Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Japan Television Communications Network The Internet News Science Technology

Japan Starts 8K TV Broadcasts In Time For Rio Olympics (pcworld.com) 154

Posted by BeauHD from the retina-display dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PCWorld: Japan began the world's first regular 8K television broadcasts on Monday, five days ahead of the opening of the Olympic Games. 8K refers to broadcasts with a resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 pixels. That's 16 times the resolution of today's full high-definition (FHD) broadcasts and four times that of the 4K standard, which is only just emerging in many other countries. The format used by NHK, which it calls "Super Hi-Vision," also features 22.2-channel surround sound. Public broadcaster NHK launched a satellite channel that will broadcast a mix of 8K and 4K content as it prepares to launch full-scale 8K transmissions in time for the Tokyo Olympics in 2020. The channel will be on air daily from 10am until 5pm, with extended hours during the Rio Olympics. Japan's early lead in 8K broadcasting is thanks to NHK and its Science and Technology Research Laboratories in Tokyo.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan Starts 8K TV Broadcasts In Time For Rio Olympics More

Japan Starts 8K TV Broadcasts In Time For Rio Olympics

Comments Filter:
  • and no one has a connection that can handle it.

    • TV resolutions and audio channel count have now jumped the shark. This is clearly about "bigger numbers are better" at this point. Who in Japan has 90" televisions that could possibly make use of that resolution? Seriously, isn't that what digital movie projectors use?

      I'd bet this is more about international prestige than anything else, sort of like how they built the bullet trains (Shinkansen) for their last Olympics. From what I hear, they tend to care a great deal how the rest of the world sees them.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        "7,680 x 4,320 pixels. That's 16 times the resolution of today's full high-definition (FHD) "

        Thing is, it's NOT 16 times the resolution. If it were, That would make HD 480x270, which was basically what old analog TV did.

        Resolution is linear - the number of pixels/unit of distance along one axis. It is NOT the total number of pixels.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by sexconker ( 1179573 )

          Resolution isn't linear, it's scalar. It's just a fucking number until you apply a metric to it, such as inches.
          And they're telling you right there they're talking about 2 dimensions, not 1.

          Fuck off with your contrarian shit. You know what they meant and you tried to find some bullshit way to say they were wrong. They're not.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by msauve ( 701917 )
            Resolution is a well defined optical term. You (and the article) are simply wrong.

      • Re:Problem is it's analog (Score:5, Funny)

        by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @05:57PM (#52631521)

        At least we'll be able to see the turds floating in the water.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Locke2005 ( 849178 )
        8k video is pretty much the Monster Cables equivalent in video resolution world -- difference is not perceivable by humans, but hay, it's a bigger number and costs a lot more!

        • Re:Problem is it's analog (Score:4, Informative)

          by DMJC ( 682799 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @08:10PM (#52632303)
          WRONG. I went to Tokyo in 2012. I stood in Akihabara and watched an 8K video of the London Olympics opening and Closing ceremonies provided by NHK on a 8K screen. I also own a 4K screen at home so I can say with absolute certainty. The difference was highly noticeable. The camera angles they were shooting took in the entire stadium. You could make out every face in the crowd. Could actually pick individuals with clarity in shots which would never be possible on a normal resolution or even 2-4k resolution screen. 8K resolution is perfect for cinemas. Admittedly it seems a bit pointless on a TV below 70-80+ inches in size. But the picture quality was stunning and to this day I haven't seen anything that looked as good. Japan has the right idea. By pushing technology and adoption of technology they are staying ahead of their competitors. Sure they're not wildly ahead, but they are still ahead of their competitors.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            It's not just the fact that the resolution is better, it's that the frame rate is true 120 or 60Hz as well. Thus motion is a lot smoother and clearer, so it's easier to make out detail on moving objects like people and in panning shots. None of this frame-doubling or interlacing crap that just introduces artefacts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jaa101 ( 627731 )

        No, this is not what digital movie projectors use. Those are almost all 2K or 4K, and I suspect that 2K is the more common size. Yes, I'm talking about commercial cinemas here, not home theatre. 8K is just over the top in almost any environment.

