[Obi Wan's Ghost]

http://ipodhub.net/articles/20060421red_skips_hd.html

2540 progressive? Bluray is definitely going to beat HDDVD if it has more storage space for higher resolution video.

[Dark Helmet]

ya all we need is TV that someone can afford with that rez.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

If you build it they will come. I wasn't the ghost who said that btw.

[Teronzhul]

And the point? Your eyes probably can't resolve detail beyond 1080 lines on a reasonably sized television. Unless you plan on watching your television under a microscope 2540 would be rather a waste of disk space.

[sabrejim]

The current BluRay codecs wouldnt be able to handle that with any reasonable length of bluray discs. New codecs would need to be adopted, killing old players that just owuldnt have the processing power. So it really has little to do with anything between bluray and hd dvd.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Teronzhul

And the point? Your eyes probably can't resolve detail beyond 1080 lines on a reasonably sized television.

Regular TV is going to be around forever. Eyes don't see in resolution so the more pixels the better. I thought 1080p wasn't enough of a change.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by kaze0

The current BluRay codecs wouldnt be able to handle that with any reasonable length of bluray discs.

There is no such thing as a Bluray codec. It's H264 that can scale to any size. That Red camera is probably doing H264 at much higher than 1080p. Bluray is going to grow much faster in size than HDDVD so should keep scaling.

[ink]

Can hard disks record that fast?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by ink

Can hard disks record that fast?

I think a Raid can. I'm no hard disc expert.

The glory of watching the Star Wars sextology in that resolution is what I cannot wait for.

[sabrejim]

I can't wait to watch star wars in 1000000000000x10000000000000

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by ink

Can hard disks record that fast?

Paging Eugene!

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

I thought 1080p wasn't enough of a change.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

There is no such thing as a Bluray codec. It's H264 that can scale to any size. That Red camera is probably doing H264 at much higher than 1080p. Bluray is going to grow much faster in size than HDDVD so should keep scaling.

Hence...

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

The current BluRay codecs wouldnt be able to handle that with any reasonable length of bluray discs.

The reason a codec switch would be needed is to up the compression factor so you could fit a reasonable length of video on the disc, which would require the processing power and firmware in all the players be upgraded.

I thought this was obvious, as did the OP. Apparently not.

[sabrejim]

But then if its obvious it really doesnt have any affect on bluray beating hd dvd.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

I feel so padawan........

[goMac]

Originally Posted by kaze0

But then if its obvious it really doesnt have any affect on bluray beating hd dvd.

No, it doesn't.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by goMac

No, it doesn't.

Whichever format grows in size the fastest and mostest will win. Capacity is the clincher is the lesson Bill Gates learned when he said a computer would never need more than 640k.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Whichever format grows in size the fastest and mostest will win. Capacity is the clincher is the lesson Bill Gates learned when he said a computer would never need more than 640k.

Huh? You do realize that Bluray readers would have to be upgraded anyway to handle the higher resolution? You can't simply bump the resolution and have the older players play it at a lower resolution. The older players would still need enough processing power to process the higher resolution, plus the power to downscale it afterwards.

The resolutions outlined in both specs is what we are getting until the next format.

Bill Gates seems to be doing pretty well last I checked...

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by goMac

Huh? You do realize that Bluray readers would have to be upgraded anyway to handle the higher resolution?

Huh? (back to you).

Bluray doesn't need to be upgraded at all to play higher resolutions. It can play any resolution from disc just like a hard disc can. It's the screens that will have to go up in resolution (and the digital processors have to be more powerful) and that is going to happen like every 5 years anyway at the rate of techo progress we have until we get some innerbrain mind The Matrix/Existenz thing.....movies and games in your head etc.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Huh? (back to you).

Bluray doesn't need to be upgraded at all to play higher resolutions. It can play any resolution from disc just like a hard disc can. It's the screens that will have to go up in resolution (and the digital processors have to be more powerful) and that is going to happen like every 5 years anyway at the rate of techo progress we have until we get some innerbrain mind The Matrix/Existenz thing.....movies and games in your head etc.

Ok then. How do you propose Bluray players will output higher resolutions? How do you propose the hardware inside will be magically upgraded so the player can still be fast enough to play at higher resolutions? How do you propose players without these upgrades will still play these discs?

