|
|
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... Ed wrote: ... Super Hi-Vision is currently being tested by NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, but the BBC is planning to use the technology to screen the 2012 Olympics on big screens in city centres across the UK. ... Resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video Seems a bit of an overkill. Cinema audience research has shown that in digital cinemas, people don't really notice if they're being shown a 2K (2048x1080) or a 4K (4096x2160) film. -- Dave Farrance And a lot of people with "HD" screens think that they are getting high definition just by buying the set. |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:52:24 -0000, "the dog from that film you saw"
wrote: "Norman Wells" wrote in message ... If it's 33 times better than HD, that means it will require something like 1089 times the bandwidth of HD, doesn't it? Or 4356 times the bandwidth required for one SD channel transmission. Can't see many of them coming on Freeview then. imagine how powerful processors will be in 20 years time - by then compression schemes will be feasible that make H264 seem like ancient history. Not so. As compression improves further improvement is subject to the law of diminishing returns, so that (for instance) the first 10% requires a doubled processor speed, but the next 5% requires a 10x faster one. Also, there are theoretical limits to compressability that even an infinitely fast processor couldn't improve on. Bandwidth is different, and optical fibre from end to end seems to me like one of the best bets for the biggest improvements in the foreseeable future, given radio spectrum congestion. -- http://www.robinfaichney.org/ |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
"Dave Farrance" wrote in message ... Ed wrote: ... Super Hi-Vision is currently being tested by NHK, Japan's public broadcaster, but the BBC is planning to use the technology to screen the 2012 Olympics on big screens in city centres across the UK. ... Resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 apparently. Which is only 16x better than 1920x1080, not 33x. And some 30 Megapixels, equivalent to a medium format still camera. You'd need a screen size 4 times the width and 4 times the height of a HD screen seen at optimum distance. In order words, could completely fill one wall of your living room. Sounds pretty good! Seems a bit of an overkill. Cinema audience research has shown that in digital cinemas, people don't really notice if they're being shown a 2K (2048x1080) or a 4K (4096x2160) film. But you're still looking from some way off. The new resolution gives you a field of view some 128 x 72 degrees. Probably better than IMax. All that's needed is stereo/3D. -- Bart |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:56:47 GMT, Dave Farrance
wrote: Resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video Personally I wish the TV/Movie industry would look into higher frame rates rather than keep on upping the resolution. Movies at 24fps do my eyes in on tracking shots, 60fps would make me muck happier than super eyeball resolution. -- Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
On 11 Mar, 18:22, "Norman Wells" wrote: "tim (not at home)" wrote: "Ed" wrote in message Experts say the new format could revolutionise the way in which people watch big sporting events, with every bead of sweat and straining muscle broadcast in perfect quality. "It's as if you are actually at the stadium," It's as good as being at stadium now. Are we relly supposed to believe that joe public in the last row of the stands can see every drop of sweat and straining muscle on the guy doing the high jump 100 metres away? No, of course not. No-one goes to a stadium to see anything but just to say they were there. Since they could do that anyway, it's always seemed a bit pointless to me, but there you go. Anyway, the more enlightened stadia have big screens so that you can see what you can't see. So, if those big screens are in super HD and show every drop of sweat and straining muscle, I suppose sitting at home and watching it on an HD TV could reasonably be said to be as if you were actually at the stadium. Except you'd be £70 or so richer. What a load of balls. I regularly go and watch football, and I can see how the whole game plays out, not merely what the director has decided to show me. Much of the time the director focuses on where the ball is, but there is so much more going on elsewhere, out of shot. Football coverage on TV these days is of a high quality, but it can still be quite frustrating not knowing what's going on outside of the shot on screen. At football matches in England there are big screens but they only show replays of shots on goal, and do not show any contentious incidents. |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
In article ,
says... What a load of balls. I regularly go and watch football, and I can see how the whole game plays out, not merely what the director has decided to show me. Much of the time the director focuses on where the ball is, but there is so much more going on elsewhere, out of shot. Football coverage on TV these days is of a high quality, but it can still be quite frustrating not knowing what's going on outside of the shot on screen. I think both parts of the coverage hold equal value... At football matches in England there are big screens but they only show replays of shots on goal, and do not show any contentious incidents. Presumably, such as the moments where a bunch of footballers join together to rape some drunken girl who's hoping she can sell her story to the press the next morning? -- Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk /* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor) /* 1136 DVDs, 371 games, 401 CDs, 110 cinema films, 51 concerts, videos & news /* spiderwick chronicles, socom psp, tron, syphon filter, pursuit force 2 New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDdom |
HD TVs "soon to be defunct"
"Norman Wells" wrote in message ... "the dog from that film you saw" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ... Even the Torygraph can do Daily Mail style scaremongering. They even say in the article "these sets will not be for the domestic market - ut requires a screen size of at least 60 inches" =============== High-definition television to become outdated If you splashed out on a high definition television at Christmas, you're in for some bad news. Japanese broadcasters and the BBC are already working on a successor which promises to deliver pictures in a quality 33 time better than the best HD sets on the market. given how many decades HDTV existed before launching in the uk, i'd venture that i will be retired before this one sees the light of day here. If it's 33 times better than HD, that means it will require something like 1089 times the bandwidth of HD, doesn't it? Or 4356 times the bandwidth required for one SD channel transmission. Can't see many of them coming on Freeview then. In current terms, you'd probably get about 5 minutes of material on a dual-layer Blu-Ray disc |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com