What will be the next hi-def format after blu ray and how many yrs.till it comes out?

If you are asking what is format beyond HD 1080p which HDTVs are targeted at today then we are many years away from that. We are still in the begin phases of rolling for HDTV format to the masses and phasing out standard def. Most likely we be at least 5 years before HD takes over everything. We will not likely see "higher" def for many many years to come because to are going to need lots and lots of support from displays, players, content, cables, receivers and etc.

If you are asking what is format beyond HD 1080p which HDTVs are targeted at today then we are many years away from that. We are still in the begin phases of rolling for HDTV format to the masses and phasing out standard def. Most likely we be at least 5 years before HD takes over everything. We will not likely see "higher" def for many many years to come because to are going to need lots and lots of support from displays, players, content, cables, receivers and etc.

Even now, many argue that 1080p is overkill if you sit further than 5-6 feet from your display, as most people do; or if you display is less than 50", which most peoples are. So, it begs the question of whether or not an even "higher def" format would have any added value to the average consumer.

There are still a lot of advancements to be made at 1920x1080. Look at a PNG image and compare that to a BD frame at the same resolution.

if we have lossless audio why cant we have lossless video to go along with it?

And that's what I was getting at in my previous post.

What will be the next hi-def format after blu ray and how many yrs.till it comes out?
Historically the home front follows the theatrical front. TV was setup as 4:3 because that's how movies came out. Movies decided to go widescreen to differentiate themselves. Homes have now gone wide screen. Then high def tv came out and soon a high def movie platform (I guess that was the home following the home).

Now movies are starting to push 3D to differentiate themselves again. My bet is on a 3D technology starting somewhere around the year 2018 and be around 2160p.

It's not that farfetched since some LCD's have already begun to show off the technology. They are only prototypes and they completely lack content, though some believe computer games will be the first use. LINK
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/sharp_lcd/)

So nothing better than 1080p for the next 10yrs.

What will be the next hi-def format after blu ray and how many yrs.till it comes out?

Are you being serious? Are you tired of 1080p already?

Who knows? BD and HD DVD have barely (if even) caught on. HD, in general, is still in it's relative infancy. Most people don't know HD when they see it and thing SD on their new HD widescreen sets is HD.

The current HD formats can be played out for years and years (5, 10, 20 years?). Your question is unanswerable and anything beyond the current is really useless speculation.

There is a lot to say, but I think it depends on where theatrical distribution goes in the future. If we stay with about where we are (whether film or digital based), then current 1080P is just fine for home use, and we won't see much else in terms of formats. We will however see higher-res displays (with upscaling).

If theatrical exhibition changes (higher frame rates, 3D, etc.) then this could follow us home with new formats.

Higher frame rates are very important IMHO. I want to see production move to 120 fps.

The next advancement will be in codec efficiency. Look at the quality of early (SD) DVDs and compare them to a 1 or 2 gig encode today using either mpeg-4 part 10 or VC-1.

DVD, and in perticular mpeg-2 is very much yesterdays technology interms of the video encoding. Likewise with audio codecs, Dolby Digital Plus has replaced DD. Digital dowload and VOD services will be able to take advantage of any new advancement but optical disc formats will not. Blu-ray and HD DVD technology are already on a road to obsolescence.

In terms of resolution, 4K will likley be the next major step although there is supprt for 1440p (2560 x 1440) in many codecs today (for computer displays, of course).

I want to see production move to 120 fps.


I don't. Movies produced even at 30fps don't look like movies to me. Higher frame rates are fine for other content though.

townofturley -Love hi-Def,Just curious.It seems just like yesterday that dvd came into our lives and we were thrilled and now it does not matter.Will replace my dvd editions if and when they come out on blu ray.

So nothing better than 1080p for the next 10yrs.
Yes, and that's great news! I've been holding out for an HDTV for awhile now. I almost bit on a 1080i last year (which is still great as well).

It's nice to see technology that is somewhat future proof. An investment in an 1080p HDTV now makes sense. Prices will of course go down over the years, but at least we won't have to replace what we bought anytime soon.

Noone even broadcasts in 1080p yet, cable and satellite HD are still 1080i so it will take awhile before 1080p is out of date.

But then again why not 2080p ?

I did remember hearing of a 1440p displays a couple of months back. I am guessing they should be coming out fairly soon, perhaps this year. Surely you didn't think that the upgrade train would ever stop did you? However, I don't know where the 1440p content will come from??
Either way, when large and affordable OLED TVs start to ship, you won't want your current set.

Would anything over 1080 matter in any display that is less than say 100 inches? I don't know about anyone else but I don't have a chair small enough to sit 9.5 inches away from my TV to see 1440 or 1800 or 2160 or whatever. I guess when they produce that $325,000 200" 1800p 3-D OLED TV then A-Rod and Bill Gates will really have it all. Boy will the 2 of them, being the only such owners of the technology, have to buy a lot of $89.95 movies to support that whole new format by themselves. ;)

I expect something like virtual windows to show up in the near future. Or stuff like video walls. 4k, higher frame rates and 3D will come, too. I guess in 10 years +/- 5 years.

Here's a question - say we had 4000x2000 or higher displays and content (say in 2 years time :)), would that/should that change the way films/TV is made? With that high/higher resolution there's less need for closeups/big closeups/lots of fast camera moves. I went to a store and saw a football game being displayed on all the different HDTVs from he massive to the smaller ones. The still shots/ones and ones with not a lot of camera movement often looked quite great (at a distance) but when the camera moved everything blurred un-naturally. There were also motion problems on film footage they showed (though it was different problems to do with the pulldown/judder and low frame rate etc.). Part of it might have been the low bitrate or because it was 1080i or frame rate or TV issues etc., but still... So assuming we have 4K or higher res displays soon :) (even with higher fps & colour resolution) shouldn't we have less need for big closeups, really fast camera pans etc.?

WHatever it is I guarantee a group of AVS members will buy it and tell everyone they are not real enthusiasts unless they have it.

The issue IMO rests with the display. You must have a larger display to go to a higher resolution. 60" is the absolute minimum for anything higher than 1080.

But less than 5% of all displays purchased are 60" or greater.

When NHK showed their Ultra HD system (7000x4000) they used a 500" display and showed a graph of the seating distance compared to 1080 and 4K; 1080 - 3X picture width, 4K - 1.5 X picture width. UHD - .75 X picture width.

