UHDTV and 22.2 Surround Sound - Does Anybody Think That Thats Going Too Far Too Fast?

[s162216]

Hi

I was reading about the experimental UHDTV which has a resolution of 7680 x 4320 or 16 times 1080 hd and 22.2 surround sound, and when I got to the bit about broadcasts hoping to begin in 2015 in Japan and where I live in the UK with the BBC, I began to think, is this just a step too far,too fast?

The reasons for this are:

• This is actually about twice as much definition as the best digital cinemas
• HD only became accessiable to the non super rich about 5 or 6 years ago
• By 2015 I seriously doubt that SD will be completely dead as in the UK only about 10% at the moment actually watch in HD
• Its only going to end up being affordable for years to the super rich as at the moment everything has to be custom built
• How the hell is someone going to fit 24 speakers in an average sized room? You would need a hugh room
• Is 7.1 or in future 9.1 not good enough? Most people who I know that have surround sound still have 5.1 and what happened to 10.1, 11.1, 12.1 etc?
• Maybe the most common sense argument: does anyone actually need that sort of quality in their HT? Would it not be better for this technology to be in a cinema first like HD originally sort of was, and then gradually make it possible for home use?

Anyway thats what I think, what does everyone else think???

 

[Shock]

Maybe the most common sense argument: does anyone actually need that sort of quality in their HT?[/LIST]

Anyway thats what I think, what does everyone else think???

I don't know if the majority of people here will agree with me, but what we need and what we have are two totally different things. I don't need much of what I have in terms of HT to be entertained.

However it's all about adding to the experience. I don't think you can come out with tech fast enough. The fast new tech is out the faster old tech becomes even cheaper and more affordable to all.

Do i need ultra high resolutions and 22.2 surround sond? No, but I want it.

 

[bandphan]

The display resolutions that you referenced are currently produced with FP. As for the surround format, most dedicated theaters dont even need 7.2. Due to their size.

 

[s162216]

I don't know if the majority of people here will agree with me, but what we need and what we have are two totally different things. I don't need much of what I have in terms of HT to be enetertained.

However it's all about adding to the experience. I don't think you can come out with tech fast enough. The fast new tech is out the faster old tech becomes even cheaper and more affordable to all.

Do i need ultra high resolutions and 22.2 surround sond? No, but I want it.

Sure its good to have a better experience with better sound, image quality etc, and it is true that the faster new tech comes out, the cheaper the old stuff gets, but if you look at HDTV for example, they came out in about 1990 if I remember correctly and cost thousands, but it was only in about 2002/3 that they became affordable to the general person and in the UK SD was fine for about 30 years and is still watched the majority and in the 1980's how many people had surround sound? Not that many, to be honest it will be like buying a HDTV 10 years ago, completely worthless as the amount of watchable content will be tiny anyway.

 

[s162216]

The display resolutions that you referenced are currently produced with FP. As for the surround format, most dedicated theaters dont even need 7.2. Due to their size.

How would you be able to downsize an image to fit on a normal sized TV anyway? You would lose quality.
With the sound I don't think that having 24 speakers would actually make that much difference anyway apart from the height aspect as to be honest 7.1 covers all the different directions for sound anyway so it proberly won't sound very different.

 

[Adam]

22.2? Seems a bit much.

2.22? That's about right - just ask Mike.

 

[bandphan]

22.2? Seems a bit much.

2.22? That's about right - just ask Mike.

Dont you mean 2.22.

 

[Adam]

Dont you mean 2.22.

Well, that's what I said.

 

[bandphan]

Damm u harp! Oh and the small crackberry screen

 

[santeini]

Too fast?We will not stop there,thrust me.

 

[supervij]

Too fast?We will not stop there,thrust me.

Um, thrust you? I wouldn't thrust you as far as I could . . . er, never mind.

cheers,
supervij

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Sony's SDDS has been around for a long time, and it isn't even available for consumer home theater today.

Most BDs aren't even 7.1.

I can see myself upgrading to 4K Video Resolution in about 10 years just because.

But anything beyond the current 1080p is amost like trying to hear the difference between a THD of 0.1% and 0.0001%.

I really can't tell the difference between 5.1 and 7.1.

And I really can't even tell the difference between DD/DTS vs TrueHD/DTS-MA most of the time.

22.2 is laughable for home theater. But in an extremely large room, it would be okay, although not needed.

 

[lsiberian]

Too fast?We will not stop there,thrust me.

No thanks. I hardly even know you.

 

[bandphan]

How would you be able to downsize an image to fit on a normal sized TV anyway? You would lose quality.
.

Im not sure what you are asking. Also what is normal size? i was refreing to front projection.

 

[MatthewB.]

I'm hoping that by 2015, we will all have undergone a simple surgical procedure where a small chip is implanted into our cranium, having broadcast TV and video wirelessly transmitted to the chip. Basically turning our heads into nothing but a seamless 360 degree soundfield of audio nirvana, with the additional transducer butt chip for those real deep low bass (thinking of all the medical benefits of those who suffer from constipation also.) Simple contact lenses will broadcast images so clear that you will lose all facets of reality and spend days watching reruns of "The Hills" just endlessly loop into your brain.

Dare to dream, dare to dream. Seriously, America can't get 4 million nimrods to get an almost free converter box, (postponing the digital conversion) you really think 22.2 surround sound is ever gonna take off?

 

[Djizasse]

I want to see one of those graphs of resolution vs distance

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hi

I was reading about the experimental UHDTV which has a resolution of 7680 x 4320 or 16 times 1080 hd and 22.2 surround sound, and when I got to the bit about broadcasts hoping to begin in 2015 in Japan and where I live in the UK with the BBC, I began to think, is this just a step too far,too fast?

The reasons for this are:

• This is actually about twice as much definition as the best digital cinemas
• HD only became accessiable to the non super rich about 5 or 6 years ago
• By 2015 I seriously doubt that SD will be completely dead as in the UK only about 10% at the moment actually watch in HD
• Its only going to end up being affordable for years to the super rich as at the moment everything has to be custom built
• How the hell is someone going to fit 24 speakers in an average sized room? You would need a hugh room
• Is 7.1 or in future 9.1 not good enough? Most people who I know that have surround sound still have 5.1 and what happened to 10.1, 11.1, 12.1 etc?
• Maybe the most common sense argument: does anyone actually need that sort of quality in their HT? Would it not be better for this technology to be in a cinema first like HD originally sort of was, and then gradually make it possible for home use?

Anyway thats what I think, what does everyone else think???

If this is for broadcast Tv, I'd like to know what RF band will they use to accommodate the channel bandwidth.

 

[s162216]

Im not sure what you are asking. Also what is normal size? i was refreing to front projection.

What I meant is a TV of average size i.e up to 50" which is what a normal TV to me would be, as they am talking about this being the sucessor to HD broadcasts, and how many people do you honestly think watch their TV on a projector?. Every resolution has a minimum size screen it should have for maximum quality which is why you don't get 'true' HD quality video on tiny screens.

 

[s162216]

If this is for broadcast Tv, I'd like to know what RF band will they use to accommodate the channel bandwidth.

I would imagine they would use the space that will be used by the analogue channels until about 2012 in most parts of the UK, although they are talking about selling off that part of the spectrum to mobile phone transmissions (cell phones to you Americans)

 

[fractile]

Beyond 7.1 it get's into up/down information. Even now, I have seen very little programming that has a decent 5.1 mix. I hope they learn. I've seen movie scenes with 5 tiny speakers spread across the TV table (surround sound). At any rate, as was said, it's good to push the envelope so that what is 'normal' continues to improve. 4k 3D video, 3D sound...