We're excited to announce that we've fully migrated the Xbox Forums to their new home, here on the Microsoft Community forums!
As of today, going to forums.xbox.com will redirect you here to the Xbox area of the Community forums. We've moved all of your existing threads over so you can continue and start conversations with the new forums experience.
We sincerely appreciate the feedback you have provided over this transition and can't wait for you to check out the new Xbox Forums!
That said, with no offense... This is simply a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as FULL HD. 1080p is simply the current maximum standardized resolution. True FULL HD resolution would actually be no resolution at all, but rather a pure picture construct
with no pixels. In a way, the higher number of pixels we evolve to is just a road that ends at zero. Full HD is just a marketing term used to sell (uninformed) people on something that doesn't currently (in actuality) exist. Will 1080p still be FULL HD when
4k resolution displays start emerging?
Maybe in title. But as for the actual meaning of the term. No. Not if you go by the definitions of the word
[/quote]Does it really matter? Surround sound is name most people use for multichannel systems, but the sound doesn't fully surround you, even in those crazy 11.2 setups. I think Dolby Labs said that something like 24 channels would be needed in order to
truly convey surround sound to human ears. Point is, you're just arguing semantics, the names are just identifiers for the different technologies.
As you can tell from my signature, I'm well ahead of the times. NHK already prototyped, tested and exhibited 8K TV with 22.2 channel sound. I don't have it at home... yet. Then again, I don't know where I'd fit it all.
But given the limited resolution of our eyes and ears, we may as well wait for cybernetic implants that will improve our senses of sight and sound beyond what those primitive human eyes and ears allow.
Full HD 1080 is a bit of a misnomer. Shannon, Nyqvist, and Kell are there to tell us that what we're getting from 1080p is more along something like 850 TV lines before aliasing and moiré start becoming a problem. Above that, the MTF curve has to start rolling
off. And it usually does. Things get filtered in camera, in encoding, in picture processing and scaling... to the point where carefully handled 720p can be more detailed than carelessly handled 1080p.
So if Full HD is 1080 TV lines and we assume a Kell factor of 0.8 - give us pixel mapped 1350p. ;)
Assuming the viewer has 20/20 vision they would need to sit roughly 5' away from a 75" screen in order to be able to fully appreciate 4k resolution. That screen size would go up to 125" if the viewer was sitting 8' away from the screen in order to discern
the entirety of 4k resolution. You could of course fall somewhere in between the distance/screen size requirements for 1080p and 4k and still notice an improvement, but not the complete resolution.