Do people really want to sit that close to their display?

NTSC has lasted for over 50 years (1953) and will continue for at least another 10 years. 1080 should last for a minumim of at least half that time period (30 years) with the SID being 1998. That puts us right around 2030.

There are now over 100 million HDTV's in the world . . . compared to over 1 billion SDTV's.

We have a loooong way to go.

I don't. Movies produced even at 30fps don't look like movies to me. Higher frame rates are fine for other content though.

The 24fps nostalgia argument always sounds strange to me. Do you do understand why 24fps was picked in the first place?;) Hint: It wasn't to make it look like what your idea of "film" is. :D

The 24fps nostalgia argument always sounds strange to me. Do you do understand why 24fps was picked in the first place?;) Hint: It wasn't to make it look like film. :D

Have you ever seen a movie that has been filmed at 30 FPS, 48 FPS or 60 FPS?

Ever watch soap operas in HD on TV? That's what it will look like at 30 FPS.

Have you ever seen a movie that has been filmed at 30 FPS, 48 FPS or 60 FPS?

Ever watch soap operas in HD on TV? That's what it will look like at 30 FPS.

Don't watch soap operas (or much TV at all) but aren't they shot on video? :confused: Most prime time shows are shot on film though. Of course all 24fps film suffers 3:2 pulldown on TV so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

High speed film has been used for may years for slow motion shots (shot at 120fps then display at 24fps for slow motion effect). This doesn't change the look but the speed.

Take 2 cameras with the same film stock and film a scene with a stage coach. One camera at 24fps and the other at 120fps. Now play both back at their native speeds. The only difference in the look will be the 120fps doesn't exhibit the "waggon wheel" effect.

Don't watch soap operas (or much TV at all) but aren't they shot on video? :confused: Most prime time shows are shot on film though. Of course all 24fps film suffers 3:2 pulldown on TV so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

We are talking about higher frame rates. Video has a higher frame rate than film.

People are under the misconception of "more is better" without actually seeing the end result.

THAT is what I am talking about.

We are talking about higher frame rates. Video has a higher frame rate than film.

People are under the misconception of "more is better" without actually seeing the end result.

THAT is what I am talking about.
Perhaps because we don't get chance to see the end result. Which feature film or documentary/IMAX or (music) events are available on HDM at full HD at 60p in the UK so we can see whether more is better or not?

If they don't give us a choice, or some of the higher frame rates aren't possible on high def media (not even 25p or 50), even when they're part of the spec, we won't be able to see any to make a decision.

All we can compare it to is the motion on standard definition interlaced content, and that can have better motion than say an event presented in 24p

I think it quite likely that 120FPS displays will become common that can accept most common frame rates with no judder. And at least for things like sport we will see 1080p/60 start to arrive to show on them.

I'd also venture that action films would be great in 1080p/60 though they indeed would not seem properly film-like to some viewers.

3D is also nifty but there may be some resistance if you have to wear special glasses.

- Tom

The next advancement will be in codec efficiency. Look at the quality of early (SD) DVDs and compare them to a 1 or 2 gig encode today using either mpeg-4 part 10 or VC-1.

DVD, and in perticular mpeg-2 is very much yesterdays technology interms of the video encoding. Likewise with audio codecs, Dolby Digital Plus has replaced DD. Digital dowload and VOD services will be able to take advantage of any new advancement but optical disc formats will not. Blu-ray and HD DVD technology are already on a road to obsolescence.

In terms of resolution, 4K will likley be the next major step although there is supprt for 1440p (2560 x 1440) in many codecs today (for computer displays, of course).

4K may well be the next thing but 4K sources in the home......a looooooong way off.

Art

4K may well be the next thing but 4K sources in the home......a looooooong way off.

Art

They could probably do it today with the same drives used in some of the optical disc players. Especially if they could get 200GB discs to work. It would probably work with 50GB too, they just might need to either spin the disc faster or just buffer more maybe, and use a different connector (DVI?) than HDMI. Or they could play it back from hard disc after copying it from a number of optical discs?

For rez to go higher, it has to satisfy two things. One, people have to see the advantage outside of a handful of geeks who collect technology. Two, studios have to see it as a valuable marketing tool that will allow greater profits without greater expenditure. My guess is that the idea would lose on both fronts.

Of all the reasons why people aren't embracing the current formats "it's not HD enough" isn't among their list of grievances. Likewise, studios are probably already experiencing difficulty in dealing with the demands HD places on the restoration/re-mastering process, even on recent titles. You have to assume that a new super-duper high-def format, or 3-D format would only be good for those titles that are new or exist in a near-perfect state of preservation. Are studios really going to go for a format that reveals more warts on their stored assets, and will a format that only exploits new releases be profitable enough to bother?

Home Video has been the crutch that supports studios on the massive gamble of producing new product, if theaters continue to drop and home theater becomes it's stand-in, the studios have no diversification in their money-making portfolio. They could have a bad year with few productions that don't perform well sink the ship. Studios only advance technology when it makes economic sense to do so, and you gotta ask yourself questions like "how much more money would Spider Man III have made if there was an even higher-resolution video format?"

For rez to go higher, it has to satisfy two things. One, people have to see the advantage outside of a handful of geeks who collect technology. Two, studios have to see it as a valuable marketing tool that will allow greater profits without greater expenditure. My guess is that the idea would lose on both fronts.

Of all the reasons why people aren't embracing the current formats "it's not HD enough" isn't among their list of grievances. Likewise, studios are probably already experiencing difficulty in dealing with the demands HD places on the restoration/re-mastering process, even on recent titles. You have to assume that a new super-duper high-def format, or 3-D format would only be good for those titles that are new or exist in a near-perfect state of preservation. Are studios really going to go for a format that reveals more warts on their stored assets, and will a format that only exploits new releases be profitable enough to bother?

Home Video has been the crutch that supports studios on the massive gamble of producing new product, if theaters continue to drop and home theater becomes it's stand-in, the studios have no diversification in their money-making portfolio. They could have a bad year with few productions that don't perform well sink the ship. Studios only advance technology when it makes economic sense to do so, and you gotta ask yourself questions like "how much more money would Spider Man III have made if there was an even higher-resolution video format?"

