glassdragon

Didn't see a post about this by title.. sorry if it's posted already. Wasn't sure whether to put it here or home theater, but it's not about a home theater setup, just about drool-worthy technology


http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...-37511-97.html



I WANTS

The Bus

Sony has a quad-HD projector on the market as well. It's not intended for home use, rather for casinos and sportsbooks that want to show multiple images at the same time.

Th0r S1mpson

How much does a 2160p camcorder run these days?

nemein

The HT Gear Forum is probably the best place for it though... moving.

cultshock

So when are the 2160p Grene-Ray discs coming out? (and I'm hoping this time we can avoid a "Grene-Ray" / "Super Ultra HD DVD" format war)

glassdragon

sorry about that, wasn't sure


These tv's are getting so high in quality it's only a matter of time before we go outside and say "Holy shit, I need to get better cable hookups, this quality is horrible"

GenPion

This made me laugh. It also made me cringe. There's no way I'm going to have gone from VHS to DVD to HD-DVD to Blu-Ray to another format in the foreseeable future. I only started DVD collecting around 2003. Jeez, talk about an overload of products...

Of course I wouldn't be able to afford a $40,000 TV anyway. Nor would I have a place big enough to hold such a thing.

AGuyNamedMike

You left out Super-8, Beta, CED/Laservision, and Laserdisc (am I really that old?) but yeah, I'm feeling it too.

DVD Polizei

Rumor has it the 2160p ReddGreneBlu-Ray will be available in 2009! First title to show off this amazing quality?

Look Who's Talking

Fuck, I'm peeing my pants, just waiting for this title.

But seriously, if you think about it, televisions are so behind other imaging technologies, it's not funny. We have current ways of recording extremely high quality content, but no displays to watch the raw footage on without compressing it.

Brian Shannon

Then don't.

Based on the lack of product and hardware I have been finding, it may still be awhile before I am able to buy anything that is BD. They are quickly headed into niche format status, which was my feeling from the beginning.

I'll gladly wait until the next leap in technology.

SoSpacey

Unless you are sitting 19' or closer, 2160p is a waste since your eyes won't even see the difference.




(i hope the sarcasm is obvious)

RM811

I am in the same boat. I was very excited for Blu-Ray/HD DVD but after testing out HD Dvd, while kind of cool, is far less exciting than DVD was. I am not rushing out to buy anything that costs $500.00 to play some old movies I already have on dvd or are not worth buying in the first place.

Brian Shannon

I gladly waited for the stupid war to end and I wanted to rush out and buy all kinds of things.

I am tired of going into stores and seeing no titles I want to buy and no new players on the shelves. Frankly the entire format for me is just fading away . . .

fmian

I think they should improve pixel pitch and ramp up the tv's to 200hz/240hz before trying to just make the screens larger.
An 82" 2160p screen is basically just 4 x 40" 1080p screens stuck together.
Take a look at computer lcd screens, and you'll find 24" screens with 1920 x 1200 pixels as commonplace and being cheaply mass produced.
As for the frame rates, they need to be interpolated to at least 75fps (150hz) for me not to notice any flicker or stuttering. When people start recording and playing back at 75fps (or higher) then that will be the next major breakthrough in quality.

SUPERMANROB

Ditto .......There is no movie I have to see on BD to pay $500 for a player. as a matter of fact,the ones I would like to see arent even out yet(on BD).I have a A35 and paid for $159 for it and it does a great job upconverting and will do just fine for now. Well honestly the one movie(s) that would even make me THINK of getting a BD player would be The Lord of The Rings Triogy! . To watch that in DTS/MA man I would consider it! The way it looks I think I'm safe for awhile

Bacon

2160P

screw that!!!!
I'm waiting for 9,999,999,999,999P with detail so good you can see all the lice on Britney Sprears' ass

Zen Peckinpah

No matter how good the picture looks, at the end of the day Meet the Spartans will still be an utter piece of shit.

darkside

TV broadcasts are not going to support it and 1080p discs aren't selling well so there is no chance for a 2160p format.

