Bit of forward planning for the new standards too. 4k and 8k have already been approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-19370582

I would imagine streaming an 8K film over the UK's superb broadband network may cause some buffering issues.

"Your film will be available in 3 days"

Bit of forward planning for the new standards too. 4k and 8k have already been approved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-19370582

I genuinely son't see the benefit of broadcassting in anything lise 120fps. Surely the human eye/brain combi can't differentiate between 30fps and 60fps??

I would imagine streaming an 8K film over the UK's superb broadband network may cause some buffering issues.

"Your film will be available in 3 days"

The UK infrastructure really does need updating! I remember all those years ago when the government invested heavily in cabling the UK. Surely something on an even bigger scale is needed to support further advances in technology and our requirements.

PS, I've managed to find the Samsung u8000 65" TV for less than 3k so looks like that will be first choice at the moment

This explains why i thought the 3D image i see was very sharp i.e HD as mine is active 3D. So its only the passive type that suffers this resolution decrease? Interesting. Glad mines active then but when i bought mine passive wasnt available. Id still rather pay more for glasses to get the best solution though.

My brother in law told me that the Hobbit was shot in 4k resolution at really high refresh rates or something as this was to ensure that we still enjoyed the full HD experience at a minimum of 24 FPS after it was transformed inro 3D. Seeing as cinemas are passive 3D that expalins it. If my undersatnding of your post is correct does this mean that if cinemas were active 3D then they wouldnt have needed to shoot the film at such an increased level of resolution etc??

No, I think you've misunderstood it. For whatever reason, films have been presented at 24fps from their very beginning and that tradition is still with us. With the Hobbit they decided to break the tradition and film at 48fps (HFR, High Frame Rate) instead but it's not for passive/active 3D instead it was to improve the motion and detail as twice as many frames makes any fast action smoother although this did have the side effect of improving the 3D effect. For cinemas that supported HFR the film was shown at 48fps rather than the 24fps they normally would but still at full resolution, the passive cinema system is completely different to a home TV system so you don't have the same loss in resolution.

They don't need to shoot at a higher resolution or framerate to support cinema projection systems and them being active would make no difference, it's more the other way round - active 3D is a bit of a kludge for consumer use as passive 3D is more difficult to implement for home systems. On TVs you need a special coating which halves the resolution and for projectors it's more difficult so currently passive 3D projectors are expensive although I've seen setups where they use a pair of projectors to provide a passive 3D image.

I have a 3D TV but I bought it for the panel and the Smart TV features, I occasionally watch something in 3D which reminds me why I think 3D is a waste of time and don't bother again for a few months. The problem I find with 3D implementations is that if they're done well the effect is generally too subtle to notice and if it's noticeable it's intrusive and puts me off. I also find the 3D image a bit soft compared to the 2D image, there's nothing I've seen in 3D that I haven't preferred watching in 2D. I do like the Smart TV features though aside from the lack of ram which makes some parts a bit useless, you can't move very quickly back and forth through an iplayer feed making it pointless unless you want to watch it from start to finish. I particularly like the integration with my phone as the two can communicate over the wireless ethernet allowing the TV to remotely load the phone's media files or I can set the TV as a remote output and play its files through the TV using the phone interface.

John

I genuinely son't see the benefit of broadcassting in anything lise 120fps. Surely the human eye/brain combi can't differentiate between 30fps and 60fps??

It can easily distinguish between 30fps and 60fps, I think they've shown that humans can differentiate up thousandths of a second. It's been an argument in the gaming world for many years as some developers choose to run their games at 60fps and sacrifice detail while others prefer to run at 30fps and use the available graphics horsepower for better graphics with more polygons, higher resolution textures etc. For faster games particularly the likes of racing games, 60fps is usually preferable for the smoother gameplay.

John