BBC broadcasts the first ever Ultra HD TV, 16x sharper than 1080p

vbimport

#1

BBC broadcasts the first ever Ultra HD TV, 16x sharper than 1080p.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/09/Bn7UWW.jpg[/newsimage]You may have already heard of Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV), since the standard has existed in an experimental form since 2003, but the BBC and Japan’s NHK took the first step in making the format a working reality this week by conducting the first ever UHDTV broadcast.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/bbc-broadcasts-the-first-ever-ultra-hd-tv-16x-sharper-than-1080p-34874/](http://www.myce.com/news/bbc-broadcasts-the-first-ever-ultra-hd-tv-16x-sharper-than-1080p-34874/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#3

That is some crazy big resolution! Of course, it’s usefulness seems to be quite limited since it can only be fully taken advantage of on massive screens, perhaps at sporting event stadiums and other areas that draw large crowds.


#4

[QUOTE=Blu-rayFreak;2547697]That is some crazy big resolution! Of course, it’s usefulness seems to be quite limited since it can only be fully taken advantage of on massive screens, perhaps at sporting event stadiums and other areas that draw large crowds.[/QUOTE]
That’s right. And then the actual picture quality would probably be about the same as on a normal size 1080p HDTV, just massively bigger.


#5

Seems like this would be pointless at consumer level, as the quality on a smaller screen wouldn’t be an improvement over 1080p. Unless people adopt theatre sized screens in their homes, this would probably have more commericial applications.


#6

[QUOTE=Zod;2547739]Seems like this would be pointless at consumer level, as the quality on a smaller screen wouldn’t be an improvement over 1080p. Unless people adopt theatre sized screens in their homes, this would probably have more commericial applications.[/QUOTE]
HDTV is great … but it’s not flawless. There are still people protesting that HDTV is not any great improvement over SD, and that they can’t tell the difference between upscaled DVD’s and real blurays.

Give manufacturers a 5-7 years, and HDTV’s will go the way of the Dodo …
Similarly, the successor to Bluray will be announced :wink:

Higher resolution is always better, on the proviso you can store it / stream it :wink:


#7

[QUOTE=debro;2547820]HDTV is great … but it’s not flawless. There are still people protesting that HDTV is not any great improvement over SD, and that they can’t tell the difference between upscaled DVD’s and real blurays.

Give manufacturers a 5-7 years, and HDTV’s will go the way of the Dodo …
Similarly, the successor to Bluray will be announced :wink:

Higher resolution is always better, on the proviso you can store it / stream it ;)[/QUOTE]
Well those people must be blind. The best DVD’s upscaled do look good but in no way compare better Blu-ray media. Quality OTA programing smokes DVD no problem also.


#8

[QUOTE=wonderwrench;2547865]Well those people must be blind. The best DVD’s upscaled do look good but in no way compare better Blu-ray media. Quality OTA programing smokes DVD no problem also.[/QUOTE]
:iagree:
I don’t at all disagree with your conclusions.


#9

My main issue with HDTV’s is not the resolution or size. But the display technology itself is still lacking. Both plasma and LCD (Including LED LCD) have issues. Plasma = phosphor decay, image retention, posterisation, motion blur. LCD = clouding at the edges, black levels, halo’s on LED LCD, motion blur, 10/12 bit displays uncommon (Not to be confused with 16/32bit on video cards). I really can’t see these being ironed out until OLED or some other superior technology gets a foothold.

I’d also like to see a worldwide standard for broadcast material of 120Hz/60FPS (Not 60Hz/29.97FPS or 50Hz/25FPS. But that’s still a pipe dream.


#10

[QUOTE=DeadMan;2547977]I’d also like to see a worldwide standard for broadcast material of 120Hz/60FPS (Not 60Hz/29.97FPS or 50Hz/25FPS. But that’s still a pipe dream.[/QUOTE]
Those framerates were derived from the frequency of the electrical systems.

It’s been a challenge to get countries to raise/lower their voltages over the last 15 years to 115 / 230V, rather than the 100V, 120V, 200V, 220V, 250V, 240V AC ad-hoc system standards throughout the world.

Attempting to get the world to compromise on frequency would be … difficult.


#11

I can only see this being relevant in movie theater or stadium usage as the screen size requirements are only worthy of those who could afford the technology. Let’s see mass adoption of 1080p first, then 1600p. The consumers will take baby steps. Few, if any lcds below 32" utilize 1080p. The new technology will also force broadcasters to up their game… this all costs money, and I’m more than sure consumers don’t want to see their cable-tv bill jump 250% just to comply with higher resolution standards.


#12

[QUOTE=tmc8080;2548009]I can only see this being relevant in movie theater or stadium usage as the screen size requirements are only worthy of those who could afford the technology.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would be a perfect fit for movie theaters. With the high cost of ticket prices, theaters need to provide more value to attract more customers. If they can up their HD resolution to make it way better than even 1080p at home, it would start getting more people out to the movies.

Of course, I’m sure the theater owners don’t want to invest in newer, higher resolution projectors.


#13

[QUOTE=Blu-rayFreak;2548365]Yes, it would be a perfect fit for movie theaters. With the high cost of ticket prices, theaters need to provide more value to attract more customers. If they can up their HD resolution to make it way better than even 1080p at home, it would start getting more people out to the movies.

Of course, I’m sure the theater owners don’t want to invest in newer, higher resolution projectors.[/QUOTE]
Or 16Gb/s internet connections, or 500TB of raid Ssd’s for storage of 10 movies they screen at any time…


#14

The problem people have with HDTV is that they get the HD package on their cable/satellite service and then it doesn’t look quite as mind blowing as they hoped it would. That’s because these companies are pushing through HD resolution, but not matching it with an acceptable level of compression. They are over-compressing the video streams in order to allow 13,745 shopping channels to also pass through the same data lines.

720P and 1080i mean very little when there is not enough data in each of those pixels.


#15

I have no problem with HDTV at all, because I know whats behind “HDTV” since a while.
I think all the issues and argueing is about HDTV because managers and marketing idiots spread lies…

As for this one, I am happy that the BBC is progressive, unless all other organizations in whole europe these days. [B]Keep on![/B]