Ultra-High Definition Television Coming as Early as 2017

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by David Susilo

I really think so too. It's about time the standard moves to 16 bit colour.

Ideally, of course, if we can have 1080p res on 2.35:1 ratio movies, 16 bit colour, 5.1 lossless and use the entire 50 GB capacity of BD using AVC compression, it'll be enough for me.

When you increase the bit depth, you increase the size of the compressed file.

And AFAIK, 35mm film is supposed to have a 14bit depth so why go to 16?

[hatih]

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

And AFAIK, 35mm film is supposed to have a 14bit depth so why go to 16?

How much colors (and resolution) is needed before you can't tell the difference between TV and window, if it's less than 16bit color depth then yes, it's a overkill but othervice there is room for it.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by hatih

How much colors (and resolution) is needed before you can't tell the difference between TV and window, if it's less than 16bit color depth then yes, it's a overkill but othervice there is room for it.

Like I said - almost everyone can't tell the difference between 12 bit and 16 bit. All you would be doing is increasing the file size with no benefit.

[David Susilo]

but that means there is still room for improvement up to 16-bit colour.

What I mean to say is that most people can't distinguish the difference between 720p vs 1080p but quite a number of people can distinguish the difference.

Regardless, the point is that 8-bit colour is just far from good-enough, so in the very worst case, they should provide us with 12-bit colour.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by David Susilo

but that means there is still room for improvement up to 16-bit colour.

There is no benefit to going past 12 bit. The human eye just can't see the difference.

What I mean to say is that most people can't distinguish the difference between 720p vs 1080p but quite a number of people can distinguish the difference.

Would that be due to seating distance? With bit depth, very very few can see past 12 bit no matter where you sit and those few that can are women.

Regardless, the point is that 8-bit colour is just far from good-enough, so in the very worst case, they should provide us with 12-bit colour.

And again - if they don't expand the dynamic range - it won't make the difference that you think it will.

[David Susilo]

Lee,

I've seen native 12 bit vs 8-bit colour. The difference is not subtle at all. Okay fine if they don't want to do 14 or 16 bit. There is still no excuse for ATSC standard to stay at 8-bit instead of 12-bit.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by David Susilo

Lee,

I've seen native 12 bit vs 8-bit colour. The difference is not subtle at all. Okay fine if they don't want to do 14 or 16 bit. There is still no excuse for ATSC standard to stay at 8-bit instead of 12-bit.

They are working with a limited amount of bandwidth to deliver their HD signals to the consumer. Increasing the bit depth increases the needed bandwidth along with the amount of storage needed.

12 bit is considered professional level video. Do you really think that "they" are going to offer this kind of level to consumers? MAYBE we will see 10 bit in the future. How far into the future - your guess is as good as mine.

[nathan118]

No way people adopt a higher-res format....because there will be no way to watch any of it!

Perhaps blu-ray sets with one episode on it, or movies spanned across multiple discs.

There's no way you're getting higher-res content OTA or through Satellite. Like someone else said...they can't even do 1080p for the most part.

Higher res would be cool, but just waaaay too much data to make that happen right now.

[JediFonger]

the problem w/"good enough" is when other technologies supplant it.

when you calculate the "tax/burden/overhead" of 3-D content into play, higher fps, & in the future holographic (like SW or ST), 16-bit becomes even more meaningful. why bother doing "good enough" when you can create a standard that'll last. NTSC was 60+ years!!!! and yes, dynamic range too =). where is my TRUE BLACK? CRT STILL beats the pants off plasma and LCD for true black, after 10+ years of being replaced by it.

i don't care what the over the air crap is, but as long as they do it for Blu-Ray, i'll be happy.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by nathan118

No way people adopt a higher-res format....because there will be no way to watch any of it!

Perhaps blu-ray sets with one episode on it, or movies spanned across multiple discs.

There's no way you're getting higher-res content OTA or through Satellite. Like someone else said...they can't even do 1080p for the most part.

Higher res would be cool, but just waaaay too much data to make that happen right now.

The OP says 2017.

[nathan118]

Someone else said 5% penetration by 2012....but looking at the article, I don't see any mention of that (think they meant 2021, just a typo).

But still, are you expecting massive overhauls in the next 7 years that will allow this via satellite or ota?

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by nathan118

Someone else said 5% penetration by 2012....but looking at the article, I don't see any mention of that (think they meant 2021, just a typo).

But still, are you expecting massive overhauls in the next 7 years that will allow this via satellite or ota?

From the OP:

•The rising popularity of high resolution digital cinema will expose consumers to high resolution content. Then, early UHDTVs will be made available to provide a digital cinema high resolution viewing experience in the home. Ultimately, broadcasters will start offering UHD content to an addressable market of UHDTVs, between 2017 and 2022.
•In-Stat expects the total installed base of UHDTVs Europe to approach 5% household penetration until 2021, and increase to over 28.2% penetration by 2025.
•In Asia-Pacific, Japan will be among the early adopter countries.

That is 7 to 12 years from next year.

And UHD, as far as consumers are concerned probably means 4K and not 8K.

[nathan118]

You repeated the same thing I said...