What's beyond HD 1080p? (1 Viewer)

[Norris]

So we've improved the video quality from 480i-->480p-->720p-->1080i-->1080p. I think the ultimate goal is to have video quality IN OUR DISPLAY be the same as what we can see in real life. With that in mind, is there a better, higher-resolution video quality than 1080p?

 

[Zack Gibbs]

23,000p? Probably a bit much.

 

[Neal_C]

NHK in Japan has been working on 7,680 × 4,320 for a few years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDV

 

[Bob_L]

4K

 

[RAF]

While we are now at "2K" with our 1920x1080 displays (the"2K" referring to the 1920 spec being close to 2000), there are rumblings about "4K". There are already some expensive 4K prototypes (SONY has a 4096x2160 device, for example) it will be quite a while before this makes it to the homes of mere mortals.

What about a real world scenario and timetable? At CEDIA 2006 they were talking about 1440p (2560x1440) as the next standard. This will take advantage of some of the added video benefits of HDMI 1.3 (TruColor and increased bandwidth). I expect that we might see prototype displays around 2010 but it will be a long time after that before a lot of 1440p native material is available.

Then comes "Super HDTV" which supposedly addresses something like 2500 x 2000 (although that's not a widescreen ratio so I image that some of the pixels won't make it to a 16:9 screen or even a 2.35:1, etc. screen. Sharp is supposedly dabbling in an "UltraHD format which gives 6000 x 2000 resolution, with some of the pixels thrown away because 3:1 screens are a bit too wide. I'm guessing thats where 2.35:1 screens kick in beyond the anamorphic solutions offered by Runco and others at the moment. At least an UltraHD display would be able to handle "4K" material when it becomes widely available rather than just something to show off in high powered installations.

Of course the question remains if the public would stand for "another" screen aspect ratio revolution. People are talking about 2015 at the earliest and more likely 2020 as a more realistic timeframe for "Super" and "Ultra" HD to possibly kick in.

13 years is an eternity in HT and by 2020 my vision will probably no longer be 2020.

 

[Bob_L]

One more thought -- a disturbing one.

It's always possible that Apple et al (including a number of VOD and download options from several vendors) could derail hi-def video the way they've compromised hi-fi audio: By selling portability and/or accessibility instead of quality, and making the public believe that it's the latest and greatest.

 

[RAF]

A most disturbing possibility, Bob. You've hit the nail on the head regarding the dumbing down of quality technology for the masses! The age of the iPod started all this by promoting convenience over quality. Where we once were arguing the merits of SACD and DVD-A over Redbook (Standard) CDs and the price of increased audio fidelity we are now faced with the realization that the ubiquitous AAC codec of iPods has people believing that 192kbps sampling rates represents "quality" music. It sounds O.K. (maybe) through headphones while walking/jogging/casual listening but certainly not quality sound compared to audiophile systems. Everything has its use and its place (I even own a couple of iPods) but let's not make claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. When I start to talk about the wonderful sound capability of lossless and uncompressed audio codecs provided by HD media (sound tracks in the MEGAbps rather than KILObps range) a lot of what I'm saying falls on deaf ears (pun intended) when 192Kbps is considered "great" by some people.

And now comes along Apple TV. Here we go again. If one looks closely at the specs of this unit it quickly becomes clear that this is iPod Nation all over again in the video arena. For one thing, right now this "hot" device doesn't do as much or as well as even an XBox 360 and other devices available regarding moving video around to your various devices. For another, while I can see (hear?) some justification for listening to audio on a small, pocketsized device - where's the rationalization for watching postage sized images on similar video devices? Other than the novelty (and an occasional access to some instant video for specific applications) are we really turning into a culture who will be content with watching feature films in this fashion? I certainly hope not - although I'm willing to wager that many people will do just that.

I wasn't too thrilled when they started down rez'ing audio to fit on iPods. I'm even less happy that now they are beginning to take the same pathway with video. And the irony is that when you are connecting an iPod to a quality audio system - or an Apple TV to a quality video system you will end up with a far inferior AV experience than you would have had if you had simply watched the source material without all this technojuggling.

It's time to stop letting the tail wag the dog, in my opinion. With apologies to Dire Straits, I want my HDTV!

 

[Dave H]

I've heard the next step in consumer-based HDTVs will be upscaling current HD material to 4K.

 

[Rob_Walton]

portable audio is great because you can walk, drive, and workout while you listen. portable video is severly handicapped since you can do none of these things while you watch - unless you've already sold your soul to the devil. it's simply a question of location and usability. music is largely listened to while "on the go", while movies are generally watched in the living room. i doubt that will change much over the next couple of decades.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

You can't workout while you watch? That would be news to Jane Fonda, who figured out that wasn't true back in the VHS days - and made several million bucks as a result. In addition to using actual workout videos and interactive computer games that let them "race" from their stationary bikes or treadmills, lots of people just watch TV, movies or other content while on such machines. (A sitcom on DVD runs just about 20 minutes without commercials, exactly the length of many people's workout routine. Nothing makes 20 minutes on the bike or treadmill go faster than an episode of Murphy Brown. )

Regards,

Joe

 

[Rob_Walton]

you know what i meant! the point was in relation to portable video devices - just try watching one of those while you work-out: it's more of a struggle than the exercise! the cases you mention only reinforce the idea of a fixed display with its traditional video sources. btw you must be visiting some fancy gyms if you've got video games and the like on your treadmills!

