It doesn't make sense that the DPI of large screens has to be so poor. Granted, manufacturing techniques and yields make it much more difficult to make high-DPI screens very large, but it seems like we have hardly seen any progress.

You still can't buy 2560x1600 screens less than 30" in size. And even only large 22" screens have 1920x1200. My 15" laptop from years ago had 1600x1200. My current 17" has 1920x1200 because it's a widescreen model. Where are the premium high-res displays?? I want 2560x1200 in a 20" screen. That doesn't seem so crazy. If you look at where screen resolutions were 10 years ago, you'd think that we all would have 20" monitors doing 3840x2400. That is similar to "Quad-HD", but instead of 4 times 1920x1080 it's 4 times 1920x1200. IBM even sold 22" 3840x2400 screens almost 8 years ago!

I want da QuadQuadQuadHDTV, that would be 64 times as high as normal HD and the TV screen would be covering the side of my house.
After buying the RoughToughOutdoorExtensionPack for it, I will open up a drive-in movie theater.

Hi sw,

High res displays aren't a problem, it's getting media to support them. I've seen too many people fork out for 1080p tv's and all they do it watch regular non-hd tv and dvd's, they could have saved money by buying a 480p/720p tv. And now we're in the blu-ray era and we watch a movie at 1080p on a 1080p tv. I bet again some people will plug in their blue-ray players to the 2160p tv and say wow it's so hi-def failing to realize that there watching 1080p media on a 2160p tv. FAIL!

A dual layer Blu-ray Disc can store 50 GB, so to watch a 2160p movie on 2160p tv we need new media storage devices that can hold 200GB.... next gen blu-ray called red-ray!!!! lol.

It would be called violet-ray. We already have red-ray in DVD and CD players.

3840 x 2160 would be insane for a consumer TV. It would probably be at least 15 years before you could ever us it.

1. @Joseph: if you're talking about the red-ray player that TGdaily talked about a little while back, if I understood it correctly, the device only plays regular DVD's not bluerays or any other advanced media. the only thing it can do is play video far surpassing current resolutions. so the problem with storage still exists.
2. @sw: you might have been able to get 20" screens to display crazy resolutions, but I'm sure those were CRT's, since I doubt there were 20" LCD screens out with that kind of resolution. But I do agree that it would be nice to get higher resolutions on LCD's, but since we switched from CRT to LCD, I would assume that there's a lot of extra R&D and money to be invested to bring us up to the same level as on CRT's.

I....... can't......... wait..... (drool)

To Action Jackson blu ray is the stop gap. It will not take 15 years. As I have explained to Thomfrost and other they aren't making these displays to sit and be utilized until 2023.

I mean you can't really be that far in the technological hole can you?

www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36974/135/

There are working prototypes of quite a few technologies ready to burst on the scene. As a small example pioneer is sitting on an awesome 1 TB disc the exact size of todays disc.

There are a few things going at work. We have variety of needs.

There are some people that don't care and would never care about any picture being seen in high def. DVD is fine for them.

Then there are the tweeners it is in this category that I fall. They can love and appreciate high quality but that level of quality isn't required and doesn't deter your enjoyment of the movie experience.

And then there are the edge guys. They purchased early blu ray samsung model with only a few movies being available. Only to end up in a class action lawsuit cause many movies today don't play on them.

Because had sony not relaxed the rules of players being made then blu ray wouldn't have been available until sometime this year. Instead rules were relaxed and they'll make a fortune on people upgrading from profile to profile. That my friend is consumer raping 101 and it is for this reason that it will most likely not last just as laser disc video went up, up, up growing more then POOF!!!!

"just like that, its gone..."

A million buck reward to the person that can name that movie...

I want that gal!

Considering the fact that HDTV has been toyed with since the early 80s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...elevision

I would say it's a safe bet that you won't see any affordable consumer devices for QHD for at least 10 years. It's already been 2 years since the first quad HD tv was introduced http://www.gizmag.com/go/5257/.

Companies do this stuff all the time. Look at Sony and OLED. OLED is probably still 5 years away from being able to be used in mainstream TVs, but that didn't stop Sony from putting out a $2500 11 inch TV.

I understand what your saying and it could be less than 15 years but when the market isn't ready companies tend to put one offs out to test the market and stick the rest in their vault for a later date.

why on earth would you want 2560x1200 on a 20 inch display? That is lost quality
720 to 1080 is dam near impossible to knowtist on such small display. It is equal to taking a picture with a 40 megapixel camra then printing the picture on a 6x4 card.

so why does the oil & gas industry need a $40,000 TV???

I understand what you are saying, but here is where you are wrong.

There is and remains a desire to get us all to that level. The data/content is there and ready and the equipment is upcoming and ready.

But other limiting factors are in place.

As an example broadcast TV remained low grade for the same reason our phone systems remain low grade mono.

1080P was never the goal for personal movie experience. 1080P is a settlement area chosen based on the limited media storage available.

