Something I haven't worked out yet...

Well I have a 42" screen which is larger than A1 size...I don't know anyone with a 32" as their main TV... more like a bedroom size these days.

You wouldn't normally blow up a 2mp photo to that size hence my question...?
 
Because it's a standard based on available technologies.

720p/i 1080p/i etc etc the next one will be 4k.

The standard is based on how many physical pixels are in the display.

Why would a company make something which does not comply with these standards.

+ Higher resolutions are available already for example the new Go pro and RED cameras and various hi resolution computer displays even a 4k TV if you got the cash.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't have a TV anywhere near as big as 32". About 24" is enough.

It doesn't matter how big you make the screen, the programmes are still crap.


Steve.
 
Ahh so normal TVs don't usually offer a higher pixel count! That would start to explain things...

Ok next...

To keep up with thinks like 400ppi smart phones and tablets alike... why haven't they started to offer higher resolutions to deliver a much sharper image???
 
Phil Young said:
Ahh so normal TVs don't usually offer a higher pixel count! That would start to explain things...

Ok next...

To keep up with thinks like 400ppi smart phones and tablets alike... why haven't they started to offer higher resolutions to deliver a much sharper image???
Click to expand...

Because viewing distance is an important part of the equation (just like prints) If you're staring at a 4" screen (a foot away) it's got to have a lot higher PPI than a 40" TV screen (6 feet away).

We haven't even got to the limits of current technology. Most people are mostly watching SD content; SD TV or DVDs (even on their big TV), with occasional Blu Ray use (the only 1080 high res content) but more likely HDTV (currently most HD content is advertised as 1080i but is often a lot lower).
 
other problem you have is with data everytime you go up a size you almost quadruple the amount of data you need.

for example a 2mp photo is roughly 1080p to double the resolution say to 2160p you would be talking 4x the amount of data.

as most people say though your eyes cant tell the difference at higher ranges
 
My PC monitor is 32" lawl. Great for working on photo's etc.

To answer the question: There are still the same number of pixels on a 42" as a 32" if 1080p is their max resolution.
 
The new tv standard is 8kx4k at 120 fps with more bits per pixel.

Slightly over 64x HD datarate.
 
Phil Young said:
Ahh so normal TVs don't usually offer a higher pixel count! That would start to explain things...

Ok next...

To keep up with thinks like 400ppi smart phones and tablets alike... why haven't they started to offer higher resolutions to deliver a much sharper image???
Click to expand...

Read the white paper above. It wouldn't be sharper. 400 ppi phones are sharp because of the viewing distance.

If you're sitting a few metres away, your visiual acuity won't be enough to see any difference.
 
Phil Young said:
That doesn't answer my question at all.

In your answer, the pixels are bigger, this doesn't make for a sharper image.
Click to expand...
It does answer your original question:thinking:.

Phil Young said:
Given that most household TVs nowadays are expected to be a minimum of 32"...why do we still only have full HD available in most recording devices and not larger???
Click to expand...

All current HDTVs are the same resolution. The next stop is 4k, which is overkill for domestic sized screens, but will answer the question you thought you'd asked(y).
 
Phil Young said:
The viewing distance will be the same on a hd or ultra hd tv thus making the higher ppi count sharper?
Click to expand...

The Japanese ultra HD market (4k and 8k) are reckoning on 84 - 120 inch displays at a viewing distance of 1.5x picture height. (HD is usually viewed at 4x plus).
 
Phil V said:
It does answer your original question:thinking:.

All current HDTVs are the same resolution. The next stop is 4k, which is overkill for domestic sized screens, but will answer the question you thought you'd asked(y).
Click to expand...

Phil, obviously you've missed most of the point I'm trying to say.

Let me try and be a bit more simple...

Take two screens, both 32". One has a resolution of HD, the other a resolution of UHD, at the same viewing distance, the UHD screen will look much more detailed.

