The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do we need ultra high resolution TV  (Read 7177 times)

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« on: 02/01/2011 15:23:32 »
The BBC misguidedly to my mind is experimenting with the transmission of 6000 line TV to Japan.
I can see no use for such high resolution that requires a 325 MB link for its transmission also they are using a 1.333 format instead of the normall 1.777 that is rapidly becoming the standard.
I do not know what resolution the CGI people use for cinema films but I doubt if it is more that 2000 lines.


 

Offline SeanB

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #1 on: 02/01/2011 15:57:28 »
Most digital cinema is shown in what is called 2K, with 2000 pixels in each x and y direction. 3d is shot with 2 such frames. It pretty much is not different to film, although Imax is often shot with 4K imaging, as you are so much closer to the screen and can then see the pixels at 2K on certain material. You probably will not see much difference between 2K and 4K material at any viewing distance where you can see the whole screen without moving your eye or head, so more lines will bee moot.

Add to that that even the 2k material is compressed with a lossy algorithm, which reduces the data rates considerably, although it loses fine detail on movement, but allows the storage of the movie on a hard drive without having a massive file ( 2k uncompressed requires 288 megabyes per second to provide a 24 FPS 8 bit resolution film image, so you would need a petabyte disk array to deliver that without compression).

 

SteveFish

  • Guest
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #2 on: 02/01/2011 16:20:53 »
Syphrum, you sound like an old fart like myself. I have been thinking about this issue quite a bit recently, and trying to contrast the view of my younger self with my current older viewpoint. At younger ages, if primary needs are met, we all seem to be entranced by what is new and nifty and also something about what is (often artificially) important among our peers. In the US this attitude was called "keeping up with the Joneses." As we get older we become more practical.

I am beginning to think that these young/old attitudes are something important for the human species once basic needs have been met. So, what is actually important about this young/old perspective? Is there anything really wrong with the younger age perspective? I guess that this really doesn't matter very much except if it damages society as a whole. In our unique time in world history, I think it does matter a lot. We beans (human beans) have gotten ourselves into a resource trap and new technology that requires more resources is not so good.

With the above considerations in mind, I think that encouraging innovation and new stuff that doesn't increase resource depletion should be a positive value. Your case of the higher definition TV is not a good example because it requires one to throw out something that is still working just fine and buy a new device. On the other hand, my grandkids all got new computer games for Christmas for which they were very enthusiastic. The new computer programming that was required to make these new games was very intellectually labor intensive to create, but required practically no physical resources to make. This more cognitive labor with less resource depletion model is where we must go so that we old farts can continue to gripe about the youngsters just because of their attitudes and not because of aggravation of the resource problem. Steve
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #3 on: 02/01/2011 16:39:03 »
I was brung up on the wonderful British invention of 405 line interlaced TV that more often than not came out as 202.5 line as few receivers could cope with the the interlacing.
We were very scathing about the Germans with their 200 line non interlaced version that came out a year earlier and said it was not really high definition.
I am pleased in a way that we have got rid of PAL but there are many things I don't like about compression (I could check the till price of marges baby with my VHS recorder but you can't do it with a digital one).
I am quite happy with 576 lines and leave the 2000 line stuff to the CGI folks.
 
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #4 on: 02/01/2011 19:50:44 »
It would certainly be nice to have a 42" Computer monitor that actually had decent resolution, but I'm still having troubles getting my computer to talk to my 30" screen.

As far as the TV, I'm just happy if I don't get too much snow!!!

I can certainly understand the benefits of very high resolution when projecting at the movie theater onto a 70' wide screen.  But, that doesn't mean one would necessarily have to use the same resolution for home viewing (unless you have a home theater room with a 70' wide screen).
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #5 on: 04/01/2011 13:02:08 »
Considering the appalling quality of much of the tripe which is broadcast, I think the old 9" B & W set I watched as a youngster should surfice in the vast majority of cases.

While I agree with Steve that innovation should be encouraged, I can't help but think there is some sort of conspiracy going on in the TV world. I seems that no sooner have you got your new set home and plugged it in, that some bright spark comes up with something new. The first commercial break you see on your slap, bang, up to the minute TV is for the updated model with the all new smell-o-vision or summat to that effect.

Do I really want a 70" screen? I would have to sit at the bottom of the garden in order to be able to see the whole screen. Isn't it better to have a smaller screen and sit closer to it?

