What is coming after 1080p?

[Railgun]

That's pretty interesting. So maybe it's not the actual screens that are the limitation, it's been the transport mechanism of the media. A USB 2.0 128GB flash drive is $150 on NewEgg, a USB 3.0 128GB flash drive is $240. Obviously a studio could buy in bulk and cut out the middlemen and get those for cheaper, but, going on your data size, one would need one big @ss custom USB flash drive, or some standard that would string multiple drives together, to support a 500GB movie. And really, if studios and equipment manufacturers were going to go through all that trouble to switch, then they mine as well just go whole hog and design the new system to support something crazy, like 8K 3D 22.whatever 60p...then at least the theaters could 'buy once never again' type of thing.

I wonder how much something like that would cost, vs. a normal theatre setup they'd put in now (forget the actual speakers, just the system to take and decode and present the media)...I'm guessing it's one large amount of $$$...

Chuck

In regards to the cost, the only additional overhead would be the additional cost for the projector and the storage and delivery equipment. I'm not going to go into too much detail, but physical media as a transport mechanism is slow (getting from point A to B), can be costly and is still at risk from theft. You can encrypt to mitigate loss from theft, but the other issues remain.

One of the largest things that prevented companies from going that route was cost...no one wanted to pay for it. No one still wants to pay for it. But that's neither here nor there and is going way off topic.

Say they came out with 2160p. I don't have a very good understanding of this sort of stuff, but what kinda bandwidth would it requires to up the pixels like that? Maybe I am thinking about it the wrong way, but could an upgrade like that cause the cable companies to charge us more cause their bandwidth is higher?

Streaming wouldn't be the solution. Not yet...and not for a long time for that kind of content. Though CalTech and I can't remember who just did a 186Gbps pipe, that's a single link between huge organizations....and kind of as a proof of concept. You start throwing thousands of 4K lossless streams around...the Internet will die.

It would look a lot better to people concerned about artifacts. It wouldn't even have to be uncompressed, it could just be losslessly compressed.

Good point. I hadn't really bothered to make a point between lossless compression or none at all. Though from what I've seen, it's about a 10% ratio at best. Though, some is better than none I suppose.

 

[chucky2]

In regards to the cost, the only additional overhead would be the additional cost for the projector and the storage and delivery equipment. I'm not going to go into too much detail, but physical media as a transport mechanism is slow (getting from point A to B), can be costly and is still at risk from theft. You can encrypt to mitigate loss from theft, but the other issues remain.

One of the largest things that prevented companies from going that route was cost...no one wanted to pay for it. No one still wants to pay for it. But that's neither here nor there and is going way off topic.

Couldn't the media be encypted, and the device the media is inserted into just have a secure connection to say a common security site that all the studios agree to use, and it pulls down the key?

This way even if someone got the original encypted media (or made a copy of it), they'd still not have the key necessary to decypt it. Heck, they could make the key be by date, that way the only way someone could possibly use their stolen encrypted media would be to get the key and have to use it on that day the key was generated - a pretty small number of people could swing that I'd think.

 

[JAG87]

You'll never see lossless video unless they come up with a new way to do lossless compression. An average 2 hour 1080p24 video with today's lossless compression will turn up around 500GB lossless, and around 1TB uncompressed.

We don't have neither the storage nor the bandwidth to play/broadcast that, and it's even more silly when you think that AVC at good bitrate and proper encoding settings can compress that 500GB file to <50GB with virtually zero difference. Of course if you use fast encoding settings and low bitrates, you end up with garbage.

When lossy is done right, 99&#37; of people cannot tell any difference. With lossy done bad, probably 80% of people still can't tell or don't have the equipment to tell, so this isn't a path they are going to pursue. The only reason they went with lossless audio is because it's not very big to begin with, and it gives them another reason to convince users to shell out for a new receiver.

 

[Patranus]

1080 isn't going anywhere for 50+ years.

Look how long it took to go from 480 to 1080....60 years?

Outside of some threatens (we have 2k and 4k threatens already) the home market isn't going to be getting these high resolutions any time soon.