 

[Joe D]

I would like to see a jump from 24 frames per second to 36 or 48 frames per second for film with home theater following it.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I'd be happy with even 30 fps for cinema, but movie people don't like the high-frame-rate "look". Apparently they think it's "cheap" or "inartistic", same with wider ranges of colour values. This reportedly has something to do with TV sitcoms.

 

[Robin9]

In Japan Pioneer have declared they intend to produce a 4000 X 2000 super high resolution screen while Hitachi say they already have a 4000 X 2000 prototype which they call "4K2K2. Will these render both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD obsolete and pave the way for a new, even higher definition system? Who knows, but those who are investing heavily in HD and Blu-Ray discs may find they have backed the wrong horse.

 

[ppltd]

Of course. As DVD did to VHS and CD's did to LP's, all formats have a life expectancy and will require replacing equipment. No issue there. Looking at any of these technologies long term, it is a guarantee that you will always back the wrong horse if you become too concerned about what technology will replace them.

 

[Robin9]

A valid point, but how long or short is long term? LPs arrived in the 1950s and CD arrived thirty years later. VHS arrived at the end of the '70s. When did DVD emerge? Late 1990s thereabouts? Will HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have a 20 year life span if the big consumer electrical manufacturers bring in a superior replacement format within two years? Hitachi say thay have already produced the prototype! i.e. it isn't pie-in-the-sky theory. It's a practical reality!

 

[prizm4]

I don't know if people would like it. We're so accustomed to movie-style 24fps, that as mentioned before, we see sitcoms as low quality.

However, I'd be interested to see a high framerate hollywood movie in HD quality and see if it changes my mind...

It's kinda lame how people thought 24fps was the fastest a human eye could see. Heck you only need to play a PC game to notice a difference between 30fps and 60 fps.

Prizm

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

?????

In the slient film days both cameramen and projectionists experimented with a great many frame rates, and often varied the frame rate while shooting or showing a movie. 24 fps only became the standard with the introduction of sound, and then only because that turned out - for various mechnical and technical reasons - to be the best rate for synchronizing sound and picture. (Just as 30 fps was selected as the electronic frame rate in the U.S. and 25 fps in the U.K. due to the constraints placed on electronic component design by the way power was delivered to homes in the two countries.)

I seriously doubt that anyone ever believed that "24fps was the fastest the human eye could see", since just overcranking the projector would have disproven the theory when the image didn't disappear.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

To answer the original question:


Yes. In theory there's no reason why we can't eventually have displays made up of pixel arrays a million or more pixels high, and, as noted, even within the limitations of current materials science displays can be made with larger pixel matrices. Of course, they're all going to have to upscale their images and interpolate missing data most of the time, because barring a multi-terabyte dedicated computer, their source material isn't going to offer anything like that resolution.

It has taken the better part of 20 years to debate, design and start implementing a plan for digital and high definition television in the United States. And we're still 18 months away from the end of analog broadcasting. Billions of dollars have been spent upgrading the whole television infrastructure from local news sets and cameras to broadcast transmitters and cable and satellite delivery systems (and receivers.)

All this to enable a broadcast standard of up to 1080 interlaced. (Because nobody is seriously thinking about doubling the current per-channel bandwith to deliver 1080p.) 1080p has become the standard for most HDTVs because most HD sets are fixed-pixel designs and fixed pixel designs are inherently progressive. The studios and hardware makers have responded with hi-def discs that do 1080p because the sets can handle them and because it gives the physical media business a selling point vis a vis other delivery methods.

And the HD revolution is still just beginning, with HDTVs in only a fraction of American homes (though a rapidly growing fraction) many of which are not getting HD programming in any form.

Let's have a show of hands...

How many people think the broadcasters, cable companies, satellite outfits, studios, DVD player makers (and your local Action News Team which is already worried about the camera catching wrinkles, zits and age spots) are all going to agree to start this whole process all over again just because Hitachi built a cool display? Nobody. Yeah, that's about what I thought.

(And this is without even considering the internet, which at present is having trouble with bandwidth do to the exponetial growth in standard def and lower TV content.)

Technology only succeeds when there is a felt need for it and it can be delivered at a price point people are willing to pay. Technologists rarely understand this fact. John Q. Public is not crying out for something better than 1080p and I confidently predict that he won't be doing so 10 or 15 years from now, either. And until he does anything else is going to be a laboratory curiousity or relegated to specialty applications like jumbtrons, tradeshow displays and - possibly - medical imaging systems.

Regards,

Joe

 

[MarkHastings]

You obviously haven't been involved with computer A/V very long.

This "Dumbing Down" of technology has been going on LONG since before iTunes and iPods.

I noticed it way back in the early 90's. The internet alone has been the main reason why A/V gets "dumbed down". But it is improving all the time. Remember what A/V used to be like in the 90's? iTunes may not hold up to HD footage, but it has come a long way since the beginnings of the internet.

A/V over the internet will always be behind physical forms of media, but it's catching up all the time. Who would have ever imagined cable TV being able to stream HD footage???

I mean, did animated GIF's (in the 90's) stop the progress of video on the internet? Did it stop the production of DVD? Did people get so used to GIF's that they are still stuck using them as a means of watching video?

Do people still look at ASCII images?

All we need is more bandwidth and larger hard drives and iTunes can be selling stuff that is just as good as what's on HD discs. I have a feeling we'll eventually get there.

and p.s. If you want to talk about "Dumbing Down" of technology, just listen to people cell phone MP3 ring tone. How horrible do these things sound!!!