How will my 1.25 ghz Powerbook with a Bluray drive playback at 2540p? I'm very eager to hear.

[Eriamjh]

I want a HD iPod.

720p or better!

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

I think a Raid can. I'm no hard disc expert.

The glory of watching the Star Wars sextology in that resolution is what I cannot wait for.

I think you'll only be seeing the original trilogy at that resolution, not the new ones. As far as I know, the new ones (or at least episode 3) were shot in 1080p digital, not film, so don't expect to ever see it at a resolution higher than that (unless they just scale it up, but why?). The original trilogy, however, can be transferred from film at that resolution, which will be nice.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I want a HD iPod.

All current non-flash iPods feature a HD.

Uhm, no, wait

-t

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by kaze0

I can't wait to watch star wars in 1000000000000x10000000000000

Here you go, type it on Terminal and press intro/return

telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl

[CharlesS]

Okay, so from the first few posts in this thread, it would seem that Obi Wan's Ghost is not the same person as Dark Helmet. So, which one is SWG? I'm getting a little confused here.

And why is it so hard to just use one freaking username anyway?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by goMac

How will my 1.25 ghz Powerbook with a Bluray drive playback at 2540p?

Too. Many. GoDrugs.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Okay, so from the first few posts in this thread, it would seem that Obi Wan's Ghost is not the same person as Dark Helmet. So, which one is SWG? I'm getting a little confused here.

And why is it so hard to just use one freaking username anyway?

I am not he.

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by ink

Can hard disks record that fast?

Current High end processors can't even play that in real time let alone encode. So for now its irrelevant because you'd need a render-farm anyway.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

I think you'll only be seeing the original trilogy at that resolution, not the new ones. As far as I know, the new ones (or at least episode 3) were shot in 1080p digital, not film, so don't expect to ever see it at a resolution higher than that (unless they just scale it up, but why?). The original trilogy, however, can be transferred from film at that resolution, which will be nice.

At least one of them was shot all digital, but I think it was a LOT higher res than HDTV!!!! I can see the lines of pixels on an HDTV easily and I didn't see anything like that at the theater where I (for some reason actually) saw the movies... They were just dreadful but the picture looked great... nothing like HDTV

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by mrtew

At least one of them was shot all digital, but I think it was a LOT higher res than HDTV!!!! I can see the lines of pixels on an HDTV easily and I didn't see anything like that at the theater where I (for some reason actually) saw the movies... They were just dreadful but the picture looked great... nothing like HDTV

IMDB on Ep. III:

Cinematographic process
HDTV (1080p/24) (4:4:4 RGB)

Ep. II:

Cinematographic process
HDCAM (1080p/24)

Collateral also used 1080p for some parts, as well as many others.

uncompressed HD transferred to film is much different than the HDTV that's compressed to hell and squeezed onto cable

[Joey B]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Regular TV is going to be around forever. Eyes don't see in resolution so the more pixels the better. I thought 1080p wasn't enough of a change.

Eyes do have a resolution of 500 megapixels. They are limited by the number of rods and cones in your eyes and the distance from the retina to the cornea, which determines what kind of vision you have. So, yes more pixels = better, but there is a point that does not give us any more quality.

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

Bluray doesn't need to be upgraded at all to play higher resolutions. It can play any resolution from disc just like a hard disc can. It's the screens that will have to go up in resolution (and the digital processors have to be more powerful) and that is going to happen like every 5 years anyway at the rate of techo progress we have until we get some innerbrain mind The Matrix/Existenz thing.....movies and games in your head etc.

Saying that the codec does not matter is not true. When the BD runs out of space, a different codec can compress the video further and retain the same quality, freeing up more space. If you don't believe me, compare a divx 2-pass encoding to the actual dvd. goes from 6GB to 1-1.5GB with slightly less quality or you could make a perfect quality rip and and still be less than half the size of the dvd.

And, yes, blu ray is using an mpeg-2 codec. This is the same codec that is used on dvds, which is why it is creating a fuss

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Joey B

Eyes do have a resolution of 500 megapixels. They are limited by the number of rods and cones in your eyes and the distance from the retina to the cornea, which determines what kind of vision you have. So, yes more pixels = better, but there is a point that does not give us any more quality.

Keep in mind though, 500 megapixels would mean filling your entire FOV, anything else is wasted resolution...

================

Really, why is everyone worried about the application of this to TV? Tee vee, schmee vee. I see this as the next step in digital cinema becoming closer to film res. If I was planning on printing my digital film to silver based media, I would definately want this type of resolution. Granted, film still has a 3-5 f stops over digital as far as dynamic range, if I'm not mistaken... so digital has still got a whiles to go until its as good as film. But this definately a step in the right direction.

Really, its the 4:4:4 luma subsampling ratio that makes me skeptical... I mean, that resoltion at 4:4:4? Look at the Panny HVX200 (very nice cam btw) which records at 4:2:2 (IIRC), and you can fit what, like 15 mins on a P2 card? Even on a bluRay, you're not gonna get a whole lot. I'm guessing their compression scheme has a pretty long GOP in order for them to store on anything other than hard disk.

Anyway, that res would be pretty cool for film, but for TV, I think we'd be getting a little ahead of ourselves.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Joey B

Saying that the codec does not matter is not true. When the BD runs out of space, a different codec can compress the video further and retain the same quality, freeing up more space. If you don't believe me, compare a divx 2-pass encoding to the actual dvd. goes from 6GB to 1-1.5GB with slightly less quality or you could make a perfect quality rip and and still be less than half the size of the dvd.

You try compressing HD too much and the artifacts are more obvious than with DVD resolution. Nobody wants to do that. They don't want to squeeze HD down. They want more space to store HD so that HD can keep scaling up.

[ink]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Current High end processors can't even play that in real time let alone encode. So for now its irrelevant because you'd need a render-farm anyway.

That's what I suspected...

Hey! I just came out with a NEW HD FORMAT!

It is called [drum roll] 4048p!

Nothing can play it yet, but it obsoletes EVERYTHING out there.

Stay tuned!

PS: You make stuff for it by encoding to 6023x4048, but don't tell anyone! It's super-secret HD goodness!

[tooki]

This is for digital cinema, not a camcorder, and not for distribution to consumers.

Digital cinema is already being processed at 4000 lines ("4K"). The movie is shot on film, scanned in on a telecine at 4K, processed digitally, and then written back out to film at 4K.

That's what this is addressing, not the delivery to the home theater consumer.

tooki

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by sabrejim

I can't wait to watch star wars in 1000000000000x10000000000000

Square??

[ink]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Square??

Letterbox is soooo 2005.

[stevesnj]

Human eye cannot detect that high a resolution so its just hype to sell the camera

[tooki]

On a large cinema screen, that much resolution is entirely detectable.

tooki

[stevesnj]

it will be better than current HD but that crazy 4xxxx2xxx would not be able to be detected by human eyes thats all im saying

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by loki74

Keep in mind though, 500 megapixels would mean filling your entire FOV, anything else is wasted resolution...

================

Really, why is everyone worried about the application of this to TV? Tee vee, schmee vee. I see this as the next step in digital cinema becoming closer to film res. If I was planning on printing my digital film to silver based media, I would definately want this type of resolution. Granted, film still has a 3-5 f stops over digital as far as dynamic range, if I'm not mistaken... so digital has still got a whiles to go until its as good as film. But this definately a step in the right direction.

Really, its the 4:4:4 luma subsampling ratio that makes me skeptical... I mean, that resoltion at 4:4:4? Look at the Panny HVX200 (very nice cam btw) which records at 4:2:2 (IIRC), and you can fit what, like 15 mins on a P2 card? Even on a bluRay, you're not gonna get a whole lot. I'm guessing their compression scheme has a pretty long GOP in order for them to store on anything other than hard disk.

Anyway, that res would be pretty cool for film, but for TV, I think we'd be getting a little ahead of ourselves.

You had me at "keep"... horrible Jerry Maguire reference

[ink]

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archiv...g=1&s=1521

Diesel Sweeties does HD comics now!

You are viewing the DS archives in ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION PIXELSCOPE® MEGAVISION

[Hawkeye_a]

When will it end ?

Seems like a neverending race that you will never win.....

Over the past 3 years ive been spending a lot more time outdoors, and loving it immencely. i dont know what resolution one's eyes see the real world in ...but it's pretty awesome.....the color depth is not too shabby either.....and im just guessing here, but i think it's a LITTLE better than 7.1 surround sound. Just my opinion of course.

Cheers