You make some good points, though I thought that film had really high resolution, and most of it unused as well? Correct me if I'm wrong, as I am not sure. If that was the case, extra resolution wouldn't cost anything, provided that the film wasn't shot with HD cameras.

Studios only advance technology when it makes economic sense to do so, and you gotta ask yourself questions like "how much more money would Spider Man III have made if there was an even higher-resolution video format?"
At least twice as much money? people would buy it just to see how much better 4k high def media was than 2k ;) Though a better film for 4k HDM would probably be one with thousands of extras/people/robots/ships/spaceships/whatever in the same shot?

with the analog cut off mandate being extended to feb of 09 because stations were
not digital yet and thats not hd just digital i think this standard will be with us a long
time.

I'm waiting for holographic displays.
I'm picturing a live three dimensional Superbowl event taking place on my coffee table.

They could probably do it today with the same drives used in some of the optical disc players. Especially if they could get 200GB discs to work. It would probably work with 50GB too, they just might need to either spin the disc faster or just buffer more maybe, and use a different connector (DVI?) than HDMI. Or they could play it back from hard disc after copying it from a number of optical discs?

I'm not arguing about the technical feasibility, it could be done, but it won't be done.

Art

I'm waiting for holographic displays.
I'm picturing a live three dimensional Superbowl event taking place on my coffee table.

That would be sweet, though I don't think I'd want to watch it on my coffee table. Imagine having a room dedicated to such a display! You could watch a movie, or TV like life size people were having a conversation in the middle of your room. Imagine a 6 or 8 foot space dedicated to that!

In much the same way that the next step for music was digital in order to facilitate convenience and portability, I reckon the next step after HD and increased interactivity will be the eventual success of the digital download.

That being said, I can see some sort of niche format taking hold for real quality enthusiasts with the largest wall sized screens etc. Probably along the lines of current 4K cinema projection and holographic discs or... whatever will be able to hold the vast amounts of data required.
I;d guess it would start seeping into the top end of the market in 10-15 years.

At least twice as much money? people would buy it just to see how much better 4k high def media was than 2k ;) Though a better film for 4k HDM would probably be one with thousands of extras/people/robots/ships/spaceships/whatever in the same shot?

Well, I'll put it out there that they aren't racing en-mass to see how it looks at 1080-p, that's a pretty-good warning shot of how many would race to see it at double or triple that.

It is true that film sports a higher rez than current HD delivers, but for what arena? We own progressively bigger TVs but nothing that even gives the smallest multiplex a run for it's money.

At this point we don't even know if studios really support HDM. Their output has been minimal, and willingness to shoulder risk and aggressively promote, tepid at best, and they seem pretty open to influence.

At this point we don't even know if studios really support HDM. Their output has been minimal, and willingness to shoulder risk and aggressively promote, tepid at best, and they seem pretty open to influence.Yeah, except little to none of that's true. By all accounts, HDM is actually growing faster than DVD, and promotion is out the wazoo.

At this point we don't even know if studios really support HDM. Their output has been minimal, and willingness to shoulder risk and aggressively promote, tepid at best, and they seem pretty open to influence.

Yes !!! This is the problem. I didn't build my theater to watch only the handful of good recent titles. The catalog is what I'm in it for. The sales numbers for catalog titles will not support studios spending the time doing restoration and quality transfers.

Thinking that they are looking at 4K is a joke IMO.

Art

just looking at the cost of a 4k camera i don't see it happening .

Its taken over 50 years for NTSC to be replaced by something higher def and HDM already supports the max resolution of current HD technology.

I don't think we will ever see a higher def consumer disc format. By the time HDTVs are replaced by extra HDTVs (probably at least 20 years away), we will have probably moved to an online distribution technology.

Its taken over 50 years for NTSC to be replaced by something higher def and HDM already supports the max resolution of current HD technology.
Do you mean there are no displays capable of higher res than 1920x1080? Or no displays capable of 1920x1080@25p and 1920x1080@50p and 1920x1080@60p?

We cannot do it for over the air. We are stuck with MPEG2 for the duration of ATSC/8VSB era; longer than most of us can expect to live. Even 1080p/60 would break too many existing TV sets.

So it can't happen until someone is willing to take a business risk and develop an integrated system consisting of a higher resolution monitor along with a proprietary data transmission system. That system would need to employ a higher base bit rate along with a more efficient CODEC to reduce the compression artifacts that ultimately limit the clarity of the image.

Of course, we can postulate technical solutions to the problem but who of you out there can see a profitable market developing for this service?

--- CHAS

i can't imagine the bandwidth it would take for ota at 1080p and the willingness
not to compress it to death so more stations can be added .greed is powerful thing.

Yeah, except little to none of that's true. By all accounts, HDM is actually growing faster than DVD, and promotion is out the wazoo.

Really? I don't even see tags about the hi-def versions run on new SD DVD releases commercials half the time. Also I'd be interested to see how much promo that looks like it's studio financed is actually CEM financed. You also can't count Sony, because Sony is a CEM and a studio, and shooting for the moon.

I hear a lot of people trying to gauge format success and the war by anecdotal observations of what they see on CC and Best Buy shelves. However, I'm not convinced even the HDM sections at BEST BUY aren't heavily subsidized promo displays. Think about it, HDM accounts for 2% of the home video market, yet your average BEST Buy is coughing up 8% of it's shelf-space to it. That's like saying "We only ever sell 2 copies of a given release, we better stock and display 8.

just looking at the cost of a 4k camera i don't see it happening .

Eh? The base cost for a RED camera is only $17,500 (but figure spending at least twice that by the time you have even a minimal lens kit) but that's cheap to what you can spend on a good 35mm film camera and you can easily spend a lot more than $17,500 on film stock and processing for one feature film.

There's a bit of a learning curve to getting used to working with the RED, but given the immediacy of the results and the reduction in mechanical fidding you have to do, I think it's easier to work with than film.

i saw the special on that camera maybe the price was including all associated hardware
and software.

I'm waiting for holographic displays.
I'm picturing a live three dimensional Superbowl event taking place on my coffee table.

:) Back in 1968 or so, that's what I thought the future would bring . . .

Don't hold your breath . . .I'm still waiting for holography.

The idea where if HDM didn't sell the same numbers as DVD day one it was a complete failure and media would never advance again is amusing to watch. Get real. No one knows how this is going to unfold yet.

