after 1080p

[vick vega]

Anyone know whats going to be released after 1080p. I have not read or heard anything about what will be the new highest res.

[The Don]

I completely forget what is next...I remember reading it somewhere....it's probable somewhere within the depths of google...

[JTK]

Originally Posted by vick vega

Anyone know whats going to be released after 1080p. I have not read or heard anything about what will be the new highest res.

Don't worry about it.

Isn't it something like 2048X1960 or something ridiculous like that?

[georgir]

Originally Posted by JTK

Don't worry about it.

Isn't it something like 2048X1960 or something ridiculous like that?

that's quite the square

i assume the next real jump up would have to be some truly-3d display
on standard flat tvs we'll keep using up more an more storage space and bandwidth with things like multiple viewpoints and camera angles, zoom levels etc, perhaps content will start coming in higher resolutions and higher framerates without the actual displays catching up. the displays themselves need not get much higher.

you wont see an improvement if your tv doubled its res, but you would be able to zoom whereever you want in the picture if it came at a higher res, would be able to view things in slowmotion by command if it came at higer fps, etc.

higer-res displays would only make sense if they get bigger-size too (oled wallpaper screen anyone?) or are intended to be viewed from closer range (for something like panoramic videos or virtual reality etc)

[Mikey616]

won't there eventually be a resolution to which the human eye can't detect any difference?

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Mikey616

won't there eventually be a resolution to which the human eye can't detect any difference?

Some would argue we're already getting pretty close to that.

Going past 1080p certainly brings up a "point of diminishing returns" fairly steeply, imo.

[thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by Mikey616

won't there eventually be a resolution to which the human eye can't detect any difference?

That depends on the size of your screen.

[cws2882]

Originally Posted by vick vega

Anyone know whats going to be released after 1080p. I have not read or heard anything about what will be the new highest res.

I think 1080p is going to be the limit as far as home disks are concerned for quite a while. First there was black and white, then color, then 1080p. I would guess the next big step would be holographic imaging.

[James Morrow]

Assuming that no super-resolution techniques are employed, the best resolution display for showing 1080p, 1080i and 720p material is 8.3MP Super High Definition [SHD] at 3840 by 2160p, whilst to be optimised for 480i and 480p too 33.2MP Ultra High Definition [UHD] at 7680 by 4320p is required. Of course HD, SHD and UHD are all capable of showing 576i material at optimum quality, provided that thirteen lines are removed from the top and bottom of the image…

For comparison, 480i is ~0.15MP effective, 480p is 0.31MP, 576i is ~0.22MP effective, 576p is 0.44MP, 720i is ~0.46MP effective, 720p is 0.92MP, 1080i is ~1.0MP effective and 1080p is 2.1MP – ceteris paribus…

[suprmallet]

Oh, forget all this, I'm going to go buy a 70mm projector.

[James Morrow]

...It doesn't appear to have a slot for these silver/gold discs though...

[James Morrow]

Note that UHD at 4320p provides an exact multiple for 480 – along with 540, 720, 1080 and 2160 lines. A variant of the upscaling techniques that are currently employed to show 480 line material on a 720p, 1080i or 1080p display may also be employed at 4320p resolution. Super-resolution techniques such as model-based spatiotemporal sub-pixel processing can also be used to reduce jitter and general noise whilst providing enhanced resolution. n to 1 conversion avoids many potential artefacts, which as people get used to the extremely stable high definition video available from digital capture will become more and more obvious in comparison.

True, an n to 1 mapping is less critical for 480 material than higher resolution sources, but it is still of benefit. Up until now, there has been no high definition standard in the mass marketplace, but 1080p is the agreed full high definition signal standard, which Blu-ray players and recorders support now and which the next generation of HD-DVD players are intended to support (I believe).

Irrespective of the resolution of the signal (1080p), super-resolution techniques can still be employed in order to take full advantage of a higher resolution display, and for technologies such as LCD, OLED, SED and FED there is little problem in producing 2160p and 4320p-capable displays – the problem has been with economically recording video at these spatial resolutions, but that doesn’t mean that a display can’t employ super-resolution techniques in order to upscale 1080p to 2160p or 4320p (along with 480, 540 and 720). Dell already produce a 30” widescreen fully HDCP-compliant 2560 by 1600 pixel LCD monitor for just £1,256 (the Dell UltraSharp 3007WFP), and it wouldn’t take too much development to imagine a 42” 3840 by 2160 pixel variant in the near future, which would provide an exact multiple for 540, 720 and 1080 line material. All it would need would be appropriate upscaling technology.

