Television manufacturers are already starting to produce equipment with an image resolution that far exceeds today's HDTV standards. In part, that's because passive 3-D glasses cost you picture resolution, so LG, Vizio and others plan to compensate by doubling the resolution of 1080p screens by next year—and double it again by 2013. Those sets will be able to display an amazing picture.
Content is another issue, though. Don't look to traditional over-the-air broadcasters for revolutionary improvement in video quality. Broadcast-TV standards in the U.S. improve incredibly slowly; the transition from analog to digital TV took 13 years. And even today's seemingly rich HD video spectrum doesn't display even close to the full range of colors discernible to our eyes.
Consumer video evolves faster. Blu-ray is the current gold standard, with six times the detail of standard DVDs and a much higher bit rate than cable HDTV broadcasts. Some movies, meanwhile, are now being shot or scanned digitally at four times 1080p resolution or greater. To keep up with this ever improving quality (and to bypass stagnant broadcast standards), cable, satellite and Internet video distributors have turned to direct-streaming technologies. Services such as Vudu's HDX 1080p tech (no subscription fee; vudu.com) now come close to matching Blu-ray quality and could be the first step toward delivering even higher-resolution formats to your living room.
PopSci are you kidding me?
I never complained about typos before but thats just wrong, its the U.S.. (and this is ethnocentrism) Don't disgrace it.
Having tried VUDU's HDX service with an ample internet connection, I wouldn't put it in the same paragraph as Blu-ray. It was 1920 by 1080 pixels of highly (and amateurishly) compressed junk. Maybe soon, but certainly not yet a rival to Blu-ray.
greater than 1080p - don't care
I'm all for higher levels of technology, but they seem to be trying to push it way too fast.
1) no one can afford a new movie collection every 2 years just because it is suddenly 'low definition'. I've spent $500 on my bluerays and am in no hurry to go out and rebuy them all in 1500p
2) this level of increasing technology is in NO way sustainable. We're just digging up more and more rare earths to stick into our tech and then we throw it into a landfill 2 years later.
I agree with MaxVest bitrate and a good codec is more important to me than resolution. They really need to make a codec with dynamic contrast, I cant stand low light blotches that cover 1/4 the screen.
I always wonder why there's so much emphasis on resolution and not ever a chirp about frame rate. I'd like to see what a 100 fps movie looks like shot on film. Next time you watch any movie, notice how jerky any slow panning shot of scenery is at the 24 fps. It's really bad once you see it. Directors think high frame rates would make movies look like cheap video, but reality doesn't look like cheap video and it's infinite fps.
For roughly half a century, the world had a single TV standard. Some were better than others based on the hardware, but the standard remained the same. In fact, until just a year or so back, you could still watch a TV made in 1949 by simply plugging it in and hooking up an antenna.
In fact, my 1949 Emerson does still work...
That's changed now. And yes, I do appreciate the improved picture and such... but it looks like it is going to be the same headache that has been created in other markets; your investment is obsolete the moment you buy it.
Cell phones? DVD players? Computers? Even coffee makers! Each has a form of designed obsolescence built right in from the start. So, my new PC with Windows 7 will outlast the software within it... my Samsung cell phone will outlast Verizon's support and both will still be fully operational when their designed lifetime ends.
Invest $1500 in a 1080p TV today to have it worthless tomorrow.
It works well for those at LG, Sony and Vizio because you won't be able to buy a TV and just be happy for 10 or 20 years. You'll have to replace it in 2... and that is money out of your pockets and into theirs.
planned obsolescence is sad.
with all the HDTV's the actual picture is the same and they are just increases the CPU power and software to geta higher resolution etc. Hence, i ask why dont they seperate the screen from the video decoding unit ?
Then the part can be upgraded much more easily.
And it woudl be much thinner on the wall witha single cable up to it / or a wireless one.
I know Toshiba started to do it but its not taken off.
a 4K tv would be awesome. I think a bunch of us are connecting our computers to our TVs. I think Robert was trying to stress a source of 4K videos will be from the internet like Vudu. As time goes on, our bandwidth will become better. We went from Dosis 1.0 to 3.0, we will go to 5.0 one day. I do agree that color accuracy is something we don't focus on too much which is important that Robert brought up. Currently the marketing folks have been focusing on resolution and refresh rates and not color accuracy. As always I look forward to a 60 inch 4K 3D TV, and while people are complaining about changes in technology. 4K was shown off a few years ago, and many people have waiting to buy one.