I would consider myself obsessive when it comes to certain things, its built into my genetics to become obsessive over new technologies and products. In 2005 Consumer Electronic company’s began to ship televisions said to be "Full HD" meaning they had a progressive scan resolution of
1920 X 1080, commonly called 1080p. However, although 1080p is the highest resolution on mainstream Television sets, it is by no means the highest resolution, which the term "Full HD" seams to imply. In fact, the viewsonic VP2290b 22" monitor has a max resolution of 3,840 x 2,400, thats 9.2 megapixles, four times the supposed "Full HD" resolution of 1920 X 1080. In an article entitled Ultra High Definition Video on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video the newest form of high resolution, known as Ultra High Definition Video or Super Hi-Vision is up to 7680 × 4320 and is currently under development in Japan. In a link on the same page, Red Digital Cinema Camera Company is said to have a camera capable of Ultra High Definition. Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, as most of us know, was started by none other than Jim Jannard. So now Jannard is the owner of both the leading production company of High Definition Optics and High Definition in general. By the way, I know Red is old news, I just thought it would be interesting to describe the statistics behind Ultra High Definition.

Crazy.... thanks for the info Ben!

At what point does it get to the level where a person can't see the difference

When that person runs out of money.

"Woah, this Blu-ray is awesome! How much is it?"

"...."

"Pfft it looks no better than my BetaMax"

Honestly, picture quality depends more on your Tv than it does on its max resolution. For example, you could have a Westinghouse tv running a blue ray movie in 1080p and a sony running the same movie in 720p. I guarantee the sony will look better. After playing my ps3 and xbox 360 in 1080p and then comparing it to 720p I have come to realize that 1080p is way over hyped. But, its good to be future proof, just kidding

I'm more excited about the ability to shoot in 1080. Even downsampled to 720 or miniDV, the quality should be a lot better since there's more source material to work with. Course I'll never afford a Red One, but I can dream.

i hear a kidnee does really well on the black market , dann !!

Dann, You could always drop a meager 4.8 G's on the Sony HDR-FX7 Prosumer camera, its capable of 1080p. When I say Meager, I mean the price is low compared to the production cost of Jannard's Red One. My question is, how can HDDVD and Blueray be puting older films out on their formats. For example, I just bought Army of Darkness on HDDVD. How is it possible to put films that werent filmed with an HD camera, out on Blueray and HD DVD in 1080p resolution? Is it upconverted or something?

If it was produced on film, then we can get up into the 4K range someday. If it was meant for the theaters, then achieving 1080 will be a piece of cake.

Here's something real interesting: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=21325#post21325

Wanted was a great comicbook/Graphic Novel written by one of my favourite writers, Mark Millar. I'm looking forward to this movie even more now that it has an indirect Oakley connection.

dann, i reckon jim will give you one for all your hard work on here...

I've been following this for a while now, and damn does it feel like something big is going down.

I watched the Gamer bluray today and there was an extra devoted to the RED One that was about 15 minutes long. There weren't any amazing revelations revealed in it, but it was definitely the most information I've ever seen all at once about the camera and its development. The term "mad scientist" even worked its way in there.