logo Sign In

Hi Definition adopters food for thought

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
For the many folks caught up in the Hi Definition war here is a warning before spendeing mega bucks on the this years latest techology. Here is comparison of DVD resolutions (720x480)with the maximum Hi-definition picture (1920x1080=1020i) as well as the maximum digital cinema resolution (4096x2160) against the maximum Hi Def Video currently in development by NHK in Japan (this transfers to an astonishing 200 GB per min of video per min i think).


http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/328/reztestyy1.jpg


With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?
Author
Time
Post link
Man, it's stuff like this that makes me wonder if HD is actually a bad thing. The walkers and the backrounds look ridiculously fake.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
^^I kinda have to agree. I mean, I just think some films were never meant to be seen in that amount of clarity. Especially older movies heavy on effects....like SW. This is not to say I'm not incredibly interested in seeing that before I die.

And if there is any way in hell you know where to find the uncompressed version of that picture....please tell me.

Hey look, a bear!

Author
Time
Post link
I don't think that's an actual frame from the film, so it may not be the best comparison.

For this, I started with differently-shaded gray boxes, each at their correct ratio (720x480, 1920x1080, 4096x2160, and 7680x4320), then cropped them for 2.35:1, keeping the original width. Each was layered on top of the other, then the whole thing resized to 1080HD size. Then I brought in the Blade Runner film frame, which was in HD 1080, so the largest one, here representing UHDV, is really HD 1080, and the others are scaled to represent what each would be in comparison to UHDV. Unfortunately, I had to resize it for Photobucket after that, but the idea is brought across IMO.

I had 2K on there too, but it was so close to 1080 HD you couldn't see any of it, so I cut it out.

I think this gives a better representation of what Darth Solo's talking about, since it's an actual film frame, not a promo image (although, again, I could be wrong about that).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/chainsawash/Comparisons.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
hah! I knew about this long before you guys posted it up! Go me!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v463/Lord_Phillock/starwarssig.png

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Solo
For the many folks caught up in the Hi Definition war here is a warning before spendeing mega bucks on the this years latest techology. Here is comparison of DVD resolutions (720x480)with the maximum Hi-definition picture (1920x1080=1020i) as well as the maximum digital cinema resolution (4096x2160) against the maximum Hi Def Video currently in development by NHK in Japan (this transfers to an astonishing 200 GB per min of video per min i think).


http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/328/reztestyy1.jpg


With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?


Versus what? Don't buy any movies or a new tv for 10 or 20 years? Do you somehow think that gigantic image is going to be on an affordable medium within 5 years? Even if most people sit out the hi-def format wars, there's always "the next format".

Is it worth being at the cutting edge? Probably not. Is it worth not buying into any hi-def formats ever until the largest image you posted becomes available? Probably not. Will the hi-def formats be worthwhile this Christmas season or possibly next? Probably. Unfortunately, even though the technology is advancing at breakneck speeds, the media companies are doing a fine job of holding everything back.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: Darth Solo
For the many folks caught up in the Hi Definition war here is a warning before spendeing mega bucks on the this years latest techology. Here is comparison of DVD resolutions (720x480)with the maximum Hi-definition picture (1920x1080=1020i) as well as the maximum digital cinema resolution (4096x2160) against the maximum Hi Def Video currently in development by NHK in Japan (this transfers to an astonishing 200 GB per min of video per min i think).


http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/328/reztestyy1.jpg


With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?


Versus what? Don't buy any movies or a new tv for 10 or 20 years? Do you somehow think that gigantic image is going to be on an affordable medium within 5 years? Even if most people sit out the hi-def format wars, there's always "the next format".

Is it worth being at the cutting edge? Probably not. Is it worth not buying into any hi-def formats ever until the largest image you posted becomes available? Probably not. Will the hi-def formats be worthwhile this Christmas season or possibly next? Probably. Unfortunately, even though the technology is advancing at breakneck speeds, the media companies are doing a fine job of holding everything back.


Dammit, and I just bought a 62" Toshiba DLP HDTV 1080p television. If I'd known I could have waited 10 or 15 years and had that.......
Author
Time
Post link
My thinking has always been "don't worry about it--buy it when you can afford it" .. Breaking the bank for a few extra pixels seems pointless to me.

DVD isn't going to vanish overnight, and Ultra High Definition isn't going to replace Blu-Ray anytime soon. I've never understood this obession with resolution myself. Sure, HD looks better, but no amount of High Definition will turn a crappy movie into a winner. So what if I can see individual hairs on Aragorn's beard? I don't watch Lord of the Rings to count folicles.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth Solo
With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?

I already made my reply to this question in your other thread:

http://www.originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=2&threadid=7953&STARTPAGE=2


To quote myself:

Originally posted by: Tiptup
You make a very good point. They can always increase the available resolution. I suppose the question is what is found acceptable by the end user and what displays are affordable. I say that 1920x1080 is very good for home viewing. Some other people even believe that 720x480i (DVD resolution) is totally acceptable already.

In terms of that particular picture itself, it's 970x673 in reality, and each those displayed resolutions are merely shown to scale. Therefore the detail you see in that image is, in actuality, about half as good as 1920x1080.

Digital Cinema resolution is about what you'd want if you were building a display the size of an ordinary movie theater screen, but for most smaller home displays, 1920x1080 (the higher HDTV resolution) is more than enough. In fact, if your TV is small enough, you probably won't notice any increase in quality with 1920x1080p over 1280x720p (the lower HDTV resolution).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.

It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.

Extremely large movie theater screens are a different story.

So “is it worth it” to buy into HD right now [for use in the home]?

