11 replies to this topic

[Roh234]

http://en.wikipedia...._Versatile_Disc
http://en.wikipedia....tion_Television

The final goal is for UHDTV to be available in domestic homes, though the timeframe for this happening varies between 2016 to 2020 (mainly based on technical reasons concerning storage and broadcast distribution of content).

Do you think it will happen or will holograms will take over instead.

[Nick1984]

Even in 20 years time holograms will be pretty low-res. Pin sharp Ultra HD however exists today, and the matter is down to hardware/transmission costs and waiting until HD and Blu-ray are the norm before trying to convince people to upgrade again.

Once every TV channel has become HD, they'll drop the 'HD' name, stop showing standard def channels and start marketing UHD. this is around 2024 I'm guessing, although the UHD compatible sets, games consoles and discs will be out before then.

[TreeHandThing]

Blu-Ray discs are a gimmick.

They ARE NOT high def. They just store more than average dvds. HVDS are also not high def, they just store many times more info, makin em preferable for the market.

I'm not sure about you guys, but I haven't exactly been keepin up with the tech. I still have a beta player.

[Nick1984]

Er, define 'Hi-Def' then...

[TreeHandThing]

Def = The amount of pixels on the screen

Low Def: 480 p
High Def: 720 p
High Def: 1080 p
Ultra Def: 4320 p

TVS are high def
Blu ray discs are not

Blu ray players cannot make the amount of pixels on the screen increase, as the tv already has that set in stone.

[Mr. Carmichael]

This makes no sense.
You say There are High Def TV's but Blu Rays cannot make a HD TV show HD films because there aren't enough pixels built into the TV...even though you say there are High Definition TV's with 1080P capability.

Blu ray discs display between 720P or 1080P (The definition of a HD stream)
Now those streams are compressed into something the disc and software can deal with but the lines of resolution are there, fact.
Also I seriously doubt a mainstream supplier would get away with saying something was HD when in fact it wasn't at all.
Now compression is a different matter as I have seen very bad compression on some Bu ray discs but the fact remains they have 1080 or 720 lines of res.

Most of the Blu rays I have bought haven't had very good compression but some are out of this world such as:
Mad Max 2
John Carpenters The Thing
The Dark Knight

Now I have seen Criterion DVD's which display about as good as DVD is capable of and those films are a generation above what that tech can do so I whole-heartedly disagree with that statement.

[Nick1984]

All Blu-rays display 1080p, each pixel in a Blu-ray movie fills a pixel on a HDTV and each is unique. A pretty ognorant statement by TreeHand there.

[Roh234]

Def = The amount of pixels on the screen

Low Def: 480 p
High Def: 720 p
High Def: 1080 p
Ultra Def: 4320 p

TVS are high def
Blu ray discs are not

Blu ray players cannot make the amount of pixels on the screen increase, as the tv already has that set in stone.

This makes no sense.
You say There are High Def TV's but Blu Rays cannot make a HD TV show HD films because there aren't enough pixels built into the TV...even though you say there are High Definition TV's with 1080P capability.

Blu ray discs display between 720P or 1080P (The definition of a HD stream)
Now those streams are compressed into something the disc and software can deal with but the lines of resolution are there, fact.
Also I seriously doubt a mainstream supplier would get away with saying something was HD when in fact it wasn't at all.
Now compression is a different matter as I have seen very bad compression on some Bu ray discs but the fact remains they have 1080 or 720 lines of res.

Most of the Blu rays I have bought haven't had very good compression but some are out of this world such as:
Mad Max 2
John Carpenters The Thing
The Dark Knight

Now I have seen Criterion DVD's which display about as good as DVD is capable of and those films are a generation above what that tech can do so I whole-heartedly disagree with that statement.

I am aware that a disk cannot make something UHD as the TV needs to be compatible or it will just be regular def.

I just can't wait for HDTV to be mainstream instead of the high-cost, and special box HDTV version we have today.

[Nick1984]

Alot of countries already have terrestrial HD channels, including the UK.