Adding another display mode to new displays while maintaining backwards compatibility is infinitely easier to pull off in the digital world than it was in the analog world.

You don't have to go back that far in some of the forums here to see where people were predicting that broadcasting would be completely wiped out by the cost of going HD if there wasn't another 20 year wait built in, and no consumer is going to buy in because they won't pay the $5000 it costs for a 36" HDTV. I haven't seen any broadcasters file for bankruptcy yet and have you been to the big box at all in the last 2 years?

What I would see happening is a split coming between those who want the lowrez down loads and those that want to pay for the best. But for those that want the best it will keep progressing. The studios have to compete with a lot more players than they used to. Because of that they are going to have to keep adding more wow factor because the game makers and every one else aren't going to stand still.

yeah a holodeck would be nice "computer on".

Even with 4K displays I think that people will be very happy with the image scaled from 1080p sources -- the same way that DVDs look much better scaled onto a 1080p display.

Here are some raw numbers for uncompressed data to add a few facts to the arguments:

1920x1080x24P - 1 Terrabyte of storage needed

4000x2000x24P - 10 Terrabytes of storage needed

60 FPS film has already been tried . . and it failed. If people really liked the result, Showscan would not have gone out of business.

The cost of doing 60 FPS 35mm (forget 70mm) is HUGE because of the prints needed to show it. Plus none of the existing 35mm projectors can go that high. So they all have to be replaced. THAT is NOT going to happen.

We may view films as entertainment, but the people who finance them and make them look at films as a business . . . to make money at . . . first and foremost.

The move to D-Cinema is not to give the audience a better looking image - it is to get rid of the almost $800 million per year expenditure for prints for the 500 movies made each year.

And has been already discussed - if Hollywood can't make big money from a technology - they are not interested.

Really? I don't even see tags about the hi-def versions run on new SD DVD releases commercials half the time.I'm seeing it almost every commercial, but I keep myself to primetime and the HD channels (MOJO, DiscoveryHD, UniversalHD, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz). On channels like Discovery and UniversalHD, there are also tons of commercials (ironically, for the latter) for Blu-ray and Blu-ray titles.
I hear a lot of people trying to gauge format success and the war by anecdotal observations of what they see on CC and Best Buy shelves. I'm not looking at it from an anecdotal POV, I'm looking at market research and historical trends. The same people saying "OMG it's been two years, hi-def is sooooo dead" seem to completely ignore the fact that DVD took 2+ years to gain a foothold while competing with VHS, networks, cable, satellite, and the rental market. It took DVD 10 years to finally surpass VHS, and people are complaining about HDM 2 years in? Particularly when the attacks are directed at Blu-ray post-Warner, it strikes me as willful ignorance of the past and current trends to form an incorrect theory.

2040-2050 SHV/UHD based (8K)

Because the next format will be based on a broadcast standard and 4K will NOT become a broadcast standard... you have to skip ahead to 8K which is being readied for a planned 2025 Japan debut. Give it a decade for it to start in North America and another decade for adoption to be high enough to warrant a new movie media for home.

Since very large screens will be needed in order to see 8K resolution, the next step will be meaningless unless it also comes with:

1) Lossless Video
2) 4:4:4 (NO chroma subsampling)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YUV_4:2:0#4:2:0
3) xvYCC color space (30 million colors --> 1.8 times more then RGB)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XvYCC
4) 48bit color depth (16bit per colour)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Color

Put those 4 attributes + 8K resolution and you will be able to see a major difference even on a 50" screen.

Wow, lets get 1080P off the ground before we start demanding something better! It looks pretty good to me.

Here are some raw numbers for uncompressed data to add a few facts to the arguments:

1920x1080x24P - 1 Terrabyte of storage needed

4000x2000x24P - 10 Terrabytes of storage needed

60 FPS film has already been tried . . and it failed. If people really liked the result, Showscan would not have gone out of business.

The cost of doing 60 FPS 35mm (forget 70mm) is HUGE because of the prints needed to show it. Plus none of the existing 35mm projectors can go that high. So they all have to be replaced. THAT is NOT going to happen.

We may view films as entertainment, but the people who finance them and make them look at films as a business . . . to make money at . . . first and foremost.

The move to D-Cinema is not to give the audience a better looking image - it is to get rid of the almost $800 million per year expenditure for prints for the 500 movies made each year.

And has been already discussed - if Hollywood can't make big money from a technology - they are not interested.

Big Deal...

10 years ago most PC's had 8 megs RAM or less. Today, 2,000 megs is common... in 10 years, 500,000 megs? ...or 500 GB, or 1/2 TB, whatever...

10 years ago I had a 500 MB hard and thought I would never be able fill it. Yesterday I bought a 750,000 MB (750 GB) hard drive for my media center, bringing it's total to 1,070,000 MB (1.07 TB)..... in 10 years, I'll no doubt be frustrated that I only have 2,300,000,000 MB (2.3 PB... that's PetaBytes. If you heard it hear first, get used to it)

10 years ago I had a 90 mhz PPC. Today, a dual core 3,000 mhz machine.... in 10 years my middle of the road machine will likely be a 16 core 100,000 mhz (100 ghz), if thats even possible with what we today call cpu's!

And the question is never "will any body need it?" That's never the question in technology. The only question is if we will be able to do it. Because if we can, we will, and someone will buy it, and the rest of us will lust after it, and then someone else will make it cheaper, and then the rest of us will buy it.

And then some slacker will declare that "That is it! We have gone as far as we need to go, and to suggest we go any further is just sillyness!"

Yeah... whatever:cool:

I'm seeing it almost every commercial, but I keep myself to primetime and the HD channels (MOJO, DiscoveryHD, UniversalHD, HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz). On channels like Discovery and UniversalHD, there are also tons of commercials (ironically, for the latter) for Blu-ray and Blu-ray titles.
I'm not looking at it from an anecdotal POV, I'm looking at market research and historical trends. The same people saying "OMG it's been two years, hi-def is sooooo dead" seem to completely ignore the fact that DVD took 2+ years to gain a foothold while competing with VHS, networks, cable, satellite, and the rental market. It took DVD 10 years to finally surpass VHS, and people are complaining about HDM 2 years in? Particularly when the attacks are directed at Blu-ray post-Warner, it strikes me as willful ignorance of the past and current trends to form an incorrect theory.

