no point in increasing the pixel count when we still have compression artifacts as someone stated, and most content is still dvd movies, and 720p gaming consoles. Work on picture quality instead, then we wont need more pixels. Input lag is still a silent subject especially when you try to use an old dvd player, gaming consol and whatnot on a shiny new "super" HD tv. They still cant handle the most common format as good as the old tech. TV is digital, yes, but still interlaced content, and that's what these digital crap tv's just don't handle that well.
If you think HD is enough then obviously you havent compared a 40" to a 65" 1080p display. You can definitely notice the difference (since they both have the same PxP size.) As for content... as the guy earlier noted: you cannot have a chicken without the egg.
As for a trip down memory lane: A company made an UHD-style 20" computer LCD at least 4 years ago, though it was even more excessive. 10,000x10,000 pixels or something similar - you could see details with a magnifying glass.
What was then statistic I saw yesterday? 80% of views still watch programmes in standard definition. ATM even HD TV's are useless unless you have a console or blu ray player since only a handful of channels are braodcast in HD. It won't be till 2012 or later that we will get HD freeview channels and SD channels will start to be phased out. By then HD could be old hat. New better technology is great but only if the adoption of said technology happens on all fronts. I won't be jumping on the super HD TV bandwagon as fast (if just under 2 years ago is considered fast) this time. Not until the content justifies the upgrade fully.
[citation][nom]bwanaheim[/nom]... 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....[/citation]
And the HD signal provided by Charter is a heavily upscaled and blurry picture compared to most Blu-Ray movies. I suspect we will need fiber to the home and the Cable provide needs to seriously upgrade their technology before crisp 1080 is even offered ... let alone Ultra-Def.
Actualy current gen video cards from nvidia and ATi could easly push these resolutions for gaming and in 3d. I would totaly hook up 3 of these babies up for 3d surround but would probably need to run at least tri 480's or 580 gtx's.
PAL and NTSC have been around for ~50 years... I don't think UD will be here for at least 20 years.
Maybe on those new blu-ray discs I've heard they're developing now, but I don't expect to see any tv channels in this format.
The only place where this could be useful is to buy it instead of 6 screens for eyefinity, with no bezels!! and only if it comes to around the same price.
It's called QFHD, boys and girls, the signal comes from 4 1080p outputs and is used to display static images. Video at that resolution doesn't exist yet, since there is no video format or medium out there that can store or play it. Any recent PC with 4 GPU's would have the horsepower to feed 4 1080p signals, but only at 24-30fps at best. 240hz at that resolution is like pushing 2 BILLION pixels PER SECOND, or roughly 5.6GB/sec of uncompressed bandwidth. Even with a 5:1 ratio compression codec there is nothing out there that can push 1GB/sec. Moving down to 60hz would still require 250MB/sec sustained transfer speed, serious compression (loss of high def detail), and a 2TB hard drive to store just ONE feature-length movie.
Maybe in 10 years time QFHD video will become a reality - keep dreaming!
This is just bothering me because people keep saying it:
Nobody broadcasts in 1080P, they only broadcast in 1080I. The reason being; bandwidth requirement doubles between an interlaced (meaning every other line is drawn each frame and alternates b/ween lines drawn) and progressive (fills up every line at the same time) signal. So we don't even have a progressive signal after 720p, we need to work on that first.
[citation][nom]jodrummersh[/nom]Really? Already time to move on for you? Dang. I suppose us with good eyesight could benefit from this, but I'd have to see it first to see if it's worth the trouble. Also, good luck finding a format to support this, considering blu-ray has barely caught on among the masses.[/citation]
hahahaa....1080p too little for that chap huh....i still use CRT tv's at home........
the damn things just wont die....so until then i am stuck with it........ and i have 4 of them at home....
now i wonder if we would gt any tv programs at 2160p,,,i doubt it...let the prices come down...till then i might just move upto plasma as led is expensive...
[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]some people buy ferraris, other people buy $10,000 dream PC's...I like having the best TV I can possibly afford. Whats wrong with that?[/citation]
Well I can take that Ferrari to the track and drive it like it was meant to be driven, I can tax that 10k comp to the max with programs, so what exactly are you gonna do with that 2160p TV? well other then watch 1080p video that you can already watch on your HDTV.
[citation][nom]WhySoBluePandaBear[/nom]Ugh, this marketing and "High definition" crap is annoying. [/citation]
What's more annoying is seeing HD attached to things that have nothing to do with electronics... like the company that is now selling HD Paint. Seriously? High Definition Paint? Wonder what resolution that is and how many pixels per drop. >
My first Bluray movie was The Omega Man with Chuck Heston. I was blown away by 1080p. I could see the pores in the skin of his face! 2160p sounds awesome, but I'm afraid of what I might see at that resolution. The nightly news crew is scary enough at 720p. Still....sign me up.
That's great but the human eye can only see so much clairty.
Personally I think 1080p is about as clear as most people will need.
That resolution would only be worth it on very large TV's like the 70" one mentioned or projectors.