1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is 1080p the end of the road for home viewing?

Discussion in 'General TV Discussions Forum' started by expat, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. expat

    expat
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Berlin
    Ratings:
    +40
    Is it reasonable to assume that the improvements in resolution for home viewing display devices will end with 1080p, given the limits of human visual acuity, typical viewing distances and desirable screen sizes?

    I for one would not want a display larger than 50" in my living room. With a viewing distance of 2.5m (8 ft), any resolution beyond 1080p would presumably make no perceivable contribution to PQ.

    expat
     
  2. beeblebrox12

    beeblebrox12
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think it is. Thinking how the miserable NTSC existed for more than half a century and is still good enough for some people, 1080p should be more than enough for even the most discriminating tastes for the next few decades.
    Unless, of course 3D comes in :)
     
  3. kurdt

    kurdt
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Naah, I think it isn't really the end. We just don't have better at the moment so it seems the end. Remember when you saw DVD for the first time and at the time you watched VHS, it was soooo good :) Now it's just standard and lowest quality you expect from new films. There's still usable resolution in 35mm film. When film and movies really look like real life, that's the end.
     
  4. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,100
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +663
    Isn't there already a new standard for professional cinema broadcasts. 3840 by 2160 or something. Other than that, they could increase the frame rate. Perhaps 50 brand new fps rather than just 25 shown twice per second as is currently the case. Would be good for sporting events where fast moving objects lead to blurring, picture defects etc.
     
  5. beeblebrox12

    beeblebrox12
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    You can't make the analogy with DVD. We are talking physical dimensions here. 1920x1080p is really too much for maybe 99% of viewers. They won't have enough space/money/desire to upgrade even to 1080p within next 20 or so years, let alone wish for something of even higher resolution. Even the most discerning home cinema lovers will not want to pay for more detail, and they will be less than 1%. The most I can see happening is a new 1080p@60fps standard, but that will be just higher framerate, not resolution.
    As it's already been mentioned, real movie theatres are a completely different story. Unlike home theatres, there's no limit so size hence more resolution will always be welcome.
     
  6. MR151

    MR151
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    "1920x1080p is really too much for maybe 99% of viewers."

    Not for me. :D
     
  7. kurdt

    kurdt
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, but what I meant is that 1920x1080 isn't really the best they can pull out of 35mm film. It can always be more accurate with details and colors can be more "truthful". Even with 1080p plasmas, you can see "pixels" if you know how to look and where, so if that's the end, I'm disapointed :)
     
  8. jgrg

    jgrg
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    557
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Ratings:
    +36
    It is definitely too expensive now, but don't underestimate how fast prices can drop in a few years.

    James
     
  9. Rob20

    Rob20
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,100
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +663
    Perhaps 3d tv is the future? or perhaps images will be transmitted directly to our brains? Who knows? :laugh:
     
  10. GrahamC

    GrahamC
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    2,259
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Morecambe, U.K.
    Ratings:
    +67
    Increasing resolutions will never end; they have to sell you something.
     
  11. mattmarsden

    mattmarsden
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,553
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +98
    I may be wrong, but I thought George Lucas shot Epsiode II in 1080P? If this is the case then, for this film at least, there is no need to go higher than 1080P.

    I think 1080P resolution is probably as good as we need, I think improvements can be made in colour accuracy and encoding artifacts.
     
  12. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,700
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Warwick
    Ratings:
    +2,578
    Yes - and the BBC made early Doctor Who episodes in black and white - but that didn't stop progress!

    High Definition is good, but Ultra High Definition will be better. As more and more people get plasmas/LCDs/projectors etc people will appreciate the higher resolutions - especially as high resolution panels get cheaper. BluRay has already got an eye on the UHD - you don't think 200GB/8 layered BluRay disks are for HD do you?
     
  13. expat

    expat
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Berlin
    Ratings:
    +40
    My original point was that any differences in PQ caused by resolutions beyond 1080p would not be perceivable on displays for home viewing (assuming a maximum display size of 50" at 2-3m viewing distance). The human eye can only see so much detail!

    Only for a more cinema-like viewing experience (larger screen etc.) would higher resolutions make any sense at all.
     
  14. dvdmike007

    dvdmike007
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    so why have more than a 2mp camera ?


    try "4096x2048, or IMAX-class quality"
     
  15. Abit

    Abit
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    222
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    California, USA
    Ratings:
    +0
    One only needs to see a 50 inch blowup of 35mm film and a blowup from medium or large format film to see that there is plenty of room for improvement.

    I scan my 35mm film at 4000dpi (approximately 5670x3800) and the detail far surpasses anything you would get from 1920x1080, and it certainly would be very noticeable, even on small screens.
     
  16. rogeralpine

    rogeralpine
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    573
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Who knows where progress will take us? I certainly see big differences in image quality when looking at lower resolution digital pictures as opposed to the really high definition images - as long as the source hardware does a good job that is.

    Due to the time current TV broadcast technology has been around, it's going to be another generation (20 years at least) before further advances start to show in the home. I personally would welcome advances over 1080p - but it will certainly do for the next couple of decades.
     

Share This Page

Loading...