Next gen TV format... A glimpse of the future

HIGH-DEFINITION television may be only just beginning to catch on, but researchers at the Japanese national broadcaster NHK are already working on a successor. The format, called Ultra High Definition Video, or UHDV, has a resolution 16 times greater than plain-old HDTV, and its stated goal is to achieve a level of sensory immersion that approximates actually being there....

7,680 by 4,320
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/technology/circuits/03next.html?th
(free registration required)
My God they finally listened!!! True it's as they say, it'd be quite some time before this comes of age, but still the prospect of actually seeing an image at such a high rez... is so... so... incredible. It'll be like actually having an open wormhole or something like that in front of you.
:oops: :oops: :oops:

PS Sorry if posted prior.
 
Bigus Dickus said:
It is still a 2-dimensional image, so the illusion of reality is completely unrealistic.

WOAH! A ghost from the past.
Welcome back Bigus. :)

I was going to start a thread about your death yesterday but was too lazy. :oops:

With higher def TV we need better filtering otherwise the scanlines on DVDs are going to ruin the image.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
Bigus Dickus said:
It is still a 2-dimensional image, so the illusion of reality is completely unrealistic.

WOAH! A ghost from the past.
Welcome back Bigus. :)

I was going to start a thread about your death yesterday but was too lazy. :oops:

With higher def TV we need better filtering otherwise the scanlines on DVDs are going to ruin the image.

There's only so much u can filter a 640x480 image.... (i'm sure that's not the TRUE resolution, but i can't remember what it is)
 
how about we work on getting all tvs built with the highest hdtv quality . INstead of gteting ready for a new format .

They should make one 3x as good and when that is ready they should start producing them and this time only have one res to pick from .
 
With networks typically using 1/4 of the bw needed to broadcast current hd signals god only knows how they will balk at the bw requirements for this new standard.

hd sucks right now except for the movie channels and pbs. Im hoping hd dvd will make my hdtv investment more worthwhile in the next year or 2...
 
I don't think it's in networks commercial interests to adopt HDTV, because of the limited bandwidth they have access to. Why waste bandwidth giving consumers a better quality picture when you can cram more crappy channels in the same airspace and sell shed loads more advertising. It just doesn't make sense.

I certainly can't see HDTV happening here unless the Government puts it's Size 10 Bovver Boots on.
 
Ty said:
PC-Engine said:
LCDs may be getting a huge boost in performance and size by using a new technology from National Semiconductor.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/wcs/leaf/CID/onair/asabt/news/311387

I think LCDs are going to have a hard time competing against DLPs. Heck, I think Samsung has already shown a model that does 1920 with a contrast ratio of 5000:1.

The 3000:1 CR of the NEC DLP have been on the market for a long time, but it hasn't affected sales of Plasmas so I don't see it affecting LCDs either. The major disadvantage of DLP is expensive bulbs that need to be replaced in a short period of time. Also the bulbs usually dim to 50% of the original brightness at half-life. DLP also need to be mounted in the ceiling which s difficult or on some kind of table/platform. PDPs and LCDs can just be hung on the wall and have a long lamp life too. There are advantages and disadvantages.
 
PC-Engine said:
The 3000:1 CR of the NEC DLP have been on the market for a long time, but it hasn't affected sales of Plasmas so I don't see it affecting LCDs either. The major disadvantage of DLP is expensive bulbs that need to be replaced in a short period of time. Also the bulbs usually dim to 50% of the original brightness at half-life. DLP also need to be mounted in the ceiling which s difficult or on some kind of table/platform. PDPs and LCDs can just be hung on the wall and have a long lamp life too. There are advantages and disadvantages.
Wrong! A DLP doesn't need to be mounted on the ceiling or placed on a table. May I introduce you to the Samsung DLP TVs.
 
Yeah Samsung has had those RP DLP TVs on the market since 2002 or so. This fall, we should see a huge number of other RP DLP TVs from Panasonic, Sharp, etc.
 
PC-Engine said:
The 3000:1 CR of the NEC DLP have been on the market for a long time, but it hasn't affected sales of Plasmas so I don't see it affecting LCDs either.

As more manufacturers start building DLP (witness Toshiba killing their LCD line and moving to DLP technology) prices will fall and it will gain momentum in the consumer space.

PC-Engine said:
The major disadvantage of DLP is expensive bulbs that need to be replaced in a short period of time. Also the bulbs usually dim to 50% of the original brightness at half-life.

USER replaceable $250 bulbs at the 10,000 hour mark. A bit expensive compared to normal bulbs used for table lamps but around what you would pay for projectors I think - maybe even less than that. Not sure about dimming though. Don't LCDs age? Plasmas certainly do.

PC-Engine said:
DLP also need to be mounted in the ceiling which s difficult or on some kind of table/platform.

Incorrect. They make many DLP table top TVs.

PC-Engine said:
PDPs and LCDs can just be hung on the wall and have a long lamp life too. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Absolutely correct in that there are advantages and disadvantages to the different technologies. My reply was just a response to your post about LCDs getting 1920 when it's already been shown in DLP form with a MUCH higher contrast ratio (something LCDs aren't that good in). It's my opinion that LCD technology will be supplanted by cheaper more capable DLP or the yet unproven but more capable LCoS (vendors are moving from LCD RPTVs to the latter).
 
