The next big thing will be UHDTV (Ultra HD).

I can tell you right now 2160p beats 4320i hands down.

Unless you're talking about Fox 2160p, which is just 1080p upconverted.

In any event, I swear I got BDs that look better than NBC's crap U-HD.

Yeah I read about that a couple of months ago. Still think it's BS. Stations can't broadcast 1080p. Even using mpeg-4 compression I find it hard to believe they could broadcast 2160p let alone 4320p. And that also goes from cable/satellite. Where is the bandwidwth coming from. Cable dumping analog just to squeeze in HD channels that are 720p or 1080i. Where's is the bandwidth coming from for hundreds of these channels? And honestly are you going to notice any difference between 1080p and 2160p on anything under say 84 inches?

doesn't matter. So within 7 year stations are going to spend the money to upgrade to mpeg-4 compression? Of course no TVs or converter boxes are capable of decoding that so somehow in 7 years TVs and converter boxes with this ability are going to be the vast majority of the market? Hardly. Hell we barely have 60% penetration of HDTV. Blu-ray is 1080p and uses Mpeg-4 and has a 48 mbps bit rate. So how is a station going to broadcast 2160p with good quality at 19 Mbps using mpeg-4 let alone mpeg-2?

I propose a 30% tax hike for all Americans in order to pay for this. The Feds can give the local network facilities gobs of money to broadcast 4000p for each of 7 subchannels and new satellites and technology to have incredible bit rates for the utmost in quality. And we will do this in 7 years. And this will be the perfect excuse for the current networks, HBO, etc to continue multiple subchannels, grossly insufficient bitrates, and substandard pixel amounts (1440 instead of 1080) in order to prepare for 4000p. Oh, and within 7 years, prices for 4000p displays will be less than a grand.

Oh please. Did you really expect anything else when you posted such absurdity?

I don't think 2025 is so unrealistic. Remember that it took about 50 years for (American) terrestrial broadcast television to advance from analog 525i NTSC. 2025 will be 54 years since ATSC was finalized (of course, MUSE Hi-Vision had been operational for a decade prior, but that's mostly just trivia. Those wacky Japanese with their hyper-expensive concept products.).

But the amusing part (to me, at least) is that given all this, we will most likely still be using amazingly antiquated MPEG-2 codecs in 2050.

Of course, while broadcast standards might not evolve quickly, distribution media does. Most high-profile films are now shot on digital cinema equipment. 4K production monitors are just now showing up in large numbers. I think it's likely you'll see UHD equipment and IPTV or next-generation optical media distribution within 10 years, in very small numbers. Moore's law and its ilk almost demand it.

What's the Point? Isn't 3-D supposed to be the future? A recent study showed that over 65% of the public CAN'T even tell the difference between 1080i HD and 480i SD. Plus, most people in this world don't even understand what High Definition even is.

Yes I read an on that article 2 months ago. So welcome to last month smart guy.

shall I quote you?


In other words you think this technology wil exist in 7 years. NOW you post


So which is it? 7 years which is 2016 or 2025? Try making sense.

As a broadcaster, I can only ask this:

"How will it all look on a cell phone's screen?"

I saw the SuperHiVision demos at IBC in 2008. They were breathtaking on the pre-recorded content (even at 140Mbs H264 via two transponders from RAI)

However the live camera was a bit less than impressive - and any motion was very laggy (not sure if a camera issue or inherent motion blur becoming MUCH more visible at such high resolution - the system was only 60p) but still amazing (on a wide shot of the River Thames you could read the names of the boats as they went past, and the name of the BBC R&D Engineer from his pass - even though he was pretty small in frame!)

800Mbs MPEG2 (16 MPEG2 encoders slaved toghether) fibre was used for the link from London to Amsterdam.

On the other hand - it really needed a large cinema screen for impact (and I'm not sure how I would accommodate a 21.6 speaker set-up in my living room!)

The downconversion from 8k SuperHiVision to 4k on a large 4k LCD direct view panel did look stunning though - and would be practical in many more homes I suspect.

Don't forget some countries are installing 100Mbs+ fibre connectivity to individual residences NOW. That would be a suitable pipe to distribute >1080p HD content.

Satellite may also be feasible (the NHK/RAI/BBC demos at IBC 2008 used two Ku band - I think - transponders to deliver a 140Mbs H264 SuperHiVision signal - 7680 x 4320 at 60p) - though you might need to use new frequency bands currently unused for satellite TV DTH?

Current terrestrial OTA is probably not feasible. One SuperHiVision stream using current compression systems would use the entire UK OTA digital TV bandwith (160Mbs - 5 x 24Mbs SD muxes and 1 x 40Mbs HD mux)

Meanwhile in 2009 many of my Comcast "HD" channels are barely better than DVD quality and splatter blocks all over the screen whenever something moves too fast.