But you are forgetting that at the time of DVD . . . it was the best looking format hands down, over LD, OTA and VHS. And you could see this on any NTSC TV.

HDM is one of many HD delivery systems . . . it is 6 years late to the "HD party" and requires a special HDTV to even see it.

If you want to believe all the BS and chest beating going on about HDM versus DVD . . we still have not established how HDM did the last week of 2007 because we know that DVD sold over 750,000 discs in that same time period - just scaled back to DVD's SID.

You can quote the articles all you want . . .HDM has NOT done as well as DVD did in the same time period. Not when you look at everything . . . disc sales and player sales because you have the PS3 and 360 AO throwing the player sales off. There were 1.4 million DVD SAL's sold for SI to 12/98. There were not 1.4 million SAL sales for HDM. Not even close. And DVD was a buy only format at this time in it's life - no rental outlets like BBI or NF.

How many movie titles released from 4/06 to 12/07? Forget about the fluff titles . . movies only . . . no fireplaces or fish tanks or such. Less than DVD.

What will be the next hi-def format after blu ray and how many yrs.till it comes out?

I don't know the answer to the first but by the anemic HDM in almost two years I'd guess it will be twenty years or more.

Art

Big Deal...

10 years ago most PC's had 8 megs RAM or less. Today, 2,000 megs is common... in 10 years, 500,000 megs? ...or 500 GB, or 1/2 TB, whatever...

10 years ago I had a 500 MB hard and thought I would never be able fill it. Yesterday I bought a 750,000 MB (750 GB) hard drive for my media center, bringing it's total to 1,070,000 MB (1.07 TB)..... in 10 years, I'll no doubt be frustrated that I only have 2,300,000,000 MB (2.3 PB... that's PetaBytes. If you heard it hear first, get used to it)

10 years ago I had a 90 mhz PPC. Today, a dual core 3,000 mhz machine.... in 10 years my middle of the road machine will likely be a 16 core 100,000 mhz (100 ghz), if thats even possible with what we today call cpu's!

And the question is never "will any body need it?" That's never the question in technology. The only question is if we will be able to do it. Because if we can, we will, and someone will buy it, and the rest of us will lust after it, and then someone else will make it cheaper, and then the rest of us will buy it.

And then some slacker will declare that "That is it! We have gone as far as we need to go, and to suggest we go any further is just sillyness!"

Yeah... whatever:cool:

You have focused on the storage issue . . . the easiest issue to deal with.

You are ignoring the display issue totally.

Of course 1080 is not "the end." We are discussing WHEN it will be replaced not IF it will be replaced.

By most accounts, the general public is satisfied with mediocrity when it comes to all things audio/video. This is why SACD and DVD-Audio (While far superior formats compared to conventional CD on a nice system) are practically dead formats, and why we're seeing slow HDM sales.

Hell, the average consumer is satisfied with compressed audio, a la lossy MP3. As long as they can fit 1,000 songs on their MP3 player, quality becomes a distant 1,001 in order of importance.

DVD is simply good enough for the majority. (VHS even suffices for those who don't care about keeping up with the Jones'.)

HDM on disc is, at this time, a niche product.

You have focused on the storage issue . . . the easiest issue to deal with.

You are ignoring the display issue totally.

Of course 1080 is not "the end." We are discussing WHEN it will be "replaced" not IF it will be replaced.

Whatever . . . blah, blah, blah . . right?:rolleyes:

Wow...

Remember the 8" 80 column monochrome interlaced NTSC displays in the 70's and early 80's?

The 90's saw the 14" 800x600x8bit color vga (or rgb) become dominant.

Today my PC has a 22" 1680x1050x32bit dvi, but I'm poor and cant afford a 30" 2560x1600 cinema display.

In another 10 years??? Please, this is getting ridiculous... Do anyone here have any history at all?

Long story short, the replacement is already here. Neither hdm format is going very far, because in the short term, DVD (w/ upscaling) is good enough.... longer term, in few years we'll look at blu-ray the same way we look at cd-r's today! Just the thing if you need to make a boot rom to update you bios.

Edit: hmm... then again, the 3.5 inch floppy has lasted, what, 25 years... maybe we'll still be burning cd-r's in 10....

You know whats funny... writing the last post made me remember that until the late 90's, the largest TV I had was a 19" Samsung.

My monitor today, not all that big, is bigger than most of the tv's I've had in my life :D

But you are forgetting that at the time of DVD . . . it was the best looking format hands down, over LD, OTA and VHS. And you could see this on any NTSC TV.You're telling me most people can't tell the difference between OTA, DVD, and HDM? That's at best stretching the truth. If you can come up with non-anecdotal evidence, then please do.
If you want to believe all the BS and chest beating going on about HDM versus DVD . . we still have not established how HDM did the last week of 2007 because we know that DVD sold over 750,000 discs in that same time period - just scaled back to DVD's SID.Are you comparing current HDM sales to 1998 DVD sales? Because the closest I could come was less than 500k DVDs sold in Week 52 of 1998. Sure, it was more than HDM made, but the real test would be comparing DVD the the amount of VHS/laserdisc sold, then comparing that percentage to the current HDM->DVD percentage.
You can quote the articles all you want . . .HDM has NOT done as well as DVD did in the same time period. Not when you look at everything . . . disc sales and player sales because you have the PS3 and 360 AO throwing the player sales off.Riiiiight. I should discount the actual facts being provided by NPD, Nielsen, CEA, and others because supposedly the PS3 and 360 add-on mess with the figures, even though they're explicitly not counted in their figures? Sorry, but I'm not going to play by arbitrary and baseless rules because it doesn't support your theory.
There were 1.4 million DVD SAL's sold for SI to 12/98. There were not 1.4 million SAL sales for HDM. Not even close.Not even close? If Toshiba tells us that they account for 49% of the standalone market, and we assume there are 650k-700k+ Toshiba standalones, then logic tells us that there are 1.4m HDM standalones out there.
And DVD was a buy only format at this time in it's life - no rental outlets like BBI or NF.Yet another blatant piece of misinformation. Netflix was up and running in April 1998, and Blockbuster and Hollywood were most certainly renting DVDs. In fact, Blockbuster actually turned down the rental window offer from Warner in 1998.