 

[mmntech]

4K will be next but not for awhile, at least where broadcast is concerned. TV networks and production companies (unless you're the NFL) don't like to upgrade their equipment too often. It's very costly. Not only do you need cameras that can do 4K res, storage and computer power also factors in. Not to mention increased bandwidth required for broadcast. That's the big issue with UHDTV, the broadcast varient of 4K. Especially since it runs at 250mb/s using MPEG2 encoding. UHDTV also runs at twice the frame rate, 60 progressive frames.

 

[Railgun]

Couldn't the media be encypted, and the device the media is inserted into just have a secure connection to say a common security site that all the studios agree to use, and it pulls down the key?

I did mention encryption. But you still had the physical media to distribute.

When lossy is done right, 99&#37; of people cannot tell any difference. With lossy done bad, probably 80% of people still can't tell or don't have the equipment to tell, so this isn't a path they are going to pursue. The only reason they went with lossless audio is because it's not very big to begin with, and it gives them another reason to convince users to shell out for a new receiver.

Every source material I've seen is compressed/lossy enough to get gradient banding which I can't stand. If you have an example of it done right,I'd love to see it.

1080 isn't going anywhere for 50+ years.

Look how long it took to go from 480 to 1080....60 years?

Outside of some threatens (we have 2k and 4k threatens already) the home market isn't going to be getting these high resolutions any time soon.

You've been able to get 4K projectors for at least three or four years now. Sony just came out with their "consumer" grade 4K version. Granted, it's expensive but that's how it is. 1080P was around in the late 80s. And TV manufacturers are already starting to showcase their LCDs and Plasmas that can do 4K and some did three years ago.

And greater than 480 lines of resolution has been around a lot longer. PAL has been 525 and other parts of Europe had 800 lines way back in the day, but reverted to other standards.

Just because it took this long to get to where we are today doesn't meant will take the same length of time for the next step. That's the beauty of tech. Look how long it took us to get to the 1GHz barrier on consumer CPUs. It was a fraction of that time to hit 2GHz.

Not including broadcast TV, we'll see 4K a lot sooner than later, but broadcast wont' be too far behind. The beauty of OTA is you're not limited to bandwidth in the traditional sense. You'll notice in most cases, the OTA signal is better than its satellite feed and possibly far better than cable.

 

[integramodder]

People with upscaling DVD players say the image quality is much better than DVD. One guy I know (software engineer if that matters) says he can't tell the difference between upsacled DVD and Blu Ray.

Based on this, let's make an assumption. There will be a future media called Purple Ray 4X that is 4X compatable. Now, would Blue Ray upsacled be alot better than plain ol' blue ray i nthe same way that upsacled DVD is better than DVD?

With DVD and HD, alot of early adopters bought upscaling DVD players for their TVs. So, the TV came first. So the chicken and the egg issue had a solution. Will the chicken and egg solution for 4X be a similar path? 4X TVs and upscaled blue ray first? Then Purple Ray 4X?

I havent seen or read the comparisons between upscaled and reg dvd's. From what I remember reading, the upscaler interprets information between frames/pixles and adds its own. Now although I can see how it could make something look better, but it still doesnt have better information at the root to make a better picture.....you can blow up a 4x6 to 24x36, but doesnt mean itll be better

 

[integramodder]

1080 isn't going anywhere for 50+ years.

Look how long it took to go from 480 to 1080....60 years?

Outside of some threatens (we have 2k and 4k threatens already) the home market isn't going to be getting these high resolutions any time soon.

If you think the progress of technology isn't compounding in advancement, then you must be blind.

 

[Patranus]

I did mention encryption. But you still had the physical media to distribute.



Every source material I've seen is compressed/lossy enough to get gradient banding which I can't stand. If you have an example of it done right,I'd love to see it.


You've been able to get 4K projectors for at least three or four years now. Sony just came out with their "consumer" grade 4K version. Granted, it's expensive but that's how it is. 1080P was around in the late 80s. And TV manufacturers are already starting to showcase their LCDs and Plasmas that can do 4K and some did three years ago.

