HDTV and YOU!

[MalDON]

Most High end studio grade HD cameras record in much higher resolutions than 1080p. They do this for many reasons, one being to stabilize the film digitally, making film prints for theaters, better visual effects, etcetcetc.

Film grain is not ALWAYS better than digital. It takes a very very high end film camera and a ton of money to match what a fairly 'inexpensive' HD studio camera can record.

Squeek is right, our eyes can only see so much. When I download movies from online rental services such as XBL, I'd rather download a 720p file and watch it sooner than waiting for a 180p video, when the quality is damn near the same.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Squeek

I said years ago that 1080p is at the threshold of human vision limitations. 720p is just about the best you can see.

The reason is because we can only see 60 lines per degree arc. 720p is pretty close to 60. 1080p is way over 60.

no

It's a resolution, not a quality.

If we end up having 120" screens twenty years from now, yes, we're going to have 2k vertical resolutions, and yes, it will be better to the human eye than 1080p.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

no

It's a resolution, not a quality.

If we end up having 120" screens twenty years from now, yes, we're going to have 2k vertical resolutions, and yes, it will be better to the human eye than 1080p.

Assuming a reasonable viewing distance and a reasonable screen size, there is a threshold over which additional resolution would be literally unnoticeable. Do you really think 120 inch screens would ever be commonplace? If anything comes along in the commercial market on a higher resolution than 1080p, it will definitely be niche. No way in hell would that be worthwhile for anyone who doesn't have a home theatre setup that cost them in excess of like 20k. Seriously man, can you imagine a day when every person watches television on a screen that's goddamned 10 feet diagonal?

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Assuming a reasonable viewing distance and a reasonable screen size, there is a threshold over which additional resolution would be literally unnoticeable. Do you really think 120 inch screens would ever be commonplace? If anything comes along in the commercial market on a higher resolution than 1080p, it will definitely be niche. No way in hell would that be worthwhile for anyone who doesn't have a home theatre setup that cost them in excess of like 20k. Seriously man, can you imagine a day when every person watches television on a screen that's goddamned 10 feet diagonal?

lcd walls, my man

dare to dream

[robertsona]

In my dream house two of the walls would be huge aquariums with awesome exotic fish and the other two would be huge TV screens robertsona out yo

[Tps222]

LCD and plasma are going to be irrelevant within the next 20 years anyways, because we are going to have Laser powered televisions, in which the quality of the picture will be actually be improved (Laser will allow for 90% of all colors that humans can see visible as opposed to the somewhere 40-50% of what LCD and plasma televisions produce today), along with a lot of other things. Go look up laser televisions.

Also, for the LCD vs Plasma people: The technology has advanced to the point that LCD is the clear winner under 42'', and is pretty much now equal with plasma for over as well (Plasma was the clear leader in the past), and they are almost equal in price now. Personally, I'm an LCD fan.

[Squeek]

Uh, computers have been able to display 100% of the colors humans can see for ages. You have it backwards. Humans can't see the colors that technology can make. The basic 24-bit RGB color scheme of Windows 95-era is already more colors than we can see, and we've far exceeded that scale.

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Squeek

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

HD isn't outside the realm of human eyesight. From a normal viewing distance, good 720p content is easily distinguishable from 480i, especially if your example of 480i content is analog. Improving human eyesight is not a requisite to enjoy HD, although I suppose you could use that argument to some truth while comparing 720p to 1080p.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

This is great and all, but I don't see it becoming prominent any time soon. Not enough media is currently filmed to take advantage of 3D, and of those that are, it's only 3D in parts (because CURRENT 3D effect options can give headaches if used for too long a period). I haven't been paying too much attention to developments in the technology though... are they still taking it in the direction that lenticular tech is in? I think I might have heard something about special glasses with shutters timed to the hertz ranges for the individual frames that would show to each eye individually (that is, without the glasses, the image would look like it's shaking VERY fast from side to side, but with the glasses on, it'd be a perfect 3D image). To be honest, I don't know if I could get behind the tech if it requires me to wear something on my head while I view it.