ATSC was finalized in 1971? I don't think so.

How many US platform operators are switching from MPEG2 to H264 (aka MPEG4)? I know some of the satellite providers are - how about cable ?

I guess MPEG2 is one reason that SDV is being rolled out ?

I can understand using the 4k and 8k formats for commercial theaters, but few people have the room size available to use a display that requires those formats.

A/53 was finalized in 1995 and adapted by the FCC in 1996.

I meant 30. That's what I get for posting after a third shift .

Improved resolution means improved picture at any size. It will let you sit closer to the screen and let it fill more of your vision.

This is a fact in photography. 4k pixels at 300 dpi (an average printing standard) only gives you a 13 inch print. HDTV only allows a few dozen pixels per inch with typical screen sizes. This is far below photographic standards. Wouldn't you like your picture quality to at least approach that of a photograph?

I sure would.

Thus the term 'photo quality' or 'photo-realistic', when describing high end computer graphics.

Given the hyperbole used in HDTV marketing (120Hz, 240Hz, full 1080p HDTV, etc.), I can understand how many would be skeptical about UHDTV, but having seen it, I can tell you it will be a tremendous improvement.

Here's a link from over 2 1/2 years ago: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=10225153

I also wonder if the television industry will be willing to sit on HDTV as a peak standard for decades like they did with NTSC and PAL. Television sales during the 80's and 90's were flat (poor Zenith!) while the computer industry expanded like wildfire because people were buying a new computer every two or three years.

Now televisions sales are huge and it's a profitable industry again. Improvements in HDTV sets have gotten some people to buy a new set every five years (you can buy my first $3,500 HDTV for $600 now!). Once everyone has a cheap television with 1920x1080 pixels, will the industry keep pushing for improved standards so they can develop improved products and keep sales up? I'd hate to see the industry slide into the status quo it was during the 80's

People are not going to tolerate a new non backward compatable tv system that requires another round of new tv set purchases or converter box purchases anytime soon. They better not even think of making existing ATSC sets obsolete for another 30 years at a minimum. Maybe they can develop a system where extra data bits for the ultra hd resolution are multiplexed into an ATSC signal and existing sets simply ignore that data and will still receive 1080i or 720p, while next generation sets use the extra data for 4320i or whatever. Surely the ATSC standard is flexible enough to allow for some backward compatable improvements over time without having to chuck the whole system and start from scratch.

That may be the case in the US - but we've done it a couple of times in the UK, the most recent being a switch of one of the six OTA muxes from DVB-T to DVB-T2 to allow our system to accommodate HD.

This has left 5 SD MPEG2 DVB-T muxes compatible with the existing receiver base, but has allowed us to switch the 6th mux to DVB-T2 using H264.

This has been an incompatible transmission scheme change. It will be interesting to see how receiver sales go. (It will be the easiest and possibly cheapest way of getting three or four of the UK main networks in HD)

We've switched from analogue satellite TV (which lasted around 10 years) to SD digital satellite TV, and then we added HD digital satellite TV (which required a new receiver - but was backwards compatible with SD broadcasts)

(We also switched from 405 VHF two channels to 625 UHF four channels - but there was a 21 year period between 625 starting in 1964, colour being added in 1967/8, and the two 405 channels switching off in 1985)

The issue with ATSC is that the RF modulation - the scheme used to get digital data into radio waves - is inefficient and outdated. Any new HD+ system will have to use newer modulation techniques to retain efficient spectrum use.

ATSC modulation gets around 19.2Mbs into a 6MHz channel. The latest DVB-T2 modulation gets 40.25Mbs into an 8MHz channel.

Whilst within the data domain you can transmit backwards compatible video streams (though it isn't as efficient) such as the AVC system that allows you to send a legacy 720/50p or 1080/50i stream AND an upgrade stream that allows newer receivers to create a 1080/50p stream from the legacy stream and the upgrade stream.

However this is in the data domain - not the modulation domain.

Resolution SCHMEZOLUTION! Spend some time over in http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=139 and learn how to obtain a picture that you will really enjoy. It's not about the number of lines, it's the settings that matter!

I used DVE2003 and RCA-fed DVD player to properly set the user controls(Contrast, color, brightness, etc) & flyback focus on a 1987 26" Zenith console, and the owners have now put off that plasma they've been thinking about indefinitely. They feed it Optimum HD and are thrilled with the albeit letter-boxed picture on those channels(700-750). Imagnine what a full gray-scale alignment could do for that set.

You might want to reserve judgment until you see it. Trust me on this one.



Agree.