Slashdot Log In
33 MegaPixel TV in 2015
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:38 AM
from the gonna-need-a-bigger-hard-drive dept.
from the gonna-need-a-bigger-hard-drive dept.
psyph3r writes "The Japanese communications ministry is investing in a new broadcast display technology with NHK to launch a 33 million pixel, 24-point surround-sound broadcast standard by 2015. The standard will use a video data rate of 24Gbps and an audio data rate of 28Mbps. This must be surreal in person."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
That's a lot of pixels (Score:5, Funny)
Humans have lost control of human development. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Humans have lost control of human development. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Video is a visual medium. It's silly to not expect it to have a visual quality that would be improved by size and clarity.
There are bound to be shots even in the A-Team that benefit from good viewing hardware.
A 20 year old SD Television doesn't even display SD content well.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No! Very much no. I don't think high-def A-Team is such a good idea. You can already spot issues with the special effects as it is. No need to compound the problem by making it that much more obvious how all the explosions and car crashes were rigged.
Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right about most programming not needing HD, especially here in the UK where digital 480 widescreen is already the norm. You just don't need HD to get the full enjoyment of non-cinematic shows.
Parent
Really? (Score:2, Funny)
If you think that is surreal you gotta try the acid. It'll blow your mind!
Not "surreal", exactly... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the purpose for it is to seem real.
Had to be said.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3.5 TB for 18 minutes of video? (Score:3, Funny)
will i need a new graphics card? (Score:2, Funny)
why are you laughing?
We're halfway there (Score:5, Informative)
Sony already sells a 4K projector [abelcine.com] meant for digital cinemas. But, you can use it to show 4 HD signals at once, something which Sony has been trying to promote to sportsbooks, tradeshows, etc.
It all ultimately depends on visual acuity. Some people are already having trouble seeing the difference between an upscaled NTSC signal and an HD signal. I can only imagine this well get more troublesome as we keep ramping up the resolution.
Just remember, HD doesn't even get close to properly displaying all of the resolution of 35mm film. We've got ways to go, although I don't see more than one new generation replacing the current HDTV "standard" for consumer-level high-end technology.
Re:When is Lucas Re-Releasing SW in 33mp??? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm confused... George Lucas hasn't already re-released the original Star Wars Trilogy in 4K? He must be getting slow in his old age.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true. But it's also very rare in real-world conditions to encounter a truly pristine presentation of a 35mm film. Maybe I have an exceptional bad group of theaters in my town, but my 1080p HDTV and a blu-ray or hd-dvd disc blows away most of the presentations I see in the theaters. Crappy worn prints, out-of-focus presentations, minimum wage "projectionists" who also pop the popcorn and sell tickets, cheap managers
Just in time (Score:3, Funny)
1) I finally upgrade to "regular" HDTV...doh!
2) George Lucas' re-re-release of Star Wars original trilogy in this crazy new format
3) playing some Duke Nukem Forever on my PS9
Ridiculous given viewing distances and screen size (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, 37" is marginal and 42" is where it really starts getting to be noticeable. This is also the sweet spot for a primary panel for the next few years. Beyond this resolution, you'll start noticing 1080p from the next highest resolution (i.e. quad-720p or 1440p) at the 56-63" screen size. But there's one problem with 63" and larger screens: they are close to the limit for what most homes can pass through their door!. In fact, a monolithic 71" 1080p plasma that a large Korean company allowed us to borrow for our lab work wouldn't go properly around normal corners and with standard door widths. So all your dreams of 102" LCDs in your living rooms may be short lived given you won't be able to get it around any corners. Most luxury homes these days, by the way, usually have this in mind when the house is architected so that there's enough room to get these sets into the house from outside. Also, bear in mind that the scaling technology, although advancing rapidly, can only do so much with standard definition material and it just looks worse as you get a larger screen size.
Now, even if it's possible to build a seamless, high-reliability large screen like a flexible screen that can fit in your room, you start hitting a visual limit again at around quad-1080p (3840x2160) for the height of an average room in most of the developed world without even considering how much eye/neck strain this will cause for the average viewer. In case you weren't counting already, we're at around ~8 Megapixels at that size. So, having an 8k x 4k resolution system like the one proposed will require a double size wall which - surprise! - is pretty much where most theaters are going for online distribution of movies. Heck, they already get away with 4k x 2k resolution in digital theaters anyway and most people don't even notice it. And when I saw their demo of 4k, my entire field of view needed to be taken up to see any differences.
As for the audio, never mind that 24 position audio is completely impractical from an installation perspective in the average home and can be easily emulated using far fewer speakers and using virtual surround positioning techniques. This is why it's funny when DTS versus DTS-HD gets brought up - unless you're an audiophile or are in a movie theater, you probably won't care about or notice the difference.
And this gets us back to one immutable point - that this technology is complete overkill for broadcast applications. If broadcast is the target market, and given the rise of personalized on-demand/online video, then this an essentially completely futile effort.
