|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gorgori
Lindon
Jan 9 2013, 4:55am
Post #1 of 10
(1298 views)
Shortcut
|
|
New 4K TVs - Hobbit Trilogy available in super Hi-Def in near Future?
|
Can't Post
|
|
So, at the expo for technology this year, they've released 4k TVs that are capable of display up to 60fps. It looks like Sony is pushing it hard by re-releasing some of their studios content in 4k versions this year....
Sooooooo..... Knowing how technology advances BLAZZINGLY fast now-a-days, and assuming tv prices drop sufficiently (sets now go for 20,000 USD) and assuming Bluray will somehow upgrade, or industry will produce higher end format players.... would you buy the trilogy in 2016 for your new TV and Player??
How do you think PJ will react to hometheatre industry participating in an arms race with movie theatres? Do you think we'll have FLYING CARS IN 2020!?!? ;)
|
|
|
pulpfiction16
Ossiriand
Jan 9 2013, 12:24pm
Post #2 of 10
(961 views)
Shortcut
|
Media adoption is an incredibly slow process. Consumers are still stuck on DVDs (while watching them on 1080p televisions) and reluctant to change media. I imagine by the time 4K televisions are widely available, Blu-rays might finally have over taken DVD's. 4K media is a far way out, because file sizes are massive (keep in mind, few theatres even project in 4K, many are in 2K), going up to terabytes. I'm not sure if there are single discs that can hold that much. With near-future technology, you'd need either flash drives (of which they've developed 1Terabyte ones) or hard drives.
So, assuming that 4K becomes mainstream, physical media exists to play it (or else it'll be a download so large, you'd max out your internet usage by getting it) .. I would love to. It'd look fantastic.
I'll give it 10-15 years.
|
|
|
Lightice
Menegroth
Jan 9 2013, 1:26pm
Post #3 of 10
(926 views)
Shortcut
|
With near-future technology, you'd need either flash drives (of which they've developed 1Terabyte ones) or hard drives.
Only in unpacked lossless format would you need that much space. In mp4 format the file-size would be a fraction of it, and new formats are developed specifically for ultra-HD content. The actual space-requirements are ultimately unlikely to be more than 2-4 times the normal HD requirements, and are more likely to be digitally distributed as paid downloads than sold on discs by the point where the consumer models manifest, as it's unlikely that we'll see a new devoted physical media, any more. After Blu-ray the general consumer-base is unlikely to pay more for simply sharper picture quality. leaving the Ultra-HD for the same crowd who currently buy the high-end Hi-Fi equipment. It's going to take more than simple change in the picture quality to get the public seriously interested, at this point.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Doriath
Jan 9 2013, 6:00pm
Post #4 of 10
(907 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why do they not release films on proprietary cartridges?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(similar to old master system or Snes games) I know people would moan about another format. But, really, a cartridge can hold as much information as you design it to. So bigger films would be more expensive than smaller films. (Which seems a fair way to do it IMO.) There'd also be more flexibility with the shape of the cartridge. If people want to own a physical version of a movie, wouldn't it be better to have a specially shaped cartridge (Imagine what Weta could design) than a boring, round disc?
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 9 2013, 6:03pm)
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Jan 9 2013, 6:28pm
Post #5 of 10
(879 views)
Shortcut
|
|
8K tvs are planned in the near future :) //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Kimtc
Nargothrond
Jan 9 2013, 8:22pm
Post #6 of 10
(839 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Our library still has people who ask for VHS!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They got rid of them all, but only stock DVDs. They wear out really fast with scratches, etc. Blu-rays are lots tougher, and the prices are coming down, but not enough people have the players.
I would love a tv like that. I thought 48 fps was amazing. I might never leave the house.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Doriath
Jan 9 2013, 9:08pm
Post #7 of 10
(846 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Just so you know, practically all TV's are capable of displaying much higher than 48fps
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
My TV runs at 600hz for goodness sake! Most are 60 to 120hz. You'd need at least 120 to display 48fps in 3D, because each image needs to be shown twice (once for each eye). Also, all Blu-ray players should theoretically be able to play movies at these rates with slight adjustment (a software upgrade for most). The only things stopping TH from coming out in HFR are:
1 - 48fps isn't a standard format, so they'd need to put a lot of money into creating the format and distributing software downloads for players.
And
2- There's not enough memory on a Blu-ray disc for a movie of this size (Although, spreading it over 2 discs would surely be welcomed by fans)
Regarding 4K TVs
Don't get me wrong, this is exciting technology. But you should probably be aware that even on a large TV (50") you wouldn't see much (or any) difference in 4K and HD.
The reason 4K is exciting, though is that it means we can get bigger TV's. This is why, if you look at any 4K models, they are all from around 80" and up - Not the best size for your bedroom. But home-theater owners should be excited! The thing that confuses me, though, if you have the money and space for an 80" TV you should probably just get a projector? It'd look better and probably be cheaper too 
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 9 2013, 9:10pm)
|
|
|
Kimtc
Nargothrond
Jan 9 2013, 10:10pm
Post #8 of 10
(822 views)
Shortcut
|
but then I would hear people saying you can't show 48 fps on a high def tv. That seemed weird to me, since my set seems extremely clear. But as a non-expert, I am at the mercy of whatever I hear out there. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
imin
Doriath
Jan 9 2013, 11:34pm
Post #9 of 10
(813 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why would a projector look better?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have no knowledge in this area so genuinely dont know why one would look better than the other.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Doriath
Jan 10 2013, 1:55pm
Post #10 of 10
(817 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For 3D, a projector would be much better
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because the two images, instead of flashing from one eye to the other, can just be projected on top of each other and the brightness can be adjusted for the 3D glasses better than on a TV.
I've heard from friends that projectors have better image quality. Apparently HD projectors aren't really affected much by external light, like old projectors used to be. But I don't really know, having never really seen one working outside the cinema.
(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Jan 10 2013, 1:56pm)
|
|
|
|
|
