OK , we know how long ntsc and pal lasted , how long do you think HD will last before they invent something bigger , sharper, better ? Many people are buying into the cheap hd camera revolution. When will they have to upgrade their systems for superhd ? To look at the canon h1 vs. xl1 , the entry level was almost tripled . Most want their investments to last at least as long as the vx1000 did ? Of course the vx cost about the same as the fx1 almost 10 years later . But ....What are your thoughts ? thanks Kurth

Good question. The "next big thing" coming around the bend already has a name... UHD, or Ultra High Definition. Because you know, whatever we have now is never enough, right? Where do you go from High Def, well you go to Ultra High Def. I believe both 2K and 4K systems fit within the definitions for UHD. See our RED Camera forum for some insight on a 4K UHD camera coming up hopefully before this time next year.

I personally think 720p is pretty good for TV sized screen (up to about 42") and 1080p on anthing up to cinema sized. I don't know if we really NEED more than that - but if people will BUY more than that, they will make it and sell it!

Obviously UHD etc is handy for IMAX and all that jazz.

There are very few HDTV monitors/televisions that will actually display more than 720 lines of real resolution. I noticed lately that Sceptre has come out with a 1920x1080 37" LCD HDTV (ASTC tuner built in even) that is selling for around $1600 street price. That's awfully tempting.

Even HD has a long way to go before there are no compromises... Right now we're beefing about CCD resolution, sensor size, resolving detail etc. I predict there will be several generations of HD technology - by the end of which HDV and DVCPRO-HD will be extinct, replaced largely by uncompressed or marginally compressed 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 workflows.

At this point, I would argue HD will be around in the home for a long time. The human eye can simply not resolve HD detail, let alone UHD. What HD allows us to do is make bigger displays that appear sharp, and focus on a specific part of an image to resolve a lot of detail. With images moving at 60 fps, it's impossible for us to see everything that's going on in the picture. How big a screen do people really want in their homes? That will limit the necessary resolution for a displays.

On the very high end HD will be replaced by UHD - but I expect this will only be for digital Cinema projection and digital IMAX, since the magnification is so much higher. UHD acquisition will allow for more accurate digital effects and compositing... but most of that will be lost by the time we see it.

There's only so far you can go in terms of resolution and colour while maintaining a 2D image that can be appreciated. I expect at some point a new display technology will emerge that changes the way we look at things, but I doubt it will be UHD.

-Steve

You might stop and consider that in still digital photography, a 4 megapixel image is pretty much a bare minimum to produce 8"x10" prints. That said, I believe that 1080/60p will likely become a standard for video that we will take hold in a few years and probably last for quite awhile. Image compression will be around for a long time (if not forever), for some very practical reasons (like RF frequency range available for OTA broadcast being finite). While gazing into my rather cloudy crystal ball, I also foresee cable-tv and satellite providers gaining more ground on OTA broadcast, because they don't have their hands nearly as tied and can easily (relatively speaking) move to using MPEG-4 compression to get significantly more out of their bandwidth.

Higher resolutions could take advantage of technology like this (http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/). It sure would be nice not to have to worry about focusing while shooting!

You should forward that link to Sony, JVC, Canon and Panasonic!

Michael - I've seen that posted here ( or elsewhere ) before- I agree ! That is cool. Kurth

I think HD is going to be a fair limit for resolution for a while. 1920x1080 is pretty much 2k and most people have a hard enough time picking out detail differences between DVD and broadcast HD currently if their not... need i use the word... videophiles.

So I think HD is going to be around for a while but what I suspect will happen is things will improve. I think 720p will be seen less and less over then next 20 years while reserved more for things like sports while progressive 1080 will become standard for movies and television shows. We will also see better compression algorithims on both the capture and playback areas and higher bandwidth video along with going from 4:2:0 to more 4:2:2 and finally to more 4:4:4 and increase in bit depth from 8 to 10 or 12 bits. This brings us to a limit of what a human eye is really capable of seeing and where our point of no return comes in.

Where I think UHD will come in, is with the next generation display systems that only the super rich can currently afford, which is in the video wall concept. Until then...HD will likely be the standard, perhaps for the next 15 years or so? some are predicting home standard video walls by 2020, but I sorta doubt it.

