HDTV Forum

What's the next step up from HDTV? What is better than HDTV?

There really isn't one for the mass consumer market, HDTV is pretty much it.

While HDTV could be improved it would be a difficult sell. Comparing the old NTSC system to the new DTV system (now over 10 years old) that can support HD imaging was fairly straight forward, most of the public easily saw the benefit and could justify replacing their TV at home which was working just fine. That will not be the case for Super HD and there is plenty of feedback to support that.

Many think DVD looks just as good as HD or Blu-ray. If you are sitting too far away from the screen, most folks, that is a valid outcome. The difference is in the details and that requires using the correct viewing distance, 3-4 screen heights.

Indeed, that is where the rubber meets the road. At the correct viewing distance DVD lacks detail and broadcast HDTV is chock full of processing and compression artifacts although potentially far less if you receive your HD locals with an antenna. 1080p displays may be all the rage but they don't do justice for 720p content because that has to be converted to the 1080p display pixel matrix of 1920x1080 and that creates errors. The only way to circumvent that problem is to double the pixel matrix of 1080p to 3840x2160. While that can provide a ton of improvement in conversion and processing it also requires twice the horsepower to implement.

Blu-ray is the current reference point for quality HD content and is fully deserving of that title. From picture to sound it simply does not get any better. When setup for 1:1 pixel mapping and 24 frame reproduction it is so good that it is highly debatable how a 3840x2160 matrix would be of any improvement. All that seems to do in this example is allow an even closer viewing distance yet the current standard already provides an eye filling experience that can make some folks easily suffer from motion sickness.

That takes us to commercial applications like digital projection in your local theater. These do have higher pixel matrices to allow the closer viewing distances required in the front rows of the theater.

Joe Kane wrote a lengthy article about HDTV displays years ago for Widescreen Review lamenting that manufacturers continued to make sub-par displays that did not meet video standards stating to the ire of HDTV enthusiasts that current consumer displays should not be called HD. Knowing that was unlikely he proposed a new category called Super HDTV that would require manufacturers to design and build product that does meet HD video standards when using that designation.

Numerous displays and blu-ray players support an additional feature called Deep Color which would be of great benefit to quality imaging by increasing the color range and depth of the color palette greatly reducing contouring artifacts but alas no one is mastering and therefore releasing any titles that support it. It is a capability that sits in limbo.

The problem with all of the above is most consumers are not educated on all these imaging artifacts and problems, they are not sitting close enough to appreciate the potential differences and quite frankly seem perfectly satisfied as is so they have no reason to even care. Most consumer got what they wanted; better pictures and flat thin displays, ala LCD and plasma.

That takes us to 3D. This is one area where like NTSC to HDTV there would be a huge difference in the experience and therefore market potential to get folks to replace product that is working just fine. The greatest hurdle is the fact that all systems promoted so far require some form of eye wear. That said there are new display technologies that can provide this effect without eye wear yet suffer in other areas such as color reproduction. In the meantime your local cinemaplex is pleased to pick up the 3D slack and get you to spend money with them rather than you staying at home enjoying all the wonderful benefits of HDTV and Hollywood movies.

AS always, RICHARD a good reply to the HD story. Personally i am strong believer in Joe Kanes view that many a manufacturer does not make a set that meets true hd standards. I do not believe that the situation has improved much in todays market. As you have unfortunately noted , people want it big , flat & cheap. Then pay little attention to viewing distances & acoustic considerationsw Still a high number of buyers believe the set is the thing & do not purchase the settop box to get the actual hd content. They are comfortable with watching dvds on their hd tv & remain oblivious to the fact that they missing out on the HD experience.

I agree that, as far as television per se stands, the HD standard will be serving its traditional role for some time. However, Microsoft recently gave a demonstration of some new technology they are developing that, in my humble opinion, will dramatically expand the purpose and function of a HD set in the living room. Here's how this will work.

Right now your HD set is a simply a display device. But imagine that not only can you see an image on the screen, your HD set can see you. I mean this literally. Your future TV set will be augmented with a camera and a computer that will track you, your movements, and even the expression on your face. Your TV will recognize who you are and remember things about you, like what you like to watch on TV. But that's only the beginning. Using a speech synthesizer, the TV will talk to you. Using speech recognition, the TV will understand you. In one of the Microsoft demos, a real person handed a piece of paper to a HD computer generated person who read what was on the paper. I kid you not.

With this technology, your TV set and game technology will merge into a whole much greater than the sum of it's parts. Your TV will be transformed into a two-way channel of all kinds of information, in effect melding TV, games, image and speech recognition into a synthesis that will almost certainly revolutionize the role of HD in the home.

Or perhaps allow Big Brother to keep on eye on you...?

Good point. If this idea really takes off, it might be very tempting to add a back channel, especially if we were told of additional benefits like consumer profiling. We don't want to become players in an old George Orwell novel.

The NSA is building a 1million square foot data center, that will consume 65mw of power. Hmmm, domestic phone scanning?

Or on the upside, maybe it'll be our cyber defense core. After all that is a very real issue.

(just helping to keep us all paranoid! )