backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by Das Capitolin.. on Jun 3 at 11:59 AM


Super Hi-Vision compared (Source: Digital World Tokyo)

The latest prototype sensor (Source: IDG)

Circuitry with a view (Source: IDG)
Super Hi-Vision makes 1080p HDTV appear as clear as a Vaseline smear

Although high-definition formats HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc are the bleeding edge of technology in the current consumer market, a new technology from Japan makes the latest HD movies specifications look simply archaic. Last week, engineers at NHK's (Nippon Hoso Kyokai) Science and Technical Research Laboratories demonstrated Super Hi-Vision technology capable of a 7680x4320 resolution, reports IDG.

At 7680x4320, over 33 million pixels make up the image – this represents 16 times the resolution of a 1080p image. To get a picture of the bump in resolution, a Super Hi-Vision image could be approximated by tiling 16 of today’s best HDTVs together. In comparison, a 1080p picture represents a six-fold jump in resolution over standard-definition television.

Unlike current HD cameras, which are hitting the hands of consumers, the Super Hi-Vision camera sensors are not yet able to capture a full color picture. The latest prototype Super Hi-Vision sensor is monochrome, but NHK plans to incorporate three sensors – one for each primary color – in order to capture color images. The prototype is super-fast too, able to capture data at a rate of 4,000 frames per second.

NHK is also working on a sound system to complement the improved image. While today’s best home theaters have 7.1 setups, the audio component paired with Super Hi-Vision is 22.2.

However, it may be quite some time before such an image is delivered on media, let alone broadcasted, as an uncompressed signal requires a bit-rate of 24Gbps. A single minute of Super Hi-Vision footage would require 194 GB of storage.

To help ease that burden, NHK is enlisting the help of ATEME, a provider of MPEG-4 and H.264 solutions, to compress the 7680 x 4320 "Ultra HD" video – creating a new video standard. ATEME says that it is currently cooperating closely with NHK Labs in the design and development of this next-generation standard using existing MPEG-4 AVC compression technology.

"We are very excited to be partnered with NHK - the leading broadcaster in the world for advanced technology implementation - for Ultra HD," said Benoit Fouchard, Vice President of Sales, Broadcast and Broadband for ATEME. "ATEME's MPEG-4 AVC encoding has always been accepted as the world's best, and NHK's sole reliance on our technology proves we are fully capable of scaling to the ultimate in bandwidth and quality requirements for HD. We are very proud to be working with them and look forward to a continued partnership with NHK."

Super Hi-Vision cameras, recorders, encoders and projectors are under development and the introduction of a new Ultra HD standard is planned for 2009. NHK estimates that satellite transmission tests will begin in 2011, and by 2020, Ultra HD will be ready for broadcast to households.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

mhm
By Visual on 5/30/2007 4:41:03 AM , Rating: 5
its not the first time someone tries to awe the public with big talk like this... i thought we have to go through QHDTV (3840x2048) before we get to the insane resolution they're talking about...

while higher and higher video resolutions are always a good thing, even on normal 1080p displays (would allow fantastic user-controlled zoom-in and scene panning, for instance) the 22.2 sound setup they mention is absolutely ridiculous and unneeded. makes the whole deal read much like an april's fools joke.

their 4000fps camera sensors are also either an unbelievable tech breakthrough or a joke.

and i absolutely dont know what to think of their timeframe estimates... on one hand it seems incredibly close for such a significant improvement, and would be really good if it proves right. on the other hand, it still says nothing about the immediate future, so sounds like a way for them to get public attention without having to do anything for quite a while yet.




RE: mhm
By bruceallen on 5/30/2007 5:13:29 AM , Rating: 3
I'm a big fan of having a small number of decent speakers rather than 22 speakers that suck.

That said, I have heard Tom Holman's 10.1 surround sound system demonstrated and it is amazing. Totally real.

4000fps sensors are totally within the realm ofs possibility. Vision Research's Phantom HD camera can record HD at 1000fps and it is available to rent now. I was post supervisor / colorist / vfx director on a music vid shot with an earlier generation of their cameras and the results looked great.

I think that this is all relatively logical and in keeping with Moore's law. The main problem will actually be getting a cine lens that can be light and easy to use but can resolve a full 33-megapixel image. It's difficult to imagine a handheld news camera packing that kind of lens... Moore's law doesn't apply to glass, sadly.

Anyway, I can't wait to direct an Ultra HD music video... should be fun.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com


RE: mhm
By bruceallen on 5/30/2007 5:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
Whoops, did I say 10.1? I meant 10.2...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com


RE: mhm
By anonymo on 5/30/2007 7:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'll never understand how anyone who knows anything about acoustics would even consider 2 subs. Every time I see anything about 10.2 or (rofl) 22.2 I know right away either it's a joke or someone trying to sound bleeding edge. Sub 100hz frequencies are omni-directional and the first wave generally doesn't repeat within the first 10m, so what possible reason could anyone ever have for 2 of them?


RE: mhm
By monitorjbl on 5/30/2007 7:39:14 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe he just wanted his surround sound setup to have some bumpin' bass.


RE: mhm
By ralith on 5/30/2007 8:46:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sub 100hz frequencies are omni-directional

I'm skeptical of this seeing as how I've always been able to turn my head towards and find the sub in a room I've never been in before. Care to find a link describing what your talking about in more detail? I've looked, but not found anything relevant from googling omnidirectional sound, low frequency omnidirectional sound, etc.


RE: mhm
By Aikouka on 5/30/2007 8:58:58 AM , Rating: 4
That's because from point to point, there's still one "main" line from the source to the destination. I've never seen a .2 setup, but I'd guess the second sub is placed behind you to accurately reflect the lows that occur in objects that are in the 180 degree hemisphere behind you rather than having all 360 degrees produced by the one in front of you like a standard .1 setup. So like if a truck is coming up from behind in a movie, the rumbling from the engine would be produced by the rear woofer rather than the front, so your ears pick the sound up as coming from behind you.

That's my take on it...


RE: mhm
By therealnickdanger on 5/30/2007 10:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't know about sub-100Hz being omni-directional either, you have to go a bit lower than that, but it will depend greatly on room geometry and sub placement. I've got my REL Q201E cut off at about 45Hz and with frequencies that low (and below), you really only feel it. I've got a smaller REL Q108E that I have considered connecting as well, but it doesn't have same wall-shaking power. Low, tight base is all I look for.

The reason I want to get a second Q201E is because of my theater layout. The room has unique wall and ceiling angles that no single sub can satisfy every seat without being too powerful in one spot and not enough in another. Regardless of how low a frequency gets, it's still subject to the same principles of other frequencies. With two subs, I could blanket every seat in my theater with proper, balanced LFE greatness.


RE: mhm
By peternelson on 5/31/2007 11:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say there is some basis to this certainly the ears/brain combo is more able to directionally locate higher frequencies, however there is even more to it than that.

It was found that although a fire engine siren wailing can be heard, other drivers could not easily tell what direction it was from to get out of the way (compounded by echoes off buildings etc). A modified siren that had the tone interrupted by a quick burst of white noise gave the brain more capability to locate the direction (noise on it's own would stand out less in traffic hence they alternate between the two giving both alerting and direction).

There are other psychoacoustic effects like the auditory masking of closely grouped frequencies, a phenomenon used in some compression schemes.


RE: mhm
By DarkElfa on 5/30/2007 8:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's very simple, one sub is used for high high end frequency and the other for low. Basically for the same reason that a 3 way speaker sounds better than a 2 way speaker...as long as the crossovers are good.

but yes, you would have one between 40 and 90 and 1 between 10 and 40.


RE: mhm
By JBLperformance on 5/30/2007 9:30:39 AM , Rating: 1
The best designed speakers are 2 way systems, usually seen with an added ultra high frequency transducer so they can meet all these new specs and claim some BS rating about how far they go out the huam hearing range. And please don't give me the 'harmonics' argument. Ask any speaker designer which is better, 2 or 3 way design.