Analogue, digital, HD, super HD, 3D, LCD, plasma, TFT, surroundsound, Dolby......... Forget all that crap and just give me some TV worth watching!

Constipation Street .......... AGHhhhh! Not again!!!
Westenders................ God help us!
I'm a Celebrity......... NO YOU ARE NOT!
Dancing on ice......... I hope its very thin ice; GO YOU GIT, FALL IN!
Big Brother.......... Bunch of weirdos and perverts
Britain's Got Talent............ Apparently not.
Friends................ Fiends I call them (Courtesy of Peter Cook)
X Factor................. Rotten eggs factor would be more like it
Emmerfarm Dale................ Good grief!
Neighbours................... I think I'll move.
Strictly Come Dancing............... NO, Bugger off!
The Apprentice................ Sugar; You're fired!
Casualty................. Apt description of the whole lousy programme.
Holby Sh1tty.............. 'Nuff said.


Forget the technology and start concentrating on the programmes. Its all a bit like buying a Rolls Royce then employing a goldfish for a chauffeur.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #6 on: 04/01/2011 13:26:00 »
"Do we need...?"
Well, I don't know. I do know I don't need HD-TV, I don't have a lowD-TV and I don't think I'm missing much. The computers in my house all have DVD players, and monitors..
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #7 on: 04/01/2011 16:57:50 »
Not unless we have ultra high resolution eyeballs.

Without my "gegs" I can only focus somewhere beyond infinity. (Hmmm??? I suspect someone may object to that statement....)

Quote
Fiends I call them (Courtesy of Peter Cook)

Don - I think that was Dudley Moore's line. Peter Cook's was, "Father, it's not your house. It's my house."

I cite the following evidence http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk/fatherandson.html
« Last Edit: 05/01/2011 00:36:32 by Geezer »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #8 on: 05/01/2011 07:56:14 »
Likewsise, Geezer, without the old face furniture, Hi-def, lo-def or even no-def makes no difference.


BTW, the Father & Son sketch, I think, was scripted by Peter Cook.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #9 on: 05/01/2011 09:16:06 »
Do I really want a 70" screen?

I didn't suggest a 70" screen [xx(]

You need to think BIG (which is why they want high res for the BIG Screen).

They were talking about 3-D TV's on NPR today...  Truthfully, I've never seen a 3D movie.  I did get some Red/Blue glasses to help visualize a Milky-Way simulation. 

Since you see in approximately 50 HZ, I assume that a 3-D TV can broadcast to the different eyes in alternating cycles.  Quite an interesting idea, and really simple too.

Since I grew up with B&W...  I guess I have a little troubles understanding why I would actually need 3-D.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #10 on: 05/01/2011 09:45:37 »
cliffordk

I think J L Baird "the inventor of television" was doing that sort of thing in the early forties.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #11 on: 05/01/2011 16:18:05 »
BTW, the Father & Son sketch, I think, was scripted by Peter Cook.

Ah! Yes. You are correct. Still, it was a good excuse to post the dialogue. I have it on something I think they called "a long playing record".
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #12 on: 06/01/2011 10:22:19 »
It seems pretty crazy if you stop to think about it - we can all aspire to have a device to watch a new set of adverts to tell us what to aspire to next - now in Ultra-super-High-definition!!!

I have it on something I think they called "a long playing record".
Oooo, is that what the marketeers are calling the new high-capacity I-pod? :D
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #13 on: 08/01/2011 04:36:31 »
It seems pretty crazy if you stop to think about it - we can all aspire to have a device to watch a new set of adverts to tell us what to aspire to next - now in Ultra-super-High-definition!!!

As TV's get "smarter"...  Will it be possible to exclude things you don't want to see in the commercials? 

For example, a recovering alcoholic might choose not to be exposed to beer commercials. 

Someone who is dieting might choose not to watch Food & Snack commercials.

