Ultra HD

[tigerfan33]

Looks like 2020 will be the earliest.

I hate to see those 2020 prices too!!

http://www.tvpredictions.com/nhk102810.htm

 

[jayn_j]

In ten years, I'll be lucky if I can still see anything

I am currently sitting ten feet away from 120" 1080P from a BluRay. I suppose Ultra HD will be a visible improvement, but I am pretty happy with where I am now. Better than theater quality. I can't imagine spending big bicks for a small incremental improvement.

 

[tigerfan33]

Oh I agree. Big screen at home is so much better than a movie theater. Sharpness, brightness is not even close.

Plus I can pause it if I want to get a drink that will not drain my wallet.

 

[mike123abc]

4k would probably be the next step up, since it is a standard in digital theaters (but 2k much more common). I could see more theaters upgrade to 4k especially on very large screens.

But, I think better improvements could be done than just resolution increase. Deep color for one.

 

[Ilya]

You would think that your HD screen is already good enough. How can it get much better?
Well, if you really want to know, then do this simple experiment: put a laptop or a computer monitor next to your big HDTV screen and look at it again. Now imagine the entire big screen having the same pixel density as your small computer screen. That's how Ultra HD is going to look like!

 

[jayn_j]

You would think that your HD screen is already good enough. How can it get much better?
Well, if you really want to know, then do this simple experiment: put a laptop or a computer monitor next to your big HDTV screen and look at it again. Now imagine the entire big screen having the same pixel density as your small computer screen. That's how Ultra HD is going to look like!

Yeah, I guess so. I remember being blown away by Laserdisc with a composite input, so I guess it is all relative. On the other hand I have a philosophy on change and HT purchases designed to keep me sane.

When I am looking for something, I research the heck out of it. I buy the best price/performance available. And then I STOP looking. For example, I bought the Epson 8100 projector. Three months later, they introduced the 8350. Is it better? Yep. Does it make my projector less capable than it was? No. If I look, I go crazy and have envy and lust. If I ignore it, I am happy with my marvelous projector and actually enjoy the show.

I have even been known to keep stuff and ignore major innovations. Back in 1990 I bought a very nice Dolby pro logic amplifier (Denon avc-3000). I kept that amplifier as my main switching and source until 2008, when I went to BluRay. I needed better switching and was missing the advanced digital processing. Was the Dolby Digital better? Unquestionably, but I wouldn't have been able to justify an amplifier of that audio quality and decided I preferred a clean analog signal to a not so clean digital one.

So, will 2k be noticable? Likely. Will it be worth tossing the whole system and starting over? Probably not in my lifetime (I'm now 61)

 

[diogen]

I can understand restoring the movies at the highest possible resolution. Or have computer monitors 4K or higher.
But risking to sound old and stupid, I don't really see the point in going 4K for consumer TV/projectors.
Based on the human eye abilities, you have to sit closer than 4-5 feet to actually see every of the 4K pixels on a 50-60" screen
1080p charted: Viewing distance to screen size -- Engadget HD
Completely unrealistic, I believe.

Switching attention to color accuracy, gamut and contrast will be much more useful, I think...

Diogen.

 

[jayn_j]

20 years ago, the typical screen size was 25". Now it's 50". Where will it be 20 years from now, when this stuff matures?

The benefit of 1440 is fully apparent at 10' from a 120" screen and the benefits are seen from 15'. That's about the point where you would feel totally absorbed by the picture, so it does make sense. I am currently sitting about 10' back from 120" and that is kind of typical for the front row of home theaters.

I know I am apparently arguing against myself, but not really. I can see the benefit, but it probably wouldn't be worth dumping my whole setup and starting over again.

 

[diogen]

I am currently sitting about 10' back from 120"...

That is anything but average...
My guess would be the majority sits further away from 50" screens, if they have one.

In more than half the cases I've seen, the 1080p resolution is wasted: so far back is the couch...

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against high resolution. I'm against waisted efforts...

Diogen.

 

[mike123abc]

I would probably get a 4k setup when they become available at a reasonable price. But, I have realistic expectations that the support for 4k will be a long ways off. 4k will really require much better film transfers. Video cameras other than red 1 will need to be common. There is a lot of problems in the current production system to produce 4k material. HDCAM commonly used does not even do 2k but 1.4k. I would love to be able to walk up to a video the size of a wall and not see pixels.

 

[jayn_j]

I am currently sitting about 10' back from 120" and that is kind of typical for the front row of home theaters.

That is anything but average...
My guess would be the majority sits further away from 50" screens, if they have one.

Maybe I should have said dedicated home theaters. I have been looking at a lot of dedicated build threads. 10-12' to the front row is very typical. I also think there are a lot of folks out there that replace 50" plasmas with projectors and don't move the seats back.

I stand by the statement that 10' distance is typical for 120" screens. I would also agree it is typical for 50" screens. Heck, it is probably true for 30" screens. Just the right distance to put a coffee table between you and the set.

 

[tigerfan33]

I sit 12' from my 106" screen and 7' from my 52" LCD that is in another room. The LCD size looks about right but I wouldn't mind making the 106" bigger.