        • First we had 720p and 1080p. Now we have 4k and 8k instead of 2160p and 4320p. Is it just marketing. I am with you in that we should start calling 1080p - 2k I suspect it is just marketing.
      • But the technology and standards could be useful for things other than just raw 8k video. For instance, one could imagine some "user-pannable" (or VR) applications where you're streaming sporting events with lots going on. Perhaps you're only displaying 1920x1080 on your TV, but you could pan your view smoothly over a grid 4 times the width and height of your TV. And for the 22.2 channel audio, yeah, that does seem a little ridiculous (though it would make sense to me to just encode it in a spatially-resolv

        • Perhaps you're only displaying 1920x1080 on your TV, but you could pan your view smoothly over a grid 4 times the width and height of your TV.

          While that is a possible application, I don't really think it is a good idea. Much like those 360 degree* videos, while kind of cool, they always make me wonder if I am looking in the right direction. When I look over here, what am I missing over there?

          * /. filtered out my degree symbol

        • 22.2 channels means they could broadcast commentary in several languages at once. Seems like a good idea for a global sporting event like the Olympics.

      • TV resolutions and audio channel count have now jumped the shark. This is clearly about "bigger numbers are better" at this point. Who in Japan has 90" televisions that could possibly make use of that resolution? Seriously, isn't that what digital movie projectors use?

        Probably because NHK's reasoning behind this makes perfect sense: 4K resolution will be pretty short lived, but 8K resolution will be around for a very long time. Why? Because once you hit 8K, you've pretty much maxed out what a home user will ever need, and the reason I say "ever need" is because the typical size of a home television will have pixels almost smaller than the naked eye can see even if one were to glue their forehead right to the screen. 4K, not so much.

        And personally, I've been saying this a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )

          It's because technology is advancing, not TV manufacturers' greed. They can't sell what doesn't exist. When 8K screens are possible, they will make them and sell them to whoever wants. They are not forcing anyone to buy these screens - clearly the demand is there.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's interesting to see how many commenters are dismissing 8K as unimportant and overkill.

        I live in Tokyo and I get 1Gbps up and down for $50/month with no data caps. Sometmes desire for international prestige and big numbers produces some very worthwhile results.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thud457 ( 234763 )

      FUCK EVERYTHING, we're doing 32K [theonion.com] ! [wired.com]

    • Not to mention those of us who can't really see much difference between SD and HD....

  • Mmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The resolution is so crisp, so clear.. You can almost smell the sewage!

  • Space Balls: The re-re-release (Score:4, Funny)

    by HumanWiki ( 4493803 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @05:42PM (#52631423)

    My Schwartz will look huge in 8K

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      My Schwartz will look huge in 8K

      I'm still waiting to see it in the search for more money


    • Sorry to break it to you but the image is likely to be smaller on a higher resolution display. Instead of upscaling lower resolution images what usually happens is that the image is remaps into existing resolution space typically from top left to bottom right.

      So what this means is that your 4K picture might make it seems as though your huge schwartz will be only 2 inches long.

  • ..to negligible returns on resolution increases? I mean, I remember arguing against people who said 1080p was overkill... and I think 4K looks pretty cool up close on a big screen with the right source.

    But 8k (and presumably, beyond) must surely be pressing hard on the limits of human eyesight.

    • If they're trying to sell us 22 channel surround, we have far surpassed the point of diminishing returns for consumer usage.

    • 8K video isn't for small screens. You'll need something in the 90" range to see the difference between 1080, 4K and 8K.

      The question is, how will porn deal with the nature of exposing every flaw at that resolution?

      • Individual pixels are perceivable when the whole screen is in your field of view at 1080, but not at 4K... meaning 8K really adds nothing to perception of the picture.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Baloney. There is a huge difference between the point where you consciously see the pixels, and the point at which you can't see any better. Analogously, at 30 fps you can't see the individual frames, but 60 fps is still vastly smoother, and when I have to make fine distinctions, 60 gives me a lot more accuracy. The same is true of resolution.

          Our eyes are analog with supersampling twitches and looking at whatever part we find interesting, and altering it with a large number of automatic processes. Subtle ch

    • FTA:

      For now, consumer reception equipment isn't available, so NHK has set up several public viewing areas at broadcasting stations across the country.

      If this was a big public outdoor screen, it could have merit.

      But when you look at how bad 1080p looks on most cable or satellite today, you would at least hopefully get more than 0.5Mbps of data at 8K.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        "If this was a big public outdoor screen, it could have merit."

        Not really, visual acuity is related to the angle between the pixels from the viewers eye. Small screen up close or large screen farther away, unless you're one of those people who likes to sit in the front row so the screen stretches to your periphery, this 8K doesn't really add anything except cost. For most people at a comfortable viewing angle, there's not a whole lot of difference between standard 1920x1080 HD and 3840x2160 "4K" UHD.