I think I'd just choose to exclude them all 
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #14 on: 08/01/2011 04:53:30 »
Don_1's Postulate:

Q reversible arrow 1/R²

Where:

Q = quality of programming
R = resolution of telly in pixels
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #15 on: 08/01/2011 06:16:17 »
It would certainly be nice to have a 42" Computer monitor

Really ? ... http://compare-network-monitoring-tools.com/42_Inch_Monitor.html

[I suspect it would be a pain in the neck as you would have to constantly move your head to see all of it]
« Last Edit: 08/01/2011 06:23:24 by RD »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #16 on: 08/01/2011 20:52:13 »
It would certainly be nice to have a 42" Computer monitor

Really ? ... http://compare-network-monitoring-tools.com/42_Inch_Monitor.html

[I suspect it would be a pain in the neck as you would have to constantly move your head to see all of it]

I've noticed a lot of people in these parts seem to think it's a good idea to stick enormous flat panel TVs on the wall above the fireplace so that the center of the screen is about six feet above floor level. Now there's a way to get a real pain in the neck. No only that, but the heat and muck coming out of the fire is likely to knacker the TV prematurely.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #17 on: 09/01/2011 03:59:18 »
It would certainly be nice to have a 42" Computer monitor

Really ? ... http://compare-network-monitoring-tools.com/42_Inch_Monitor.html

[I suspect it would be a pain in the neck as you would have to constantly move your head to see all of it]
What was the screen resolution?  1920×1080?  720P?  My 15.4 laptop even does 1920x1200.

That would chew up your eyeballs...  especially doing a telemarketing app.

Do you really think the telemarketing firm would have invested $50,000 or so in a decent computer monitor?

Now...  for something truly remarkable.

http://www.eyevis.ae/products/eye-lcd-series/eye-lcd-6400-4k-widescreen-lcd-hdtv-monitor.html

4,096 x 2,160 Pixels, 64".

I'd hate to think of what it would do to your pocketbook, but I'm sure it would lighten it significantly.

But, think of the seamless integration of multiple windows, for CAD, programming, etc.  They suggest for CT, MRI, X-Rays, Fluoroscopy where high resolution is vital.

Eyevis also has a 56" monitor with 3840x2160 res.
Toshiba also has the 56" 3840x2160 (P56QHD)
http://www.plasma.com/ToshibaLCD/p56qhd.htm

And Sony also has a similar 56" monitor 3840x2160 (SRM-L560)
http://pro.sony.com//bbsccms/assets/files/cat/mondisp/brochures/di0195_srm1560.pdf

Looks like Sharp also is hitting the "4K" market with a 62" or 64" TV 4096x2048.

And there are some 82" prototypes from various brands.

One of the issues that will undoubtedly come up is with the new ultra-high resolution movies that are coming out, one needs to be able to keep up with the digital editing.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #18 on: 09/01/2011 09:22:24 »
The difficulty in removing adverts is it is hard to find anything in the electronic data string that distinguishes them.
There is one thing that I have noticed on 'Freeveiw', in the top left hand side of the screen during programs but not adverts a small decal appears labeling the source of the program ,Dave, Three etc if this could be clipped out electronically it would distinguish advert from program and the former could be suppressed.
 

Offline SeanB

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1118
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #19 on: 09/01/2011 09:57:00 »
Was buying some surveillance camera's yesterday and looked at the Tv there showing some Bollywood musical drama shown on HD via satellite. You could see just how bad it was, any motion dropped the forest scene into a green block with brown blocks for trees, which would gain detail suddenly after a second or so of no motion, or very minimal motion. Anything over about 5% of the scene changing dropped it to below standard tv ( 640 by 480 ) with a basic 16 colours, which would come back to HD after the scene stopped moving. A poor display, most likely because the supplier of the channel did not want to use much bandwidth, as the table tennis match with the Korean and PRC teams from the same multiplex on the monitor next to it only had a small amount of motion blur, and only on the fastest pans with  multiple players moving.They bought enough bandwidth to show sport properly.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #20 on: 11/01/2011 11:08:47 »
Perhaps eventually real-time TV will get replaced with delayed caching, especially for stuff that doesn't need to be presented in real time.  This would work best for a few shows.

I get frustrated with streaming media that it can often be very choppy.  And, sometimes one likes to start, stop, replay, or change the playback rate on the video.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3818
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #21 on: 11/01/2011 11:26:11 »
The beauty of TV in the early days before recording was developed was that it was real time, if you watched for instance a mountain climbing OB there was (perish the thought) just the possibility that you might see someone fall.
In many ways recording, editing and replays have ruined TV.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do we need ultra high resolution TV
« Reply #21 on: 11/01/2011 11:26:11 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length