Is this the future ?????

[chris hollands]

Just been watching Click on BBC News and they were filming a set of the Charlatans in superhivision, that gives you 16 times better picture quality than HD as we know it , to broadcast back in Japan. Reckon it will be with us in the future,

Roll on ....

 

[Andrew Everard]

Yes, that happened a few months back...

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

This is why 3D is not the future, because if you have this kind of detail, it will surely add to the depth and realism of the pictures we see, so 3D will become redundant, other than for animated films.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah but surely 3D will be broadcast in this as well making 3D even better picture so i don't get your point?

 

[TKratz]

BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW:

This is why 3D is not the future, because if you have this kind of detail, it will surely add to the depth and realism of the pictures we see, so 3D will become redundant, other than for animated films.

That kind of logic can easily be turned upside down. With this kind of details it will surely add to the depth and realism of a 3D picture. For 3D the resolution is even more crucial than for 2D.

Not that I really believe in 3D for home Cinema.

 

[TKratz]

andytucker:Yeah but surely 3D will be broadcast in this as well making 3D even better picture so i don't get your point?

Ok, you beat me to it there

 

[The_Lhc]

TKratz:
andytucker:Yeah but surely 3D will be broadcast in this as well making 3D even better picture so i don't get your point?

Ok, you beat me to it there

But proper 3D effectively requires double the data rate to support two images in the same timeframe as 2D would show one image, given how much extra bandwidth 4k2k requires over and above standard HD, 4k2k-3D may not be possible without some serious advances in technology (I don't know if HDMI has the theoretical bandwidth necessary to handle 4k2k-3D for one thing), not to mention that there's almost no chance you'd be able to download, never mind stream, the amount of data that the average film will come in at, so another storage medium will be required. I'm not sure how this will be broadcast either, given the restrictions on HDTV broadcasts, 2D 4k2k will stretch currently broadcast technology, let alone 4k2k-3D.

 

[Diamond Joe]

The article Andrew E linked to referred to 8k4k, the bandwidth requirements are (currently) mind-bending: 24Gbps! Don't hold your breath on this technology, it isn't going to happen here any time soon.

 

[jcshutts]

phew I don't want my new TV to be yesterday's technology quite yet!

Besides, the average viewer still watches DVD and SD let alone HD and Blu-ray so we could be talking years before a new technology like this becomes common place.

Of course I have no way on knowing the percentages of DVD players out there compared to Blu-ray but the majority of my friends and family are still with the older formats so I presume this is replicated throughout the population.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

.

 

[Alantiggger]

Thing is if you listen to Spencer.... it's like looking through a big window ... so it's the viewer who would use his own head and eyes to look around at/in the picture thus negating the 'need' for any 3d effect.... it looks like THIS may well be the future of tv.

 

[Frank Harvey]

One step at a time eh?!! 4K2K for the next feasible home movie format!!

I'm sure for the sort of screen size that will be used in homes (7-10 feet), 4K2K will be more than good enough and the law of diminishing returns will be kicking in as far as the cost of 8K4K is concerned.

And once again - who needs 3D with 4K2K?

 

[grdunn123]

FrankHarveyHiFi:One step at a time eh?!! 4K2K for the next feasible home movie format!!

I'm sure for the sort of screen size that will be used in homes (7-10 feet), 4K2K will be more than good enough and the law of diminishing returns will be kicking in as far as the cost of 8K4K is concerned.

And once again - who needs 3D with 4K2K?

So cyinical for one so young!

 

[Anonymous]

Is it even possible for the human eye to take in such detail? i know technically the human eye cant tell the differance between 1080i and 1080p

 

[Frank Harvey]

grdunn123:So cyinical for one so young!

Less of the young! I'm 13 in April

 

[The_Lhc]

jst23:Is it even possible for the human eye to take in such detail?

We do it every day...

i know technically the human eye cant tell the differance between 1080i and 1080p

So? That doesn't mean it can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k2k.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

jst23:Is it even possible for the human eye to take in such detail? i know technically the human eye cant tell the differance between 1080i and 1080p

Are you telling me that the human eye can't tell the difference between a film on Sky HD in 1080i and a bluray film at 1080p?? Because my screen is only 40 inches and it's not 24 fps but I can see a clear difference.

 

[cram]

Gerrardasnails: Are you telling me that the human eye can't tell the difference between a film on Sky HD in 1080i and a bluray film at 1080p?? Because my screen is only 40 inches and it's not 24 fps but I can see a clear difference.

Well you can but that's as much down to the compression that sky are using rather than anything to do with 1080i and p