Move Over High-Definition, Here's Ultra-Definition

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bolbi

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2009
81
0
18,590
3
3,840 x 2,160? Current GPUs, even workstation cards, only support a maximum resolution of 2560x1600! What are you going to hook this thing up to?
 

bwanaheim

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
5
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]jodrummersh[/nom]Do you have a wall? ; )[/citation]

I would have a wall that big if 1980's architects did not do silly things like put fireplaces in the way. Couldn't they foresee the age of movie-theater sized screens in the house? Also, couldn't the designers foresee the need to have enough breaker capacity to supply our stadium-sized amplifier systems?
 

existencenow

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
24
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]bwanaheim[/nom]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]


Um Dude? Really That is your stand on this >? i guaren#u
 

bwanaheim

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
5
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]existencenow[/nom]Um Dude? Really That is your stand on this >? i guaren#u[/citation]

I absolutely want a display this cool, even if it is not practical for me. Many people that rely on terrestrial broadcasts would not see much benefit from such a device, though.
 

bikerman7502002

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
Yeah, I would love to see higher definition content become standard, higher than 1080p that is. I'm constantly annoyed by the move DOWN to 1080p from 1920x1200p for most of us or 2560x1600p for those that can afford it. Granted this was mainly noticeable only in gaming since studios didn't start releasing movie content in high def, but as screens get increasingly larger, the limits of 1080p start to show. I personally am one who loves seeing actors look like real humans instead of airbrushed people.
Of course I'm still much happier now than back when I had the tv with a volume knob and buttons beside the screen, with it's constant noise lol.
 

scifi9000

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2010
44
0
18,580
0
how the hell would you ever transmit that sort of resolution over the air for TV, hell even cable would struggle. It's fine to have the screen, but you would be all dressed up and nowhere to go.
 

zerapio

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2002
192
0
18,630
0
While this is an impressive achievement I do question the utility. Most TVs are fed compressed media that shows encoding artifacts. What's the point of having more pixels to see a detailed crappy image?
 

pandemonium_ctp

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2009
35
0
18,580
0
Upconvert? I'm pretty sure these companies creating displays that have the abilities to go beyond our current resolution sizes have software formats to adopt the higher resolutions, much less the hardware. Mainstream, of course, is where it matters and this won't be around for a while. As with anything technology related, hardware is exceeding software by leaps and bounds now and is progressively increasing its lead.

BD-R/RE v4.0 are capable of 100GB. Given that most movies in 1080p don't even take up 1/2 the space available on a BD-R 25GB, double the size fitting on a BD-R isn't a problem.

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]I just... don't see the point anymore. HD already looks better than real life does. How can you improve upon that?[/citation]

Uhh, that isn't possible. >.< Diminishing returns at this point. Of course this is the reason the display is 70" and not smaller. You wouldn't be able to see it at sizes less than that.
 

fleeb

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2007
13
0
18,560
0
"Unfortunately there is no additional news about when this beauty will be released..."

Release the lady already!
 

eddieroolz

Distinguished
Moderator
Sep 6, 2008
3,485
0
20,730
0
I think its a good thing that companies are developing further along the road - so that when the next video standard is finalized, perhaps we can have the hardware sooner than later.
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
550
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]amk09[/nom]Whats wrong is that you will having nothing to watch on it that actually takes advantage of it. Most people still don't take full advantage of their 1080p tv's...damn 720p channels/720p console games[/citation]

1600p PC games... nough said!
 

MartenKL

Distinguished
Oct 31, 2006
3
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]Bolbi[/nom]3,840 x 2,160? Current GPUs, even workstation cards, only support a maximum resolution of 2560x1600! What are you going to hook this thing up to?[/citation]
Yes, lets lock down display evolution now. No more progress please. "640KB should be enough for everyone." /sarcasm
 

Horhe

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2008
47
0
18,580
0
So, that means that in 5 years or so we will have 24" monitors with resolution bigger that 1920x1080 that won't cost an arm and a leg?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F Streaming Video & TVs 2
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 2
S Streaming Video & TVs 4
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 2
crazysaguaro Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
Amamake Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
N Streaming Video & TVs 7
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 40
J Streaming Video & TVs 4
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
T Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 33

ASK THE COMMUNITY