And greater than 480 lines of resolution has been around a lot longer. PAL has been 525 and other parts of Europe had 800 lines way back in the day, but reverted to other standards.

Just because it took this long to get to where we are today doesn't meant will take the same length of time for the next step. That's the beauty of tech. Look how long it took us to get to the 1GHz barrier on consumer CPUs. It was a fraction of that time to hit 2GHz.

Not including broadcast TV, we'll see 4K a lot sooner than later, but broadcast wont' be too far behind. The beauty of OTA is you're not limited to bandwidth in the traditional sense. You'll notice in most cases, the OTA signal is better than its satellite feed and possibly far better than cable.

Outside of niche markets we are not going to see consumer grade 2k or 4k displays.
The simple fact of the matter is that 1080p is the broadcast standard and there is no incentive for manufacturers (or the population) to upgrade until that broadcast standard is changed.

Sure there will be some high end home theaters that can do 2k or 4k but that won't be the norm.

 

[Railgun]

Of course we are.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...sts-production-and-transmission-in-4k-with-R1

http://www.istockanalyst.com/busine...generation-4k-broadcast-solutions-at-2011-nab

http://www.techradar.com/news/television/sony-and-toshiba-battle-to-bring-4k-tv-tech-home-1031135

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/03/toshibas-4k-glasses-free-3dtv-announced-in-japan-with-more-spe/

It's coming a lot faster than it took 1080 to get to our living rooms. In two years, anyone looking to get a TV would be hard pressed not to consider whatever 4K models that are available. Just like anything else, when the cost comes down enough, it'll happen.

 

[JSt0rm]

A lot of content is already being shot in 4k. So we will see this progression.

 

[The-Noid]

Whatever it is, it's going to make porno look a whole lot worse. *rimshot*

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

People have 1080p TV's now with no real incentive to buy a new one. That is until 4k is out and they drive the drones to believe that without this shiny new tv you're a failure.

 

[JSt0rm]

People have 1080p TV's now with no real incentive to buy a new one. That is until 4k is out and they drive the drones to believe that without this shiny new tv you're a failure.

Hopefully they will show them value in having a higher resolution. Change is the only constant and in the world of consumer electronics things change a lot.

 

[0roo0roo]

Well, since studios can't even get 1080p right, I don't see the point of any higher resolution.

Don't think they'll want to give up their master print quality anyways.

Broadcast standard not going to change for decades.

No source material..makes it kinda pointless.

Maybe at some point it just becomes a bonus feature of a display once they have no where else to improve on.

 

[micrometers]

Hopefully they will show them value in having a higher resolution. Change is the only constant and in the world of consumer electronics things change a lot.

but there is a declining rate of return. The jump from 480p to 720p was pretty big, but from 720p to 1080p not so much. You can already see the pores on people's skin now in 1080p, I don't know how much more detail you would get.

 

[fuzzymath10]

Resolution has stagnated. There have been high resolution displays around for ages. Only now have we caught up to mainstream video media matching mainstream screen resolution (1080p). We had 320x240 when we had 640x480 or 800x600 screens, 480i/p when we had 1024x768 or maybe 1280x1024, and now we have 720p/1080p when most of us have from 1360x768 to 1920x1080 screens. Of course, watching downsampled video can be beneficial from an image quality perspective.

Also, well-made BDs have practically no artifacts (at least compared to DVDs which were pretty bad). The majority of artifacts come from bad encoding, or bad source footage. The same applies to audio footage; not all lossless tracks are created equal. The move from practically lossless to lossless comes at far too heavy a price for simple playback; the main advantage is for further processing, which is why DJs need lossless way more than audiophiles do (unless they happen to be DJs too).

Other than a change in display technology, I see less value now in transitioning for the sake of resolution alone. 720p tv footage already looks like crap compared to BD, so they should focus on improving the quality of 720-1080 footage first.

The "good enough" level is moving much more slowly now. Way more people were limited by CPUs or graphics in 2000 than they are now (the same cannot be said of fixed storage).

