11-09-2010 #21thegamer345 Guest
11-09-2010 #22punyon Guest
The problem is not the storage space, it's the bandwidth, UHD uses 24 Gbit/s for uncompressed data. Back in 2005 they probably need to use 300+ 10-15k RPM SAS/Fiber in RAID setup to achieve that much bandwidth just for the storage.
11-09-2010 #23thedevilsdj Guest
I find it very hard to read these comments! i just think its rediculus to think that nothing is going to change in the next 5 years.
5 years ago no one was using FULL HD in their home along with Bluray and now this is the norm.
And to say that Films do not require 1080p to be watched surprises me again. Do we not realise that an actually movie [in the cinema] is way above the 1080p version that we have on our bluray device? this is why DVD's had to be eliminated as they the reolution was jsut rubbish.
personally i think they should should support the new res. having this option does not mean that normal 1080p will be disabled.
if they don't it just means that we will pay big money for the PS4 and agian for the PS5 that will have UHD support. Considering that the PS2 hung around for 10 years do we really want to be waiting for 20 years to have this support in our homes?
11-09-2010 #24hacked2123 Guest
11-10-2010 #25TheDevil Guest
Doubt UHD or any other higher than HD format is going to happen in the next 10 years. One thing was going from vhs to dvd as there was "need" and noticable difference. But from then on its taken ages to get HD introduced.. like Bluray is still not used by the average person in my end of the world.
Sure they try tho and blockbuster has a large selection of bluray movies.. but the "common" people here still think "we just got dvd already no reason to use bluray" and stick to buying movies on dvd down at the local mall.
Then there is the "brand new" broadcasting using mpg2 .. and we promise to change to mpg4 soon (lol) .. aka in a couple of years.
11-10-2010 #26tragedy Guest
Ultra-HD is not seriously being considered by anyone for consumer use yet and it's surely ridiculous to expect the next generation of consoles, which have presumably been in design for a couple of years already, to support a technology you can't even buy yet.
The other thing is that the current generation of consoles only just have enough power to handle 1080p as it is. Certainly, as soon as you try doing anything complicated, game designers have to compromise on 720p or 30fps, because there simply isn't enough power. It would make sense to double (or more) the power of current-gen consoles whilst keeping display technology the same.
Finally, customers are only just buying HDTV in any great numbers in the last couple of years, despite HDTV being available for over a decade. Given that most people have only just bought an HDTV, it's likely that they're not going to even think about buying a new TV for another 5 years. The sudden pick-up in HDTV adoption in the last couple of years is almost certainly down the to fact that it's now basically impossible to buy a non-HDTV set, not necessarily because people feel they need it. Although I can't understand it, I know a lot of people with HDTVs who are perfectly happy with SD broadcasts and DVDs.
11-11-2010 #27thedevilsdj Guest
You make a good point there tragedy... Just a shame that it looks like we will have to wait for the next next generation of consoles to support this awesome resolution.
I mean its not just for games really, i made the decision that i was going to buy a ps3 not only for gaming but for all the other media capability that it presents as well.
It looks like were going backwards here in Australia as our all of our HD [1080i] channels have now been replaced with other SD channels! Quite annoying actually.
It just seems a waste that our next gen consoles are just going to have more emphasis on 3D and motion since we already have 50% of this technology available now and really 3D??? who can be bothered wearing glasses to watch a movie/play games.... it just gives me a headache!!!