Did Blu-ray resolution take a big enough leap?

[sasquatch451]

DVD to Blu-ray took video resolution from 480p (about 720x480) to 1080p (1920x1080). Could blu-ray have gone further and jumped right to 1440p (2560x1440 to maintain 16:9)?

Was the technology to get the bit-rate there at the time? I'm pretty sure the TV resolution could have been easily done. Computer monitors have been supporting 2560x1600 for many years now after all.

Does anyone know why blu-ray stopped at 1080p?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by sasquatch451

Does anyone know why blu-ray stopped at 1080p?

Same reason DVD stopped at 480i/p. The vast, vast, vast majority of TV monitors at the time of release were that resolution.

When DVD was announced in late 1996 I had been using 1280x1024 computer displays for four years.

Gary

[Clark Kent]

How many television displays right now can show anything over 1080p? The number must be minuscule. That resolution and above will have to wait for the next format.

[Jtodd]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

How many television displays right now can show anything over 1080p? The number must be minuscule. That resolution and above will have to wait for the next format.

The only one i have heard of or was thought about being made was a toshiba that could upscale 1080p to a higher resolution,but not sure if its true or not and if it is sounds like a gimmick to me!

[Anim3]

i don't know but i think 1080p looks breathtaking enough on a 52" - 70" so i don't know if higher resolution will be any much different. i could be so wrong on this but we'll have to wait and see the next HD format that supports higher resolution to come out. as technology grows, hollywood seems to amazes us all with their movies techs & cg's as well

[katala]

HDTV is 'full' at 1080p, I don't think the standard nor ATSC have anything higher.

It took many years to get consensus on what encryption, compression and hardware, and consensus only occurred in the last 3 years. The DVD like disc we know as BD wasn't made until 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray...rmat_finalized

[BLindsay]

Originally Posted by sasquatch451

DVD to Blu-ray took video resolution from 480p (about 720x480) to 1080p (1920x1080). Could blu-ray have gone further and jumped right to 1440p (2560x1440 to maintain 16:9)?

Was the technology to get the bit-rate there at the time? I'm pretty sure the TV resolution could have been easily done. Computer monitors have been supporting 2560x1600 for many years now after all.

Does anyone know why blu-ray stopped at 1080p?

yeah and look at the cost of a 30" 2560x1600 monitor lol. Imagine what a big one would cost

[Oddiophile]

Originally Posted by sasquatch451

DVD to Blu-ray took video resolution from 480p (about 720x480) to 1080p (1920x1080). Could blu-ray have gone further and jumped right to 1440p (2560x1440 to maintain 16:9)?

Was the technology to get the bit-rate there at the time? I'm pretty sure the TV resolution could have been easily done. Computer monitors have been supporting 2560x1600 for many years now after all.

Does anyone know why blu-ray stopped at 1080p?

HDTV's came long before Blu-ray or HD DVD did. Blu-ray didn't choose the resolutions were using, TV manufacturers did.

The two competing resolutions for HDTV back in the day was 720p and 1080i.

Kind of like the HD DVD vs Blu-ray battle.

There was a big debate to which was better, 720p with it's lower resolution but progressive video, or 1080i with it's higher resolution but interlaced scan lines.

Eventually technology caught up and a few years back 1080p was created and considered the holy grail of HD offering the best of both resolutions. 720p's progressive and 1080i's resolution.

There are two new HD resolutions dubbed "Ultra HD" offering 2K & 4K (and possibly 8K) resolutions but thats still awhile off.

[syncguy]

1080P blu-ray is certainly a quantum leap from DVD for the home theaters. Blu-ray is really testing the ability of large home theater screens.

D-cinema will give much required even higher resolutions for huge commercial cinemas. However, the benefit of blu-ray to D-cinema transition for the home theaters would be less in compared to the DVD to blu-ray transition.

[RiseDarthVader]

Well over 90% of movies today are still getting the digital intermediate scanned in at 2048x1080 there isn't really any point in Blu-ray having a higher resolution. Even though I would like hollywood to go completly 4K.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Well over 90% of movies today are still getting the digital intermediate scanned in at 2048x1080 there isn't really any point in Blu-ray having a higher resolution. Even though I would like hollywood to go completly 4K.

Yes, commercial theaters will benefit from 4K projection and if scanned at 8K would be better to get the best out of high res 4K projection.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Oddiophile

HDTV's came long before Blu-ray or HD DVD did. Blu-ray didn't choose the resolutions were using, TV manufacturers did.

The two competing resolutions for HDTV back in the day was 720p and 1080i...

Before that however the Japanese Hi Vision / MUSE system operated on 1125 lines. There were even 1125 line MUSE laserdisc produced for the Japanese market. The MUSE system was an analogue compression technique.

Europe dabbled with HD-MAC, a 1250 line system, unfortunately it didn't get very far. In the UK the carrier that would have broadcast it (British Satellite Broadcasting) went bust and was taken over by Sky. This left us in the 4:3 PAL doldrums for years.

So a system based on HD-MAC would have given an extra 170 lines of resolution.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by sasquatch451

DVD to Blu-ray took video resolution from 480p (about 720x480) to 1080p (1920x1080). Could blu-ray have gone further and jumped right to 1440p (2560x1440 to maintain 16:9)?

That would have been greater than 2K resolution, and it's common for movies these days to be mastered at 2K resolution. That would be stupid.

It's also worth noticing that 2K resolution (roughly 1080p) goes beyond a person's ability to perceive on screen sizes and viewing distances that are most common. Most folks here who care about home theater probably wouldn't even have a benefit of a higher resolution. It's the principle of diminishing returns.

ps Kristy Mc: PAL is actually 5:4.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ps Kristy Mc: PAL is actually 5:4.

Why 5:4? Where do you get this figure from? Are you talking about analogue PAL? I thought it was 4:3?

[Kirsty_Mc]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ps Kristy Mc: PAL is actually 5:4.

[blueshadow | Kosty]

1920 x 1080 pixels also gives a lot more data and precision to allow up conversion for the higher 4K 2K displays.

[Anthony P]

I must agree with the rest, it might sound fun to leapfrog (and since anything is "possible" with compressed video) they could have gone beyond 1080p (if in nothing else then just in specs) but in the end 1440p (as in the OP) is just irrelevant to everyone right now and you just can't market (higher cost with no benefit) it. It also leaves the door open for the future (i.e. a new format with higher BW, resolution... where building the processing power for it will be cheaper and easier) .

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I must agree with the rest, it might sound fun to leapfrog (and since anything is "possible" with compressed video) they could have gone beyond 1080p (if in nothing else then just in specs) but in the end 1440p (as in the OP) is just irrelevant to everyone right now and you just can't market (higher cost with no benefit) it. It also leaves the door open for the future (i.e. a new format with higher BW, resolution... where building the processing power for it will be cheaper and easier) .

Yes. The cost of supporting beyond 1080p would have meant:

- Faster disc drive (meaning more powerful laser diode)
- More power processors (not only to support the larger size, but also to do a downconversion for the vast majority of users).
- More processing memory
- An HDMI transmitter that could handle it (component never would have)

That first one is especially important considering how expensive the initial lasers were, and how much trouble they had getting those yields up.

And, this all happening at a time when the competitor was dumping their offering (HD DVD) on the market at below cost.

Gary

[syncguy]

I expect the commercial theaters will benefit from 4k systems, i.e. 4K recording, playback and display. This is beyond home market for a foreseeable future since the benefits are marginal based on practical displays that can be placed/established in homes. However, I expect high res displays may get into homes with a good quality blu-ray upscaling technology.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by syncguy

I expect the commercial theaters will benefit from 4k systems, i.e. 4K recording, playback and display. This is beyond home market for a foreseeable future since the benefits are marginal based on practical displays that can be placed/established in homes. However, I expect high res displays may get into homes with a good quality blu-ray upscaling technology.

Ohh, I don't think anybody doubts whether we shall see a better format then blu for home use (in terms of video quality and audio [hey, some blu's may never get a release with lossless sound]). The real question is when (I heard the planned roll out of 'ultra' HD (3k) for home use was around 2025. So we have a while, and even then the difference will be marginal, though the videophile in me will no doubt fell the urge. But who knows, maybe then I'll have stopped watching movies, gone native and live in a jungle.