RE: mhm
By theapparition on 5/31/2007 8:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
There is considerable argument that 1 way systems (a full range driver) is even better. Or would the best design have 1 speaker for each individual frequency? I personally don't buy any of those arguments, either way. But to just blindly say that 2 way are better than 3 way is wrong.

Any type of system configuration, designed properly, can sound pretty good. 3 way designs were very popular years ago since the drivers were not capable of fuller range of operation. Two way designs have become popular since advances in driver technology has eliminated some of the bottlenecks of the past. It is also much easier to design a 2 way system (and even easier 1 way) because of the geometry lobing effects. Crossover design plays a signifigant role considering order and phase shift. Cabinet construction and geometry is huge. And do you go sealed, ported, open baffle, infinate baffle, transmission line, folded horn, etc, etc, forever. And the most important part of speaker design, is the room they are placed in. Without custom building, the best sounding (in an anaechoic chamber) speaker can sound like utter crap in the wrong room.

I've designed almost every system I've owned (just another expensive hobby!). My main home theater room now uses 13 Raven R3's, and close to 70 Focal and PHL drivers in dipole, MTM and line array configurations. I have a 2+2 sub configuration, and as masher2 posted below, flank the sides of the room. 2 handle ultra low frequencies with massive excursions, the other 2 handle up to 80Hz. Frequencies below 80hz are indeed quite non-directional, but most systems run subs up to 150+Hz. Those Bose acustamas modules even ran up to 230Hz (if memory serves). No wonder people (as was posted above) are able to find where the subs are. And BTW, the ravens go up to 50KHz and are unbelieveably sweet.

Speakers are more of an art than an exact science. I say that because if you get a room full of audio "experts" in the exact same controled conditions, you'd problably get different answers from each, since each reviewer's hearing is different.


RE: mhm
By JBLperformance on 6/1/2007 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds incredibly...INSANE! There is no reason you would need that many speakers in one theater unless you own the largest theater in the world. Lets take a look at JBL, not arguably the best, but indeed the best speaker manufacturer. Look at their synthesis systems and see how many speakers the pros use for complete systems totalling $150k and up. Only 7 speakers for a room up to 100,000 cubic feet. Whats more impressive-doing it right with 7 speakers, or 70+ drivers? Only thing I see you bragging about is how much $ you wasted.

As far as speaker DESIGN, the room/placement is not important. It IS though, important in playback. The anechoic chamber just eliminates all the headaches of a room by eliminating reflections so only the speaker is heard.

I use to love selling hi end audio gear to you rich guys with yor beloved Focals and impossible to place Martin Logan electrostats, which I do enjoy listening to if you can ever place them correctly. Now some of these speakers sound great, but only at low volumes. They rarely have any balls when it comes to playing at decent levels-hence you need so many. If they are so great, why can't ANY of them make a system from top to bottom; mids, his and subs? A great speaker manufacturer should be able to do so. However, this is seldom the case.

And who gives Bose any credit in the hi end world???


RE: mhm
By wallijonn on 5/30/2007 11:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
what possible reason could anyone ever have for 2 of them?


A sub directly in front and a sub directly behind, under the seat of the viewer or mounted on the ceiling directly behind the viewer. A rear mounted sub wouldn't have the reflective obstructions of furniture and drapes.


RE: mhm
By masher2 (blog) on 5/30/2007 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 4
> "I'll never understand how anyone who knows anything about acoustics would even consider 2 subs"

You misunderstand the reason for the second sub. Its not to increase directionality, but to reduce room resonance. You place one sub on the left and one on the right; each corner has opposite phase effects, which cancels the horizontsal standing wave you'd otherwise get.

Ultra-high end systems use even more than two subs, to cancel higher-order harmonics.


RE: mhm
By Kaleid on 5/30/2007 8:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
With two subs you can actually lower the distorsion produced by each subwoofer.

Example of a very good 2.2 system:
http://www.faktiskt.se/modules/viewimg.php?img_url...


RE: mhm
By Ajax9000 on 5/30/2007 8:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll never understand how anyone who knows anything about acoustics would even consider 2 subs.

