best hdtv picture quality 2010 image
Matthew
It has over 30 megapixels of video quality in it ALONE. You could buy any camera on this planet and you would still never find a better looking picture resolution. Its 22.2 channel audio, and 7680x4320 pixel resolution. You can't even compare this to the most highest end T.V. out there. It blows everything out of the sky! Too bad it won't be out for the public until at least 2016. Damn, are you gonna get it?
Answer
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 2016 is way too hopeful in my opinion, at least for North America.
A stream that can support a 30 mega-pixel video resolution would take up an absolute enormous amount of bandwidth, likely over 25 times the bandwidth for an HD channel today even when you factor in compression and optimization.
There simply isn't enough bandwidth available on existing Cable or Satellite networks to handle multiple UHDTV channels. Even if we assume we will be able to increase realistic bandwidth throughput over cable, there is a physical limit to the bandwidth of the physical cable itself that can't be overcome. Basically if we used existing networks, under ideal conditions we would only be able to have about 5 UHDTV channels, and even then, it would leave us very little room for any other TV channels.
In other words, we will have to wait until our entire data communications infrastructure has been completely upgraded to the point where direct fiber-to-the-home connections are commonplace before we can consider getting UHDTV.
And that's just the problem with the network infrastructure, then of course there are the issues concerning the actual ability to manufacture a home-theater sized display with that kind of resolution and still make it affordable (I really don't believe this can be done anywhere near 2016). We would also need to completely reinvent HDMI to produce a video connection standard that could support much higher bitrates (higher than than 10 Gbps) which would prove to be fairly difficult. Then of course there is the issue of cameras, and the issue of video editing (you would basically need a super-computer to render any special effects or animations at that resolution, and even basic video editing would prove to be very difficult).
So basically, I do too look forward to the day we can get UHDTV in the home, but quite frankly I don't think you should expect this to be a reality for good 10 years or so. Remember that the HDTV standard was designed in the early 90s with tests broadcasts as earlier as 1994, but it is now 2010 and there are still many people who are only now adopting HDTV in their homes.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 2016 is way too hopeful in my opinion, at least for North America.
A stream that can support a 30 mega-pixel video resolution would take up an absolute enormous amount of bandwidth, likely over 25 times the bandwidth for an HD channel today even when you factor in compression and optimization.
There simply isn't enough bandwidth available on existing Cable or Satellite networks to handle multiple UHDTV channels. Even if we assume we will be able to increase realistic bandwidth throughput over cable, there is a physical limit to the bandwidth of the physical cable itself that can't be overcome. Basically if we used existing networks, under ideal conditions we would only be able to have about 5 UHDTV channels, and even then, it would leave us very little room for any other TV channels.
In other words, we will have to wait until our entire data communications infrastructure has been completely upgraded to the point where direct fiber-to-the-home connections are commonplace before we can consider getting UHDTV.
And that's just the problem with the network infrastructure, then of course there are the issues concerning the actual ability to manufacture a home-theater sized display with that kind of resolution and still make it affordable (I really don't believe this can be done anywhere near 2016). We would also need to completely reinvent HDMI to produce a video connection standard that could support much higher bitrates (higher than than 10 Gbps) which would prove to be fairly difficult. Then of course there is the issue of cameras, and the issue of video editing (you would basically need a super-computer to render any special effects or animations at that resolution, and even basic video editing would prove to be very difficult).
So basically, I do too look forward to the day we can get UHDTV in the home, but quite frankly I don't think you should expect this to be a reality for good 10 years or so. Remember that the HDTV standard was designed in the early 90s with tests broadcasts as earlier as 1994, but it is now 2010 and there are still many people who are only now adopting HDTV in their homes.
What's a good 46" 3DTV to get for around $1400?
Gabe
I'm looking into getting a 46" 3DTV for around $1400, but I can be flexible on the price. Picture quality is the biggest deciding factor for me. I don't care in the slightest about the TV's internet features, as my Xbox can do everything that can, and though a good design would be nice, I'd take a TV with killer picture quality over a killer design any day. Any suggestions?
Answer
I would recommend a Panasonic Plasma tv model ST-30 or the GT 30. Go online to Home theater magazine and read the reviews on 3D HDTV. Last month they reviewed 3 Panasonic Plasma tv model ST30, GT30 and the VT30. For 2010 the magazine named the Panasonic VT25 as the best tv.
Hope this will help you out.
I would recommend a Panasonic Plasma tv model ST-30 or the GT 30. Go online to Home theater magazine and read the reviews on 3D HDTV. Last month they reviewed 3 Panasonic Plasma tv model ST30, GT30 and the VT30. For 2010 the magazine named the Panasonic VT25 as the best tv.
Hope this will help you out.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment