As of now, we have games, movies, and TV running in HD (shiny buildings!), giving joy to our eyes with the hyper-realistic shots of skylines, etc. And you can't help but think, this is pretty much as good as it can get, is there anything more to achieve in the image department? If you can see the pours on a guy's face in a movie more vividly than in real life, what comes after that? It probably won't be anything in the audio department, because the DTS HD Audio in 5.1 pretty much covers the whole audible experience. So if we have perfect image and perfect sound, what is the next logical step in technology? I imagine it would have to be some kind of device that streams directly into your head, matrix style. Holographic images would actually be a downstep because they will always be semi-transparent. Not fun watching something with your fat neighbor's ass shining through it. So I don't know what could be better than HD. What do you think?
Next step after HD?
Erm, check out a few PC games in person? The current so called HD is gonna be considered borderline low-res in a couple of years. Not to mention most console games run at sub-HD resolutions to (barely) keep a decent frame rate and lack any meaningful AA/AF settings. Image quality is far from perfected. So I'd guess the next logical step, other than the hyped 3D applications, is gonna be to actually deliver on their HD promises with good AA/AF and solid 60fps for all games, whether they're corridor shooters or vast open role playing games with abudant use of physics. Other than that, nope, I guess to the untrained eye there won't be much of a difference. But of course it's also going to be easier for less capable studios to make matching visuals when they have excess power leftover, so more games will look as good as only the few very, very best do nowadays, at least when it comes to technical terms and not art.
I thought the next step was playing games using a condemned prisoner avatar. Hmm, has Hollywood lied to me?
" Higher Defination? "This.
Besides why are people so worried about the next big thing? Half the world hasn't even adopted HDTV yet, let alone thinking about something bigger. And as many people have pointed out, HD resolution has been outclassed by PC monitors already anyway. HD was hardly a massive technological step forward anyway, it's just regular TV with more pixels, easily taken advantage of by digital signals.
It's just regular TV, but bigger.
Possibly revisiting VR? i think we need to first get every game running in full HD first, personally, I think I'd be happy with that.
" Optical HD implants. No more screen, you just lay back and it goes straight to the brain. Porn will never be better :/ "Or worse :O
" Erm, check out a few PC games in person? The current so called HD is gonna be considered borderline low-res in a couple of years. Not to mention most console games run at sub-HD resolutions to (barely) keep a decent frame rate and lack any meaningful AA/AF settings. Image quality is far from perfected. So I'd guess the next logical step, other than the hyped 3D applications, is gonna be to actually deliver on their HD promises with good AA/AF and solid 60fps for all games, whether they're corridor shooters or vast open role playing games with abudant use of physics. Other than that, nope, I guess to the untrained eye there won't be much of a difference. But of course it's also going to be easier for less capable studios to make matching visuals when they have excess power leftover, so more games will look as good as only the few very, very best do nowadays, at least when it comes to technical terms and not art. "this mans got it. graphics have still got a considerable way to go. animation in particular is quite sub par.
really though, the next huge step (ala television itself, 2d to 3d, vhs to dvd etc) will be vr. still a real long way off though i imagine.
Yeah I agree that the next step in gaming technology is getting all games to run in 1080, instead of 720. But in movies... @organicalistic_: I don't get the whole 3d thing. My friend said that after seeing avatar in 3d in a theater she was feeling extremely depressed afterwards, when she had to go out of the theater. She said "I was such a bummer to go back to the shitty looking world we have to live in". I was like whaaaaaaaat. 3D is just an illusion and it has one major flaw. Even though you perceive things like if they're right next to you, but you can't fucking touch them. That pretty much kills the whole experience. It is kinda funny how people dodge bullets in their seats when watching a 3d movie. :D
Ha, Not really. Sometimes it is only really apparent when watching sport or when you see a panning landscape shot. It is certainly an improvement though, just more obvious at some times rather than others
" @OracleXIII: well people say 3d, but the problem with that is if you want the full 3d effect you have to not notice the borders of the screen, 3d works ok in our movie theaters, but in our home? No, unless we all had HUGE home theaters, I have not seen the 3ds, or anything else, but according to science 3d is just an optical illusion formed when visual media is filmed to have different shades of grey, I saw avatar 3d yesterday, and people are like YOU HAVE TO SSE THIS, but I felt it was a waste of money, the movie itself wasn't good and the odd creature sex was just odd, and the 3d wasnt that good at all, the stuff was blurry even with the glasses. So I can say that I am not going to buy a 3d tv, and my next tv will be what ever comes out next that will have better picture, because that could use some work. "I saw Avatar for the first time in 3D and wasn't too impressed either. It blurs easily in 3D and it just felt unnecessary. But dude, I just watched half the movie again on Blu-Ray and it was really awkward. It was like the character models were too crisp and clear. I honestly think it looks worse on Blu-Ray than in 3D even with the slight blur. The movie was made for 3D so I guess it makes sense but I was really surprised when the textures and visual effects I saw in theaters actually looked worse on a 1080p Blu-Ray.
