what are the odds?

[zoon_ii]

of televisions better than 1080p being made (obviously there already are) but for the commercial market.

now, you know how when the HD tv's became common place but not so much for the HD format? and what they did was use dvd up-converters, which actually did a pretty good job. (ps3)

well, take the better tv's (> 1080p) and develop a blu-ray up-converter: you would then have a picture that's better than what blu-ray now conventionally offers and better than 1080p (at least in appearances, not technically).

do you think this is something to likely happen within 7 years?

[arush5268d]

Enjoy your career with Toshiba.

[Beta Man]

your post assumes that DVD upconverters display a "better" picture than that of a standard DVD...... I don't think that is true, and I personally don't want a machine to add lines of resolution that aren't on the actual source material (DVD or Blu-ray)


I do expect displays that are greater than 1080p in the future, and people will buy them in smaller sized screens such as 32" or so, and they'll sit 10 feet away, and they'll be wasting their money........


I also expect people will pay a great premium to get these in the 60" and up sizes, and they'll be fine displays, but why focus on 1080p 1400p etc etc....

THERE IS MORE TO THE IMAGE THAN JUST LINES OF RESOLUTION.......

[brett_day]

of course there will be! technology is always advancing but why people always want to live in the future, and not enjoy things in the present is beyond me! enjoy 1080p for a while

[dv8pdx]

heck, blu-ray is jumping and expanding, advancing and improving continuously right now... Im enjoying the "Whats Next For Blu-ray?" rush, don't need to think about the next ride while Im still on this rollercoaster of fun!!

[zoon_ii]

Originally Posted by arush5268d

Enjoy your career with Toshiba.

lame


and this was only a hypothetical. i'm enjoying the "blu" wave as well, but it doesn't hurt to just THINK about what is up and coming.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

your post assumes that DVD upconverters display a "better" picture than that of a standard DVD...... I don't think that is true, and I personally don't want a machine to add lines of resolution that aren't on the actual source material (DVD or Blu-ray)

so you're saying that watching a DVD on an HD television with a regular DVD player is as good as watching a DVD on an HD television played on a up-convert DVD player?

wow, you should have your eyes checked my friend. I have a HTIB player, and have had to resort to using this at one point, and the differences are night and day between this and what's played on a PS3.

and I'm also curious as to what your opinions are about what else is important (barring audio) regarding the TV and home entertainment in general. Is there special lighting i'm missing out on?

[arush5268d]

Actually your thread is what is lame.

Blu-ray isn't even mainstream yet and you are alreading thinkin about upconverting it.

I've never owned an upconverting DVD player. And I surely won't own a Blu-ray upconverter. It's all lies.

[dv8pdx]

Originally Posted by zoon_ii

so you're saying that watching a DVD on an HD television with a regular DVD player is as good as watching a DVD on an HD television played on a up-convert DVD player?

wow, you should have your eyes checked my friend. I have a HTIB player, and have had to resort to using this at one point, and the differences are night and day between this and what's played on a PS3.

what hes saying is DVD on an HDTV is still SD, and DVD upscaling is still SD with artificial additives... its still SD with sugar on top made to fool your eyes.

It still will never be HD, nor look like it, just looks like a DVD to me on my PS3. Guess Im spoiled with Blu.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by zoon_ii

so you're saying that watching a DVD on an HD television with a regular DVD player is as good as watching a DVD on an HD television played on a up-convert DVD player?

It really depends on the player and set. All you are doing in either case is scaling a 480i/p signal to the native resolution of your set. Whichever device has the better scaler/deinterlacer will give you the better picture. I've got an early JVC progressive-scan DVD player that puts-out a better DVD picture (to me) than the Oppo I once had, the PS3 or the HD-A2 I currently am using for DVD.

[UPSandy]

i did the calculations and ive come up with 1,485,689 to 1

[Clark Kent]

Yes, there will be regular displays that eventually surpass 1080p in resolution. The next step up is probably 1440p for general consumer purposes. When the Blu-ray and HDTV market is more mature I assume we will see upconverting BD players. 2160p for the win...

[tron3]

Places like Pixar, Dreamworks and CAD design would already use 4K monitors. Animators clearly use it because the movie is going to be projected on a huge screen.

Simply too expensive and not practical for home use - yet. The question always come back, "Where is the content?" When I bought my HDTV back in 2003 I received HD over the air (OTA), and still do. I only received a few channels in HD. Once in a while I re-ran the tuner, I found more stations supported digital. I now have all the local channels and then some.

The FCC isn't going to allow that kind of bandwidth for terrestrial transmission - period. Cable, I can see it. Dish, maybe? OTA, no. Even with cable transmission, who the heck is filming at 4K resolutions besides movie makers? Unless someone makes a 4K movie channel, I see the content being very limited.

[Lucy Diamond]

I love Blu-ray....NOW.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Yes, there will be regular displays that eventually surpass 1080p in resolution. The next step up is probably 1440p for general consumer purposes. When the Blu-ray and HDTV market is more mature I assume we will see upconverting BD players. 2160p for the win...

1440p is a resolution we made up. I should know as I posted one of the first threads on it. It is simply 720p x 2. This is most practical because the image could be sent via two 720p "channels" and assembled into one progressive picture at the TV level.

What if you don't have a 1440p tv? That is the beauty of the split transmission. People with 720p or 1080p tv's can only see the first 720p transmission. Their HDTV will not see the specially encoded second stream.

