What is coming after 1080p?

[Railgun]

So, more interesting things coming out of CES. All this chatter about 4K...but what do we have here?

I'd love to see this in person.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Drooollllll. 2020 estiamte on supporting tech for that TV.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I don't know what the planned standards are but I did notice something interesting.

I run in 2560x1600 for my PC which is a traditional PC widescreen format of 16:10. The next resolution down in the 16:10 category is 1920x1200. HD 1080p is of course 1920x1080 so they sport the same width in pixels. You might consider 1080p the 16:9 variant of 1920x1200.

In that same theme we've started seeing a 16:9 variant of 2560x1600 which is 2560x1440, usually on 27" panels. It's strange because typically the 16:9 aspect ratio based resolutions are used because it's an accepted TV/Movie/Broadcast resolution and so it makes sense, but there is no media built for 2560x1440 so it begs the question why that aspect ratio?

Maybe the next thing we'll see is 1440p? It's the exact same number of vertical pixels/lines increase from 1080p as 1080p was from 720p, both are an additional 360 lines of resolution.

This whole 4x seems like too large of a jump to me, streaming that would require a massive amount of bandwidth and huges amounts of spare to store, we definitely have more storage and banwidth than ever before (I have 50mbit internet and 8Tb of storage) but that's at the very high end of the spectrum.

 

[alent1234]

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 .

biggest problem i've seen with streaming is content library size. if you want to watch a recent movie in your home it's either rent/dvd or blu ray. unless people are willing to pay $30 and up per month for the service i don't see the selection issue going away

and there are still way too many issues for buying digital copies of movies

 

[GrumpyMan]

Fiber directly connected to the optic nerve.

The Borg have been doing this for years now, works well.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Contact lenses with HUDs watch whatever size screen you prefer at any time.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?

 

[Doppel]

When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?

Yeah it certainly becomes questionable unless you keep jacking up screens.

I don't know how big people will want. A lot of people lack a wall they are willing to use for an 80" screen or similar. But maybe over time we'll expect larger and larger and be willing to blow an entire wall on glass.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?

Not likely with TVs' they're just too cumbersome, even the very thin models. What we need is an increase in resolution of 3LCD projectors, my 1080p projector is projecting a 122" screen in my living room, you can't see individual pixels unless you're less than 3-4 feet away, but a bump in resolution would most certainly be beneficial for the viewer.

 

[Doppel]

Not likely with TVs' they're just too cumbersome, even the very thin models. What we need is an increase in resolution of 3LCD projectors, my 1080p projector is projecting a 122" screen in my living room, you can't see individual pixels unless you're less than 3-4 feet away, but a bump in resolution would most certainly be beneficial for the viewer.

You sure about that? I carried at 46" TV around a few days back, must have weighed no more than 50 lbs. It's not even a super slim lcd. Back in the day a 30-something could weigh over a hundred lbs and we put up with them.

Article above about 4k was interesting.

I remember when I first heard about HD I thought who cares, I just want a bigger screen the resolution is fine. I regret such thoughts now, how naive they were. I've said the same about DVD, but I can't lie when I see blu-ray it's pretty nice. An 80" with 4k resolution would be quite something to behold. That article said that some upscaling from 1080p to 4k can actually look quite good.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?

20 years ago, people would have scoffed at anything over 27" being common place. Today, many people have 42"+ screens. It wa a luxury 20 years ago to have a big screen TV.

The thing is, costs are way down. I had a nice 32" tube in 2000 that cost me maybe $800. My 42" plasma cost me $1800 maybe 5 years ago. Today, I can get a 42" LCD for $600. For $1800, I could probably get 55".

Thing is, if we can get to 80" with 4x at a sub $2000 price point ... it will sell.

The thing is, remember that many people will not use it in full screen mode. New technolgies and new utility will be born from it. With a TV like that you could have a foot ball game taking up 80% of it and have a few other channels playing on the side along with your kids playing video games and your wife is web browsing.

Who knows what will happen. The exampels above are just guesses. It's a chicken/egg issue. The supporting tech comes first or the tech.

Also, very few people had home theaters 20 years ago. Most people were happy to have a VCR. The lowering of costs has created the home theater popularity. I don't see that changing. I know in my next house I would liove a real dedicated home theater.

 

[Railgun]

You sure about that? I carried at 46" TV around a few days back, must have weighed no more than 50 lbs. It's not even a super slim lcd. Back in the day a 30-something could weigh over a hundred lbs and we put up with them.

Just because it`s light doesn`t mean it`s not cumbersome. But, panel sizes are really only practical up to a certain size. At some point, the cost of the panel itself just overcomes that practicality. Is 80" that limit? 100? Should 65 be it? It all depends on who`s willing to pay what. I`m sure than the 65" Panasonics don`t exactly give them sales records. Just like BMW. Yeah, they have a fantastic, super luxurious car in the 7 series, but their 3 series are their bread and butter. That said, 42-50" is probably more than likely to be the long term high seller across the board in terms of size, regardless of tech.

That whole blurb may have gone off on a tangent a bit but...

20 years ago, people would have scoffed at anything over 27" being common place. Today, many people have 42"+ screens. It wa a luxury 20 years ago to have a big screen TV.

The thing is, costs are way down. I had a nice 32" tube in 2000 that cost me maybe $800. My 42" plasma cost me $1800 maybe 5 years ago. Today, I can get a 42" LCD for $600. For $1800, I could probably get 55".

Thing is, if we can get to 80" with 4x at a sub $2000 price point ... it will sell.

The thing is, remember that many people will not use it in full screen mode. New technolgies and new utility will be born from it. With a TV like that you could have a foot ball game taking up 80% of it and have a few other channels playing on the side along with your kids playing video games and your wife is web browsing.