[MalDON]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Uh, computers have been able to display 100% of the colors humans can see for ages. You have it backwards. Humans can't see the colors that technology can make. The basic 24-bit RGB color scheme of Windows 95-era is already more colors than we can see, and we've far exceeded that scale.

I've said it many times before in the HDTV argument. Until you can improve basic human eyesight, there's no reason to continue to pursue higher quality.

That's why some companies are working on things like 3D televisions instead.

If anything we need to improve internet bandwidth so Cable companies don't have to compress the video so much. With time warner during peak, 1080p tv is horrible.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MalDON

If anything we need to improve internet bandwidth so Cable companies don't have to compress the video so much. With time warner during peak, 1080p tv is horrible.

Not sure what you're implying, but 1080p isn't streamed ANYWHERE. I don't think 720p format video is streaming anywhere either. But yeah, they don't even do 1080p video over cable or ANYTHING (there is 1080i, but interlaced is chosen specifically to lower bandwidth usage); the only thing 1080p is good for is SOME gaming and BD (and HD-DVD, technically).

But even so, yeah bandwidth needs MASSIVE improvement, but that's not the only thing standing in the way of HD digital distribution. They also need to NOT have caps. They also need better consumer grade storage equipment. They also need an effective standard method of delivery, something which gives the company enough power for their art to not be illegally shared, yet still gives the end user power to do with it what they want. And finally, they need a streamlined method for consumer reception of media (like VCR:VHS), and yes, I know that they're already working on this sort of thing, as well as implementing it into existing devices. Also notice that in addition to our Internet connection being fast enough and our storage space being high enough, we also need to consider that the structure of the Internet is not conducive to the form either. We don't just need an Internet connection that can download fast enough, we need servers that can handle delivering that kind of data to many users at once. Seriously consider your internet connection right now and think if Youtube **** is REALLY the quality maximum on YOUR end of what video you can stream, or if it's imposed by Youtube to make the delivery easier on their end.

But even if they do that, many folks will still prefer DVD/BD. I can say with absolute certainty that given the choice, I would ALWAYS prefer to have a physical medium. Even something like a USB stick or something would be preferable to fully digital form for me.

[MalDON]

actually I do get 1080p from time warner. It's just compressed. That last post of yours proved that you don't know what you are talking about. Most if not all video games are upscaled. Game consoles are still not powerful enough to render out full 1080. Go do some research next time you try to argue a point.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MalDON

actually I do get 1080p from time warner. It's just compressed.

Jeez

How compressed is that ****? Must look like garbage for them to bring you so much information at the speed required... do they knock down the frame rate too? I was trying to watch an episode of The Office on hulu the other day at 480p, and they lowered the framerate on that so much that combined with the hard zooms, it was totally unwatchable.

But I digress. The point is that people who are interested in HD are interested in QUALITY. They don't want a 1080p signal streaming at 50 kb/s. They want a fully defined image with no artifacts. They don't want to be getting a framerate like 10 fps, they want the 24 fps that the film is natively recorded in.

That last post of yours proved that you don't know what you are talking about. Most if not all video games are upscaled. Game consoles are still not powerful enough to render out full 1080. Go do some research next time you try to argue a point.

wut

I said "SOME gaming". There are a handful of console titles that support it, and some computer games can support the resolutions as well. Most console games don't go above 720p, and Wii can only do 480p at best (but they don't even include component cables with the system), but the PS3 and Xbox 360 both have a slew of 1080p native games. I don't not know what I'm talking about, and in the cases that I do, I make sure the things I say are right. For example, I was only roughly familiar with a lot of the topics I touched on in the initial post, so I had wikipedia open the entire time I wrote as reference.

[MalDON]

no. The video on the games are rendered sub hd then upscaled. There's a site with the real resolutions.

A compressed 1080p video at 30 fps is between 8-10 gigs. I can easily download that in the time the movie plays. Remember, tv doesn't have all the extra audio tracks like a disk would. Also, netflix is bringing hd streaming to the 360 in one day.

