Jump to content

Talk:Ultra-high-definition television: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Thermofan (talk | contribs)
Line 49: Line 49:
<BR>
<BR>
:No objection to your revision here, only too glad that people are contributing. the current version says:<BR> "'''UHDTV uses a higher number of frames per second (120 FPS, whereas modern cinema films are usually 24 FPS).'''"<BR>Has the 120fps been verified? Compare it to [[IMAX]] running at 24fps and not adopting 48fps as it is "too expensive".Maybe we could have a link back to IMAX.[[User:Thermofan|Thermofan]] ([[User talk:Thermofan|talk]]) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
:No objection to your revision here, only too glad that people are contributing. the current version says:<BR> "'''UHDTV uses a higher number of frames per second (120 FPS, whereas modern cinema films are usually 24 FPS).'''"<BR>Has the 120fps been verified? Compare it to [[IMAX]] running at 24fps and not adopting 48fps as it is "too expensive".Maybe we could have a link back to IMAX.[[User:Thermofan|Thermofan]] ([[User talk:Thermofan|talk]]) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
::120fps doesn't sound right, but I could be mistaken. I think an editor in good faith misinterpreted my comments. I never made my proposed edit because I kind of forgot--sorry. A source would help us clear up any inaccurate info. My fault--If my comments weren't so long, I'm sure the editor would have better understood. Request clarification of my original statements if necessary. My observation of this article from a couple of years back yielded consistently stated 60fps, though no source was available. [[Special:Contributions/67.182.237.57|67.182.237.57]] ([[User talk:67.182.237.57|talk]]) 22:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:06, 20 July 2011

WikiProject iconTelevision Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Last update about the project:

http://www.aptina.com/news/press/aptina_imaging_introduces_new_high_performance_cmos_sensor_for_high_definition_broadcasting_video_camera/

no CCD sensors, but 4 CMOS sensors developed with APTINA imaging, a new brand from Micron.

best regards Ernesto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.12.60.115 (talkcontribs) 09:15, 9 October 2008

I think there should be a minor change on this article, as Red Camera's define their self, as Ultra High Def, should Super Hi-Vision be separate from Ultra High Definition? Leave UHD at 12mp and SHV at 33mp that they currently define themselves as. Flibbertigibbet007 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Flibberitigibbet007[reply]

4320p?

Would this be another name that would be used for Super Hi-Vision, like 1080p is to 1920 X 1080 as 4320p is to 7680 X 4320? Maybe there's no confirmation of such a term. I figure that with 480p, 720p, 1080p, and the hypothetical 2160p, at some point UHDV should follow suit and coin the term 4320p. But what I just said might be considered original research. If anybody finds a good source for the term (4320p), could that be put in the article? Regards, 24.10.181.254 (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know why in UHDTV, although we call it 8k, the resolution is 7680 X 4320 which is Horizontally only 7.5 times 1k (1024) and why it isn't 8192 X 4320. Smilewithani (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Ananth[reply]

This kind of question is more appropriate to ask at the reference desk. I suggest heading over to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and following the directions at the top of the page to ask your question there. GorillaWarfare talk 06:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UD TV ?

Why has the term Ultra Definition, representing 2160p, disappeared? I thought that Ultra High Definition represented the 4320p ?


Do we have any answers on this ? Wikinista (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have noticed, the title of this article (Ultra High Definition Television) used to be known as "Ultra High Definition Video". I don't know why it was changed, but if anything, this (as well as your question) are both indications that as time goes on, people decide that perhaps a new name for a term suits its recognize-ability better than the older one does. Whether or not the changing or omitting of certain names for terms is actually necessary is up to the individual to decide, but inevitably, some names will and do change or lose acceptance based on what other people agree on, for better or for worse. I don't know if my answer directly refers to your question, but I hope it does help. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Ultra HD For PS4

With all the discussion encompassing Ultra HD there have been rumours that this technology is likely to make it in Sony’s PlayStation 4 games console. Ultra HD

An Ultra HDTV is 4x as wide and 4x as high when compared with HDTV, creating a stunning 7,680 × 4,320 pixel image resolution. Ultra HDTV is 16x the pixel resolution of standard HDTV.

Together with the latest rumored release date of PlayStation 4 being 2016, this technology will not be completed in time for Sony’s future console. A number of sources are convinced that Ultra HD technology is going to be utilized in the 2012 Olympics Italic textand will be commercially accessible by 2020. Therefore it is safe to assume that PlayStation 4 will not have Ultra HD technology and will carry on using 1080p Source: http://buyaps4.co/ps-roumors/no-ultra-hd-for-ps4/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wancandan (talkcontribs) 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Only' 60 Frames per second? Might rephrase this statement...

I think a statement in this article, although 100% accurate, sounds very mildly derogatory or skeptical of a very difficult accomplishment:

"Although UHDTV has increased resolution compared with existing HD standards, it uses the same number of frames per second (60 FPS, whereas modern cinema films are usually 24 FPS)."

Okay, it's true that it hasn't improved the FPS standard, but I think that statement implies that 33 megapixels per frame with 59 additional frames per second of same astounding resolution is some useless accomplishment. I'd like to know why it's being considered (or at least implied or interpreted as implied) to be a worthless feat. I don't care what era you live in. 60 frames a second is incredible at any resolution, be it 320X240, .3 megapixels, 3.3 megapixels, but especially roughly 33 megapixels. And the sound of this prototype system is revolutionary too.
Anyway, I'm not planning on omitting the statement, but rather rephrasing it:

"UHDTV has not only increased 1080p's resolution by 16 times, but has also maintained the 60 frames per second standard evident in some more recent iterations of HD video. (Cinema films in theaters are shown at 24 frames per second)." [citation needed]


I threw in the "Citation needed" because 24 F.P.S. may not be the standard anymore in digital/3D theaters. (I'm not sure, so that's why it's there). Would anyone be opposed to me changing the statement to say that, in addition to adding "citation needed"? If no one responds within 10 days, I'll take that as a "no" and Be Bold and go ahead and make the change. Any feedback about my proposed change to the statement would be appreciated. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No objection to your revision here, only too glad that people are contributing. the current version says:
"UHDTV uses a higher number of frames per second (120 FPS, whereas modern cinema films are usually 24 FPS)."
Has the 120fps been verified? Compare it to IMAX running at 24fps and not adopting 48fps as it is "too expensive".Maybe we could have a link back to IMAX.Thermofan (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120fps doesn't sound right, but I could be mistaken. I think an editor in good faith misinterpreted my comments. I never made my proposed edit because I kind of forgot--sorry. A source would help us clear up any inaccurate info. My fault--If my comments weren't so long, I'm sure the editor would have better understood. Request clarification of my original statements if necessary. My observation of this article from a couple of years back yielded consistently stated 60fps, though no source was available. 67.182.237.57 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]