Is HD getting obsolete real fast?

[bhelms]

Yes! "Violent agreement" !! I intentionally left all "SW" out of my calculations. I have a couple hundred VHS tapes (a few "bootlegs"), several hundred DVDs (that I mostly will not replace, upconverts look substantially OK), and 100+ HD DVDs/BDs combined and growing. But in fact that is also a significant consideration in the upgrade to any newer technology for those of us who choose to own instead of or in addition to "renting". I expect the next technologies will be a combination multi-layer optical and broadband delivery from various sources, and to be sure our investments in the SW are likely to be significant...again...!

I mentioned earlier that I have been a "first adopter" in some cases. My first Hi-Fi VCR cost $1,000. The replacement - included in the HT calculation - was $500. The only one surviving now cost less than $100. My single projection and two flatscreen TVs were bought early in their product lifecycles so I overpaid for both. But overall I tend to wait a bit, and now will make that a policy. I waited for p2.0 before jumping into BD, for instance.

"Bleeding edge"...lol, but a lot of truth in that! Like you, I have the "best on the block" in my circle of generally tech-challenged friends/family, and historically my desire to maintain that edge - in addition to my own enjoyment - has led to the expenditures I mentioned and my expectations for the future. But I am a mere pretender in these forums of the most tech savvy and well-deployed folks there are...!

 

[riffjim4069]

Excellent thread...but I doubt we'll see Super-Duper HD anytime soon. Offhand, I am very happy with FiOS HD and Blu-ray for now.

Hey, whatever happened to the thread ratings? I woudl give this one a few stars.

 

[bhelms]

Echo that! (Probably won't have FiOS in my lifetime where I live, but maybe a wireless equivalent ??) But even if I'm "stuck in HD" in its present rendering, I see further upgrades as inevitable. (Already eyeing-up a 70" LCD...hmmm...!)

 

[jayn_j]

It seems to me that what made HD happen was sports. People wanted to see football in glorious 55" and when they got that, they noticed how it was fuzzy. That 55" TV is now dominating most family rooms. At normal viewing distances, I think the average sports user would see a bigger gain from upping the frame rate, rather than upping the resolution.

On a 55" set at 10', most people won't notice. We need to educate folks that the real NFL fan watches on a floor to ceiling 120" screen.

 

[bhelms]

I'm presently 52" at about 8' for the most part. Loved the Super Bowl in that environment. (And the outcome!)

But bigger is always better, right ???

Product News: Honeywell Planning 82-inch 1080p LCD TV, by Chuck McKenney - Electronic House Product News

The 82" is rumered to be ~$13K, cheaper than the 70" Sony I was eyeing-up...

Agreed, real HT needs the 100+" screen...

 

[slytrans69]

The next new tech will be 3D. I expect that this will allow me to merrily skip over the Blu Ray crap. My RCA digital colortrak from 1984 still works perfect, never been repaired and sends perfect stereo to my Technics surround sound amp that I bought in 1994. My Sansui stereo vcr from 1979 still works perfect. After all these years, I finally found an acceptable big screen TV. So I just bought a Pioneer PDP-5010FD which is 1080P. I bought a Pioneer DV-400 dvd player which is also 1080P. Neeedless to say my stuff looks great. I have no need for Blu Ray. My next acquisition will be a Pioneer VSX-01TXH receiver only because it has the newest 7.1 channel sound with True HD and DTSHD formats, which are HD and are on Blu Ray and likely on the upcoming media. So I am ready for 3D. I will replace my Pansat 3500S when I becomes clear what will work next year. And yes, the Super Bowl looked as good as being there, and I have been to a few.

 

[jayn_j]

The next new tech will be 3D.

As it was in 1955, 1975, 1985, 1998, etc.

IMHO, 3D will always be the NEXT big thing until they can present a convincing image without special glasses. The glasses cause headaches, are uncomfortable, and the result is only ok as a gimmick. Worse, the producers keep saying "Hey, look. This is in 3-d. Isn't that cool? Here, let me throw a ball at the screen and poke my finger out at you"

Until they fix that, it remains a gimmick.

 

[navychop]

The next new tech will be 3D. I expect that this will allow me to merrily skip over ..... Blu Ray.......

Blu-ray is likely to be the media used to distribute 3D. It has the capacity and potential capacity increases to support it, and this has been discussed as an application.

 

[Inno]

The 3500SD should work just fine next year, what are you referring to?

And have you read this? http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-ai...atellite-tv-you-will-get-you-banned-life.html

Just checking.

 

[toto]

Ultra Hi def (8K) faces several hurdles, in the home, but is being used in digital cinemas, Today. One of the issues in a home environment is an image that is so realistic, that it could cause psychological issues with the viewers. A similar issue is possible with 3D (nausea in 3Ds case). Bandwidth is limited and 16 times the bandwidth that 1080 uses can be a serious hurdle. I think 24p 10bit broadcast is still a few years away in this country.

 

[mike123abc]

Ultra Hi def (8K) faces several hurdles, in the home, but is being used in digital cinemas, Today. One of the issues in a home environment is an image that is so realistic, that it could cause psychological issues with the viewers. A similar issue is possible with 3D (nausea in 3Ds case). Bandwidth is limited and 16 times the bandwidth that 1080 uses can be a serious hurdle. I think 24p 10bit broadcast is still a few years away in this country.

I do not believe that it can be too realistic. I have seen many 70MM films. They have more than 8k resolution and on a screen far bigger than any home theater. It fills your whole field of view. Then there is Imax which has even more resolution on an even more surrounding screen. Viewing it on a smaller screen in a home just would not be the same, no matter the resolution.

 

[diogen]

Lowry repeated many times that higher spatial resolution of film gets lost in the time domain.
Very very few 35mm movies justify scanning above 3K. That means - above 6K on a 70mm film.

Therefore, unless the majority of movies will be made on 70mm+ film stock or everybody switches
to cameras like the Red, we have a long way to go before 8K will make any sense and have any future.