 

[JSt0rm]

As I said there needs to be something that makes you want this.

What 300 did to blu ray and avatar did to 3d. There must be compelling content to move the technology forward. This seems to be a recent trend as dvd had many obvious benefits over vcr but if we look further back at the advent of color we see movies like wizard of oz using color as a special effect to help tell the story. This would drive adoption.

Or further back the jazz singer 1927 was the first film to have sync audio. This also drove innovation and technology advancement.

I dont know what 4k will bring to a consumer grade system but it could be something where the picture is set closer to you and kind of wraps around the viewing position like imax. This envelopment could bring with it new ideas in filmmaking.

 

[Railgun]

http://www.hometheater.com/content/4k-revolution

Interesting article.

 

[piasabird]

Then we will need 2000 tb drive.

 

[alent1234]

unless i get something like a few seasons of a show on one disk for the price of one disk or season and the ability to have a normal DVD quality digital copy i'm not buying it until it's mainstream

 

[kalrith]

The next big thing is 3d without glasses. There are billions of dollars being invested in research right now to overcome the hurdles of doing 3d without making the viewer have to wear something or be within a narrow field of view. Higher resolutions don't impress people enough to justify the expense of doubling the current 1080P. The jump from DVD to HD was significant but the more you increase resolution above 1080P the less you get in return for a wow factor, and that wow factor is what pays the bills for all the research money spent. Compare 4096x resolutions to a 42" display that is in 3d at 1080P and ask yourself which you would buy ? Sure eventually 3d and resolution will be enhanced but it takes baby steps of what will bring in the most cash the quickest.

I agree with this. Most people I know are completely satisfied with DVD quality, and most sit so far from their small sets that they don't even get the full benefit of 720p, let alone 1080p or higher.

I can't remember where, but I recently read a study that the average viewing distance in American homes is 10-12', and the most commonly purchased TV size is 32". Plugging that into any viewing-distance calculator will tell you that the average American wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 720p and 7200p.

But, if there's something like 3D that the average American can easily notice, then there might be market value in that.

My honest guess is that Blu-ray is the highest quality physical media that we'll see. Things are going more and more towards broadcast or online media. Once the masses are ready for a higher quality picture than Blu-ray, I think that digital media will have advanced enough that people won't want to deal with a new player and discs any more.

And for the debate between whether computer monitors or TV will drive the display resolution of TVs, I think it's quite obvious given the plethora of 1080p monitors that are lower resolution than the 1920x1200 monitors that were prevalent in the past. Also, for gaming, consoles set the standards. So, for either TV or console gaming, I don't see anything about 1080p as being worthwhile to the masses.

 

[alent1234]

blu rays are 50GB max. 4000k is going to be in the 100GB range or more. there is no way you can stream it at close to 100mbps

 

[Railgun]

No they're not. BDXL is already there in 100 and 128GB flavors.

Also, a BR at multiples of its base speed can do 100Mbps. It's less than 4x speed.

 

[kalrith]

blu rays are 50GB max. 4000k is going to be in the 100GB range or more. there is no way you can stream it at close to 100mbps

If this was in response to my post, I didn't necessarily mean that streaming would exceed BD quality. However, if we think like a typical American and not an HT enthusiast, we would probably be satisfied with "good enough". Most people I talk to don't care if BD is leaps and bounds better than DVD, because DVD is "good enough" to them. Once digital streaming is "good enough" for the masses, then I think physical media will become a niche product, and I'm uncertain that such a niche product will be profitable to come out with a new player that's better quality than BD.

That doesn't mean it'll go away. However, given that BD has had such a hard time distinguishing itself from DVD, I find it hard to believe that anything that's higher quality than BD will be able to distinguish itself from BD. Given the size of people's TV screens, the difference between DVD and BD is much more noticeable than the difference between BD and any uber-high resolution above that. Yet, people still think DVD is "good enough", and DVD sales greatly exceed BD sales.

Obviously this is all my opinion, because my crystal ball isn't working at the moment .