        • I imagine people could be standing up close in a public viewing area - I am imagining an outdoor free-standing screen along some large paved area, not some movie theater setup. With as much as is going on on-screen, there could be a lot to see just looking up-close at the periphery.

          • By which I mean it might be useful for Olympics. Otherwise, this is just Japan being Japan. If they hit and pass the Nyquist limit for vision they might eventually find something else to do. An 8K screen is just a byproduct of having flawless tiny 2K phone screens at a larger scale. Making use of manufacturing you already have. It might be more useful for virtual wallpaper than broadcast outside the Olympics arenae.

    • 4K is the point of diminishing returns for video, because it's right at the limit of human perception. Greater than 4K is still useful for still photographs that you are planning on blowing up into larger images, so more than 16Megapixels may still be useful for digital cameras.

    • Well...resolution is nice but if your pixels are massive you need a larger screen and a farther away viewing distance.

      The human eye has a theoretical "limit" of 2194ppi at 4" distance. The further you are from the screen the more pixels you can notice. And densities under 550ppi the vast majority of people can notice pixels. A higher resolution might not translate to smoother pictures at a certain distance because of pixel sizes.
      So you have to workout the size of the screen and resolution (assuming you

  • Weren't some of the events broadcast in 3D for the last summer games? I guess that's not cool anymore.

    While I appreciate Bluray, I just don't see the point of 4K and now 8K. Isn't DVD still outselling Bluray? It used to be VHS vs. DVD. The difference was noticeable on damn near any display size. From a normal distance DVD still looks good on a modest sized TV. I notice the difference on my 50 inch TV in my living room, but DVD is still very watchable. On my projector in my theater room, DVD can be a bit

  • Overkill for the vast majority of viewers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @05:53PM (#52631493)
    4K resolution is hard to notice at typical living room viewing distances of 8-10' with anything smaller than a 65" TV. 8K is going to only really make a difference in something larger than 80-90". Most people, even with 20/20 vision, have insufficient visual acuity to resolve such a resolution under these conditions. The vast majority of the public does not buy displays this big, and much less so in Japan where living spaces are tiny. 8K is a great resolution for large venue screens and for mezzanine/master files, but has little to no value for the consumer and imposes substantial costs on content creators, distributors and CE companies. As a point of comparison, some of my colleagues at a major movie studio were talking about scanning old film stock with 6K resolution and content with it. 8K is 4x as much storage as 4K, and we haven't even begun to talk about far more tangible technologies of importance like HDR and wide color gamut.

    As for this 22.2 business, it is an infernal waste of time. The extra LFE channel (the ".2" in 22.2) is completely redundant because low frequencies should not be able to be located by the human ear in a properly set up theater, home, small or large venue. The 22 channels is an anachronism in the era of emergent object-based audio coding as found in AC-4 and MPEG-H audio. There, an arbitrary number of objects has position location information recorded in 3D space and relies on the playback rendering device to place the sounds in whatever speaker configuration may actually exist, from a single mono speaker in front of the viewer to dozens of speakers in an array as you'll find in a Dolby Atmos enabled theater. By channelizing audio, NHK not only forces an arbitrary speaker configuration on the viewer, but substantially complicates the job of downmixing to more traditional configurations such as 5.1 or 7.1, or even some of the newer configurations like 5.1+4 and 7.1+4 (the +4 indicating four height speakers over the listener/viewer), and is a complete waste of bandwidth, assuming they even carry the metadata and publish how the downmixing will be accomplished AND will be QC'd by a real person. Again, the producers, distributors and CE companies are behind the eight ball trying to support this nonsense in an era where only a very small fraction of people have 7.1 in the home, much less in Japan where premium audio solutions as you'll find in Akihabara consist almost exclusively of sound bars with speaker arrays that can do the same job.

    Sorry to be so cynical about this, but there comes a point where this gets out of control for the average viewer and for the people who are in the industry making and distributing and playing back this content. NHK long jumped the shark even as nice as their jumbo display every broadcast show I have gone to may be.
    • ^^^ only relevant comment, really.