[Izzy]

My plasma tv is 1080i, Don't know of many things that would even be 1080p

I can't even tell the difference on my xbox from setting it to 1080i over 720p

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by MalDON

no. The video on the games are rendered sub hd then upscaled. There's a site with the real resolutions.

What is this site? Because the site I identified named a handful of games that were tested and identified to be 1080p, as well as an even larger list of games that had not yet been tested, but were identified on the box as being 1080p native.

A compressed 1080p video at 30 fps is between 8-10 gigs. I can easily download that in the time the movie plays.

Sorry, I guess you can download 2 mb/s but I (and many others) definitely can't.

Furthermore, notice that you say "compressed". Most folks (that is, 1080p fans) would rather have UNCOMPRESSED, even if the quality of the compression is remarkably high.

Remember, tv doesn't have all the extra audio tracks like a disk would.

"If you like surround sound, lossless audio, or commentary tracks, you're gonna be in a world of pain WHEN DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION KILLS BLURAY LOL"

Also, netflix is bringing hd streaming to the 360 in one day.

Yeah, hi, read this:

"Basic formats are as follows: 480, 720, 1080. There are a few others, but they're largely forgettable or not worthy of looking at in this case. The skinny on it is: 480 is standard definition, 720 is high definition (HD), and 1080 is full HD."

HD means 720p, so to automatically assume 1080p when you see the word "HD" is wrong... 720p is not hard at all to stream (notice that all HD channels are 720p or 1080i), but 1080p requires 2.25 as many pixels displayed as 720p.

And finally, as far as whether or not Netflix's HD content is 1080p, all I'll say on the matter is that if they manage to deliver 1080p, the quality will not be up to snuff compared to BD's essentially perfect 1080p image. It might be better than a 720p signal, but if there are artifacts and **** like that, it's not worth it at all.

Originally Posted by Izzy

My plasma tv is 1080i, Don't know of many things that would even be 1080p

Like I said, the only thing that is would be Blu-ray and SOME games. All broadcast HD is 720p or 1080i.

I can't even tell the difference on my xbox from setting it to 1080i over 720p

That's because of two things.

#1: Most 360 games are not 1080p native, so there is not additional clarity from using a 1080p screen compared to 720.

#2: 1080p is visually only a little better than 720p. It's technically a LOT better, but the human eye cannot tell the difference so easily.

[Tps222]

I'm on a fiber campus, and I've reached 7.6mb/s on a download, and I can upload around 5.5mb/s if I need to. I can stream 720p without a problem.

Also, laser teleivions according to wikipedia

Advantages
One major claim of laser advocates is the ability to produce undiluted, perfect colors allowing precise hue mixing. Advocates claim that 90% of the perceptible color gamut can potentially be reproduced.[18] Other improvements that laser advocates claim are bulbs that will never blow out, and increased efficiency by using two-thirds less power than traditional rear projection televisions.[17] Historically, however, lasers have been too bulky and expensive for widespread adoption.
The laser technology advocates claim that the technology will allow displays with a richer, more vibrant color palette than the conventional plasma, LCD or CRT displays.[17]
They also claim the displays will:[19]
be half the weight and cost of Plasma or LCD displays
require around 25% of the power required by Plasma or LCD displays
be very thin like Plasma and LCD displays are today
have a very wide colour gamut. Twice the color of today's HDTVs.
have a 50,000 hour life
maintain full power output for the lifespan of the laser, resulting in a picture that doesn't progressively degrade over time, such as with plasma, LCD and CRT technology

Like I said, 90% of the color gamut as opposed to 40%.

[Afrobean]

I like that it sounds like a better format, but I really don't buy the color malarkey.

To me, it kinda sounds like LCD's relationship to Plasma. Like, yeah, it'll be king in the future, but the picture difference isn't really like night and day. It'll beat out the other kinds of TVs, I'd bet, but it'll win on it's efficiency and energy merits rather than it's possible visual advantage.

ps regarding what you said about being able to dl at 7.6 mb/s, that's great and all, but most of us can't, no company would want to deliver that much data to many users at once, oh and BD bitrates are actually often 10+ mb/s.