I don't know the answer to the first but by the anemic HDM in almost two years I'd guess it will be twenty years or more.

Art

Me too, not that the digital conversion issue is an HD issue per-se, but I also don't think it's even begun to sink into a lot of people that they have to do something about how they watch TV in a year, and that if they go the new TV route, they are probably going to pay more than they did for SD CRT. They aren't necessarily asking for HD, and once they get it by default, they aren't likely going to warm up to yet another swap anytime soon.

The whole concept that HDM isn't taking the market by storm, but another variant is going to just a handful of years from now seems far-fetched to me.

Here are some raw numbers for uncompressed data to add a few facts to the arguments:

1920x1080x24P - 1 Terrabyte of storage needed

4000x2000x24P - 10 Terrabytes of storage needed

60 FPS film has already been tried . . and it failed. If people really liked the result, Showscan would not have gone out of business.

The cost of doing 60 FPS 35mm (forget 70mm) is HUGE because of the prints needed to show it. Plus none of the existing 35mm projectors can go that high. So they all have to be replaced. THAT is NOT going to happen.

We may view films as entertainment, but the people who finance them and make them look at films as a business . . . to make money at . . . first and foremost.

The move to D-Cinema is not to give the audience a better looking image - it is to get rid of the almost $800 million per year expenditure for prints for the 500 movies made each year.

And has been already discussed - if Hollywood can't make big money from a technology - they are not interested.

Note however that if you have a 4K 1080p/60 movie in some digital format it is very easy to convert it on the fly for a very good quality 1080i or 720p/60 broadcast. And having a good hi-rez master makes the library available for the inevitable future delivery media that can cost effectively deliver that higher quality.

Meanwhile, a terabyte of hard drive storage only costs about $200 these days. Triple that for redundant backup and you still are talking about only $6000 for your 10 TB movie. That is not exactly a high budget movie expense, once digital. They will do it for future proofing.

- Tom

I think it's possible that the HDMI technology could change or even become obsolete in the next few years. Some people aren't happy that the connectors don't really lock into place and come out too easily. Plus, the HDMI spec (v1.1, v1.2, v1.3a, etc.) is too far ahead of devices and media that deliver it.

The tech companies will get more $ from us when HDMI is replaced or upgraded.

I think it's possible that the HDMI technology could change or even become obsolete in the next few years. Some people aren't happy that the connectors don't really lock into place and come out too easily. Plus, the HDMI spec (v1.1, v1.2, v1.3a, etc.) is too far ahead of devices and media that deliver it.

The tech companies will get more $ from us when HDMI is replaced or upgraded.

The next version is called Display Port, and it's already here (http://www.tech-faq.com/displayport.shtml).

2016. Using the DCI native 4K 12-bit 4:4:4 x'y'z' color space.

I won't bet on whether it'll have physical media as an option, though. I think the intersecting bandwidth and compression efficiency curves put us in a pretty good place to have it be downloadable for the most part by then.

So what then will the studios have to sell us in 3 or 4 yrs?I guess we will see
super bit blu rays.

And the question is never "will any body need it?" That's never the question in technology. The only question is if we will be able to do it. Because if we can, we will, and someone will buy it, and the rest of us will lust after it, and then someone else will make it cheaper, and then the rest of us will buy it.

You can't even buy wisdom like that. That should be the first words out of the mouth of every business teacher when then address a new class.


HDM is one of many HD delivery systems

Guess it could be where you live. Ain't no OTA here but from what I have seen most of it in the US doesn't make it to HD quality any more because of sub channels. I know it has been a long time up here since Satellite was HD quality. You can blather about the internet all day long but I have yet to see any thing posted on there that is truly HD quality. DVD even up converted doesn't cut it either. After reading your post for the last month
I am starting to think you are watching this stuff on a 14" B&W Magnavox.

everyone is not seeing that technology is accelerating, in 5 years there very well could be 4k home video cameras.

i figured it would be a few years before we see TVs supporting wide color! well i was wrong looks like late this year and many sets for next year will push wide color. what will they do next?

does anyone here follow nanotech? do you know we are heading into a vast explosion in technology. sorry the next ten years could have as much changes as the last hundred!

i never thought i would EVER own a tv bigger then 27 inches, 10 years ago thats what i had. i got a 42 inch lcd that freaking hangs on the wall now!!!
i am thinking about a 52 inch sometime next year when the price hits by level.

my dads on his 4th tv in the last 6 years and is grumbling that the 60 inch samsung is not big enough!

The issue IMO rests with the display. You must have a larger display to go to a higher resolution. 60" is the absolute minimum for anything higher than 1080.

But less than 5% of all displays purchased are 60" or greater.

When NHK showed their Ultra HD system (7000x4000) they used a 500" display and showed a graph of the seating distance compared to 1080 and 4K; 1080 - 3X picture width, 4K - 1.5 X picture width. UHD - .75 X picture width.

Do people really want to sit that close to their display?

NTSC has lasted for over 50 years (1953) and will continue for at least another 10 years. 1080 should last for a minimum of at least half that time period (30 years) with the SID being 1998. That puts us right around 2030.

There are now over 100 million HDTV in the world . . . compared to over 1 billion SD TV's.

We have a loooong way to go.

Yes, with choices that we have now only more will come in the future. We are changing to digital next year. Not 1080 p or i, just digital. For a long time we will see great differences in channels. Home theater may and can easily go to 4K if a market exists for it. If there is a special group that wants only the best technology can give in Home Theater Experience with specialty TV's and players, it will be made.

Look to Japan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205338.stm

Look to Japan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205338.stm

Japan runs a lot of tech up the flagpole that nobody else salutes.

Historically the home front follows the theatrical front. TV was setup as 4:3 because that's how movies came out. Movies decided to go widescreen to differentiate themselves. Homes have now gone wide screen. Then high def tv came out and soon a high def movie platform (I guess that was the home following the home).

Now movies are starting to push 3D to differentiate themselves again. My bet is on a 3D technology starting somewhere around the year 2018 and be around 2160p.

It's not that farfetched since some LCD's have already begun to show off the technology. They are only prototypes and they completely lack content, though some believe computer games will be the first use. LINK
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/11/sharp_lcd/)

As far as I can remember, the movies are in widescreen as early as 1960s and TV didn't change from 4:3 for another 40 years, and that's a long time if what you're saying is true that home fronts follow theater fronts.