2160p? Complete and utter overkill for general home use. Took them years to iron out the HD specs. Don't you think they contemplated all this before hand?

[SS316SRV]

Is blu-ray a better resolution than actually being on set and watching the actors make the scene? How long until it is possible that we can see that in our homes?

[ThePhantomOak]

With the pace of technology, I think TVs with higher than 4000 lines will be available in good shops in 5 years, and then catch on to Best Buy type shops in 10 years.

Hell, remember when plasmas cost at least $10,000 and rich people bragged about having them, and now everyone has an LCD (much more expensive to make). That was over about a 5 year span.

TV's, now that we have gotten away from the crt, will grow fast as hell.

Around the same time (10 years) we will have $500 OLED TV's that you can build into a window. Watch TV when you want, look out the window when you want...or have a landscape on all day (like total recal)...



Blu-ray by then, of course, will be firmly entrenched, and I think we will be seeing a non-disc format to take advantage of the extra lines (maybe flash cards, or maybe DLC will work by then (but somehow I doubt it).



It is LIKELY that this will happen, and it is a quenstion of when you think it will.

Originally Posted by zoon_ii

of televisions better than 1080p being made (obviously there already are) but for the commercial market.

now, you know how when the HD tv's became common place but not so much for the HD format? and what they did was use dvd up-converters, which actually did a pretty good job. (ps3)

well, take the better tv's (> 1080p) and develop a blu-ray up-converter: you would then have a picture that's better than what blu-ray now conventionally offers and better than 1080p (at least in appearances, not technically).

do you think this is something to likely happen within 7 years?

[ThePhantomOak]

Originally Posted by tron3

2160p? Complete and utter overkill for general home use. Took them years to iron out the HD specs. Don't you think they contemplated all this before hand?

How is 2160P overkill?

your two 720P signals is about the silliest think I have heard. Who would buy a TV that shows a whopping 33% better than what they have now? The jump from 720 to 1080P increased the lines 50%, and many consumers still cant see a differnece. The Jump from SD to 720P was 50% (now is the time for all the myopic posters to argue that the mass market does not matter.)

The next step is a minimum of 1620P with a 2160P upgrade not long after. But with the pace of technology, we are more likely to see jumps of 100% rather than small 33% jumps... ie, 2160P (two 1080P signals) and 4320P (4 1080P signals) lines on sale at the same time.

Not 720, 1080, and 14goofy40.

[ThePhantomOak]

Originally Posted by tron3

Places like Pixar, Dreamworks and CAD design would already use 4K monitors. Animators clearly use it because the movie is going to be projected on a huge screen.

Simply too expensive and not practical for home use - yet. The question always come back, "Where is the content?" When I bought my HDTV back in 2003 I received HD over the air (OTA), and still do. I only received a few channels in HD. Once in a while I re-ran the tuner, I found more stations supported digital. I now have all the local channels and then some.

The FCC isn't going to allow that kind of bandwidth for terrestrial transmission - period. Cable, I can see it. Dish, maybe? OTA, no. Even with cable transmission, who the heck is filming at 4K resolutions besides movie makers? Unless someone makes a 4K movie channel, I see the content being very limited.

HDcapableTVs were being sold long before HD was available. Where was the content?

ESPN/ABC STILL shows the VAST majority of games in SD. It took them years to show more than one HD game per week. When people want it, ESPN, CNN, NBC will buy the cameras to film it.

As for your OTA argument, Bull****. 4000P+ signal would likely be sent on a wavelength that is not being used right now anyway, so what would they care? They would phase out the old for the new over about 5 years, and then you would have progressivly more OTA content. Same exact thing that happened before. The old system was clogged and HDTV OTA took advantage of something not being used, before pushing everything else out of the way.

[Leopold BUTTERS]

Originally Posted by ThePhantomOak

How is 2160P overkill?

your two 720P signals is about the silliest think I have heard. Who would buy a TV that shows a whopping 33% better than what they have now? The jump from 720 to 1080P increased the lines 50%, and many consumers still cant see a differnece. The Jump from SD to 720P was 50% (now is the time for all the myopic posters to argue that the mass market does not matter.)

The next step is a minimum of 1620P with a 2160P upgrade not long after. But with the pace of technology, we are more likely to see jumps of 100% rather than small 33% jumps... ie, 2160P (two 1080P signals) and 4320P (4 1080P signals) lines on sale at the same time.

Not 720, 1080, and 14goofy40.

it's overkill because the resolution is worthless unless you have a tv that is over 100 inches. It's like this, lets say you watch a Blu-Ray on an Ipod, it has a 3inch screen and it is 1080p. How are you even going to notice a difference between 1080p and SD on a 3 inch screen? you can't. now, just turn that screen into 42inches and the resolution to 1080p and 2160 how are you going to tell the difference between 1080p and 2160 on a 42inch screen? you won't be able to thus making 2160 worthless unless you have a tv the size of your interior walls.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Leopold BUTTERS

it's overkill because the resolution is worthless unless you have a tv that is over 100 inches.

If they make 37" HDTVs that are 1080p and the resolution is not worthless if you are viewing from an appropriate viewing distance, then double the width and height of the screen and a screen around 74" in diagonal would be appropriate for a 4K TV, you wouldn't need one over 100 inches, if you viewed from the right viewing distance. But having said that, the bigger the better with TVs

3D would be good also and hologram TV