Razor04 said:
PC-Engine said:
The 3000:1 CR of the NEC DLP have been on the market for a long time, but it hasn't affected sales of Plasmas so I don't see it affecting LCDs either. The major disadvantage of DLP is expensive bulbs that need to be replaced in a short period of time. Also the bulbs usually dim to 50% of the original brightness at half-life. DLP also need to be mounted in the ceiling which s difficult or on some kind of table/platform. PDPs and LCDs can just be hung on the wall and have a long lamp life too. There are advantages and disadvantages.
Wrong! A DLP doesn't need to be mounted on the ceiling or placed on a table. May I introduce you to the Samsung DLP TVs.

Incorrect. They make many DLP table top TVs.


I am aware of RPDLPs. I was talking about FPDLPs. I don't consider RPDLPs to have very good image quality compared to LCDs or PDPs. Also when I mention LCDs I'm not talking about LCD RPTVs. I'm talking about LCDs like the ones used with computers except larger like the 40" LCDs from NEC. Hook those up with DVI and the image is crystal clear.

Don't LCDs age?

If you're referring to the image then no at least not in a way that can be perceived.
 
PC-Engine said:
I am aware of RPDLPs. I was talking about FPDLPs. I don't consider RPDLPs to have very good image quality compared to LCDs or PDPs. Also when I mention LCDs I'm not talking about LCD RPTVs. I'm talking about LCDs like the ones used with computers except larger like the 40" LCDs from NEC. Hook those up with DVI and the image is crystal clear.
Umm I don't see how there is much of a difference between FP and RP TVs. Only difference in my book is that the FP is geared for a much larger presentation than RP and that RP uses a mirror to bounce the light to a screen instead of just projecting it. If you took the components out of a RPTV it should be identical to that of a FPTV just with different optics for focusing at different distances. Honestly you seem like someone who will never be pleased with anything on the market.
 
Razor04 said:
PC-Engine said:
I am aware of RPDLPs. I was talking about FPDLPs. I don't consider RPDLPs to have very good image quality compared to LCDs or PDPs. Also when I mention LCDs I'm not talking about LCD RPTVs. I'm talking about LCDs like the ones used with computers except larger like the 40" LCDs from NEC. Hook those up with DVI and the image is crystal clear.
Umm I don't see how there is much of a difference between FP and RP TVs. Only difference in my book is that the FP is geared for a much larger presentation than RP and that RP uses a mirror to bounce the light to a screen instead of just projecting it. If you took the components out of a RPTV it should be identical to that of a FPTV just with different optics for focusing at different distances. Honestly you seem like someone who will never be pleased with anything on the market.

Just because YOU can't see a difference doesn't mean much does it? Your analogy is pretty dumb...sorry. The fact of the matter is there are differences in picture quality even between products in the same class (FP vs FP) let alone FP vs RP or FP vs PDP vs LCD. Why should I be pleased with everything on the market? I got money and I'll spend it on whatever I think is worthy of my money. I guess you are the type to buy shovelware... :LOL:

There are audiophiles, videophiles, cinephiles, automotive entusiasts, etc. that are very picky. You got a problem with it? :p
 
PC-Engine said:
I am aware of RPDLPs. I was talking about FPDLPs.

Ok.

PC-Engine said:
I don't consider RPDLPs to have very good image quality compared to LCDs or PDPs.

I can buy that. Don't either LCDs or PDPs cost quite a bit more though than comparably sized DLPs? Heck, I'll go one further than you, I don't think LCDs look as good as plasmas especially with the poorish viewing angle and low contrast levels.

PC-Engine said:
Also when I mention LCDs I'm not talking about LCD RPTVs. I'm talking about LCDs like the ones used with computers except larger like the 40" LCDs from NEC. Hook those up with DVI and the image is crystal clear.

Gotcha and I agree wholeheartedly (from what I've seen myself) between LCDs and LCD RPTVs.

Don't LCDs age?

PC-Engine said:
If you're referring to the image then no at least not in a way that can be perceived.

Actually I think they do but their lifespan is pretty much like conventional CRTs so definately better than plasmas in that regard.
 
Don't either LCDs or PDPs cost quite a bit more though than comparably sized DLPs? Heck, I'll go one further than you, I don't think LCDs look as good as plasmas especially with the poorish viewing angle and low contrast levels.

They do cost more but I was only talking about IQ. Also some LCDs have very wide viewing angles and if you look at what's available for computers, you'll get an idea of how good they've improved. Also LCDs don't have burn-in problems like PDPs.

Actually I think they do but their lifespan is pretty much like conventional CRTs so definately better than plasmas in that regard.

Well yeah they do have a certain lifespan, but what I was saying is that during its lifespan, you won't be able to see the IQ gradually degrade like on RPDLP/FPDLP which use high wattage bulbs. Instead they'll just turn off.
 
Back
Top