    • Re:Overkill for the vast majority of viewers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @08:02PM (#52632251) Homepage

      We got a lot of this when 4K came out, but we were ready to upgrade our television (something we don't do very often), so I said screw it and went with 4K (65" at about 3 meters / 10'). It looks great with upscaling, but when I switched our streaming to true 4K with a Roku4 my wife said "Wow - this looks awesome! Did you change anything?" To me, that's the real test - when somebody with average visual acuity who doesn't give a crap about pixel count and whatnot notices that it looks a lot better.

      I don't think 8K will be worthwhile until 120" screens are the norm, and even then cinematography will have to change to accommodate the changed field of vision. Even at 4K I notice that I'm annoyed when my eyes can't wander to the corner of the screen because the depth of focus blurs everything out there.

      • It's angular resolution which matters. That is, not display size, but the ratio of display size to viewing distance.

        If you use the one pixel per arc-minute definition (20/20 vision is defined as the ability to distinguish a line pair with one arc-minute of separation), then a VR headset like the Samsung Gear VR with a 96 degree FOV would require about 11.5k horizontal resolution. So two 8k displays side-by-side would come very close to achieving this threshold. Obviously you wouldn't want to do that w

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      It gets rather ridiculous when you realize that movies like "The Martian" were finished in 2.5K, even in the biggest theaters I don't think you see anyone calling it blurry. If you are the one in a million with 20/8 vision - the diffraction limit of a perfect eye - you have a resolution of 0.4 arc minutes = 1/150th degree. Front row of the cinema is ~50 degrees field of vision (FoV) so 50*150 = 7500 pixel resolution. So 8K (7680-8192 depending on definition) is theoretically necessary to exceed everyone's o

      • If you are the one in a million with 20/8 vision

        It's a lot more than that if you could glasses and contacts. It's trivial to get 20/10 vision with glasses if you go to a good optometrist.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        It gets rather ridiculous when you realize that movies like "The Martian" were finished in 2.5K, even in the biggest theaters I don't think you see anyone calling it blurry.

        Actually, The Martian used Red cameras and was filmed in 5K. However, the VFX was done in 2K only, and the final printdown was 2K DI (digital intermediate - basically the final format used in digital theatres).

        The vast majority of movies released in theatres today are down in 2K DI - even Star Wars The Force Awakens was 2K DI. There are

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm sorry, you're just wrong. I have an 8K 48" display, in the form of 4x 4k display wall, and it is fucking gorgeous. The improvement over my 4x 1080p display wall is chalk and cheese. Even at a distance it looks more beautiful than the 1080p wall that it replaced. I have seen 8k demonstrators in my work, they are gorgeous.

      The basic incorrectness of your assumption, is that because you can't read tiny text at a distance, that the increase in resolution contributes nothing. This is factually false. Even wit

    • " The vast majority of the public does not buy displays this big, and much less so in Japan where living spaces are tiny. "

      Well I dont claim to speak for the japanese, but as a space conscious urbanite, i can tell you that projector screens and projectors actually save space. You can roll up the screen when you're not using it, and projectors are mounted on the ceiling in space you almost never use (1 ft drop from ceiling, 1-2ft diameter).

      Far better than sacrificing premium wall real estate, and doubles as

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dillee1 ( 741792 )

      There are legit use for 8k video signals, but IMHO mostly on technical/niche fields. E.g. CCTV, drone camera will benefit greatly from higher resolution. Instead of having to pan/tilt/zoom, the camera can record the entire scene at once while still resolve enough interesting details. The end user just digitally magnify whatever part of scene to fill his screen if his screen is too small. Same technique can be use for zooming into say the goalie of a soccer game as the end viewer please.
      I doubt layman would

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pnagel ( 107544 )

      It is true that few viewers will see the increased spatial resolution of 4K without expensive large screens, and even less so for 8K.

      But increased spatial resolution is far from the only change in the the new UHD Premium broadcast standards ("4K") or the Super Hi-Vision ("8K") standard mentioned in this story, and all of these other changes have a huge impact that the normal viewer can easily see, no matter what size the TV.

      Firstly there is increased colour gamut - before UHD Premium the standard was the BT

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I've actually seen 8k in real life, so I can tell you that it does make a noticeable difference. For a start it's not just the resolution, it also has better colour and a 120Hz native frame rate. No more frame interpolation and associated noise.

      8k also brings new camera technology with it. You can't manually focus 8k, it's just impossible to do reliably. So they had to develop a new kind of auto-focus that gives the camera operator analogue like control but with digital assistance.