You might stop and consider that in still digital photography, a 4 megapixel image is pretty much a bare minimum to produce 8"x10" prints.

Yes, but you sit and stare at a print for about 1 minute... while with video you look at it for at most 1/24th of a second. The limitation is the eye and your brain. You simply cannot resolve all the detail of a 4 MP image in a short period of time.

-Steve

One thing is for certain. 25 years from now, we will all be playing with some slick toys that haven't even been dreamed up yet. This is an amazing age that we live in.

You're eye/brain may not be able to perceive 4 megapixels of detail all at once, but you can sure tell the difference between a 8"x10" print made from 2 megapixel and 4 megapixel images, at a glance.

One of the reasons that the differance between SD television and HD television viewing often isn't more pronounced, is that much HD content doesn't actually achieve the full HD resolutions.

Today's broadcast standards have been established, and it will take a significant improvement to warrant scrapping it and establishing a new standard. Directv is enduring a considerable upheaval to convert to MPEG4. I doubt they'll want to do that again soon either. Cable systems have to see the carrot before they spend the money!

Today's broadcast standards have been established, and it will take a significant improvement to warrant scrapping it and establishing a new standard.

A very good point. Distribution is today´s bottleneck. Apart from slowly refining the present HD-standards, upgrading cameras to better color, bigger LCD´s and less compression, high end for cinema distribution is probably where new formats will appear.

That being said, what kind of glass would you need to resolve more the 4K ?

what kind of glass would you need to resolve more the 4K ?

Wrong question - you should be asking how big a sensor is required to resolve 4K. The sensor and the glass are coupled of course, but it's much easier to resolve detail on a large format sensor with a good lens than to resolve detail on a small sensor with a spectacular lens.

Simply put - you can achieve Gigapixel resolutions if you have an appropriate system. http://www.gigapxl.org/

-Steve

it's much easier to resolve detail on a large format sensor with a good lens than to resolve detail on a small sensor with a spectacular lens.

Obviously yes, but since good high rez glass cost a fortune I just wonder what kind of lens it will take to make justice to such a large sensor. Seems to me that could be the bottleneck when it comes to mass production. Would it not?

I just looked at some big Sony 1920x1080 HDTVs at Circuit City (50" or in that neighborhood), that use some sort of LCD/DLP hybrid technology. Made me go "wow." Looked pretty close to starting to reach the limits of human visual perception ability (for video). Starts to make me wonder how much real world viewing benefit UHDTV could actually offer.

Higher resolutions could take advantage of technology like this (http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/). It sure would be nice not to have to worry about focusing while shooting!

Not only would you not have to worry about focusing - you could also record stereoscopic images with a single lens. I hadn't seen that link before - it's really amazing.

So take that technology, cross it with sanyo's little HD camera, and stick it in a 4G networked phone. You'd have the ability to broadcast live 3D HD video around the world with something you can carry in a shirt pocket. I'd be surprised if it's more than a decade before this is a reality - and it'll only cost $199 if you're willing to sign a contract with Verizon.

I think more than just going to higher resolutions it'll be this type of change in the nature of the video technology that will be most significant in the near future.

The next large jump, in my opinion, will not happen for a LONG time in the consumer/prosumer world. I see this HD leap more similar to the transition to CD's...which have been "good enough" for a LONG time. There was an attempt at the SuperCD that has failed miserably. Now, the trend is towards convenience (MP3's) rather than just high quality.

At this point, the images we can get with HD are simply awesome and good enough for 95% of filmmakers not doing 100 million dollar films. There will always be a niche for UHD, but it will be a niche. HD is "good enough" for most for many years, imo. I think the next trend and it's already happening, is making it a "convenient medium." We're obviously JUST at the start of this...since we can't even play back our HD for friends yet!

I hope now that the high end tools are democratized, that filmmakers will finally get back to really great storytelling and stop talking so much about the tools. Sorry Chris...sacrilege here, I know. :-)

That said, I don't think the Sony's, Canons, JVC's & Panny's are going to pay any attention to my post. They'll be TRYING to sell you the UHD stuff in a couple years and telling you how much you need it! :-)

Okay, now back to discussing the H1, P2, HVX200, Red, H100, HDP2, XYZ...