As you probably know, Intel have been focusing on both computing performance and power consumption for around a year now – with some impressive results with their Core Solo and Core Duo processors. If similar techniques are applied to inherently multi-processor graphics (and physics) engines it should soon be economically viable (and not use to much electricity) to upscale all signals to 2160p or 4320p, and to subsequently add more and more advanced processing (selectable when desired) to further remove jitter from older material, extend the dynamic range and colour gamut (using dithering techniques), etc..

That is, there are many advantages to upscaling 480, 540, 720 and 1080 line material for a 2160p or 4320p display even when SHD and UHD material isn’t in the mass-market. It is likely that these will be required in order to fully support "the suspension of disbelief" - that is, a image so realistic that the brain can have difficulty distinguishing it from reality (we won't talk about 3D issues at this point, but they will become more relevant once the basic 2D resolution is high enough to fully benefit from the application of 3D technologies.

[Blackraven]

Yup, that's the one.

It is being developed by NHK in Japan and it will involve wicked resolutions of 7680 x 4320 pixels.

This is intended to bring Super Hi-Definition viewing experience to the big screen as this will be primarily used as movie theater displays. (like an IMAX 3D Competitor)



http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/supe...ion/index.html

[Sony1]

How many years until this technology comes out? I know cinemas are hurting right now, people dont go to the movies like they use to. It would be great to have this technology out in a few years!

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Sony1

How many years until this technology comes out? I know cinemas are hurting right now, people dont go to the movies like they use to. It would be great to have this technology out in a few years!

It may be quite a while before this becomes a standard even in the theatres. The 2K and 4K standards for Digital Cinema only became accepted/released standards last summer. I don't see the industry going out and adopting a new, higher resolution standard any time soon. Think of it this way, digital cameras (in general) have been out for years. Digital movie cameras have been available for years. Yet the Digital Cinema standard was only adopted a year ago. This group does not move quickly and is unlikely to move quickly in the future.

One of the issues is cameras. To capture the full color range of UHD it will take a three CCD camera and each CCD has to be at the full resolution... and it will have to be able to do *at least* 24 frames per second and preferably 48 frames per second or better.

The largest CCD today is admittedly 9k x 9k, but it can only do 2 frames per second even at low bit depths (nominally at 1 frame per second at typical bit depths). Even if the CCD development houses (DALSA, Fairchild, Kodak, etc.) put forth a concentrated effort to create UHD CCD it would be a couple years before we see the sensors support necessary frame rates and then it would be a year or more after that before there were cameras available. So even in our wildest dreams cameras would not be available for three or more years. Given current development plans of most of these houses such sensors are a decade or more away.

Then there are projectors... While Evans & Sutherland has had projectors at this resolution or higher for a few years (they actually have shipped 4k x 8k projectors) these projectors are very, very limited production units (almost built as individual units as the production run rate is really that low). Convincing companies to build projectors for general use when there are no cameras will, as usual, be a "chicken and egg" situation. Besides, what percentage of theatres today are 4K Digital Cinema compliant? 1% or less?

Please don't get me wrong, I'd love to see UHD in theatres as soon as possible. I'd even like a wall size (3 meter diag and larger) display at UHD in my home. However, between the stadards body issues, the pragmatic nature of businesses only building what they believe they can sell in enough quantity, the development time of cameras, the development time of projectors, and the theatre adoption rate, I don't see either one happening in the near future. Certainly UHD will not be available for at least 5-10 years in the theatres (more likely 15+ years), and certainly not for 10-15 years in homes (more likely 20+ years, if ever).

[Blackraven]

Originally Posted by Sony1

How many years until this technology comes out? I know cinemas are hurting right now, people dont go to the movies like they use to. It would be great to have this technology out in a few years!

NHK is eyeing a 2020 release in Japan and that it would also be a final release by then.

[Psiweaver]

that would just be nuts. thought it wouldn't really matter as resolution is hardly the most important aspect of picture quality.