[Las Vegas Dave]

Pinging the HDTV list.. HDTV pings!

[Texas Eagle]

What???

Now I have to go out and spend another 2000 bucks on a big screen TV!

[Inyo-Mono]

Overkill. Most HD sports programs are actually broadcast in 720.

[freedumb2003]

I still have a tube TV.

Amazingly, I can see and enjoy the broadcast images thereupon.

The distance from 99.95% quality and 99.999% to get the HD stuff is pretty small — much less the 99.99999% suggested by the technology in the OP.

[Tainan]

...still waiting for Smell-O-Vision

[E. Pluribus Unum]

At a certain point, increases in "resolution" are irrelevant.

If all you want to do with a camera, for instance, is make 4"x5" prints, a few megapixels is adequate.

Higher resolution TV is only relevant if you want a screen the size of your wall. A 32" screen it 1080i is about as hi-def as you're going to get.

A 55" screen at the same resolution is not nearly as clear, but 2160i would be.

[jiggyboy]

Ha ha, I still haven’t bought a HDTV — I gave my space on the technology treadmill to somebody else a long long time ago.

It helps my wallet that nobody yet has actually built an HDTV where the frames always update properly. I can’t stand seeing a close-up where every part of the face changes expression independently over eight or nine frames.

[MindBender26]

The real purpose would be to get expensive film out of motion picture production.

[RegulatorCountry]

Great, we get to see even more wrinkles, blackheads and wild hairs on newscasters’ faces than with HDTV.

Short of some revolution in content, I fail to see the value of the expenditure.

[dr_who]

This is going to put a lot of newscasters with acne out of work forever.

[luvbach1]

A lot of people’s vision (mine included) is not good enough to appreciate such ultra-high resolution.

[Future Snake Eater]

8K?!

[Praxeologue]

The average human eye does not have the resolving power to take full advantage of the iPhone4 display. The application for UHD would necessarily be similar to IMAX, where the eye can roam around the image. Film IMAX is equivalent to UHD, about 7,000 pixels horizontal at 48fps, which is eqiivalent to about 60p digital.

So I think that this is a limited market, just as IMAX is/was. We'll be wearing HD glasses a decade before we'll be watching UHD.

[Moonman62]

The Hollywood Reporter writes that the ultra-clear picture delivers detail so precise that it almost appears three-dimensional.

It would probably be better than what passes for 3d today. However, true HD content today looks almost 3d.

[Clock King]

To display the ultra-clear image, sets should be in the 80-90 inch range.

Bzzzt. Logic error. Why? Are pixels a minimum size? It's really a matter of data bandwidth limitations. Try downloading an 1080p movie. Now imagine a 4320p. It'll take a week.

[Hardraade]

How about ultra-low-definition? So it wouldn’t show stuff like the flies crawling on Obama’s face?

[MCH]

A technology post on FR always brings out the Luddites in droves, especially if it’s about TV, computers or cell phones. This one does not disappoint.

[G Larry]

Marginal difference is NOT worth the price.

Just like 3D TV, no market for it.....

[Eye of Unk]

I wish I had a chance to visit Japan some day, especially their improved version of Disneyland.

[diverteach]

I stopped into Best Buy a couple of weeks ago to checkout the new 3D TV’s. Pretty freaking cool! However having to wear the glasses sucks, especially since they didn’t come with the TV and prices for the glasses alone started at $150 each.

From what the salesman was telling me, that particular technology was already dead with new models now coming out that don’t require the glasses.

Since I’m not a big sports watcher I think I’ll wait till more channels broadcast in 3D other than ESPN.