Hmm! If there are now video cameras that can shoot as many as 2000 or even 4000 lines (instead of just 1080 _

Question

or less), then why don't we have TVs that can display THAT--SHD for super high definition, or EHD for extra-high definition?

Okay, so those cameras are made for extra-high definition projectors that show movies in theaters that have converted to digital showing, but then why not TVs that high, now?

Answer 1

The higher the resolution the more bandwidth required to broadcast the signal. With limited frequency ranges allowed for TV, higher resolution would mean greatly reduced numbers of stations would be possible. And this doesn't say anything about the massive infrastructure changes necessary to handle the storage, switching, and other equipment needs to accommodate higher resolution. And broadcast standards don't even address 1080p yet. That alone would take years to finalize.

Furthermore the main source of program material available above 1080i resolution is Blu-ray and HD DVD movies ... and there are only about 800 of them.

Finally, consumers are not ready for even 1080p resolution broadcasts, necer mind 2K.  It's estimated that less than 40% of homes in the US will have HDTV by the end of 2008. And most of these will be 720p models, meaning that a year from now only about one in 7 homes would be able to display even 1080p (assuming all other issues were addressed).

Europe is somewhat further ahead re HDTV, but the world just isn't ready yet ... and won't be for many years yet.

Answer 2

Samsung already has it in the works, and HDMI 1.3 MIGHT support that kind of bandwidth.