Without content this is a complete waste of money.

eedoon

damn. Samsung seems to be doing new stuff everyday. Just the other day I heard them showing off their new 240Hz TV, and now this. Crazy.

Brian Shannon

On the other hand, without a way to use and display better content . . . .

The two go hand in hand.

Drexl

James Cameron is talking about maybe shooting a movie at 48fps in the future. He says he thinks frame rate is the next thing they should address, before they go to higher resolutions. I'm not sure how I would feel about that. I guess it would be nice for productions that are actually shot that way, but I wouldn't want them to try to process existing 24fps movies to something higher.

I agree this TV is overkill, but I could see them doing a projector (or even a TV) that is something like 2500 x 1080 pixels, for an easy Constant Image Height setup. Anything that is 1.78:1 would be shown as is in the middle 1920x1080 area, but 2.35:1 material would be zoomed to fill the screen.

Mordred

I don't understand this. First of all, 75fps is 75Hz. 150Hz would just be doubling every frame of the 75fps image, or interpolating intermediate frames.

Secondly, with regard to LCDs, flicker is unnoticeable at 60Hz. I'm incredibly susceptible to screen flicker in CRTs (anything under 75Hz gives me bad headaches) but I've never had a problem with any LCD. I've also never heard anyone complain about the refresh, probably because it doesn't "progressively" refresh, but refreshes the screen all at once. There is no flicker.

Third, I've got a 120Hz Sony LCD with their Motion flow technology. It interpolates frames from 24Hz and 30Hz signals. I keep it on the lowest setting (mainly because of the jerkiness of 24Hz BDs) and it's not for everybody. Motion looks unnatural and almost too fast until your brain adjusts... which took about 2-3 months for me and my wife. There certainly isn't any jerkiness anymore though. Everything is nice and fluid. That said, I'm not sure taking a 75Hz signal and interpolating to 150Hz would even be noticeable.

starseed1981

OMG. Thats insane.

fmian

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Tv manufacturers list the new TV's as 120hz because the TV will make up to 120 half screen passes for interlaced content. It's still a maximum of 60fps interpolation for the video, but the TV IS making twice that amount of passes on the screen.

I don't think LCD screens refresh themselves for static screens. Therefore using a computer monitor at 60hz seems fine. When you are playing a computer game though, I bet you can see the difference between 45fps and 60fps. I seem to be getting the same effect on my TV, where it seems the frame rate interpolation is variable (on the highest setting) so for slow panning video, it looks awesome, but you can still see some of that jerkiness as the interpolation can't seem to work fast enough on quick motion shots.

I can see a MASSIVE difference in motion enhancment between 1080i25 (PAL) and 1080i30 (NTSC) content on my Bravia. I can even see a big difference with some 1080i25 TV commercials that were filmed in high speed but played back at normal speed. The same way as I saw a huge difference between 72hz and 75hz on every CRT computer monitor I've owned (if it couldn't do at least 75hz at a high resolution it was crap).

I personally think 75fps for motion capture or motion enhancment is the sweet spot. What we are seeing now are people who are used to watching movies at 24-30fps, and recognise the motion as that of a movie. That feeling goes away at higher video frame rates because it makes us think twice about whether we're watching a movie or not. If you concentrate (being stoned helps) on the difference between the 2 effects though, you'll realise that a higher video frame rate makes it much harder to distinguish whether you are watching a video, or whether what you are seeing is actually right there in front of you. In real life.

I would challenge anyone to watch some adult 1080p content with full motion enhancment and tell me they wouldn't prefer it that way. It feels like you are looking through a particularly clean window at a peep show

Drexl

Well, considering the apparent apathy and even backlash against HD porn (ew, you would see her razor burns!), I'm not sure some will prefer that.

Some of us actually like the 24fps of a movie and don't want to change that. Yes, more fps = more "real," but realism isn't the goal of cinema.

That said, I think a multiple of 24 would be better anyway, in order to handle "legacy" content while allowing for new content at higher frame rates. One reason why Cameron wants to use 48fps is so it could be adaptable to existing theaters that need 24fps. I believe that even interpolated content would be better suited for even multiples. 120Hz is nice because it's a multiple of 24 and 30.