Kevin

Coming from the music business I remember back in 83 when I was recording my second album (life was all analog) and the first digital drum-machine was brought into the studio. The Linn Drum. It came with an operator handling it with white glows. Well, that´s how it felt anyway. And digital sampled sound was like, WOW, unbelievable. We imagined how the future would be and agreed that the tape recorder some day would be digital. The mixer? Never... Impossible...

It turned out of course, to be more then possible. The future was beyond our dreams. Still. Today we´re using the same microphones recording basically the same instruments (though a few new arrived) And when listening to analog recordings it seems clear that when it comes to quality, the end product didn´t evolve THAT much. You still depend on skilled engineers, great songs, good singers, awesome musicians and so on.
So one part of the production line evolved. The other didn´t. End result?
You tell me.

The audience (those who pay for the evolution of technology) couldn´t care less about technology. It´s all about the results, ease of use and of course cost. For some time now we´ve seen high quality recordings distributed as highly compressed files on the internet. And taking over. Because it´s easy and "good enough" (for rock & roll)

It´s simply amazing to see how the same things are happening now in the world of film & video. High end production meets low end distribution (internet or mobile players). Living side by side with new HD TV´s etc.

So for how long will HD last? Quality wise it could last for a very long time specially if producing for TV and smaller screens. Long enough to justify the investment for sure.

For how long will HDV last? Not that long. HDV is a compromise depending on the processing power of today, and we all know where that future is heading.

Good productions though, will last for a very long time.

I predict we'll get by for a very long time just trying to get the most out of current HD formats, with a gradual migration toward full 1080p quality. Given the compression and data storage requirements of working with today's HD options, the likelihood of leaping from HD to UHD seems slim for at least 10-20 years or more. So if you're worried about picking equipment that will last, just getting from SD to HD should be enough for now, and today's cameras will easily be depreciated long before we get serious about going past 1080p.

1. So long as HD makes money, and ROI for capital expenditures is realized.
2. Workflows and technology will manifest to a point wherein folks whom are more creative at telling better stories vs. explaining how their equipment works, will earn the lions share of the money.
3. The very nature of the business will shift to how the viewer becomes immersed in the experience, and we'll begin to see 3D holograms, or even plugging oneself in to the hardware for an experience that goes beyond the visuals.

The one thing that will never change is that we'll always have a better medium in which to sell our message on. However, HD is still catching on, it has yet to replace SD. The cost to produce 4 times the resolution is only twice that of SD equipment, a bargain. But it's nearly 10 times the cost for the adverage viewer to see it. Not everyone can afford to replace their $300 SD sets with a $3000 LCD.

Very shortly, consumers will essentially have no choice when purchasing television sets, since the only sets for sale will be capable of playing ATSC HDTV source (and the prices will drop fast as mass production savings kick in bigtime). Congress finally set the hard limit for the end of NTSC analog broadcast. Thank goodness.

oh, Robert , that's great to hear ... that congress is doing something that won't be changed again 30 times before it's over and done ! I think that's probably the reverse of what will happen. First prices will drop to the point where most people own hd sets , then the broadcasters will move . And the congress , well , when has the congress ever lead in anything ? It's always the technologists that lead the way , thank goodness ! Kurth
ps - has anyone seen the new toshibas' 1920 x 1080 lcds' - very nice !

http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/17/toshibas-new-wlt66-hd-lcds/
kurth

Higher resolutions could take advantage of technology like this (http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/).

Dont you think that technology like this could also be used to encode / decode( ie make viewable through fancy glasses..) movies /pictures in "REAL 3D ??

The biggest difficulty with 3D video (or stills), is that a flat display is, well, flat.

That's why i spoke of glasses, so that you would get an image per eye, which the very basis of real 3D...

That's always been the "problem" with 3D video. You have to put something on your head (or be inconvenienced in some way or another) to view it (until holographic projection becomes mainstream, with high quality at a low cost), so 3D video has always been a sort of niche/novelty type thing. The images can be acquired reasonably with current technology (that's been doable, and been done for a long time really, way back to the earlier part of the last century actually).