Diminishing Returns (Score:4, Insightful)
"low def" to 480p (huge improvement)
480p -> -> -> 1080i (noticable improvement with proper equipment)
1080i -> wtfpwnedx1000 will be a minor improvement useful only for those with the equipment, a huge screen, etc.
Looking at cost...it scales extremely quickly but i guess the ferrari isn't $995,000 faster than the Scion either.
Though...somewhere around this level of resolution you make a "virtual window" available to apartments with no exterior walls. But hey, if you can afford a 3 bagillion $ TV for a window you can probably get a nicer apartment
I've seen this live and related industry talks (Score:5, Informative)
This was the same company that demo'd HD TV in the early 80s and people thought it was at least 10 years away from being commercially available, they misjudged by over 10 years. They know their technology but not their lead times. Like most companies in this sector.
Saw it last year at IBC in Amsterdam (Score:5, Interesting)
But, they could only run it about 10 minutes per hour. Not sure whether it was heat, storage, or whatever, but it was definitely not at all ready for prime time. Still, when it worked it was just stunningly gorgeous.
At 100 ppi that's an 88.1-inch display (Score:3, Informative)
sqrt( 7680^2 + 4320^2 = 58982400 + 18662400 = 77644800 ) = 8,811.62868 pixels diagonal
At the typical 100 pixels per inch of computer LCDs today, that's an 88.1-inch display.
I doubt I'd be using that in portrait mode.
An an exercise, if "Frank's 2000-inch TV" is a 16x9 display at 100 ppi, what's the resolution? Given that most >HD resolutions are an integer multiple of 1920x1080, which is the nearest probable x*HD resolution?
Best line from TFA: (Score:3, Insightful)
It must be sad to have such a poor imagination--or, worse yet, to think that a picture of something, no matter the resolution, could somehow look "better" than the real thing.
With that resolution, you can become a doctor. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What this could mean for SpanktraVision (Score:4, Interesting)
The resulting conversation was designed to demonstrate that whichever film you couldn't stop watching was the one you "couldn't be with." Most everyone agreed that they tended to ignore the tamer (or familiar) scenes and found themselves staring at the strange.
I notice that my tastes in entertainment continue to change--and that we think we need bigger and sharper vidscreens. Compare and contrast to the technicians who create bigger/sharper/better vidscreens: I think they're in it more for the "we have the technology" angle.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes, I can, and as a result, I think there's good money to made in making real-time convolution [wikipedia.org] processor accessories.
"Oh, holy shit, I don't want to see that!" *click* *click* Video Options:Transform:Real Time Blurs:Add Soft Focus.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater (Score:3, Funny)
3 obnoxious people who will not watch the movie, but will interrupt your view of it
1 usher who is totally clueless as to what he should be doing as well as what movie is playing
2 rude 16 year olds who will get your order for popcorn wrong twice, then over charge you 50 cents on the medium soft drink
1 ticket taker who should have been replaced by a bar code reader years ago, and who rou
Re:You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
5 obnoxious people,
4 clueless ushers,
3 rude teenagers,
2 ticket takers,
and a manager to sit in your den.
Your comment. I fixed it for you.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to put it another way...
"Sorry Sonny, I can't see a difference... just let me get my bifocals out..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which has nothing to do with the age of the DVD or inability to upconvert, but is more an issue that early DVDs were encoded at lower then desirable bitrates. (Okay, some of the early encoders weren't the best eithe
Re:Wow^2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is to me. I just bought a new TV 3 or 4 years ago, when this one has been out for a few years I'll be ready for a new TV and might even be actually to afford it (or not, as I'll be retired). Assuming I'm still alive then, of course.
A retired friend complained that he was on a fixed income. "You're lucky", I told him, "My income's broke."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, not sure what this is all about. Most internet radio streams are in the 100-200 kbps range for two channels, which comes out to the ~2.4 Mbps range at most for 24 ch. So they're saying they need roughly a factor of 10 more data per channel? Maybe they're not compressing the audio stream?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
(44.1 KHz @ 24 bits per sample * 24 channels) / 1024 / 1024 = 24 Mbps. Little room for protocol overhead there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its storage which uses 1000 to boost their numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually throughput is always 1024. It uses bits instead of bytes to cut corners.
Its storage which uses 1000 to boost their numbers.
I'm afraid the grandparent AC is correct. Channel capacity (aka throughput) is a physical quantity, and used in lots of applications besides computing.
Incidentally, since the field of error-correction codes is based on communication channels, you could argue that the usage in hard drives is derived from that of communication.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern displays have decent color, but as long as we are limiting ourselves to red / green / blue color sources, this will always be distinguishable from real (real cyan is not a 50/50 mixture of blue and green light, it is a single wavelength between the two).
Dynamic range
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fry: But this is HD TV, it's higher resolution than the real world!
Re:Seen it, Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Parent