Just the other day I was at a movie theater that announced haveing BRAND new Digital projectors. Watching the movie, I couldnt help but think "wow, this is so much clearer, and crisp." I came home wondering what resolution that runs at. Well I just looked into it and I found out what it runs at. Here is a link to one of the *best* http://www.nec-pj.com/products/dlpcinema/2500/index.html Now, Notice the resolution. 2048x1080 PS3 runs at 1960x1080 I wanna put my PS3 on *that* Connects with DVI (HDMI to DVI) cable... Connect the surround to the PS3. Holy CRAP. I never knew a cinema ran that high. there is *NO* point in ANYTHING higher than that. EDIT: HAHA... up to a 7000watt bulb. Holy crap.

Wow, that's amazing. I wonder how long it will be before something exceed 2kx1k resolution. That's hot.

I don't give a damn if the Res is in the millions. If they don't get theatre movies running at faster than 24 frames a second, It'll still look like crap!

That's an PAL movie format. NTSC runs at 29.97 I'm quite sure it would run at over 30fps. It is DLP. Also, the movie I watched. I'm quite sure it ran at over 24fps. (I can see slight chopping at 24)

Well there are already TVs that run higher than that. My point is. If you can blow the image up to a 75foot screen. and it looks FINE at that resolution... (notice the ~10,000watt power use) WHY in gods sake is anything higher better? http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/10/17/cmo-to-ship-47-inch-quad-hd-1440p-lcd-in-2007/ That is a link to some stuff about a 1440p and a 2160p stuff. Who cares how high it goes. If you think your 40inch TV needs higher resolution than a 75foot screen. Go away. On HD, the biggest problem is FOCUS. They need better cameras. And when I say better cameras. I mean better glass. And I doubt that will ever get more than 20% better than it is now. (ever) I have a camera. I promise you, if I take a picture, and it's in focus. I can see every pore on your face... However that is almost impossible to do, because of focus. My camera is a 10.2MP. I am looking into buying a 800$ lens to put on it to help that. But it wont make TOO big of a difference.

The general rule is that you should have at least 900 pixels per square inch on a print image for it to look good and that the Human eye can notice a difference up to (about) 10,000 PPI ... Thus for a 60 inch television you should be able to see benefits of a resolution over 4800 x 3600 ...

Actually, the 24 frames per second that movies run at is neither an NTSC nor PAL standard. PAL runs at 25 frames per second/50 fields per second, and NTSC runs at 29.97 frames per second/59.94 fields. NTSC at least uses the telecine process to give us the correct number of frames per second. De-interlacers actually do reverse telecine to get the original 24fps back. I'm not as familiar with PAL video production, but no doubt they have something similar. Progressive scan displays advertise 60 frames per second, because they do not run interlaced and thus can display a frame rather than a field. In general, you're not likely to notice unless the display is interlaced or - in the case of a CRT - uses phosphors where you can detect the dimming between each vertical retrace.

Actually for a 24x30 the optimal resolution is closer to 50dpi. I used to work in a photo lab, and I take pictures professionally. I dont know what you are smoking. A 125,000$ fuji photo printer prints at about 600ppi. If you are 6-12 inches from a picture. 300dpi is all you need. If you are 3feet about 175dpi is all you need. If you are over 5feet, about 125dpi is all you need. The quality at the movie theaters suck tho. You want to have better than that at home. I want 1,960,000,000,000,000x1080,000,000,000,000 on my 4inch portable. The human eye can notice a diffrence up to about 10,000ppi? really? That would mean that you could see each and every pixel on your monitor from over 5feet. DO NOT talk to me in image quality. HOWEVER, if you are useing an injet printer, you need well over 1000dpi. However that dpi is not pixels per inch. http://www.epixel.com/DK/dk/images/pixels/pixel4.gif from http://www.epixel.com/DK/dk/basics/pixel.htm a 35mm camera's image quality is about 3-4mp. Right were 1080p stands. Digital cameras have just started passing 35mm cameras in image quality. If anyone has a web server willing to host a 6meg picture. I will show you what a 10.2mp picture looks like. and why you do NOT need NEAR that.. That is for a post print... bigger than 8x10. I would say less than 150ppi is all you need. oh yeah I got there here. http://flyingsamphoto.com/digital-photo-printing-megapixels-200.shtml EDIT: PPI is pixels per inch. 300ppi viewed from 6 inches looks perfect.

My monitor is 13 inches wide. it is running at 1280x1024. So it is running at like 98.4ppi or something like that. I am sitting 24 inches from my monitor. My 40inch HDTV is 34 inches wide. it is running at 1960x1080 that is 57.6 ppi I view it from... Just over 80inches. that is over 3x the distance.

Anyone else wanna be made look like a idiot while I'm on this subject? :P