If this was in response to my post, I didn't necessarily mean that streaming would exceed BD quality. However, if we think like a typical American and not an HT enthusiast, we would probably be satisfied with "good enough". Most people I talk to don't care if BD is leaps and bounds better than DVD, because DVD is "good enough" to them. Once digital streaming is "good enough" for the masses, then I think physical media will become a niche product, and I'm uncertain that such a niche product will be profitable to come out with a new player that's better quality than BD.
That doesn't mean it'll go away. However, given that BD has had such a hard time distinguishing itself from DVD, I find it hard to believe that anything that's higher quality than BD will be able to distinguish itself from BD. Given the size of people's TV screens, the difference between DVD and BD is much more noticeable than the difference between BD and any uber-high resolution above that. Yet, people still think DVD is "good enough", and DVD sales greatly exceed BD sales.
Obviously this is all my opinion, because my crystal ball isn't working at the moment .
Fiber directly connected to the optic nerve.
Yeah it certainly becomes questionable unless you keep jacking up screens.When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?
When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?
You sure about that? I carried at 46" TV around a few days back, must have weighed no more than 50 lbs. It's not even a super slim lcd. Back in the day a 30-something could weigh over a hundred lbs and we put up with them.Not likely with TVs' they're just too cumbersome, even the very thin models. What we need is an increase in resolution of 3LCD projectors, my 1080p projector is projecting a 122" screen in my living room, you can't see individual pixels unless you're less than 3-4 feet away, but a bump in resolution would most certainly be beneficial for the viewer.
When you look at the distance vs screen size line for the human ability to actually perceive the extra resolution I doubt we will go past 1080p any time soon. Are people really going to put 80"+ screens in the their living rooms?
You sure about that? I carried at 46" TV around a few days back, must have weighed no more than 50 lbs. It's not even a super slim lcd. Back in the day a 30-something could weigh over a hundred lbs and we put up with them.
20 years ago, people would have scoffed at anything over 27" being common place. Today, many people have 42"+ screens. It wa a luxury 20 years ago to have a big screen TV.
The thing is, costs are way down. I had a nice 32" tube in 2000 that cost me maybe $800. My 42" plasma cost me $1800 maybe 5 years ago. Today, I can get a 42" LCD for $600. For $1800, I could probably get 55".
Thing is, if we can get to 80" with 4x at a sub $2000 price point ... it will sell.
The thing is, remember that many people will not use it in full screen mode. New technolgies and new utility will be born from it. With a TV like that you could have a foot ball game taking up 80% of it and have a few other channels playing on the side along with your kids playing video games and your wife is web browsing.
Who knows what will happen. The exampels above are just guesses. It's a chicken/egg issue. The supporting tech comes first or the tech.
Also, very few people had home theaters 20 years ago. Most people were happy to have a VCR. The lowering of costs has created the home theater popularity. I don't see that changing. I know in my next house I would liove a real dedicated home theater.
Something has to come beyond 1080p. Computers (forget movies) warrant it.
I guess the issue will become what drives the monitor market. Computers, TV or soemthing new?
Every source material I've seen is compressed/lossy enough to get gradient banding which I can't stand. If you have an example of it done right,I'd love to see it.
I have one of these http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102124 coming before Christmas.
Will be interesting to see how everything looks...
Hmm, I've got a Momitsu V880, which upscales DVD to 720p. I've had it since mid Nov. 2003. It's hard for me to believe that this looks as good as Blu-ray. It just takes the resolution inherent in a DVD and produces 720p output, which is natively supported by my projector.People with upscaling DVD players say the image quality is much better than DVD. One guy I know (software engineer if that matters) says he can't tell the difference between upsacled DVD and Blu Ray.
Hmm, I've got a Momitsu V880, which upscales DVD to 720p. I've had it since mid Nov. 2003. It's hard for me to believe that this looks as good as Blu-ray. It just takes the resolution inherent in a DVD and produces 720p output, which is natively supported by my projector.
Fiber directly connected to the optic nerve.
Honestly, I have to laugh at several posters in this thread. Those claiming that anything over 1080p is useless unless you have a stadium size screen. Ironically, these are the very same posters who rave about Apple's Retina screens and rag on anything that has less than 300PPI, regardless of the other features.
Fact of the matter is, unless you've reached a certain pixel density relative to screen size and viewing distance, then you haven't maxed out. 1080P on 24in LCDs gets ripped on often now . . . .but some of you are claiming that 1080P is fine at 100+ inches. Guess its only in close range devices, tablets, phones, etc, where PPI matters?