Higher than 1080p?

[BuzzKillington]

1080p has been around for quiet some time and I couldn't find any talk about higher res's coming out for tv's or video camers. Why? :(

[Zephik]

Doesn't 1080 just represent resolution size? Like 1920x1080? So, with your PC, you can technically go higher if you have the hardware to do it. Like 2560x1600.

Hmmm... Now I'm just confused. I always associated it with quality, not resolution.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_hd

[OvRiDe]

Because its a broadcast standard. For DECADES the max resolution was 480i. Then on top of that .. what the heck are you going to do with more then 1080p, since there are still alot of channels that aren't even broadcasting in HD at all yet.

[d_stilgar]

The next big steps in consumer products will be 2K and 4K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

There has been some stuff at CES for a few years including LCD TVs at 2K and 4K.

[dr.walrus]

1080p has been around for quiet some time and I couldn't find any talk about higher res's coming out for tv's or video camers. Why? :(

Because 1080p is established as the top standard for video right now. Why would manufacturers spend a lot of money retooling for devices that wouldn't show the output of yr blu ray player in native res?

There's research, sure, but it'll be a long time before you can buy them.

Computer monitors have been able to reach higher than 1080p for years, because they're used for things other than video.

[Twigsoffury]

My monitor is 1200p Super HD

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4888/555rg.png

[x88x]

dr.walrus hit it on the head. It's because 1080p is an industry standard, and it takes a really long time for the industry to adapt to something new. Heck, most of the industry isn't even on 1080p yet.

@Zephik
Strictly, 1080p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p) refers to only the vertical resolution (1080 pixels) and the fact that the device uses progressive scan (ie, not interlaced), so technically 2K is also a 1080p picture, since '1080p' doesn't specify a ratio, just the vertical resolution. Generally though, 1080p refers to a 1920x1080, non-interlaced panel.

Here's a run-up of most of the current resolution standards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg


My monitor is 1200p Super HD

Sometimes we also call that WUXGA. ;)

[The boy 4rm oz]

2K or 4K will be next, but only for TV /Monitor res, not broadcasting. They have already experimented with it in the past, some manufacturers releasing televisions capable of displaying the res. The one advantage is that when you watch a DVD/Bluray you won't get the black bar at the top and bottom of it screen, not that it annoys me at all but it does annoy a lot of people.

[TheGreatSatan]

Isn't 3D better that 1080p. Or is it 3D in 1080p?

[OvRiDe]

Its still 1080p.. but they are running 480hz. This way they can display 2 streams at 120hz for each eye. Team that up with the shutter glasses and viola you get 3D.

[The boy 4rm oz]

I'm not thrilled about 3D, personally I think 3D enabled TVs look worse then standard when they are displaying non 3D content. It's just a gimmick. It holds a place for gaming but not for TV.

[OvRiDe]

I like you figured the 3D part was more gimmick then anything. I went into Bestbuy not too long ago and they had the 3D Samsung on demo. I sat down and put the glasses on, and I must say it was much more impressive then I thought it would be. The salesman came over and started chatting with me about it. Explained some of the ins and outs about the 3D portion. They had Monsters Vs Aliens on which was a native 3D movie on. He switched it over to a normal television program and set the menu to 3D. Again, it took the 2D program and converted it to 3D. While it didn't do as good of a job as the native 3D programming it was really pretty decent. The he switched it back to the 2D setting and it looks just like any other Samsung LCD TV in my opinion - no better/ no worse. So you can still use it as a normal TV when watching regular programming. The kicker for me is the TV was about $3000, and that was without the shutter glasses. Those are 199 bucks each! So for a family of four you are looking at another 800 bucks on top of the TV. Prices will get better as time goes on.

[dr.walrus]

My monitor is 1200p Super HD

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4888/555rg.png


You mean WUXGA? Got 2 of those :p

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9392/capturesl.jpg (http://img412.imageshack.us/i/capturesl.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[The boy 4rm oz]

I admit the 3D TV's do look cool but after spending about 20hours a week looking at them and selling them I wouldn't shell out $3000AUD for one. I agree the cost of the glasses are a joke as well as needing a 3D enabled BluRay player (that will cost you another $700AUD) as well as a V1.4 HDMI cable (another $100AUD) but that is only if you are wanting to watch movies instead of just the 3D TV. With there being no 3D TV broadcasts in Australia yet the cash can't be justified by me, yet. However as the technology becomes more main stream I can see myself wanting one but I am quite happy with my Plasma currently.

[OvRiDe]

Now that I can agree with! I figure it will just be a feature incorporated into all TV's eventually.

[The boy 4rm oz]

Definitely. If 3D TV is as big a hit as they think every TV will eventually incorporate the technology.

[BuzzKillington]

I wonder how much further TVs will go... like... what else can they do besides work out the kinks in the paper thin TVs coming out? I wonder what we'll be watching when we're 80 years old.

[x88x]

Heheh, this whole thread has really reminded me of this xkcd strip..just kept forgetting to post it:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hdtv.png (http://xkcd.com/732/)

As for where standard TV resolutions will go in the future, I'm guessing they'll keep getting bigger. Slowly, but they will. Imagine 50 years ago if you asked someone if TVs would get higher resolution. They'd probably say there was no point. And yet here we are..

[BuzzKillington]

I think there's a point. Why would 20" computer screens be capable of 2560 x 1600 if there was no benefit? 17" laptop runs at 1920x1200 and so does my TV but if I could you bet I'd be running 2560 x 1600! lol

[dr.walrus]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hdtv.png
(http://xkcd.com/732/)


LOVE IT

[x88x]

That just made me think...we have some old CRT monitors at work that are sitting in the pile of stuff to throw away... Sun 1920x1200 24" widescreen CRTs...probably from the late 90's. :D

[d_stilgar]

HDTV is impressive because we now have high res signal coming into it. Sure we've had high res gaming for forever, but high res movies and TV in the home is impressive, although it's taken long enough to happen.

[dr.walrus]

HDTV is impressive because we now have high res signal coming into it. Sure we've had high res gaming for forever, but high res movies and TV in the home is impressive, although it's taken long enough to happen.

He was talking about the screen technology itself, not the input signal