Who knows what will happen. The exampels above are just guesses. It's a chicken/egg issue. The supporting tech comes first or the tech.

Also, very few people had home theaters 20 years ago. Most people were happy to have a VCR. The lowering of costs has created the home theater popularity. I don't see that changing. I know in my next house I would liove a real dedicated home theater.

Would I like an 80" screen? Sure. Who wouldn`t? But where I live now? Not a chance. I have a 50. On the assumption I`ll be there for a while, I`ll probably opt for a 65" next time around as it`s really the best size for my distance. The 50 I`m very happy with though.

As far as 4K goes, yes, it`s just like HD when it first generally hit the consumer market. It was around for a long time and really the last six years or so really got prices reasonable. The only difference in display tech is the panel itself really. I can`t see it taking more than two years to get prices down enough a la today`s high end panels and maybe another two for mainstream.

80" 4K at $2k? I don't know that that will happen though until 5 years after the 80" 8K.

 

[sdifox]

doubt I can get the 80" into the basement. Pj screen project at my new place is in a bit of a bind because of L shaped basement staircase. I guess I'll try windows

 

[GunsMadeAmericaFree]

HD is the next step for me. I've been putting up with 800x600 for years. It looks fine with the movies and sd tv that we watch, and I'm just happy to have it up big on the wall. I might just move up to xga, because I can't find any HD projectors in the $400 range.

Obviously, I don't see any need for blu-ray at this point. Maybe after I eventually go up to HD.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Something has to come beyond 1080p. Computers (forget movies) warrant it.

I guess the issue will become what drives the monitor market. Computers, TV or soemthing new?

For PC's I think 2 x 22-24 inch monitors is the "sweet spot" ...
I would LOVE if there was a seamless parabolic curved 5760x1080 display for games and what not rather than using 3 monitors with eyefinity...

 

[sheh]

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.

I'm not sure what's the reason for banding issues, but it's not something inherent per se to lossy compression. There are various discussions on how to mitigate or solve it. Different encode settings, dithering, more bitrate, or 10-bit encodes. Random threads I found:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=164352
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/344136-How-to-encode-anime-to-10bit-x264/page2

 

[wirednuts]

screens also used to be square and they are now wide, so what used to be that standard 25" size like everyone used to have is todays equivalent to 32" like most people have now

 

[Chaotic42]

I have one of these http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102124 coming before Christmas.

Will be interesting to see how everything looks...

Looks like that might not be native 4K. The term "2D Upconversion" scares me.

 

[Muse]

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.

Hmm, I've got a Momitsu V880, which upscales DVD to 720p. I've had it since mid Nov. 2003. It's hard for me to believe that this looks as good as Blu-ray. It just takes the resolution inherent in a DVD and produces 720p output, which is natively supported by my projector.

 

[0roo0roo]

Hmm, I've got a Momitsu V880, which upscales DVD to 720p. I've had it since mid Nov. 2003. It's hard for me to believe that this looks as good as Blu-ray. It just takes the resolution inherent in a DVD and produces 720p output, which is natively supported by my projector.

yea i'm pretty sure any upscaling actually degrades the picture slightly. if the picture pixels don't divide equally you have to average/sample something somewhere.

 

[Maxspeed996]

Fiber directly connected to the optic nerve.

I have to have this...

 

[Bateluer]

Honestly, I have to laugh at several posters in this thread. Those claiming that anything over 1080p is useless unless you have a stadium size screen. Ironically, these are the very same posters who rave about Apple's Retina screens and rag on anything that has less than 300PPI, regardless of the other features.

Fact of the matter is, unless you've reached a certain pixel density relative to screen size and viewing distance, then you haven't maxed out. 1080P on 24in LCDs gets ripped on often now . . . .but some of you are claiming that 1080P is fine at 100+ inches. Guess its only in close range devices, tablets, phones, etc, where PPI matters?

 

[0roo0roo]

Honestly, I have to laugh at several posters in this thread. Those claiming that anything over 1080p is useless unless you have a stadium size screen. Ironically, these are the very same posters who rave about Apple's Retina screens and rag on anything that has less than 300PPI, regardless of the other features.

Fact of the matter is, unless you've reached a certain pixel density relative to screen size and viewing distance, then you haven't maxed out. 1080P on 24in LCDs gets ripped on often now . . . .but some of you are claiming that 1080P is fine at 100+ inches. Guess its only in close range devices, tablets, phones, etc, where PPI matters?

ugh

distance matters

its why you have an eye test at the dmv. i'm sure you can read every line if you stand right in front of the chart, but so what?

apple retina display is at arms length or less, so of course its valid. at 6-8 feet back in a regular room the equation changes, and whether you can make out additional detail on a regular sized tv at 4k vs 1080p is extremely questionable.

you seriously claiming you watch tv with your knees touching the screen?

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

FWIW: Apple claims that at a normal viewing distance (2 feet maybe), more pixels on their iPad 3 display are meaningless.

 

[flux_]

Guys I know this thread is like 6 months old or so but.. There is 8K Ultra Digital already, it's been out for about 2 years now, maybe more. The documentary "Baraka" was filmed in 8K Ultra Digital and if you have purchased it on Blu-ray and have a 1080p television, you would know it is noticeably higher quality than an other Blu-ray you have seen. However I'm not sure if or when 8K Ultra Digital televisions are going to be made or already on an agenda of being designed. I disagree about needing a stadium sized TV to notice better than 1080p, I can tell the difference in 1080p quality between my two TV's, the smaller and slightly older one being 50" displays 1080p higher quality than my 65" because it has to stretch the same quality image across several more inches. But I am definitely looking forward to televisions catching up with filming capabilities as I LOVE high definition I'm also looking forward to 3D being polished to perfection! But who knows, something else might be invented or introduced by that stage..