1 recommendation |
sighPlease , lets work on getting some 1080p content first. | |
|
 |  Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere |
Frank
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 10:42 am
Re: sighsaid by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. | |
|
| |  danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA |
danclan
Member
2011-Oct-19 10:44 am
Re: sighsaid by Frank:said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. thats the point....we dont even have 1080p yet so why even work on UHDTV | |
|
| | |  elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
Re: sighsaid by danclan:said by Frank:said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. thats the point....we dont even have 1080p yet so why even work on UHDTV So they can make you sell you something you don't need. Marketing 101. | |
|
| |  Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY |
to Frank
... or the delivery mechanism to deliver such a digital signal without compressing it to 720p levels... | |
|
| | |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Gary, Ziggy, Max.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-20
La La Land |
JRW2
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 11:50 am
Re: sighsaid by Smith6612:... or the delivery mechanism to deliver such a digital signal without compressing it to 720p levels...
One word... FIOS... They are capable of delivering this with no need for compression. | |
|
| | | | Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY |
Re: sighExactly  . I'm still waiting for that to show up. | |
|
| | | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium Member
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ |
to JRW2
We have FiOS here, and it refuses to even allow output to 1080p.  only 1080i or 720p here. | |
|
| | | | | Smith6612
MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY  ·Charter
Ubee EU2251
Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD
Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
|
Re: sighIsn't the Video On Demand content from Verizon in 1080p if you are using HDMI? Not a lot of devices like to output 1080p over Component due to HDCP requirements, so perhaps that's the trouble. Perhaps if Verizon were getting 1080p feeds off the bat, they would be willing to push 1080p. | |
|
| | | | | |
to JRW2
said by JRW2:said by Smith6612:... or the delivery mechanism to deliver such a digital signal without compressing it to 720p levels...
One word... FIOS... They are capable of delivering this with no need for compression. Just another reason why cable has no future. If they want to stay in the business, they will eventually have to switch to fiber. | |
|
| | ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
1 recommendation |
to Frank
said by Frank:said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. Can't speak for everyone, but DirecTV has boxes that support 1080p and there is some 1080p content out there. | |
|
| | |  djdanskaRudie32
Premium Member
join:2001-04-21
San Diego, CA |
djdanska
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 3:03 pm
Re: sighsaid by ke4pym:said by Frank:said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. Can't speak for everyone, but DirecTV has boxes that support 1080p and there is some 1080p content out there. Comcast does too. My old comcast box from over a year and a half ago supported 1080p (and mpeg4 too) | |
|
| | | |
idjk to Frank
Anon
2011-Oct-19 1:02 pm
to Frank
said by Frank:said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
what for? the content would be useless without a cable or satellite box that can even support 1080p. Yeah- but the commercials would look SOooo much better in UHDTV! | |
|
| | |
to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Please , lets work on getting some 1080p content first.
You are lumping people together that shouldn't be. There's one group of people that push the boundaries of technology. There's another group of people that create content that utilizes that technology. You wouldn't want a researcher trying to create a tv show anyway. | |
|
| |  coldmoon
Premium Member
join:2002-02-04
Fulton, NY |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 1:39 pm
Re: sighquote:
...You wouldn't want a researcher trying to create a tv show anyway.
Couldn't be any worse than reality tv... | |
|
| | |  sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD |
sk1939
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 12:41 am
Re: sighSad but true. | |
|
 S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL |
geez...what comes after Ultra? | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
Re: geez...Super-duper? | |
|
| ke4pym
Premium Member
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC |
to S_engineer
Hopefully better programs and movies.... Wait, we need that now. | |
|
|  thegeek
Premium Member
join:2008-02-21
right here |
to S_engineer
Ultra 3D with even more ridiculous looking glasses | |
|
| |
| | elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
Re: geez...Your own personal Holodeck | |
|
| |
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
to S_engineer
Cars that can go 400 km/h (248.5 mph) parked in every garage! | |
|
1 recommendation |
cowboyro
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 10:52 am
UselessThere is no reason to go further with the resolution. In order for the eye to be able to distinguish the details, one would have to stay so close to the TV that he wouldn't be physically able to see the edges of the screen without turning the head. The typical human eye can only distinguish pixels that are 1 arc minute apart (some claim 1/2 arc minute). That's 32 degrees of field vision. Increase the resolution by 4x and you'd only see the details if you go so close that the screen covers ~130 degrees of view. | |
|
| | |
Re: UselessThink real big screens. | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Oct-19 1:05 pm
Re: Uselesssaid by myokitis:Think real big screens.