" depth. when you watch a movie the backround is blurred. imagine things looking like real life. "hmm, if you look at a person standing in front of you, the background and the peripheral are blurred as well. Just how the auto-focus in our eyes works.
@Khann said:
" @Al3xand3r said:I agree with this, however my question is more about movies than games. Games still have a loooong way to go before they start looking real." Erm, check out a few PC games in person? The current so called HD is gonna be considered borderline low-res in a couple of years. Not to mention most console games run at sub-HD resolutions to (barely) keep a decent frame rate and lack any meaningful AA/AF settings. Image quality is far from perfected. So I'd guess the next logical step, other than the hyped 3D applications, is gonna be to actually deliver on their HD promises with good AA/AF and solid 60fps for all games, whether they're corridor shooters or vast open role playing games with abudant use of physics. Other than that, nope, I guess to the untrained eye there won't be much of a difference. But of course it's also going to be easier for less capable studios to make matching visuals when they have excess power leftover, so more games will look as good as only the few very, very best do nowadays, at least when it comes to technical terms and not art. "this mans got it. graphics have still got a considerable way to go. animation in particular is quite sub par.
really though, the next huge step (ala television itself, 2d to 3d, vhs to dvd etc) will be vr. still a real long way off though i imagine. "
"my mistake
@Khann said:" @Al3xand3r said:I agree with this, however my question is more about movies than games. Games still have a loooong way to go before they start looking real. "" Erm, check out a few PC games in person? The current so called HD is gonna be considered borderline low-res in a couple of years. Not to mention most console games run at sub-HD resolutions to (barely) keep a decent frame rate and lack any meaningful AA/AF settings. Image quality is far from perfected. So I'd guess the next logical step, other than the hyped 3D applications, is gonna be to actually deliver on their HD promises with good AA/AF and solid 60fps for all games, whether they're corridor shooters or vast open role playing games with abudant use of physics. Other than that, nope, I guess to the untrained eye there won't be much of a difference. But of course it's also going to be easier for less capable studios to make matching visuals when they have excess power leftover, so more games will look as good as only the few very, very best do nowadays, at least when it comes to technical terms and not art. "this mans got it. graphics have still got a considerable way to go. animation in particular is quite sub par.
really though, the next huge step (ala television itself, 2d to 3d, vhs to dvd etc) will be vr. still a real long way off though i imagine. "
" Is it bad I can't really tell the difference between HD and SD....? "Hmm I dunno, get The Dark Knight on Dvd and Blu-ray. Watch the first 10 minutes on both. If you still can't tell the difference you either don't own an HDTV or you're vision is somehow compromised.
" SMELLOVISION!!! or even better TASTEOVISION!!! I wont be satisfied until all five of my senses are being numbed at once. "smellovision could give a movie some more realism... but tasteovision? How would that work? The guy on screen eats a donut, you wanna feel the taste of that donut, without actually eating one? That would be confusing as hell. :D
" @DCFGS3 said:No lol, I'm watching the HD channels, and the SD ones, I just don't see any noticeable difference." Is it bad I can't really tell the difference between HD and SD....? "If you're just judging this off of watching TV. You're not watching HD channels. You are watching SD channels. "
After "HD" will come another marketing term to sell whatever the new "standard range" of resolutions are. Sorry...HD...its w/o real meaning. Only there to make it easier to sell TVs and such.
" @JJWeatherman: I just bought Avatar on Blu-ray yesterday. Figgered, if the chick liked the movie so much, I'ma put it on my ps3, give her a trip back to wonderland and get some booty. But now with what you're telling me I'm having second thoughts... "Well I'm curious to hear your opinion on this. It could just be me. Anyways it still looked good, it just seemed kinda... off without the 3D.
3D and then just higher definition. 1080p will be the standard for resolution for quite a while though.
The players are pushing 3d, but it will fail. My guess will be 3d technology without glasses or special equipment. As it stands now, 3d is impractical as you need glasses for everyone who will be watching. Hosting a superbowl party becomes impossible.
3D is the next step, though energy efficiency is also an important goal. The funny thing is that 'High Definition' isn't actually that high, and computers have had much higher resolution LCD's for a long time now. PC gamers with the most powerful rigs can have resolutions much-much higher than HD, the only problem there is that the games aren't detailed enough to justify the price tag of a setup like that and they probably have to manually go into the game's setup files to change the resolution settings to rediculous. Another important thing that new televisions are having is colored back-lighting or organic displays, but don't get conned by the guy living off-of commission; paying huge amounts more for those 'special' televisions just isn't worth it (i think anyway).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment