What is the next HD TV standard up from 1080p?

Forums › Home Theatre (incl HTPC) › What is the next HD TV standard up from 1080p?

pcruthven

162 posts

Master Geek

Topic # 30488 10-Feb-2009 14:09

What?s the next HD TV standard up from 1080p?

Is it double 1080p (3840x2160)?

Or is it even wider than 16:9 to match wide screen movies (1.85:1 and 2.40:1)??

Or maybe some other resolution not even mentioned, (like how 1366x768 was easy for LCD manufactures to make) what?s the next size above 1080p that?s easier/cheaper to manufacture?

1 | 2

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Trusted

BitSignal

Subscriber

Reply # 195118 10-Feb-2009 14:36

I believe that would be 4K, followed by Super Hi-Vision (or 8K).

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

bazzer

3282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 208

Trusted

Reply # 195120 10-Feb-2009 14:53

I think the point is that it doesn't make much sense sticking to 1.78:1 ratio when lots (most?) widescreen movies are shot at 2.39:1. I guess the idea is to mimic the theatrical experience at home, so shouldn't everything move towards that ratio?

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Trusted

BitSignal

Subscriber

Reply # 195121 10-Feb-2009 14:57

I think I saw a Samsung TV (on the news, not in stores) recently that was 'extra' wide to possibly give out something closer to that ratio.
Don't remember where, though.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

ToPGuNZ

264 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 195125 10-Feb-2009 15:18

I mentioned this on another thread.

Philips is planning on making one. http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/philips-cinema-21-9

As was also pointed out they have pulled out of the TV market in NZ but the concept is there. I am sure just as TV's are changing from CRT to LCD to OLED etc that the HD resolution will increase. Will it really matter though? How big a tv would you need and how close would you need to be to appreciate 4k? I would have thought it would get to a stage when enough is enough but maybe it will not.

sbiddle

26785 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6254

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 195127 10-Feb-2009 15:32

Anything above 1080p is overkill for the average home sized screen. You'd literally need to be so close to a 50" screen to tell the difference between 1080p and anything higher.

I'd also hate to imagine even a 2160p 50" screen watching your typical SD Sky show. The low bitrate combined with upscaling would just look absolutely terrible.

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8

Trusted

BitSignal

Subscriber

Reply # 195138 10-Feb-2009 16:00

I agree with both comments above but, to quote someone else (guess who): "Nobody needs more than 640Kb of memory."
Technology will always find a home somewhere, even if not in our living rooms.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

bazzer

3282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 208

Trusted

Reply # 195146 10-Feb-2009 16:40

magu: I agree with both comments above but, to quote someone else (guess who): "Nobody needs more than 640Kb of memory."
Technology will always find a home somewhere, even if not in our living rooms.

I think it was actually 64k of memory!

I have to disagree with sbiddle, particularly since he contradicts himself. How is it possible that it will be so hard to tell the difference between anything over 1080p, yet SD sky will look so much worse on 2160p? It can't be both. Or are you suggested higher resolution can't look better but it can look worse?!

In any case, I don't think that will matter. Some people (even yourself, I think?) would say 1080p is overkill for average home sized screen and distance (most people have too small a screen and sit too far away) but that doesn't stop it being the new yardstick. I'd say even 720p would've been considered overkill even 10 years ago, but things change. It would be naïve to say otherwise. If movies are being digitised at a higher resolution, why wouldn't we want that available to the consumer market? The fact that it's not really necessary has no merit in the realm of technological advances.

sbiddle

26785 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6254

Moderator

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 195155 10-Feb-2009 17:17

bazzer: How is it possible that it will be so hard to tell the difference between anything over 1080p, yet SD sky will look so much worse on 2160p? It can't be both. Or are you suggested higher resolution can't look better but it can look worse?!

It can be both.

The reality is the grater the number of pixels the closer you have to be to differentiate between the resolutions. Here's a chart showing optimum viewing distances for different resolutions.

To view 4k content on a 50" screen the optimal viewing distance is 3 feet. Nobody would ever set this close to a 50" screen. Likewise the optimal viewing distance for 1080 content is around 6.5 feet.

If you had a theoretical 3840 x 2160p screen then 720x576 content would have to be upscaled to fill that. This is just like sticking a magnifying glass on top of a newspaper and complaining the image looks grainy. Unless you have native content in that resolution then it won't look great.

Likewise right now regular SD content typically looks better on a 720p 50" LCD/Plasma vs the same picture on a 1080p 50" Lcd/Plasma because of the upscaling.

Higher resolutions are absolutely vital for cinema and that's why they are moving to 4k systems for digital cinema projection. For the home viewer viewing content on a TV however it's complete overkill and any comparisions to "640k being enough" are not really comparing apples with apples. People may have never perceived computers needing more memory. This is different to the physical limitations of a person's eyesight!

Johnk

670 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46

Trusted

Reply # 195166 10-Feb-2009 19:05

another little problem with super high def is the data used/needed, on the new "Super Hi-Vision (SHV)" from NHK a 20 mintute video uncompresed needs 3.5TB of space.it also has 22.2 channels of audio

old3eyes

7851 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 787

Subscriber

Reply # 195168 10-Feb-2009 19:13

I want holographic 3D without glasses!!

Regards,

Old3eyes

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 195169 10-Feb-2009 19:25

bazzer:
magu: I agree with both comments above but, to quote someone else (guess who): "Nobody needs more than 640Kb of memory."
Technology will always find a home somewhere, even if not in our living rooms.

I think it was actually 64k of memory!

I have to disagree with sbiddle, particularly since he contradicts himself. How is it possible that it will be so hard to tell the difference between anything over 1080p, yet SD sky will look so much worse on 2160p? It can't be both. Or are you suggested higher resolution can't look better but it can look worse?!

It was 640KB, hence the joys of EMM386.EXE and HIMEM.SYS.

I suspect sbiddle means that Sky would broadcast 2160p, but it'll be heavily upscaled, hence, blocky as hell.

With people being virtually forced to adopt hi-def screens, as most of the available media just doesn't justify it yet, it's going to be a long time before anything beyond 1080p becomes a consumer-level "standard". Normal sub-720p DVDs are enough for most people (I always found the artifacts distracting, but I'm a picky b*stard), and it's gonna be a long time until the companies sort their act out and get universal 1080i/p broadcasts out, although as mentioned, anything below about a 50" screen and you're generally hard-put to tell much difference between 720p and 1080p unless you're really nitpicking.

I for one will be happy not to "have" to buy another new set for a year or two ;)

stuzzo

534 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Reply # 195227 11-Feb-2009 00:23

sbiddle:
bazzer: How is it possible that it will be so hard to tell the difference between anything over 1080p, yet SD sky will look so much worse on 2160p? It can't be both. Or are you suggested higher resolution can't look better but it can look worse?!

It can be both.

The reality is the grater the number of pixels the closer you have to be to differentiate between the resolutions. Here's a chart showing optimum viewing distances for different resolutions.

To view 4k content on a 50" screen the optimal viewing distance is 3 feet. Nobody would ever set this close to a 50" screen. Likewise the optimal viewing distance for 1080 content is around 6.5 feet.

If you had a theoretical 3840 x 2160p screen then 720x576 content would have to be upscaled to fill that. This is just like sticking a magnifying glass on top of a newspaper and complaining the image looks grainy. Unless you have native content in that resolution then it won't look great.

Likewise right now regular SD content typically looks better on a 720p 50" LCD/Plasma vs the same picture on a 1080p 50" Lcd/Plasma because of the upscaling.

Higher resolutions are absolutely vital for cinema and that's why they are moving to 4k systems for digital cinema projection. For the home viewer viewing content on a TV however it's complete overkill and any comparisions to "640k being enough" are not really comparing apples with apples. People may have never perceived computers needing more memory. This is different to the physical limitations of a person's eyesight!

I see the types of figures the chart gives portrayed as giving reasons for higher video resolutions being unnecessary quite often.

While I accept that these measurements will have been made accurately I'm sceptical that they are being interpreted correctly. In my experience a higher resolution image is always superior to the eye no matter how far you are from the screen .

Look at it this way, if you put a high resolution 50" diagonal photo on the wall next to a 50"plasma showing a 500kor even 1M jpeg would you not see the difference in detail from across the room. I bet you would even allowing for better colour reproduction.

Added to the equation, of course, is the fact that the video we watch is highly compressed (even 100 to 170 times for Blu-ray) and also increasing refresh rate may be more productive than increasing resolution. I've heard it argued that using 1080p50/60 would be more beneficial than going to 2K(24).

I suspect that resolution of TVs will top out in the 4K or even 8K area regardless of content as manufacturers like to use resolution as a selling point but whether a lot of content follows will depend on whether bandwidth becomes a cheap commodity or not and whether processors can be made to handle it.

Edit: 2nd to last paragraph should read 1080p50/60 could be more beneficial than 4K

stevenz

2782 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 120

Reply # 195247 11-Feb-2009 08:20

If a picture is indistinguishable from a photo at a given resolution, then I deem it adequate. On a good quality 42" set, a high-quality 1080p image fits this requirement for me. Whilst there is still some compression artifiacting, and annoyingly, artificial film-grain in many 1080p sources, I don't see any call for the resolution itself to be any higher than it stands for non-huge sized sets. Improving image quality from both the source, and in the displays internal videoprocessor(s) & panel would seem to me more useful to me.

Besides, other than the resolution, existing media (Blu-Ray) is barely adequate for a good 1080p movie (I want quality, not waffly extras), anything beyond that is going to need holographic Terabyte storage or whatever the next step is.

pcruthven

162 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 195255 11-Feb-2009 09:17

I agree... I would like higher bit rate. Better quality encoding process to get rid of all pixilation on the screen.

How about Sony releasing a range of ?Superbit BluRay? movies?!? Can the Bonus extras and give me a quality visual experience? if you really need extras, include a bonus (cheap) DVD fill of extras and bonus stuff.

mummybot

19 posts

Geek

Reply # 195263 11-Feb-2009 09:40

i reckon stereo has to be next. Panasonic is harping on about 3D bluray and a lot of movies are being made in stereo currently.

I seen a couple of native 3D sets, using the lame 'hot spot' approach,

1 | 2