Still useless. Last time I checked there isn't any content above 1080p. A blu-ray movie isn't gpoing to look any better on a ultra HDTV than a regular HDTV of the same size. Perhaps worse. | |
|
| | | Ecwfrk
join:2001-03-02
Fort Smith, AR |
Ecwfrk
Member
2011-Oct-19 1:45 pm
Re: Uselesssaid by 88615298:Still useless. Last time I checked there isn't any content above 1080p. That's only because there's no market for it. But 35mm film has the capability to be transferred to the digital equivalent of 3072 x 1728 (according to ARRI, who makes tech used in the movie industry such as scanners that transfer film to digital media). 65mm film can theoretically go to 8746 x 3855. | |
|
| | |  vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
to 88615298
Uhh, presumably there would be new cameras that support these resolutions, and hence, in the future, content. Plus, some content is already being shot in 4K (up to 4096x3112) | |
|
| | | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA |
Sammer
Member
2011-Oct-19 2:12 pm
Re: Uselesssaid by vpoko:Plus, some content is already being shot in 4K (up to 4096x3112)
About the only use for such content today is IMAX screens. How many want to or will ever be able to afford to put something like an IMAX screen in their home? 33 million pixel television is not practical for most homes including most McMansions. | |
|
| Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
to cowboyro
said by cowboyro:There is no reason to go further with the resolution. In order for the eye to be able to distinguish the details, one would have to stay so close to the TV that he wouldn't be physically able to see the edges of the screen without turning the head. And when you get closer than about 3 feet away, you start to see all the compression & scaling artifacts. | |
|
| Ecwfrk
join:2001-03-02
Fort Smith, AR |
to cowboyro
It's useless on a 50" LCD, but not a 140" projection screen. Even a fairly typical home with 8' ceilings has the potential (assuming you also have 14' of horizontal wall) to have up to a 196" 16:9 screen and at those screen sizes 1080p starts to look like 480p from the other side of the room.
It'll still be quite a long time before you see it come into homes though as there's no good storage medium to handle it nor do cable or satellite systems have the bandwidth for it yet as a 20 minute uncompressed UHDTV file runs around 4TB.
And even once they do, places like theaters, bars, and digital signage will be the first to make use of such large screens. But over time, more things will be designed to make use of it. Back before the 90s almost no new home had a purpose built media room built into them but now they're quite common. | |
|
| | | |
cowboyro
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 2:28 pm
Re: Uselesssaid by Ecwfrk:It's useless on a 50" LCD, but not a 140" projection screen. Actually based on the viewing distance the eye would still be unable to distinguish the details if looking from enough distance to see the entire screen - so even if it's 1920x1080 or 8000x4500 it would still look the same. | |
|
| | | |
to Ecwfrk
said by Ecwfrk:It'll still be quite a long time before you see it come into homes though as there's no good storage medium to handle it nor do cable or satellite systems have the bandwidth for it yet as a 20 minute uncompressed UHDTV file runs around 4TB. So? Who in their right mind would be storing uncompressed? 720p, 24fps, 24bit uncompressed would come out to about 74GB for that same 20 minutes. That's still too big to do anything useful with, so they're still going to compress it for the end user. Figuring that a 720p 20 minute episode encoded with h264 comes in at 600-900MB, that's a compression ratio of 80x-126x. If it had the same level of compression, that 20 minute UHDTV episode would be 33-50GB. Still too big to be useful, but forget the 4TB figure. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Will it really be noticeable?There isn't much of a noticeable difference between 720/1080 when panels are less than 30 inches or so. Would think panels/projectors would need to be over 10' before noticing a difference between 1080 and something 10x greater.
I could see this used in niche/specialty situations that use huge panels/projectors but for general broadcast, how much OTA spectrum would this eat up? Is it even doable? | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
Internet Cap Overage ChargesWith caps and overage charges becoming more prevalent and UHDTV in the works, ISP's will love this. | |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 11:01 am
Re: Internet Cap Overage ChargesAnd I doubt you'll see UHDTV distributed (legally) via the Internet any time soon. | |
|
Frank
Premium Member
join:2000-11-03
somewhere |
Frank
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 11:03 am
if it was anything like the hdtv rollout....then it wont be in common use until 10 years after being introduced.
10 years ago (2001) a 42 inch plasma hdtv was $10000, could only be purchased at high end specialty stores (ie: bose) and had almost no support (maybe 1 or 2 local broadcasters supported it and only over the air).
Today a 42 inch plasma hdtv can be found in most stores for about $500, practically all tvs sold in stores are hdtvs, and all new cable/sattelite equipment supports hdtv by default. | |
|
| |
Sweet!Now I'll really notice the compression artifacts. | |
|
| |
Network Req'd To Support UHDTV?Does anyone have any idea what kind of network cabling would support this pending standard?