Yes, yes it is..... because nothing you're talking about will have an impact on home theater in the next handful decades (if ever.)

Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
Post link
^ agreed.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.

It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.


Right now. Never is a long time. I have no doubt that within 10 years, maybe 20 at the most, 1080p will seem like analog broadcast. Those giant resolutions are only expensive until there's a cheap way to get it to the consumer.

I'm sure that when color televisions were introduced, people thought "Well, I doubt it'll ever get better than this". That is, consumers probably thought that. Every step makes it look a little better. I expect to see much higher resolutions being totally pervasive in the next 10 years. And with better mediums for transmission, there'll be plenty of bandwidth to push the content.

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
To clarify, I'm not siding with Darth Solo - I think the idea of "ultra HD" replacing - or even being considered to replace - 1080 HD in home theater setups is ridiculous, but I thought it would be interesting to show the vast difference in detail.

Given that more and more movies each year are shot in 1080p24 (Superman Returns, Sin City, Revenge of the Sith ... ), they wouldn't benefit from any higher resolution than 1080 anyway - what you see on your HDTV is the best it'll get. 1080 is a very high resolution, and perfect for home theater viewing - and I think 4K would be great for digital theater. UHDV is almost too much - people that have seen it in action have suffered motion sickness due to the extremely realistic level of detail.

In other words ...

With the rate technology is currently advancing i ask if its really worth being at the cutting edge of technology at this given time?


Yes. It is.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
The ultra HD stuff is only useful for large movie theater screens.

It's difficult to discern the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 50 inch screen for the vast, vast majority of eyes (especially taking into account the "average consumer,") if you think consumer home devices with "ultra HD" resolution are anywhere on the horizon you just don't know much about HT in general. Why? It would be outrageously expensive for the consumer, it would be outrageously expensive for the manufacturer (in addition to providing no real visual benefit,) 720p, 1080i, and 1080p have already cemented themselves as “the” HD formats for consumer HD material (1080i and sometimes 720p for broadcast and 1080p home video,) broadcasters would NEVER be able to provide the bandwidth for resolutions that immense, and you wouldn't see a damn bit of difference on most for-use-in-home screens between the HD now and the “ultra crazy stuff” you're talking about. On a spec sheet the differences appear to be gigantic, in practice that could not be further from the truth.


Right now. Never is a long time. I have no doubt that within 10 years, maybe 20 at the most, 1080p will seem like analog broadcast. Those giant resolutions are only expensive until there's a cheap way to get it to the consumer.

I'm sure that when color televisions were introduced, people thought "Well, I doubt it'll ever get better than this". That is, consumers probably thought that. Every step makes it look a little better. I expect to see much higher resolutions being totally pervasive in the next 10 years. And with better mediums for transmission, there'll be plenty of bandwidth to push the content.

I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.

The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.

It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.



Harrison Ford Has Pretty Much Given Up on His Son. Here's Why

Author
Time
Post link
Well, very high resolutions are useful in a home setting, but only if you're sitting two feet from the screen (as with a computer monitor) and you want the individual pixels to be very small.

Otherwise, with home theater, 1080p is more than sufficient (especially if you're upgrading from standard definition). With digital mastering, each frame of a movie would look basically smooth to you, even on an extremely large display. So, overall, I'm guessing 1080p will be the standard for quite some time to come.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
my god!!! stinky made an intelligble, hell TWO intelligible posts!!!!!

FINISHED:
The Sith Revealed - A Scrapbook
Episode III The Video Game - The Movie
24: The Missing Day
Star Wars - The Interactive Board Game DVD
Battlefront - Journal of the 501st
The Clones Revealed

email me for details daveytod AT btinternet DOT com

 

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
I don't think you're understanding me, the issue of expense is not the "make or break" issue here.

The differences in resolution you're referring to are NOT perceptible to the human eye when implemented on a consumer TV set (because the screens are too small for the increased resolution to be appreciated,) it's an issue of diminishing returns. Unless you plan on inventing and distributing new sets wacky robot eyes to everyone on the planet or convince everyone watching TV to sit no more than 6 inches from their screens then no - it just won't happen within the next several decades. THese extreme resolutions are only able to be considered when dealing with very large theater (non in the home) screens.

It is absolutely nothing like the difference between a black and white image and a colorized image, that is instantly noticeable to any non-colorblind viewer.


Actually, it is. Think about it. If you could have a display capable of 3000p vs one that was only capable of 1080p, at the same cost and with no perceptable difference, which would you take? I'd totally take the 3000p display.

Whether it's perceptable or not doesn't matter. Today there are people that hookup a SD signal to their HDTV and think they're watching HD quality. That is perception, not reality. I'm sure the same thing will be true in 20 years when higher resolutions are available. People will plug it in and think they're suddenly seeing even higher resolutions, whether they really are or not.

I just don't accept that 20 years from now, 1080p will still be state of the art. Technology and resolutions are constantly pushing forward. No one in their right mind would use a 640x480 computer display these days, yet DVD resolution is only 480p. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, the average home theater will have an 80 to 100" screen, so 1080p will look like crap. I'm sure that 20 years ago, most people wouldn't dream of owning a 40 or 50" set, yet today that's considered normal.

Technology is moving forward and I have no doubt that people will be clamoring for even higher resolutions in the next 20 years. If it wasn't a matter of economics, then people would never get anything newer. That applies to TVs, computers, cars, etc. As costs come down and it becomes more affordable, the average joe wants it more, whether they need it or not.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: daveytod
my god!!! stinky made an intelligble, hell TWO intelligible posts!!!!!


Actually, he does so quite often.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape