Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UHD Spec Stomps on Current Blu-ray Spec, But Will Consumers Notice?

Posted by timothy on from the is-your-nose-on-the-glass? dept.

An anonymous reader writes Details have emerged on the new UHD Blu-ray spec and players set to start shipping this summer. UHD promises resolutions 4X greater than Blu-ray 1080p as well as much higher data rates, enhanced color space and more audio options. But, will consumers care, and will they be willing to upgrade their HDTV's, AV Receivers, and Blu-ray players to adopt a new format whose benefits may only be realized on ultra large displays or close viewing distances? The article makes the interesting point that UHD isn't synonymous with 4K, even if both handily beat the resolution of most household displays.

6 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. The future is not UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The future is increasing frame rates for more realism. Unfortunately, the big manufacturers need to sell 4k televisions, and will keep pushing the dead horse of increased resolution, which is completely pointless for a massive majority of users..

    1. Re: The future is not UHD by maccodemonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any TV you can buy today can do 60 fps over HDMI. The frame rate push has been done for years, the content just never showed up:

      It's also arguable if that's the future. Everyone seems pretty happy with the current refresh rates of film, and 60 fps Hobbit wasn't well received.

  2. Re:Too late! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Man, does that hurt. I'm afraid you're right to a very large extent. I could certainly upgrade from a 42" 1080 p screen, but unless I sit really close with my glasses on, it doesn't make much difference.

    The nieces and nephews think the TV is something akin to a slide rule - an interesting historical object of little daily import. If it doesn't go on the laptop screen or the phone, it doesn't get watched.

    Except for the Star Wars laser disks but that's another sad tech story.....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Re:Don't need this yet by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm projecting a 1080p image onto a 150" screen (my wall). It's damn obvious 1080p isn't enough. From 12' away I can see the individual pixels, and the anti-aliasing is obvious on news and sports graphics. I'd say 1080p video looks about as sharp as 480i video (DVD) on a 50" screen - not very sharp at all. And I'm 45 and my prescription 2 years out of date, so it's not like my eyes are as good as they used to be. If my next eyeglass prescription is sharper, I may have to intentionally defocus the projector image slightly to mitigate the screen door effect.

    I'm seeing more and more 70"+ HDTVs for sale in stores, so I have to believe people are buying them. That's about the point when 1080p starts to become limiting at typical living room distances (about 8 ft between sofa and TV). Theoretical max for a room with 8' ceilings is just shy of 200 inches at 16:9, so there's still a lot of room for TVs to potentially grow. Add in more cameras capable of recording 4k, and 4k is going to gain traction in the next 5-10 years whether you want it or not. I've already decided that when the bulb on my current projector deteriorates, I'm just going to replace it with a 4k projector.

  4. Re:I won't notice by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Normal" TV viewing distance can be inferred by simple deduction: it is basically from the couch to the TV, which might be anywhere from 6 feet to maybe 10 feet. It's a pretty rough measure, but it's still a measure. 4 feet is significantly less than "normal", and 14 feet is more.

    At the viewing distances and screen size I use, I can certainty see a considerable difference.

    What is your screen size and distance? You don't say. And you see the difference between what? Standard definition and HD? Or HD and 4k?

    I doubt very much you see the difference between HD and 4k, because while 4k TVs are being sold, there is almost no 4k media being sold. So any difference you might see is a result of artificial upsampling. You're fooling yourself.

  5. Re:I won't notice by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's try an example. Enter "resolution" into google. What does it say?

    the degree of sharpness of a computer-generated image as measured by the number of dots per linear inch in a hard-copy printout or the number of pixels across and down on a display screen. Their resolution never failed them, their fervour seemed never slackened.

    Google says you are wrong.

    Let's see what Microsoft says. Right click your desktop, and choose "Screen Resolution". What does it say? Microsoft says:

    Resolution: 2560x1440 (Recommended)

    Boy those silly software guys must have got it all wrong. Let's check the hardware guys... How about dell?
    http://accessories.us.dell.com...

    Under tech spec, that monitor says:

    Native Resolution 1920 x 1200

    Guess the hardware guys are wrong too. So who uses it the one true "Jane Q. Public" way?