[Nick1984]

http://broadcastengi...witch_09062011/

At present however relatively few HD services transmit in "full" 1080p HD. Most, such as Sky's HD service in the UK, transmit at either 1080i or 720p. 1080i displays at 1920 x 1080 pixels like 1080p, but with interlacing so that only alternate lines are refreshed each cycle. This means that each line is only refreshed every two cycles and is out of phase with the line immediately above and below it. The effect is that 1080i is therefore almost as good as 1080p for video content such as documentaries and wildlife programs where the action is generally slow, unless it features say a fast running animal. But it is less good for fast moving content as in movies and especially many sports, because the speed of movement can cause distortion as some of the pixels will be in slightly the wrong place by the time the alternate lines above and below them have been refreshed.

720p on the other hand is progressive, displaying every line simultaneously, but only at 1280 x 720 pixel resolution. This reduces the quality of image display but works better for fast moving action. For this reason some broadcasters transmit documentaries in 1080i but sports and movies in 720p.

Over the next few years interlaced scan is likely to fade away as it is no longer needed to serve old CT displays which were incapable of displaying every line at once without suffering from fading, and as available bandwidth makes it possible to step up to full 1080p HD.

But super HD, or ultra HD, will require a massive 16-fold further increase in bandwidth if it does indeed arrive in the format currently being evaluated, which is 7680 x 4320 pixels progressively scanned. That is four times full HD in both the horizontal and vertical directions, making 16 times more pixels altogether, which will require 24Gb/s to transmit uncompressed. It is possible that frame rates may also have to rise, consuming even more bandwidth, since that may become the "quality bottleneck" as resolutions increase, especially for very large screens. Current frame rates may then lead to some jerkiness in the picture.

Currently no commercially available TV set can display super HD, which is confined to a few trials, having first been demonstrated in 2008 beaming images from City Hall in London to a conference centre in Amsterdam. The technology was developed by Japanese public broadcaster NHK, which is now cooperating with the BBC in the UK to use super HD to display pictures of the 2012 London Olympics on public viewing screens.

This may provide some momentum for development of super HD TV sets. By 2016 with 40Gb/s and even 100Gb/s speeds more widely available both for local and wide area transmission over fiber-optic networks, super HD programming will then be more feasible for production and contribution. But it will exert huge pressure on distribution networks and hence perhaps hasten SD switchover. However there are some alternatives to a complete SD switch off that will bring relief. In the case of terrestrial, one option is to switch the SD to the latest digital standard in order to gain bandwidth from various technical improvements. In Europe, this means moving from DVB-T to DVB-T2, yielding an immediate capacity gain of around 50 percent. Changing the video from MPEG-2 to H.264 encoding, which is often done at the same time as a conversion to DVB-T2, will also free up space for super HD.

[sirhotalot]

This makes no sense.
You say There are High Def TV's but Blu Rays cannot make a HD TV show HD films because there aren't enough pixels built into the TV...even though you say there are High Definition TV's with 1080P capability.

That's not what he said at all. He said the TV is high definition, the blu-ray isn't, and he's right. The blu-ray just holds the data that can be displayed on hi-def monitors.

Blu ray discs display between 720P or 1080P (The definition of a HD stream)

No they don't, blu-ray discs don't display anything. Monitors do. A blu-ray disc can contain a video file that can display in 4320p but good luck finding a monitor to display it in it's proper full resolution.

[Nick1984]

http://www.engadget....to-ces/?m=false



LG let us know at CES 2011 that it had 4K LCD televisions in the pipeline, but unfortunately they didn't make it out this year. Expect for that to change in 2012, as the company just announced it's bringing an 84-inch "ultra definition" (3840x2160) TV to Las Vegas to go along with its 55-inch OLED. It has all of LG's Cinema 3D and Smart TV features built-in, including support for that upgraded Magic Motion remote and voice control. There's no official word yet on when we'll see these on shelves or at what price, but it certainly looks production ready compared to other prototypes that have been displayed over the years. While we don't have easy sources of 4K-res video content yet, one of the reasons LG is making the jump first is for 3D. Its Cinema 3D tech uses a Film Pattern Retarder (FPR) screen and passive glasses that result in lowered resolution, but with those extra pixels there's no question about whether viewers are still getting at least an HD picture. So far 4K at home is the domain of Sony and JVC's high-priced projectors, but we'll see if any other companies (we'll check off Toshiba right now) show off upgrades in size and resolution of their HDTVs this year. Check the press release after the break for a few more details.