Isn't it a possiblity that the change in AR is because of increase in screen size?

They could sell TVs that are designed to be stuck together so you could have as high resolution and as big as you want. Until they have high def media that is higher res, perhaps you'd have to connect a player to a video processor that scaled the picture so it was bigger and positioned properly on each of the screens that made up the big picture? (though you'd probably see the joins between the TVs)

Even now, many argue that 1080p is overkill if you sit further than 5-6 feet from your display, as most people do; or if you display is less than 50", which most peoples are. So, it begs the question of whether or not an even "higher def" format would have any added value to the average consumer.

I was able to see SDE at like 50ft yesterday. Of course the screen was huge (theater) and the actual movie was film so it was gone when they switched over ;)

I think it's possible that the HDMI technology could change or even become obsolete in the next few years. Some people aren't happy that the connectors don't really lock into place and come out too easily. Plus, the HDMI spec (v1.1, v1.2, v1.3a, etc.) is too far ahead of devices and media that deliver it.

I hear they are really pushing for wireless hdmi. If they would have agreed on a format it would be further along than it is ;)

I hear they are really pushing for wireless hdmi. If they would have agreed on a format it would be further along than it is ;)
Wireless will never be as good and as high bandwidth as wired. Wired is better.

What will be the next hi-def format after blu ray and how many yrs.till it comes out?

Just 7 short years away

http://www.physorg.com/news119509820.html

Just 7 short years away

http://www.physorg.com/news119509820.html

I'd prefer a lower resolution 4k version next week that is as cheap as chips ;)
(2015 is too long away we need something better now, but still have 33 million pixels when 2015 comes)

PS: By the time 2015 comes, Ofcom will have sold off nearly all the TV bandwidth in the UK and we'll only have space left for 4 channels of heavily compressed 1080i and some really compressed 576i low & lower definition channels anyway. [Ofcom don't sell the bandwidth! :mad:]

I'd prefer a lower resolution 4k version next week that is as cheap as chips ;)
(2015 is too long away we need something better now, but still have 33 million pixels when 2015 comes)

PS: By the time 2015 comes, Ofcom will have sold off nearly all the TV bandwidth in the UK and we'll only have space left for 4 channels of heavily compressed 1080i and some really compressed 576i low & lower definition channels anyway. [Ofcom don't sell the bandwidth! :mad:]

Yes, however if everybody has Gigabit broadband and the major broadcasters are multicasting on IPV6 then it shouldn't matter. ;)

- Tom

1080p is going nowhere. It's taken years for the CE division to nail down a resolution. Satellite and Cable HD feeds will still be 1080i and 720p for a long time to come. While it is logical for tech to advance and we might have 4k tvs in a few years, the size of your average home hasn't increased. So, even if 2 years down the road, there are 70" 1080p LCDs are available for $2000, it doesn't matter as not many people will buy it due to space constraints.

So let me ask this, if the average size of a tv will not exceed 50", what is the benefit of 1440p or 2160p over 1080p at that size? Virtually none! Will there be higher resolution tvs, yes. But they will not be pushed to consumers for a long time. Because CE divisions wants to get into their head that "1080p = High Definition"

For the vast majority, 1080p is overkill. And in fact LCD and Plasma technology have ways to go. Pioneer threw down the gauntlet at CES with their new KURO. And I think this is the trend we'll be seeing in the next 5 years - how to make tvs thinner, lighter, more responsive, infinite contrast, blacker than black and low cost.

Also, the new trend seems to be putting the tv on walls. Last I checked, drywall hasn't changed in years. :D Unless there's a 30pound 70" LCD, I'm not putting it on a wall - wall stud or no wall stud.

I think sometimes we forget that Physical media is there to complement our display, not the other way around.

Didn't 1080p first poke its head out in the late 80s or early 90s? If so, it has taken 15+ years to gain much traction in the market place. So, early adopters may be upgrading 5-10 years after a new standard gets agreed upon. I figure I will own a few more 1080p tvs before we get anything better.

So let me ask this, if the average size of a tv will not exceed 50", what is the benefit of 1440p or 2160p over 1080p at that size? Virtually none! Will there be higher resolution tvs, yes. But they will not be pushed to consumers for a long time. Because CE divisions wants to get into their head that "1080p = High Definition"

They will give you higher resolution :). Some people want high definition and better pictures ;)

houses have not gotten bigger? where do you live?


i went from a 1200sgf house 10 years ago to a 2300sqf house 7 years ago, then i moved to Texas were everything is bigger. i got a 4000sqf house, my parents upgraded from a 1000sqf house to a 3200sqf house and my sister just jumped to a 3500sqf house from a 2000sqf one. all in the last few years.

looking around at all the houses being built around here there are few that are not close to 3000sqf or larger.

now Texas is not typical but the average home size has gotten allot bigger, with dedicated media and rec rooms being the biggest add on.

I used to work on Long Island as a contractor and all i did was basement conversions, it was a tie between a playroom for the kids or a media room added in the basement.

even small looking homes now are bigger with a finished basement, and people go with big rooms as it is cheaper to do.

houses have not gotten bigger? where do you live?


i went from a 1200sgf house 10 years ago to a 2300sqf house 7 years ago, then i moved to Texas were everything is bigger. i got a 4000sqf house, my parents upgraded from a 1000sqf house to a 3200sqf house and my sister just jumped to a 3500sqf house from a 2000sqf one. all in the last few years.

looking around at all the houses being built around here there are few that are not close to 3000sqf or larger.

now Texas is not typical but the average home size has gotten allot bigger, with dedicated media and rec rooms being the biggest add on.

I used to work on Long Island as a contractor and all i did was basement conversions, it was a tie between a playroom for the kids or a media room added in the basement.

even small looking homes now are bigger with a finished basement, and people go with big rooms as it is cheaper to do.