[x After Dawn x]

Originally Posted by MalDON

no. The video on the games are rendered sub hd then upscaled. There's a site with the real resolutions.

No. About 95-98 % of Xbox 360 games are 720p native and then upscaled to 1080p, but there are some games that are programmed natively in 1080p and you can actually play them in native 1080p. Trust me on this, Afrobean knows what he's talking about and I am 100 % sure of this. An example of such a game could be Virtua Tennis 3...if I remember correctly, it runs in native 1080p.

[OrganisM]

I know I'm going to regret getting into this, but here we go:

I call a blu-ray player "specialized equipment", mainly because it's equipment required specifically for the purpose of playing blu-ray discs. Getting less than a 42" is almost always a complete waste at 1080p. I have a 56" 1080p HDTV, and spend most of my time watching upscaled DVDs. Only at this level does the difference truly become remarkable.

I can now buy a 1TB HDD for just over $100. Just 6 months ago it would have cost $250. Things are getting cheaper fast. Download speeds are going to increase soon with the demand for on-demand content. And here's the kicker: when you download a movie, you don't need any specialized equipment to play it, since you already can use something like an HTPC for so many other things, and a PC will not ever become obsolete, at least during our lifetimes. You can make back-up copies. You can transfer it to another drive. With blu-ray, you're still bound to a proprietary format using physical copies. Plus if blu-ray really did take off, I could just slap a $150 blu-ray drive in my system and I'd have a very powerful computer that could play blu-ray discs as well.

I love the clarity of HD, but I'm more interested in downloadable on-demand content and freedom from format restrictions. I'm tired of format wars and constraints, and see no reason why we should all sell our collective souls to Sony.

PS - I play games in 1080p, and it's not even half as amazing as people peg it to be. As powerful as consoles are, they can't compare with what my PC can do in terms of level of detail.

You're really not making a case for HD. Obviously we're going to have bigger HDDs, more powerful CPUs and GPUs, higher resolutions, and bigger screens. 1080p isn't even that high of a resolution. In a few years, 1080p will be on the low end. Spend a few hours at CES (or 20, like I did) and you'll have a good idea of things. 1080p is not the be-all and end-all of anything. It's just another step on the ladder, and soon enough we'll be talking about gaming and movie-watching 2560x1600 as a standard res. And we'll be taking 20 megapixel shots and storing them on our 100gb SD cards and then our 5TB HDDs. And then years after that, we'll have bigger, shinier, and prettier things to move on to. Nobody gives a flying mother**** about Sony and their stupid ****ing format.

[Squeek]

Organism: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...7&postcount=19

1080p is at the threshold of human vision limitations. 720p is just about the best you can see.

The reason is because we can only see 60 lines per degree arc. 720p is pretty close to 60. 1080p is way over 60.

And you're here talking about something higher than 1080p. I'm here to tell you unless you intend to drop tens of thousands of dollars on specialized equipment and housing space, you will never, ever care about anything higher than 1080p. Hell, as I said before, most stuff out today makes it impossible to distinguish between 1080p and 720p. You have to have at least a certain size television and sit a certain distance away from it.

I have no problem saying that hard drive capacity and resolutions will continue to improve, but there's a limitation on things involving human body functions. Sight is one of our worst features. We're slow, have low range, and can barely see any colors or depth. At least compared to some other species. But that's the tradeoff we made.

As I wrote before, there are two ways around human sight limitations. First is to change the human sight limitation by physically augmenting human vision. Don't expect to see this anytime soon. I highly doubt the first human augmentation will be to vision, and I highly doubt the first human augmentation will take place in this century. The second way around this problem is to change what it means to watch something. That's why I mentioned 3D television.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF-PMN3aK8g

And then you have to consider holographic television as well. And interactive television.