Obviously, technology and the future of screens won't be like some of the replies in this thread and say "it's fine as it is", we are constantly trying to improved things and make sharper, faster, smaller technologies. I just wonder when these "retina displays" will come to our living rooms for existing resolutions and obviously, the video cameras to record at larger resolutions to facilitate bigger screens.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Phil, obviously you've missed most of the point I'm trying to say.

Let me try and be a bit more simple...

Take two screens, both 32". One has a resolution of HD, the other a resolution of UHD, at the same viewing distance, the UHD screen will look much more detailed.

Obviously, technology and the future of screens won't be like some of the replies in this thread and say "it's fine as it is", we are constantly trying to improved things and make sharper, faster, smaller technologies. I just wonder when these "retina displays" will come to our living rooms for existing resolutions and obviously, the video cameras to record at larger resolutions to facilitate bigger screens.
Click to expand...

Phil. I understand the shifts in technology, however your question was why aren't higher resolutions here now!


why do we still only have full HD available in most recording devices and not larger???

That's the question you asked and that people have answered. If your question had been 'what's next' or 'when will resolutions get higher?' that's a different question - and it appears to be the debate that you want, but you have to forgive other people for not grasping that from what you asked:thinking:
 
Phil V said:
Phil. I understand the shifts in technology, however your question was why aren't higher resolutions here now!


why do we still only have full HD available in most recording devices and not larger???

That's the question you asked and that people have answered. If your question had been 'what's next' or 'when will resolutions get higher?' that's a different question - and it appears to be the debate that you want, but you have to forgive other people for not grasping that from what you asked:thinking:
Click to expand...

Have you read the thread Phil?

My original question was answered, then we moved on to "why hasn't the screens moved on".
 
Phil Young said:
Phil, obviously you've missed most of the point I'm trying to say.

Let me try and be a bit more simple...

Take two screens, both 32". One has a resolution of HD, the other a resolution of UHD, at the same viewing distance, the UHD screen will look much more detailed.
.
Click to expand...

Only if the distance is such that you are close enough to the screen to see the difference.

If, for example the smallest pixel you can see is 1 degree of arc, then it matters not if you have 1, 10 or 100 pixels within that 1 degree.
 
MarcM said:
You'll need a beast of a system to handle the editing!
Click to expand...

Granted, but Premiere Pro can already do (in CS7) 4kp60.

Panasonic and Sony's new codecs handle 4k at higher from rates.

With H.265 looking like it will reduce file sizes by 1/3rd over H.264 and bearing in mind increased frame rates reduce the motion between frames, it won't be a massive increase.

The main problem will be crunching the uncompressed footage.
 
st599 said:
Only if the distance is such that you are close enough to the screen to see the difference.

If, for example the smallest pixel you can see is 1 degree of arc, then it matters not if you have 1, 10 or 100 pixels within that 1 degree.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd see a difference, just like the difference between looking at a photo on the old iPhone 3g and the iPhone 5.

I'm not trying to say 1080 isn't good enough, but wondering why on a couple of questions.

Dint get me wrong, I was watching a 1080 video shot on my D7000 and watching it on a flat panel 42" screen tonight, the quality was superb, I'm not saying what we have now doesn't suffice but given that technology is such a rapid moving industry, questioning why it hasn't moved into <whatever> on a couple of things.
 
Phil Young said:
I'm sure you'd see a difference, just like the difference between looking at a photo on the old iPhone 3g and the iPhone 5.

I'm not trying to say 1080 isn't good enough, but wondering why on a couple of questions.

Dint get me wrong, I was watching a 1080 video shot on my D7000 and watching it on a flat panel 42" screen tonight, the quality was superb, I'm not saying what we have now doesn't suffice but given that technology is such a rapid moving industry, questioning why it hasn't moved into <whatever> on a couple of things.
Click to expand...

Under the circumstances I listed, I.e. beyond the limit of visual acuity, you won't see a difference.

The main problem is of course that an increase in pixel density requires an increase in framerate.

Say you double in both directions but keep frame rate and shutter speed the same. A ball which moved 5 pixels in HD, now moves 10 pixels causing more blurring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top