So what extra detail will you get? Close ups of the hair gel on the coiffured 22 overpaid morons kicking a bag of air about.
Japanese telly addicts will get to see the 2014 FIFA World Cup in glorious Ultra HD. As a result, they’ll get 4K x 2K broadcast content beamed into their homes two years earlier than expected. Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said the move had been prompted by a desire to stimulate demand for the 3840 × …
Well at average UK living room size you need 42" to appreciate HD, HD is for BIGGER screens, not really for more detail.
405 lines at same distance on a 9" screen (typical in 1937) is just as sharp. But by 17" you needed more resolution. Again you needed at least a 21" or larger set to appreciate 626 lines.
So unless you are watching UHD on your desk on 42" you need 84" for it to be "worth while", or to put it another way, ordinary HD will look poor in a normal size room on 84". So UHD / 4k x 2K is for adopters of 84" TVs in small rooms.
I'd prefer a 6:1 zoom projector. make it 28" to 36" for SD depending on source quality, 42" for 16:9 and 64" to 84" for letter boxed Cinematic content typically 2.40:1 aspect ratio depending on quality.
If you get 2.4:1 or 3:1 Cinematic content in a 16:9 frame then you do need a bigger screen and more resolution just to have the SAME sharpness.
Similar with 4:3 vs 16:9. Native 28" 4:3 needs a 36" approx 16:9 screen to have about the same picture size.
' Enough bandwidth to transmit UHD terrestrially?' Yes, they'll just compress the hell out of everything else. Then the only thing not a blocky mess will be the new 4K. It worked to kill SD in favour of HD, so it will work again. The public will lap it up... it's the new 'must have'.
That might be the case for broadcast TV but not the case for recorded media. I would very much like to see my favourite films and filmed documentary footage (eg the NASA archive) at that resolution and and then we keep going until we actually replicate a projected 35mm frame (and beyond). Or would you still prefer VHS?
The thing is that VHS was poor quality from the start. Even when it was new I just tolerated it because there was nothing better. Now, with DVD I'm happy enough; I'm only going to move to BR once they stop publishing stuff on DVD. I have a HD TV and I can barely see the difference between BBC1 and BBC1HD because BBC1 is already a high bandwidth channel compared to, say, Dave.
UHD is just an attempt to flog us more dead horse and if that's what I want I can go to Tesco.
The difference between DVD and BR is like chalk and cheese, even on a relatively modest 40" size screen.
The improvements are not just in resolution but in colour gamut (no colour stepping), contrast (blacks are truly black, not just dark grey) not to mention the different codecs which now allow for "native" frame rates - 24 fps movies are 24 fps on your screen, so no 4% runtime speedup for PAL or 3:2 pull down artefacts for NTSC, as you get with DVD.
If you honestly cannot tell the difference then you are either in denial or in desperate need of a visit to your optician.
Depends on the DVD and BD and if film remastered / rescanned and film quality.
Some DVDs are actually BETTER than some BD.
For GOOD DVD typically film is scanned at 1440 x 1152 or higher and down-sampled to 720 x 576 which results in higher apparent resolution and less artefacts than a 720 x 576 camera or scan. Subsequent upscaling will be better than 720 x 576 native video
For GOOD BD typically film is scanned at 3840 x 2160 and down-sampled to 1920 x 1080 which results in higher apparent resolution and less artefacts than a 1920 x1080 camera or scan. Cheaper BD releases just use the scan for DVD at 1440 x 1152 or higher and resample to 1920 x1080. For decent BD you need really to scan and restore the negatives, not use a distribution copy print (less sharp and noisier), so often only new releases in the BD era and premium cinematic content, not "budget" releases benefits from BD.
Older US TV shows might be 720 x 480, so poor on DVD. Also 30fps to 25fps conversion blurs the image. HD versions will be much better, though conversion from 30fps or 60fps to 25fps or 50fps degrades the image,
So it's quite possible to buy DVDs and BDs that are not much different in apparent quality on 40", especially since 42" is almost a minimum size for many people in an average room to benefit from HD.
.Mine the one with a book explaining "kell factor" in the pocket.
DVD supports 24 fps progressive output over component or HDMI (used to require an expensive DVD player / TV but even cheap setups can support it now).
BluRay is still 8 bit, you get less banding because of the higher available bit rates.
For TV recorded on NTSC Video (or even edited in video) BR has no advanage other then space.
BR only shines with older stuff shot on film, or new stuff recorded in HD.
I saw UltraHD in action a few years ago and it does look quite stunning on a huge screen when you can see the faces in the crowd at a football match or whatever, but will it work at home? Unless you're going to sit with your nose 6 inches away from the TV set you'd need a floor to ceiling screen and it still might not be big enough!
True, but then again unless you are still the proud owner of a 24" 4:3 ratio black and white CRT tube TV with mono sound, you really cannot complain. And only one in the household, thank you very much, and no multi-channel box either - satellite or terrestrial.
You are already in the game, don't moan just because you can't (yet) afford to play the next round.
Will it look good on a 4" smartphone screen?
I'm seriously confused - one set of people is telling us that we must have bigger and bigger, higher resolution to watch video, and another tells us to go smaller and smaller, and watch it on tablets, phones - wristwatches next?
Shirley they can't both be right or could they both be wrong?
"Click" on BBC News were covering the latest TV developments in Japan a few weeks ago where they interviewed a chap from NHK. He stated that they weren't going to be investing at all in 4k technology and were instead going to wait and jump straight to 8k. While I appreciate things may have changed in the interim, I wouldn't be so sure that it would be NHK handling these broadcasts.
The main difference between BBC SD and HD is that the HD channels are hidden down the bottom of the EPG. It's not that I can't see the difference, it's just that it's not important enough to make it worth the trivial effort of seeking out the HD channels. Maybe I'd value the difference more if I had a huge TV or better eyesight or drank less.
I can't help observing that this initiative comes from the people who travel the world taking holiday snaps with the sort of monster DSLR you'd normally use for papping duchesses.
Almost - what is needed is to get rid of the 16:9 fixation as that, as much as the stupid 1080 line fixation, is what leads to laptops and monitors having crap vertical screen size.
Getting twice the resolution on currently popular screen dimensions is not really what I need as my eyes age.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
You need either a guide dog or a decent telly. Ok, maybe you just watch Mrs Browns Boys.
As a lover of sport, movies and gaming, I will form an orderly queue for a 4K telly / PJ as soon as they retail for less than 25% of a decent salary.
Sure is likely to spur a bump in display sales that 3d was never, ever going to achieve.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019