PS3 Continues to Drive Blu-ray; Over 132M Homes to Own Blu-ray Players in 2012

[rbbdrooger]

Originally Posted by boffo

Technology usually doesn't understand the concept of overkill.

That is very true. But I doubt that TV's with more than 1920x1080p will get to the market anytime soon, simply because of the fact that there won't be any content for them in the near future.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by rbbdrooger

That is very true. But I doubt that TV's with more than 1920x1080p will get to the market anytime soon, simply because of the fact that there won't be any content for them in the near future.

But there would still be idiots that would buy them, just because they need the latest and greatest thing out there, even if it is pointless.

[rbbdrooger]

Originally Posted by boffo

But there would still be idiots that would buy them, just because they need the latest and greatest thing out there, even if it is pointless.

That's just the early adaptors. A product has to go beyond them to become succesful. 720 and 1080p tv's are only now starting to get some decent market penetration. If there will be a market for ultra-HD it's going to take at least another decade.
Personally I don't think the next big step will be a higher resolution, but rather a new and better way to display current HD resolutions.

Originally Posted by Icemage

I think they've already showcased a 2160p TV in Japan, but the cost will be too exorbitant for the mass market.

1080p is basically where we'll probably stay until some brilliant designers figure out how to do holographic 3D or some such.

They have.

Also we really dont have to worry about it (bluray) becoming obsolete when those TV's show up. BRD can easily support the information needed for a 2160 and beyond picture. Considering 1080p takes roughly 10-15GB, double that for 2160p... so on and so forth. Bluray current spec is well in the range to handle 4320p (if it happens)

(HD DVD could have supported 2160p too)

[chedabob]

Originally Posted by PhoenixKfz

Considering 1080p takes roughly 10-15GB, double that for 2160p... so on and so forth. Bluray current spec is well in the range to handle 4320p (if it happens)

2160p would be quadruple (double width, double height) the space, so that's 60gb, which is above dual-layer, and no-one knows whether older blu-ray players will playback triple-layer discs,

Originally Posted by chedabob

2160p would be quadruple (double width, double height) the space, so that's 60gb, which is above dual-layer, and no-one knows whether older blu-ray players will playback triple-layer discs,

not double width...

Its 2160 horizontal lines. nothing vertical changes. how could it be quad?

Also they have 120GB (!) BluRays in the works as it is.

[Icemage]

Originally Posted by PhoenixKfz

not double width...

Its 2160 horizontal lines. nothing vertical changes. how could it be quad?

Also they have 120GB (!) BluRays in the works as it is.

1080p is 1920x1080.

2160p is 3840x2160, so cheda is right: four times the pixel data of 1080p.

The real issue here is that you already have people who claim they can't see a difference between 480p standard definition and 1080p (a small minority, but they're out there). I think that segment would be much larger with a shift from 1080p to 2160p.

Not to mention the "good enough" crowd, who are still pleased as punch with DVD.

I think the largest Blu-ray that's been demonstrated has been 200GB (8 layers). It hasn't yet been shown to be commercially viable, however; they're still trying to perfect dual layer 50GB disc production. I think the last numbers I've seen show that their yield rates are around 90% on those, so there's still room for improvement there.

[rounds1]

I don't even have a TV that can output 720 yet and they're already talking about 2160? I might as well just kill myself...

Originally Posted by Icemage

1080p is 1920x1080.

2160p is 3840x2160, so cheda is right: four times the pixel data of 1080p.

The real issue here is that you already have people who claim they can't see a difference between 480p standard definition and 1080p (a small minority, but they're out there). I think that segment would be much larger with a shift from 1080p to 2160p.

Not to mention the "good enough" crowd, who are still pleased as punch with DVD.

I think the largest Blu-ray that's been demonstrated has been 200GB (8 layers). It hasn't yet been shown to be commercially viable, however; they're still trying to perfect dual layer 50GB disc production. I think the last numbers I've seen show that their yield rates are around 90% on those, so there's still room for improvement there.

Yeah for some reason my brain took a vacation there....

[cmdr_keen]

There's an overkill amount of dvd players out there. Just count the ps2s, 360s and xbox's which are hardly ever used for dvd playback, but it's still posiible. People who bought an extra divx/hdd player which just happened to play dvds.

I can't make a correct estimate but if 300mil is correct for NA, i think about the same for japan and europe. Say 1.5bil worldwide