      And yes, the resolution do

  • Explain to me again why it's a good idea to provide twice the resolution that the human eye is capable of resolving. "Ohh, it's a bigger number, let's pay a lot more for it!" (The human eye can only perceive about 4000 separate regions in it's field of view, meaning making pixels smaller than 1/4000 of the screen does nothing for enhancing human perception, when viewing the whole screen. Greater resolution is useful if you move in closer and focus on just one section of the screen, but that's not really how
    • To sell more TVs to the idiotic masses? No, seriously, I mean it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by I4ko ( 695382 )
      No, but my cat can certainly enjoy it, if it is a video of flies and other small little critters. Her eyes are much better than mine.
      On the other hand I need to look carefully how much stipend I can give her.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TheSync ( 5291 )

      explain to me again why it's a good idea to provide twice the resolution that the human eye is capable of resolving.

      At 1080 lines (HD) resolutions, your eye can resolve the smallest detail at 3 picture heights (assumes 20/20 vision, based on Snellen acuity). 3 picture heights is about the angle subtended by your hand of your outstretched arm if you hold up your thumb.

      At 2160p (4K) resolutions, you need to be at 1.5 picture heights (screen height two outstretched hand+thumbs)

      At 4320p (8K) resolutions, you n

    • People use to say the same thing about 30fps. But in practice, it does matter a lot to limit yourself to what we can see. What we can perceive is always making obsolete notions of what we can "see". The senses have much more depth than their classical definitions.

      Besides as a projector owner with a 104" screen, i say bring on the 8k! (have to go through 4k first though...)

    • No, they never do instant-replays on sports do they?

  • 57 channels and nothing on... (Score:3)

    by Torp ( 199297 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @06:01PM (#52631553)

    ... now the nothing is in 8K resolution!

  • What we really need 8K video for is porn... it makes the herpes blisters look SOOOO much more realistic!

  • Stop hijacking vertical vs horizontal resolutions! (Score:3, Informative)

    by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @06:11PM (#52631623)

    We have a long history of standardized naming. "720p" and "1080p" referred to the vertical resolution of 1280x720 and 1920 x 1080p, respectively.

    Then some marketing idiot starting calling the horizontal resolution of 3840x 2160 as "4K" so they could sell more TVs. No, it is 2160p.

    This shenanigans of "8K" continuing by referring to the horizontal resolution of 7,680 x 4,320 needs to stop. This is almost as bad as drive manufacturers when they refer to disk space using GB, instead of GiB to artificially inflate their numbers. 8 KB is 8,000, and 8 KiB is 8192, not 7,680. Either call it 7.5K (7*1024 = 7680) or call it 4320p.

    Lastly, 4320p is a non-issue. Most people don't care about 4320p due to the chicken-and-egg problem:

    * No content, no sales of TVs.
    * No sales of TV's, no incentive to make content.

    Rinse and repeat.

    • Don't even get me started on calling LCD screens with LED backlights "LED Displays" Ugh. Someone needs to be nuked from orbit.

    • I agree with you with regards to calling 3840x2160 4K and 7680x4320 8K. It's retarded.
      I also agree with you with regards to storage manufacturers universally using the bullshit of "1 MB = 1,000,000 bytes".

      But 7680 would be 7.68K. Why are you using 1024 there? Do you see a b or B indicating bytes?
      Further, 1 KB = 1024 bytes. Always has, always will. Take your KiB nonsense and shove it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I'm starting a counter-revolution. If the ISO can arbitrarily redefine a KB as 1000 bytes, I can redefine KiB as 1000 bytes too.

        Kilobyte = 1024 (JEDEC standard)
        Kibibyte = 1000 (OSI counter-revolutionary freedom fries standard)

      • > But 7680 would be 7.68K.

        Ah good catch. Thanks. I had bytes on the brain, not 7.68Kpx.

        > Further, 1 KB = 1024 bytes. Always has, always will. Take your KiB nonsense and shove it.

        100% Agree !

        I guess the hardware engineers wanted an unambiguous term. But no one ever sends just 10 bits or 1,000 bits. They send 8 + header or 1,024 + header, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TheSync ( 5291 )

      4K (4096 x 2160) was originally a digital cinema resolution, but television people were jealous of it. However TV people only felt comfortable doing 4 quadrants of 1080p, thus we got 3840x2160.

      Most "4K" TV production today uses 4 coaxial cables carrying 3 Gbps serial digital signals of 1080p. This is also known as "23 wrong ways to plug in your camera".

