Is there an hdtv version 2 in the works???

[yoda313]

I was wondering, technology is always on to the next big thing so is the next version of hdtv in the works??

Is there something higher than 1920x1080p on the way for the home market? Would it be possible? Could they increase the broadcast bandwidth enough to accomodate it?

(I know 1080i is the current broadcast limit but 1080p is possible).

[richdvd]

Doubtful...as HDTV is far from fully implemented.

[yoda313]

True but dvd was ahead of standard tv before hdtvs took off. They always push the limits of technology whether or not we're ready for it.

[energy80s]

In Japan, they are currently working on an 8 megapixel system. Then again, they've had HDTV for decades!!

[FulciLives]

At the rate technology is going at it will be a long time before the vast majority of people have HDTV at all and right now only a few and expensive HDTV sets can do 1080p with most topping out at 1080i although hopefully with HD-DVD and Blue Ray on the so-very-near horizon the 1080p spec for a HDTV will become common.

I just bought a HDTV capable of only 1080i (as that was all I could afford) and of all my close friends and family only one other person I know also has an HDTV (in fact the bastard has two ... it's my unsavory uncle) whereas everyone else still just have SDTV and are not in a position to afford a HDTV unless they went with something that was "dirt" cheap like a 26" 16x9 WS tube which I think is the "low" end of HDTV pricing. Come to think of it even that price point might be a stretch for them.

Hell everyone I know that is around my age is broke ... as am I most of the time as I seem to go through jobs (with long periods of unemployment in between them) more often than a snake sheds it's skin

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

P.S.
Actually I have some family (all much older than me) that could afford HDTV but could care less about it as watching TV is not a "big deal" to them. Old people are strange like that LOL

[DereX888]

@FulciLives
Youre talking about old people?
I know NO ONE age 20 or less who do watch TV at all, and a handful of people age 20-25 who does it occasionally
Young people aren't as stupid as generations before, plus they have better access to what they wanna watch at any time whenever they want it, not when the network wants them to watch it.
I think TV as we know it - with idiotic schedules, annoying commercial breaks taking 1/3 of programming, seasons (for series) etc - is not only a passe among my generation, but it will disappear (in its current model) sooner than anyone thinks.

I haven't watch live television for at least few years. I know I watch 9/11 events live on tv in 2001, and after that? Hmm... I know I watched *something* for about an hour once, but I already dont remember what was it (edit- I remember now: it was first day of attack on Iraq, and we switched to internet quickly because there were more interesting live videofeeds from soldier's webcams and some webcast from a tank as I remember it now)
Few of my friends (20 and younger) don't even remember when they have watch live tv last time
If I really have to watch live broadcast I feel unbelievably annoyed, I cant understand why on earth anyone can stand it. And dont get me wrong - I watch more tv series than movies probably, and I'm 'in touch' and current with all the series I like (i.e. I watched some shows captured from foreign/overseas broadcasters months before they were premiered on US channels - thats another reason why TV in its current model is a relict of the past).
But biggest sin of tv are the commercial breaks. Too many, too often. 20min per hour is *way* too much. And thats just aside of boooooooooring content itself! ('reality' tv? 'american idol'? hahaha how stupid one must be to spend money on hdtv just to follow such shows ROTFL!)

[FulciLives]

@DereX888

Interesting.

So what does everyone do?

Use some sort of TIVO like device or DVD recorder and then just watch everything after-the-fact?

You never lived if you haven't been around pre recording days and had to stay up til 3am on a Friday or Saturday to catch that awesome horror or cult film that you might never see again unless you stay up to watch it NOW

Another case in point ... a friend of mine so loved THE EXORCIST (he was about 19 when the movie came out) that he saw it multiple times at the theatre and even finally brought an audio tape recorder to record the audio of the movie to enjoy later. This was 1973 and there was no chance of seeing the movie again anytime soon after it left theatres.

The Beta/VHS VCR boom didn't really hit until the early-to-mid 1980's

Also if I can show my age even more ... I grew up in a very rural area and the local cable company didn't run a cable TV line out to us until roughly 1985 or 1986. We got it right away but my point is up until then (I was born 1972 by the way) I had all of 7 channels to watch via "rabbit ears".

The only other way back then was to buy a satellite dish that was the size of a small boat.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[edDV]

I was wondering, technology is always on to the next big thing so is the next version of hdtv in the works??

Is there something higher than 1920x1080p on the way for the home market? Would it be possible? Could they increase the broadcast bandwidth enough to accomodate it?

(I know 1080i is the current broadcast limit but 1080p is possible).

Not true. 1080p/24 is in the current standard but is unlikely to be supported for OTA broadcast until somebody wants it.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

Are you saying you have 1080p and will watch the ads?

Films are being transferred to 2kx4k or 4kx4k for theaters. 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1080i are downconversions from that database.

Ask your question again? There are many issues and subissues to this subject.

[yoda313]

Films are being transferred to 2kx4k or 4kx4k for theaters. 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1080i are downconversions from that database.

I guess that's my question. What would the possiblity of getting true original movie quality presentations on home electronics with no degredation. That would be truely remarkable.

