broadcast often looks bad due to scaling - the LCD has to manipulate the low res image to display it, whereas it doesnt with a 720p/1080i signal. So if your tv could handle 1440p, surely current 720p and 1080i and even BlueRay 1080p pictures would have to be scaled as well. In effect any signal around today, even HD would have to scaled leading to the same downgrade as we see now with SD on regular HD-Ready screens. Dave

09-09-2007, 20:42	#14
ntlhellworld Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,649	Quote: Originally Posted by GDK No it's not. Think about it. He's talking lines, not pixels. No, he has definitely got them the wrong way around. Its actually 7,680 horizontal by 4,320 vertical. Wikipedia will confirm. Quote: Originally Posted by GDK Is your screen taller than it is wide? No. Hence why I quoted him in the first place. -Chris

09-09-2007, 21:08	#15
GDK Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Wigan Posts: 4,892	Quote: Originally Posted by ntlhellworld No, he has definitely got them the wrong way around. Its actually 7,680 horizontal by 4,320 vertical. Wikipedia will confirm.No. Hence why I quoted him in the first place. -Chris I checked. You're wrong. Wiki and the official NHK Super Hi Vision site quote the horizontal pixels (the larger number) first. The smaller number (the vertical pixel count), is 4320. This is the number of horizontal lines in the image. Here is the link, c/w pictures and everything: http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/02_super.html

09-09-2007, 23:13	#16
Ash_735 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 8,249	It's just experimentation, there were TVs with over a 1,000 lines in the 80s that never quite took off. The Standard now for True HD is suppose to be 1920x1080 24bit Progressive, but due to Broadcasts not being able to carry that much data, there came 720p and 1080i.

12-09-2007, 23:04	#17
ntlhellworld Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,649	Quote: Originally Posted by GDK The smaller number (the vertical pixel count), is 4320. This is the number of horizontal lines in the image. [/url] Ahh right I see Well thats just plain annoying -Chris

DS Forums

never mind 1080p, here comes 1440p!!!