      The hope is that everyone will shortly go to 25/40/100 GbE before 4K becomes a "standard operation" for television.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by floodo1 ( 246910 )
      8k is the next 1080p

    • As long as there's no overlap what's the problem? 4k is much easier to remember. I'm getting behind the new convention.

  • The Rio Olympics will appear so clear in 8K you'll be able to feel your skin crawl with excitement.

    • Re:Ah, Rio.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by fox171171 ( 1425329 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @09:40PM (#52632729)

      The Rio Olympics will appear so clear in 8K you'll be able to feel your skin crawl with excitement.

      I thought you said excrement.

      • The Rio Olympics will appear so clear in 8K you'll be able to feel your skin crawl with excitement.

        I thought you said excrement.

        That comment is nigh-upon perfect, since the very first thing I thought upon reading the fine headline was that you'd be able to count turds and identify corpses from home.

  • Porn in 8K resolution. There would be no way to hide any sort of blemish. You'll be able to see things that you will NEVER be able to un-see.
    There is not enough eye bleach in the world to undo the damage suffered.

  • That ought to be enough for anybody.

  • 640K should be enough for anyone (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pseudonymus Bosch ( 3479 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @06:45PM (#52631843) Homepage

    Bill Gates said so.

  • So in order to get that resolution in an OTA broadcast, do you start using several channels worth of bandwidth, or do you compress the living daylights out of it (with the resultant shitty picture quality, especially during motion), or both?

    As someone else pointed out, this is kinda dumb, who is even going to notice the difference between 4K (which hasn't even really begun to roll out yet) and this? Also, as someone else pointed out, how many people are going to have the money or the room for a set big eno

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TheSync ( 5291 )

      So in order to get that resolution in an OTA broadcast, do you start using several channels worth of bandwidth, or do you compress the living daylights out of it

      You definitely use HEVC/H.265 encoding to get the best compression, but to go over-the-air you need Ultra-multilevel OFDM (4096 constellation points), Dual-polarized MIMO (using horizontal and vertical polarizations simultaneously to transmit twice as much information as single-input single-output), and Large-sized FFT (reduces the ratio of guard i

      • 4-digit Slashdot UID!

        Hello there!

        I don't have the math to understand all that on a deep level, but I'm somewhat pleased with myself to be able to at least follow what theyr'e doing there. I'm really not an RF guy so it never occurred to me that you could do both polarizations simultaneously like that, that's genius. H.265 isn't crappy digital video compression, either, which is mainly what I'd worry about; I still have a bitter taste in my mouth, even after all these years, after learning the Ugly Truth about cable television

  • ...you can see the viruses as they infect the athletes!

  • 8K means nothing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PJ6 ( 1151747 ) on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @08:29PM (#52632399)
    if they don't tell you the bitrate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The current test broadcasts are 91Mb/sec with H.264 encoding at 60 frames per second and 8 bit colour. The raw video is around 48Gb/sec.

      I'm wondering if they might switch to H.265 for the final system. They have developed 120 FPS cameras now and ideally the colour wants to go to 10 bit/channel, so potentially the data rate could be even higher. I'm not sure what the satellite broadcasts are going to be.

      Just to give you an idea, consider what is needed to handle the uncompressed video. 48Gb/sec is 6GB per se

  • There was an article in Scientific American or something a few years about the upcoming resolution for video. They basically said 8K is being build out for all broadcasting. That way public places like airports, sports arenas, malls (if they still exit), billboards can display video feeds on 20ft screens or more and picture quality will look great. People at home who want the best video, especially those with home theater or other ways to have 8-10ft screen will also watch the same 8k feeds. secondary o
  • Now I'm looking for:
    8K ready
    3D ready
    VR ready
    And of course, *Curved*. Anything less than this has an obvious lack of gimmicks.
  • Out on the farm I jest got rid of my TV that ran on propane.
  • We'll actually be able to see the athlete's being attacked by the manifold microorganisms on offer by Rio. The amoeba are a solid lock for gold.

  • Consumer photography has significantly diminishing returns at higher pixel density. Sensor signal to noise generally decreases with decreasing pixel size. Are the broadcast camera sensors capable of recording high quality images in 8K resolution?

  • Yeah Japan is starting to broadcast 8k channels. What about the video actually coming from Brazil? I bet is at most the "UHD" resolution (not actually 4k as stated in these comments).

  • Great! So the TV I haven't even bought yet is already obsolete!

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close