# 4320p coming to your Future HDTV ?



## space86

From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video

Networks to start broadcasting in 4320p in 2015!

I bet we will also see movies in 4320p in our Home Theaters
via a future Optical Disc Player like todays Blu-ray Disc Players ?


----------



## space86

I wonder how much the first 4320p HDTV will cost in 2015 ?


----------



## Pinion413

Cool stuff.

Still experimental though.

And even though I'm sure they'll have it working at some point, I don't see any real replacements for current HD technology/broadcasts happening anytime in the near future.

Could you imagine the bandwidth that a broadcast like that would require? :lol:


----------



## space86

By the time they start broadcasting in 4320p in 2015
I will be an Old Man LOL


----------



## Jason Nipp

This one is way old and has been brought up many times on the forum already. http://www.dbstalk.com/search.php?searchid=3296665 just to name a few quickly.

I like the part about the realism of the PQ making people violently ill.

Speaking of realism, the Mitsu products roadshow was in my area this last weekend, and they were showing their version of the 3D TV. That was kinda cool but again I could see that making people ill as well.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

But unfortunately you'll need a 200" screen to see the quality...


----------



## Jason Nipp

I know I could find room for a 200" screen..... Might have to knock down a wall or two and make my kids share a bedroom.... but I know it would fit!


----------



## jodavis

I don't see any use for more than 1080p in the home TV market. The human eye isn't able to resolve more than 1080p at any viewing distance that wouldn't make you sick. It would be like sitting in the front row at the movies all the time. The only place I can see a market for this is in people who have a dedicated theatre in their house. But if its an excuse for me to get the wife to let me buy some new toys hey what the heck right.


----------



## Jason Nipp

I think I'll just stick with my 19 inch B&W Quasar and save the $140,000 for my kids education......


----------



## Pinion413

Jason Nipp said:


> I think I'll just stick with my 19 inch B&W Quasar and save the $140,000 for my kids education......


Sadly enough, I used to own one of those. :lol:


----------



## P Smith

jodavis said:


> I don't see any use for more than 1080p in the home TV market. The human eye isn't able to resolve more than 1080p at any viewing distance that wouldn't make you sick. It would be like sitting in the front row at the movies all the time. The only place I can see a market for this is in people who have a dedicated theatre in their house. But if its an excuse for me to get the wife to let me buy some new toys hey what the heck right.


If you remember that time of 8mm films - what was a resolution of those ? Lines per inch ?


----------



## Bobby H

4320p might be useful if Hollywood filmed all their movies in Super Panavision 70mm or IMAX.

Unfortunately, there is currently no point at all in having a video storage system with that high a level of resolution.

Most Hollywood movies made in recent years have had their CGI work rendered at 2048 lines of resolution. The same goes for all of their "digital intermediate" work (original negatives are scanned and then cleaned up, colorized and processed further in computer systems).

Some movies have their CGI and DI work rendered in 4K. But such movies are very few in number.

Worse yet, lots of movies that have been ported to Blu-ray (and the dead HD-DVD format) used even lower quality HD telecine transfers instead of more precise scans and DI output.

Simply put, there's not nearly enough movie content out there to drive a 4K or "4320p" video format.


----------



## HIPAR

After weighing the facts and studying the trade offs, I can say 4320p isn't in my future. 

--- CHAS


----------



## glennb

Pinion413 said:


> Cool stuff.
> 
> Still experimental though.
> 
> And even though I'm sure they'll have it working at some point, I don't see any real replacements for current HD technology/broadcasts happening anytime in the near future.
> 
> Could you imagine the bandwidth that a broadcast like that would require? :lol:


There's always better technology right around the corner. It will change even faster now that the boadcasts are all going digital.

Before color TVs became a reality I'm sure people used to say - Could you imagine the bandwidth that a color TV broadcast would require ? :lol:


----------



## phrelin

This is an old thread, but the title of this post is from this article at Cnet today that explains:


> As if LED and 3D TV weren't confusing enough, 2012 and beyond will bring an HDTV technology called 4K. It's being heralded as the next high-def, and manufacturers are already lining up to bring you products.
> 
> But just as was the case with 3D, it's the hardware chicken before the software egg: there's no consumer 4K content available. Still, if you listen to the industry, it'll tell you it's the last resolution you'll ever need. So what is 4K anyway, and what makes it different from high definition?
> 
> ...Though there are several different standards, "4K" in general refers to a resolution of roughly 4,000 pixels wide and about 2,000 pixels high. That makes it the equivalent of four 1080p screens in height and length. Currently 4K is a catch-all term for a number of standards that are reasonably close to that resolution, and the TVs we'll see this year labeled 4K will actually be Quad HD, defined below. But frankly, we think 4K is the catchier name.


Another reason I hope my 2003 Pany 720p Plasma holds up for a couple of years?


----------



## pfp

From http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter


----------



## Davenlr

Like I am going to sit 4' from my 60" TV... 10-12" @1080p is just fine with me.


----------



## pfp

I think it only starts to make sense with projectors _or 60" screens on the long wall of a shipping container._


----------



## lugnutathome

pfp said:


> I think it only starts to make sense with projectors _or 60" screens on the long wall of a shipping container._


With you on that. Its another dream by the manufacturers to hit the truly large screen high end market which in a down global economy does not make sense IMHO at least.

Still it will have the advantage of driving down the costs on 1080p sets and likely eliminating the 720p sets.

I've 2 3D capable sets and have used them both as such but just not enough to have that drive future purchases (or their purchase for that matter).

In the long run 1080p will be likely the standard, with 1080i for broadcasting bandwidth reasons, and a few *large* screen devices like projectors and if they realize a wafer thin 70 inch screen is too fragile, perhaps some 70 75 inch LCD sets (or bigger) might utilize a 4k upscale engine.

Great idea for a limited market segment, limiting production, keeping costs high, and supporting media low.

The general public cannot afford multi thousand dollar TVs once a decade let alone every few years.

Don "1080p is just fine thank you" Bolton


----------