A 4000sft house is very rare in Canada, and are found in upscale neighbourhoods. My house costs $395,000, and it's a 2400sqft 2 storey. Even still the living room is only 16x12. That's about the average, and I saw practically 30 houses before I got mine.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of HDTV purchases in 2007 were of the 42"-55" variety, and it's not just because of price.

wow i only payed 130k for my house :) i think its time to come south LOL

my living room is 35ft by 28ft and 20ft high ceiling near the tv wall. i have a 18ft by 25ft rec room but it just has 8 foot ceilings. :(

I can do a 100 inch tv and still have seating thats to far away LOL

if you want my house you can "MAKE ME MOVE" with Zillow.com for only 225k i put allot of cash into it so it is worth it :) its just not big enough for me LOL just PM me and i will give you the link :)


I think you would be surprised that the upper middle class that is buying HDTVs have 2000sqf houses or larger. people would have bigger sets then 50 inch, but they want flat screens MORE then they want size. when the flat screens get to be as big as the rear projection sets at the same price you will see 60 plus sizes sell as the norm.

I don't. Movies produced even at 30fps don't look like movies to me. Higher frame rates are fine for other content though.

I don't think it's a framerate issue, I think it's a post-production issue, or even an issue with the quality of camera used.

I recall an episode of Stargate titled "Heroes". In this episode they had a documentary crew come in to do a documentery on the Stargate program so they would have something if it ever went public. Durint this episode, the video would switch between normal quality, and a "video" quality during scenes shot from the point of view of the documentary camera. I doubt they were changing framerates during this episode. Either they shot the documentary POV shots with a cheaper camera, or they simply didn't run the documentary POV shots through post-production so that they would have that budget "home video" look to them. I think that's why soap operas don't look good. Not because they are shot at 30fps, but because they don't go through that much post production, since they are filmed daily instead of weekly.

I'd personally like to see 60fps movies. I can plainly see the studdering framerate of 24fps. As far as the cost of changing over, it will be a moot point once a majority of the cinemas are digital. For those that aren't, I'm sure they can do a reverse 3:2 pull-down (2:3 push-up?) for film prints.

Big Deal...

10 years ago most PC's had 8 megs RAM or less. Today, 2,000 megs is common... in 10 years, 500,000 megs? ...or 500 GB, or 1/2 TB, whatever...

10 years ago I had a 500 MB hard and thought I would never be able fill it. Yesterday I bought a 750,000 MB (750 GB) hard drive for my media center, bringing it's total to 1,070,000 MB (1.07 TB)..... in 10 years, I'll no doubt be frustrated that I only have 2,300,000,000 MB (2.3 PB... that's PetaBytes. If you heard it hear first, get used to it)

10 years ago I had a 90 mhz PPC. Today, a dual core 3,000 mhz machine.... in 10 years my middle of the road machine will likely be a 16 core 100,000 mhz (100 ghz), if thats even possible with what we today call cpu's!

And the question is never "will any body need it?" That's never the question in technology. The only question is if we will be able to do it. Because if we can, we will, and someone will buy it, and the rest of us will lust after it, and then someone else will make it cheaper, and then the rest of us will buy it.

And then some slacker will declare that "That is it! We have gone as far as we need to go, and to suggest we go any further is just sillyness!"

Yeah... whatever:cool:

You're forgetting one point. You can't upgrade your eyes. (yet) I've seen the $10,000 Sony 1080p projector in action on a 120" screen. I had to get closer than .25 screen widths to see the pixel structure. Same thing for the $5000 Sony unit. So if you go to 2160p, what's the point if you have to sit two feet away from a ten foot wide screen to appreciate it? The only reason I could see for making 4K a home theater standard is if entire walls being converted to move theater screens becomes standard.

Other than that, I think home theater resolution has come as far as it needs to go, in terms of two-dimensional display technology.

I guess we'll have to see a 1080p image and a 2160p image side by side in a normal home theater environment (i.e. not 200" screen)

I have seen large screen projected HDTV that actually looks clearer to me than what I see in the movie theater.

--- CHAS

I have seen large screen projected HDTV that actually looks clearer to me than what I see in the movie theater.

--- CHAS


There is a reason for that . . . . an interesting read:

http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

You're forgetting one point. You can't upgrade your eyes. (yet) I've seen the $10,000 Sony 1080p projector in action on a 120" screen. I had to get closer than .25 screen widths to see the pixel structure. Same thing for the $5000 Sony unit. So if you go to 2160p, what's the point if you have to sit two feet away from a ten foot wide screen to appreciate it? The only reason I could see for making 4K a home theater standard is if entire walls being converted to move theater screens becomes standard.

Other than that, I think home theater resolution has come as far as it needs to go, in terms of two-dimensional display technology.

I guess we'll have to see a 1080p image and a 2160p image side by side in a normal home theater environment (i.e. not 200" screen)

The only thing i seem to be forgetting is that this is a PS3/whatever lovefest and any comment that doesn't kneel before the awesome glow of a round 5" piece of plastic is a heretical threat!

Technology moves on... relentlessly. Analogue technology moved (relatively) slowly because everything was hard wired and built to do just one thing one way. Digital technology is different, way different... we could go from 1080p to 2160p in a heartbeat, we would just need to juggle the band width.

Higher resolutions are coming, sooner then you think. And when people see it, they will lust for it.. The 1440p and 2160p monitors have already been produced... Hell, Apple Cinema displays exceeded 1080 a long time ago. And even though they are only 30", people who see them (myself included) know just looking at it that it is a step up in quality.

I would assume the occasional fanboi will note that you have to put your face within 3.8461 inches of the surface of the screen to notice any pixelation effect and that therefore the resolution is to high to justify, and Apple should cease and desist all future production! So Sayeth the Priests of the Syrinx! But you know what? it still looks great. The fanatical resistance to even the idea of improved resolution within this forum is understandable. Its understandable because the HD media in which so many (on this board... not in the real world... the rest of the world is noticeably ambivalently) have vested so much interest will not be able to keep up. The hoped for steady progression that would allow their format to become entrenched must not be violated!

We started with paint on rocks, and it was good for 40,000 years. Then Ink and parchment/papyrus/paper, and it was good for 5,000. Then acoustic vibrations on plastic, and it was good for a 100 years. And then magnetic charges metal strips 60 years ago, and then light waves etched in plastic some 20 years ago.... faster and faster to the future. HDM was, as is all media in retrospect, an intermediate format between what was and what will be, based on the best we could do at the time. That time was two years ago. had the format wars been resolved two years ago, there would be hdm everywhere. But it wasn't. And now we are two years closer to what will be. Why waste a moment on what was?

The future will be streamed.