I just cabled my house w/ RG6 coax & CAT6 network cabling and I'm wondering if UHDTV make my efforts obsolete when it's deployed. Thanks. | |
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium Member
join:2000-05-14
Hedgesville, WV |
DataDoc
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 12:47 pm
Combine this with an Ultra High Def cameraAnd we're one step closer to "Caves of Steel." | |
|
| |
Kord
Member
2011-Oct-19 12:49 pm
HmmNow we can watch Reality TV in UHD, yawn | |
|
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON |
Gami00
Member
2011-Oct-19 12:55 pm
This needs to be pushed out to market, like tomorrow.with HDTV destroying Computer monitor resolutions to this horrible 1080p garbage we see today, the only way to get back real resolutions on the computer monitor is to get the next standard out now.
hopefully we see this out in a year or two. | |
|
|
•••• |
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
Rekrul
Member
2011-Oct-19 1:05 pm
So what?I don't get the push for HD and beyond with the complete lack of standards as far as screen resolutions go.
LCD screens have a fixed resolution that rarely matches the size of the image being displayed. How do you fit a 1280x720 image on a 1960x768 screen without leaving black space all around it?
You start with a crystal-clear, razor sharp image and then you introduce all kinds of scaling artifacts by expanding or shrinking it to fit the resolution of the screen.
It's like taking an audio recording and then speeding it up or slowing it down to make it fit the available time. Sure it works, but you're changing and degrading the copy in the process. | |
|
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2011-Oct-19 1:12 pm
Bandwidth issuesHowever, with many carriers only just upgrading networks to support significant (and often highly compressed) HD channel counts, it could be even longer before most networks have the bandwidth needed to support the standard.
Which will be NEVER. OTA is cap at 19 MHz that's not even enough to handle 1080p. Cable is topped out at 1000 MHz TOTAL for all channels. No way you can have 100s of 33K channels. Heck Charter has issues providing me more than 30 HD channels which are either 720p or 1080i because of lack of bandwidth. My math says cable companies could have about thirty 33K channels and that's it nothing else but those 30. | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
asdfdfdfdfdf
Anon
2011-Oct-19 2:13 pm
I wonder what the latest stats would be...on how many people presently own HD sets but aren't even watching HD content and don't even realize it.
Seems like a desperate attempt to get people to trash their entertainment setups every few years. 3D, then even higher resolutions. The problem isn't on the tech side. The problems are on the content side, both delivery mechanisms and the need for more effort in creating better quality content to start with. | |
|
| |
many internet and optical media will be first usesa 50-128gb blue ray optical disc can probably support Ultra Hidef capacity or streams direct from the internet & a comptuer's hard drive. if the industry decides to fast track UHDTV companies such as AT&T are going to be screwed because they backed the wrong horse (DSL). cable companies might consider fiber because coax may not be able to handle many streams of UHDTV. The bitstream will be something around 16MB (megabytes not megabits) per second video compressed.. lots more if not compressed. | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium Member
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD |
newview
Premium Member
2011-Oct-19 2:38 pm
So what's the price gonna be?Twenty dollars extra per month?
This will be just another "feature" satellite, & cable TV will charge you MORE for ... I'd prefer to wait until HD is the STANDARD, the prices for HD are removed and they stop milking consumers. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
Stop thinking in terms of commercial TVEveryone is assuming that the main use for this tech would be commercial TV. Not necessarily. I could see something like this first being used in medicine to capture extremely detailed images of the body. Think about telemedicine and robotic surgery. To really make these things useful, the doctor on the other end needs the best possible images of the patient, especially when they're operating on them.
And let's not forget about CCTV cameras. If you want to ID the person in the image, you need an extremely sharp picture of them, especially if they're at a distance.
Finally, think about computer-based image recognition. If you want to have that autonomous car parked in your driveway be able to get your kids safely back and forth to school, it needs to be able to see where it's going as clearly as possible.
And, even if these things can happen without UHDTV, the emergence of it could help drive down the cost of regular HDTV gear. | |
|
| |
siouxmoux2
Anon
2011-Oct-19 7:51 pm
There one thing ATT Old Fashion phone line Can't Do.There one thing ATT Old Fashion phone line Can't Do. At least your mouthy U-verse Bills won't go roof to pay for all that Ultra High Definition Television programming. | |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2011-Oct-20 6:17 am
3d with out the glasses.With these many pixels we have two options:
A spherical screen that covers everywhere we are capable of turning our head to.
Or a very high res flat screen that does 3d with out the glasses from multiple angles (i think we'd need way more pixels so they could cover ALL the angles though, unless we get some head tracking to help with angle switching, then we could do it with far less pixels)
With this resolution a spherical screen would be amazing. It would be the beggings of the holodeck.
Anyone who thinks this is "overkill" has a complete lack of imagination.
Just look around you, anywhere you happen to be...
Just how many pixels do you think you would need for a display device to replicate anything you see around you at any point you have your eyes open? | |
|
 wings10I Am Legend
Premium Member
join:2004-06-09
South Elgin, IL |
wings10
Premium Member
2011-Oct-20 10:10 am
DigitalHow long did it take for the switch to digital? LOL | |
|
|
|
. I'm still waiting for that to show up.
only 1080i or 720p here. 
·