Think about this broadcast tv 320 lines, laserdisc video 420 lines and DVD 480.

Does 1080P look a hell of a lot better than 320 broadcast? God yes!

Does 1080P look better than 420 lasedisc or 480 DVD? Yes, No doubt

No here is the big one does 1080P look $500 to $1000
better than a great 480 upconvert? My answer and the majority to date says no. It doesn't offer the visual jump that justifies a 4 to times greater ratio than the previous technology.

Lets try this analogy:
I'm selling sheets and you would really like a silk sheet, however silk is not available anywhere but will be soon.

At my store I'm selling 3 sheets
A Satan one for $100 offering a silkish look
A Sateen one for $15 offering a close Satan look
And lastly a cotton one $10 that's wearable and looks good but...

So the question is when you really want silk should you as a consumer pay a ridiculous premium price to have the next best thing when sateen is offers a very near value?

And here is where the the format battle is inserted...

Why you ask? LOL or maybe not

1080P was settled on not as the future until 2023 as you Thomfrost and others think. As an immediate stop gap put a stake in the dirt here move.

As I stated in the analogy most of us want silk aka a visual version of what we exactly see at the movie theaters. With one exception, the movie rating part of the industry is really hurting the movie industry. Because more and more many movie enthusiast are having to wait and hope for the directors/extended cut version so that we can see how the movie was intended to be shown but couldn't. Take the movie Chronicles of Riddick, the theatrical version was just okay, but the directors cut was very good and in turn by word of mouth DVD sales for it crushed theater sale as well as the standard DVD version.

Sorry, I got side tracked :-) my point was we want the equaled theater experience. And if we can't have it AKA settling for less as a consumer then you might as take the closest reasonable priced offering.

Now from a studio standpoint they just want to make as much money as they can. They will have to perform a conversion process regardless. And within the studios are the director, artist etc they are the ones that are fighting for us (the consumers), if the didn't then the studios would act like ma bell because there is no competition you either want a copy of the movie or you don't.

That conversion is digital tape the highest resolution offered in the mass and select media market. That means they could have previously released 320 on VHS and 320 DVD. But they didn't they released a 480 version.

Some studios had stepped beyond that going above and beyond to give consumers the maximum visual quality(look at the super bit dvd linups) hoping for additional revenue from enthusiast.

The format wars was all about what to do in the stop gap phase.

HD-DVD /toshiba said using this format it would be a very simple process. It would be a lot less expensive from a production stand point we can IMMEDIATELY have x, y and z features available to the consumer for the exact some low price. And most importantly because of using the same disc structure a combo disc could be sold so that consumers can purchase today for be immediately ready for tomorrow by having the consumer flip the damn disk over.

Sony's approach was all new everything and rape the consumer in the process. They relaxed rules because they new they couldn't and really didn't want to offer all of those features.

This should be a huge slap in the face, but many of you don't see it. Having a company present BD profile changes as a a new reason to charge premium dollars is ridiculous.

LOL "OMG did you see the new blu ray by samsung it has PIP for only 800"
"The new play has ethernet connection for 900"
blah blah blah basically a series of marching these so called "new players" offering features that should have been there from start.

The fan boys come here with ridiculous comparisons on things that don't mean much.

As an example

A DVD could be created where the set the rotation was at 5.5X from around 1.5X. This would surpasses blu ray 1.5X - 48Mbps, because is 5.5 * 10.08 Mbit/s = 55.44 Mbit/s.

So my point is simple change in HD DVD rotation speed would allow a higher Mbit through put.

But the fact that VC-1 is a better compression format than AVC means you don't need an extremely high Mbit for the same visual quality.

As an example WMA at 128 in many instances sounds better than MP3 at 192. In fact WMA 10pro is so tight of a compression that 128 can be used for 44.1 cd quality. The standard MP3 would need around 320 to do the same.

The point is the numbers of bits moving really means nothing. Tighter compressions don't need maximum bits moving. They need better compressing and decompressing hardware. Which is the art of compression and reason to compress, doing the same with less.

"features available to the consumer for the exact some low price"

This is referring to the initial price of it being offered. Not suggesting it was the exact cost of DVD.

My point was it wasn't going to be a milk the consumer fest. And mbits could be turned up if the studios felt a need for it to increase. blu ray fits more data in the same space because the laser is positioned closer to the surface. This means under the same rotational spin it can retrieve more information. But then you can enter a battle of the spin to the point where the threshold is hit on the media. Companies have pushed that threshold to 22X.

And this leads us into one of the many techs that's been out there ready to be selected ultra violet ray can pack much more than the blue ray (called blue but its technically a blue / purple laser).

this is why... its an old article, but the technology is why they require high res screens

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216584.000-new-dimensions-for-oil-and-gas-exploration-geophysicistsare-now-using-computerised-seismic-workstations-to-produce-quick-andaccurate-maps-in-their-search-for-geological-structures-that-traphydrocarbons-.html