This doesn't really mean anything until there is actual 2160p programming to play on it. With that said it's cool that the technology is actually here since television stations and the like have no reason to even think about starting the process of implementing programming in 2160p until such devices are actually available. Can't have the chicken without the egg... Or is it the other way around? *scratches head*
Sharp already made one:
and what about the experiments with UHDTV: http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television
actually Samsung is cathcing up, though probably the refresh rate is ubviously higher and technology better but reolution-wise, that's old.
looks like it'll be able to do 3D in 1080p for each. I was going over movie theater projectors w/ my boss (i work at the theater) and the 2k and 4k 3D capable ones were doing 1/2 the total resolution for each part of the 3D image. maybe this is the same.
If I fell buttraped looking at the pricetag on a tiny OLED tv, I think Ill feel gangbanged by looking at the price tag on this. Im not looking forward to this being sold soon, but I am looking forward to the further developement of HD tech. This is definitely one step closer to photorealism.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]If I fell buttraped looking at the pricetag on a tiny OLED tv, I think Ill feel gangbanged by looking at the price tag on this. Im not looking forward to this being sold soon, but I am looking forward to the further developement of HD tech. This is definitely one step closer to photorealism.[/citation]
If the lady comes with the tv I think SHE'S the one who might feel a bit butraped...after we enjoyed Avater in UD of course!
This is Great! I would be happy to see TV's with higher resolution, it would make an even better PC monitor than they do already. Bring this to the public now and let the early adopters bring the price down, as always and everyone wins in the long run.
But as others have pointed out 1080p has been around quite a while and a large majority of us are watching standard def. on them still !!!, and blu-ray isnt really as ubiquitous as VHS or DVD was, yet.
Also, thanks for cable companies for thinking you could charge a price premium for high def. instead of doing a total upgrade to high def, way to slow down technology's progress you greedy @#$%^*&, we(the public) were basically forced to upgrade to this tech as everything was switched to digital from analog and all digital TV's were LCD's, Projector and Plasma, no tubes. Im not saying that is bad because alot of us wanted to get nice big LCD's and Plasma's and 1080p, but c'mon its about time we made a switch to all high def content and get ride of this old blury/fuzzy low def broadcasting and get everyone on the same page because its been a cluster fudge of tech since high def. came out.
Higher resolution can be a benefit for people who have local content. However, we must not forget that the current HD standards (mostly 1080i and 720p) were developed to support over-the-air reception and balance range vs. data rate. Some people still use antenna for television reception. 2160p would not work well for over-the-air transmission. However, if BD-XL evolves and becomes more prevalent, perhaps 2160p would be more feasible. Not all of us have the room for 70" televisions, though.
[citation][nom]thechief73[/nom]Also, thanks for cable companies for thinking you could charge a price premium for high def. instead of doing a total upgrade to high def, way to slow down technology's progress you greedy @#$%^*&, .[/citation]
Yeah, Cable companies would go nuts over this with the billing! Too bad their infrasctructure isn't even sufficient for 1080 p yet1
Not worth the trouble. The majority of the population could tell you the difference between 720p and 1080p and the difference in pixel density is enormous. We are already at the point of diminishing returns and display technology will have to move in a different direction instead of just increasing pixel counts. Holographic? True 3d? Who knows.