Quantcast
Beyond 1080P for home entertainment

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Beyond 1080P for home entertainment

Basically, 40-50'' TV are the sweet spots for most home living rooms.

Going beyond 1080P for such settings would reduce bang-for-your-buck to the point where you won't notice a difference.

Maybe we could just stop at 1080P and then go the direction of 3D and holographics?



Around the Network

Since they switched from the old clumsy TV's to the flat-screens there hasn't been any REAL innovation. I'm more looking forward to OLED walls. Make your TV as big as your want and have a nice new wall collour every day.



Beyong 1080p for the home isn't neccesary.

Most Digital cinemas use 2K projectors, thats 2048x1080 resolution. Does it look too blocky for you in the cinema? IMAX theatres use 4K projectors, 4096x2160, I don't have a room that size in my house :)

I have a 92inch 1080p front projection screen at home. I can't see the pixels sitting 8 feet away. I do notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, but don't think I'll notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p at that distance. Web pages without zooming are damn hard to read at 8 feet.

What I hope the next step will be is to go to a 2.37 aspect ratio or 21:9 tvs. Phillips made one of the first ones sporting a 2560x1080 resolution, no more black bars when watching a movie :)

And if proper splitscreen is included you can have 2 720p pictures side by side without any scaling.

Ofcourse Blu-ray does not support this yet, any 2.37 aspect ratio movie is stored in 1920x810 pixels on the disc. So you will unfortunately see an upscaled movie on that tv. Maybe we'll get anamorphic movies on blu-ray as we had on DVD, meaning the 2.37 movie will be stored with 1920x1080 pixels, then stretched to 2560x1080 or shrunk to 1920x810 depending on your tv.

What we really need to get better picture quality is a higher data rate. Blu-ray caps out at 40mbps which looks great for slow moving scenes, but still pretty poor when you pause the movie at fast action scenes. (Still miles better then the stuff they sell as HD on tv, 7 to 14mbps mpeg2) Compare that to movies in the cinemas that run at up to 250mbps. (Uncompressed 1920x1080x24p video runs at 1139mbps)

Also I would like to see movies on disk without chroma subsampling. Everything you see on Blu-ray and DVD has been stored using 4:2:0 chroma subsampling. That means that the color image is stored at a quarter resolution as the monochrome image. This is done because it saves half the bandwidth (48 bits per 4 pixels instead of 96) at a hardly noticeable quality loss since the human eye is more sensitive to light intensity then to color.

You notice it better when you start upscaling the image. Consider this DVD is 852x480 with a color image of 426x240. No matter how great your upscaler is, it's not going to look all that great at 1920x1080 with effectively only one color sample per 20 pixels. This means that when you currently display a 2.37 blu-ray movie on a 2560x1080 tv you upscale 1920x810 with a color image of 960x405. Not as bad as upscaling a DVD but still not ideal.

So for now there's not much point in getting a higher res tv until you can get content for it. It will be a while until people are ready for yet another disk format. Heck it will still be a while before you can get blu-ray quality by download (or anything worthy of 1080p by cable/satellite) 10mbps h.264 is pretty much the highest quality you can (legally) get over the net nowadays.

Don't get me wrong HD tv still looks amazing most of the time, but it still has huge room of improvement before switching to a higher resolution. As of now 1080p broadcasts do not even exist yet, all tv content is either 720p or 1080i mpeg2.

 



My livingroom isn't a closet. Anything above 720 is a waste, anything above 1080 is even more of a waste because the human eye wouldn't detect it especially from a distance greater then your face smashed against the screen. I guess alot of the HD freaks are college kids living in a dorm where they must be forced to be 2 feet away from the screens or something.



Galaki said:

Not counting 3D, what's the next logical step in term of resolution for TV?

How long before we'd see the next jump?

Would it make sense to even go higher since 1080P is just already smooth on 60'' and lower.
So, unless we go beyond that screen size, there won't really be demands for higher res.

With living space getting smaller and smaller due to over population, we might even see an "upgrade" to smaller screens.

With all points above taken, the next gen for home console will most likely be the longest lasting gen ever, considering that they are all capable of 1080P/60fps.

What do you think?

Uber HD!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-news-network/1017-Uber-HD

That is 30000P!



Around the Network

I can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my PS3. Probably because most games render in 600p due to weak, outdated hardware.



@ primogen18 )

very mature

@ topic)

I know I want a 2-4x 1080p display to have a full HD (or better) picture with a polarized 3DTV.The effect probably is similar to the sbs videos you can find, which look pretty good in 3D, but sometimes you can see the (horizontal?) resolution isn't as high as it should be.

Afaik "glasses free" 3DTVs need ultra high res displays aswell, as the resolution is divided by the amount of viewing corridors(x2).



I quite like the idea of there being no black bars watching movies, and I imagine others feel the same, so the 21:9 TV's look like something that could come in (in about 7 years or something) (thanks SvennoJ), this combined with glassless 3D would be great, but as VettaDude said, without hardware that can take advantage of the TV, is there a point to upgrade yet?



Lafiel said:

@ primogen18 )

very mature

@ topic)

I know I want a 2-4x 1080p display to have a full HD (or better) picture with a polarized 3DTV.The effect probably is similar to the sbs videos you can find, which look pretty good in 3D, but sometimes you can see the (horizontal?) resolution isn't as high as it should be.

Afaik "glasses free" 3DTVs need ultra high res displays aswell, as the resolution is divided by the amount of viewing corridors(x2).

That all still displays at max 1920x1080. You don't really need the extra resolution for full HD 3D.

Current glasses solutions are either lcd shutter glasses for at home with the tv alternating a 1920x1080 picture at 120 or 240hz. Or polarized glasses in the cinema where there are 2 2K projectors at 2048x1080 each with one of the polarizing filters.

Glasses free 3D tvs use 4K resolution panels but they use a perpendicular lenticular sheet to direct the light to a number of different points in the room. Each eye still only gets a 1080p image and you have to keep your head in the same spot. (1 of 9 sweetspots for the currently available glassless 3D tvs). Moving your head from side to side or tilting your head will ruin the effect. No racing games for me on such a tv :)

I don't really have a problem with wearing glasses as long as they are cheap and don't need to be charged. Maybe they can make oled/lcd 3D tvs for polarized glasses. That can be done with a 2160p panel by polarizing every other pixel, or polarize the light at the source at 120 or 240hz and alternate the picture on the 1080p screen at the same rate.

For comfortable glasses free tv you'll need a panel that can adjust the sweetspots dynamically while tracking your movements. There were experiments with that 5 years ago, but it only worked for 1 user at a time on a pc monitor and I haven't heard anything about it since.

Otherwise this is where we're at now for best quality glasses free experience, for now you'll have to choose, either wear glasses or sit still.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/eizo_announces_first_23-inch_glasses-free_3d_monitor

http://3d-tvbuyingguide.com/3dtv/glasses-free-3d.html



resolution, seems taht all you guys care about.

how many SMOOTH games are running on 1080p even now?  and i'm not talking about bejewelled or angry birds, or something.