[slimpickins]

can i ask, what is the difference between i and p, i.e is it quality, please explain

anyway i heard that u can get the 4kx4k but ul be paying through the roof for it, like 50,000 i think they had it on that screen at the oscars, also in the u.k there was a show about fooling people to think they were on a space capsle going to outer space, the screen they used to simulate earth was like 4 better quality than hdtv powerd by like 6 computers

also something in the works for a super system that is like a home cinema but curved round the room, its double the quality of hd but other factors like the screen mean its kind of like vr and ud believe ur actually there


also on the gadget show i saw one of those theoretical inventions (not impossible but still in the works) of special contact lenses and special glases make ur eye able to see like a super human eye so u can focus on the whole 100" screen at once and if they made it like 20 times better quality than hd then ur eye would appreciate it

kind of like explaining a world war2 person what an lcd screen is or the internet, pretty unbelievable but then again in one of the bonds in the 80's he had a gadget video phone in his car and now thats easy, or try showing someone from the 80's a laptop of today, or someone from the 60's a fighter plane of today, baflfing technology that will soon be standard

[yoda313]

can i ask, what is the difference between i and p, i.e is it quality, please explain

Here it is from the videohelp glossary:

INTERLACE

Each frame of a video picture is scanned twice. Firstly, all the odd lines are broadcast, then all the even lines are broadcast. Each set of odd/even lines is known as a field. Two fields therefore make up a frame. The point of doing this is to reduce flicker, and not increase bandwidth.


PROGRESSIVE




A video scanning system that displays all lines of a frame in one pass. Contrast with interlaced scan.

[DereX888]

@FulciLives
First-hand example: my older bro had seen star wars 20 or 30 times in theaters, and so did many of his friends (or so he says ) and I can understand it, even VCRs werent a common device back then (i think) lol
I dont think its possible nowadays. And thats what I was trying to tell you - that probably most of the current tv audience are people 30+, who grew up the way you said yourself (without other than broadcast ways of getting what they want to see).
I can tell by my parents. For my father no VCR, no dvd recorder, no web downloads can ever replace for him the live broadcast. I think he even prefer to watch i.e. movies broadcasted live on tv, splitted by all of those annoying hundreds of commercials, rather than play it from his own dvd and pause it whenever he need to go peepee lol, no, he'd wait till the commercial break even when he owns very same movie on dvd! I'm serious!
Various "toys" pile up and clutter around his TV, but he always watch his favorite channels and watch whatever's being served to him - while all the 'toys' are just novelties for a day, sometimes a week, yet the *broadcast* always reign in his family room LOL - talkin' bout generation gap

[edDV]

Films are being transferred to 2kx4k or 4kx4k for theaters. 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1080i are downconversions from that database.

I guess that's my question. What would the possiblity of getting true original movie quality presentations on home electronics with no degredation. That would be truely remarkable.

1920x1080 is plenty of resolution for a home size theater. The HD/Blu-Ray DVD players will use mostly 1080p/24 for movies. The 1920x1080 frames are repeated in the player in a 3 then 2 pattern for a 59.94 frame per second display (without flicker). In PAL areas, a 2 or 4 repeat is used to build up to 50 or 100 frame per second display. 50 is on the edge of flicker.

Sports and news look better at true 59.94 frames per second 1280x720 progressive resolution. 1080i/29.97 and 720p/59.94 use about the same bitrate. 1080p/24 needs more bitrate for the same quality. That is why it is unlikely to be broadcast over the air.

So in summary, you don't need 2kx4k or 4kx4k and the movie companies won't let you rent one unless you own a theater.

[edDV]

can i ask, what is the difference between i and p, i.e is it quality, please explain

Today's NTSC and PAL television is interlaced. Each field contains half the lines and updates every 1/60 second (1/50 for PAL) which gives a smooth low flicker picture with good action performance. If there's no motion the image settles into a progressive like picture. Where there is motion, every other line is offset by 1/60 sec.



Interlace 1080i high definition has the same issues with motion.


Progressive scans top to bottom in one time slice. Film does this slowly at 24 progressive frames per second, ESPN-HD does 59.94 frames per second for smooth sports action.

[slimpickins]

top picture looks crap, botom looks bad, but i know my tv signal doesnt look as bad as the first one, maybe u paused it a a funny moment, plus a basketball game and a talk show are to different a source to compare, i.e fast moving and background crowds, compared to a well designed set with talking people

[edDV]

top picture looks crap, botom looks bad, but i know my tv signal doesnt look as bad as the first one, maybe u paused it a a funny moment, plus a basketball game and a talk show are to different a source to compare, i.e fast moving and background crowds, compared to a well designed set with talking people

Umm, I think you don't get it. They were both intended to show how motion is handled in interlace video and neither is crap. It is the way it is. When the picture is in motion you see this as smooth motion. Top picture is 480i, bottom picture is 1080i sized down to about 1/3 width.

If either picture was 24 frame film, you would see jerky motion during playback.

Now, can you explain what you see in those two pictures? Look at the shoulders of the basketball players and the model's hands. (Hint, the computer shows two fields at once).

[edDV]

Maybe this will help. Top picture is 1x size so you can see the individual 1080i scan lines. You are seeing two fields displayed as a frame. Look at the left model's hand. You see two fields offset by 1/60 sec. Bottom picture shows the full frame.