33 MegaPixel TV in 2015

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."

Humans have lost control of human development.

[Futurepower(R)]

Technology is advancing far faster than the understanding humans have of themselves. I watch my NTSC 320 x 240 maximum resolution TV and usually feel that the resolution is higher than it needs to be considering that the low thought content of the TV show.

Not "surreal", exactly...

[Bohnanza]

This must be surreal in person.

I think the purpose for it is to seem real.

Re:Wow

[ShieldW0lf]

What they've failed to account for is, all the old bastards who can afford this, well, their eyes aren't really that great anymore.

Or, to put it another way...

"Sorry Sonny, I can't see a difference... just let me get my bifocals out..."

Re:Japan is superior

[n00854180t]

You can't even get a 12Mbps connection in the US for less than $1000/mo. Max for any reasonable price is around 6Mbps.

Now that's high-resolution

[Wiseman1024]

Now that's high-resolution. Hmm, 33 MPix hentai...

I think it's overkill. The vast majority of us don't have that kind of room, bandwidth, money, and vision to benefit from this.

Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show...

[NFN_NLN]

Here's an idea, why not try changing the channel? What's that... you only paid for basic channels. Here's a list of educational and also fun to watch programs I'd like to see someone try to rip apart:
Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, The First 48, The Daily Show, etc...

Things have changed since the A-Team and Knight Rider...

Diminishing Returns

[torkus]

Impressive, but diminishing returns will relegate this to...well i have no idea what scientific la la la will make use.

"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 :)

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show..

[Jeff DeMaagd]

If that's your attitude, why watch TV? Why not just read a book?

Re:Wow

[Grimbleton]

This isn't about need. :D

Re:Max Resolution?

[Orange Crush]

A 2d display at *any* resolution is still a 2d display. Color balance, the fact that the images produced by currently widespread display tech glows, etc all contribute. Just look at still cameras--a nice 5MP camera with top-notch optics, sesors, etc will capture much better images than a cheap 10MP camera. More pixels aren't always better.

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show..

[jedidiah]

If the show has any cinematography to speak of then it will infact look better on a high resolution 60" TV.

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.

Re:We're halfway there

[elrous0]

HD doesn't even get close to properly displaying all of the resolution of 35mm film.

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 who dim their projector bulbs to save money--all are common in most theaters today. Maybe digital theaters will change that, but right now 35mm just isn't all it's cracked up to be most of the time.

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show..

[hal2814]

"There are bound to be shots even in the A-Team that benefit from good viewing hardware."

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:You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater

[Austerity Empowers]

If you were only overcharged $.50 cents on your purchase of popcorn and a medium soft drink, you should consider yourself lucky.

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show..

[Don_dumb]

The only stuff that really benefits from an HD tv are sports and summer "blockbusters" like Transformers.

I have said this before but the best application for HDTV is natural history, case in point The BBC stunner Planet Earth [imdb.com]. I think it's ironic that the best use of better TV is real life.

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.

Re:Wow

[reebmmm]

First, unless your father lives in the middle of nowhere, he doesn't need to buy the HD package from his satellite provider to use the HD features. A really crappy pair of bunny ears will suffice to get most of the "important" channels anyway. But, paying the extra $20 gets you lots of nice "other" channels.

Second, while football is nice, H-D programming looks so nice that I can't stand to watch regular television anymore. I was even somewhat surprised to notice real differences with things like the Simpsons.

Third, I have plenty of older DVDs that upconvert very nicely. They're not HD quality, but they are definitely better than on my standard TVs.

Finally, even if you don't buy an HDTV for the HD, if you want a flat-panel or something that's not a huge ugly beast, there's really no option. It boggles my mind that anyone purchases standard tvs for any reason any more. They're just so... big and ugly.

Best line from TFA:

[Zak3056]

The image would be more palpable and vibrant than anything we can imagine.

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.

24 speakers?

[somasynth]

At some point the industry may realize it would be better to use binaural technology instead. Hopefully this can happen before I'm required to position 5000 speakers.

Re:Wow

[cheater512]

Actually throughput is always 1024. It uses bits instead of bytes to cut corners.

Its storage which uses 1000 to boost their numbers.

Re:Wow^2

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Your dad explained to you that he doesn't see so well anymore. His old TV set was obviously becoming too small for his aging eyes. While it looked perfectly clear to you, he could not see the picture on his old TV. While the current TV looks perfectly clear to him, it looks mottled to you. Get it?

Re:Wow

[vidarh]

You're only saying that because current display technology is still hard on the eyes. Do you look around the "real world" and have your eyes "almost bugging out of your head" because your entire field of view is full? No, you don't. I'm not saying improving the resolution and refresh rates will fully solve that, but it certainly won't make it worse. I can sit much closer to my 42" plasma than I could to my old 32" CRT without straining my eyes, for example.