Well there is an interesting paper that looks at the issue of how may subs are worthwhile from both "theoretical room" and "real room" perspectives (http://www.audiovideointeriors.com/images/archives... The conclusion was that in practice 2 or 4 subs do give improvements, but any more isn't worth it.


RE: mhm
By peternelson on 5/31/2007 11:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
I saw this Ultra HD video setup at National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) trade show in Las Vegas in April (along with lots of other cool stuff).

It is very impressive, even a 4K screen is impressive so Ultra is teh resolution!

As for acquisition of 4000 fps, there are some good things in time trickery you can do to that content without having to interpolate frames out of nothing. eg think bullettime sequences in the Matrix (aka "flomo"), or slow motion sports playback.

As for multichannel audio I've heard Birmingham electro acoustic sound theatre (BEAST) linked to Birmingham Uni, England play a performance through their "sound diffusion system" which consist of many sets of 6 speakers surrounded above your head. There are multitrack recorders playing through a multichannel desk "performed" ie mixed in realtime. If you close your eyes the spatial effects that many speakers can give you is wild!

Also as for subs. One day a "professional" sound team came to install audio in a building for us, and realised there were not enough cables through the roof. Their simple solution was to place the bass at the back of the room by the mixing desk, and the treble at the front. When I queried this, they said "BASS ISN'T DIRECTIONAL".

That seemed to be what you were saying as rationale for 1 being as good as 2. However I quickly pointed out to them that although in a sense I agreed, driving the bass from the back and treble from the front might not be ideal. Consider someone sat near the back would hear more bass (being nearer) and someone at the front hears more treble. Therefore there is no point at all to EQ the room or your speakers or desk, because the frequency response you will hear depends on where you sit. That is REALLY dumb. For THAT reason when playing to a large audience (ie not an armchair) it is of definite benefit if you can have multiple bass or subwoofers. You might drive them with identical input, then again you might not. If acquired with the right setup (or synthesised) you could for instance create some effects. Multiple speakers ensure all can get the full effect without those sat right in front of the woofer needing to be deafened.

The other benefit of two bass channels is if one track is corrupted, loose wire, noise, faulty mic during acquisition, you should at least have the other bass track as a backup for mastering with, otherwise you'd have to reshoot the whole take to record the audio properly which is prohibitively expensive in cast, crew, equipment costs and time.


RE: mhm
By MrCoyote on 6/2/2007 8:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
What is the purpose of 1000fps if the end product is still limited to 24fps in theaters and 30fps NTSC? This is what needs to be changed. It's time for Hollywood to adopt a faster frame rate, such as the previously touted Maxivision Cinema 48fps, or Super Dimension-70 shot at 48fps . I'm tired of going to the theaters and watching the flickering/stuttering 24fps. Fast action films could definitely benefit from increased frame rate.


RE: mhm
By Schrag4 on 5/30/2007 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
This sounded like a joke to me too. The storage/bandwitch requirements are nowhere near what we'll have as consumers anytime soon.

As I think about it more, I'm guessing as consumers we won't be watching video at these insane resolutions or framerates. However, the capture of video at extremely high res and at high framerates could be useful not only for the entertainment industry but perhaps for the scientific community as well. We'll still watch it at 1080p and at 'low' framerates at home, but the editors of the movies/programs will have better video from which to crop/etc. Keep in mind I'm talking about the timeframes that are specified in the article, not 50 years out. I think in 50 years we'll have something better than this even...


RE: mhm
By peternelson on 5/31/2007 11:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
future: stereo cameras perhaps giving ability to resolve depth in 3D. (eg as a cat sways its head from side to side as it walks giving better depth perception).

That tech exists already along with 3D screens and was on demo at the NAB show. And since that only gives you depth perception left to right like our eyes, for some applications four cameras together would let you get further data out of the pictures. Thus you might one day had a quad (or even panoramic) camera, some box that calculates the depth and perspective generating a 3d model, taking the textures on the surfaces it sees and stretching them to render onto a transformed version of the 3d model. In that way you may be able to change your point of view AFTER shooting the footage. I think that was the future alluded to by the effects guy in the material about the making of The Matrix.


RE: mhm
By Micronite on 5/30/2007 3:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it sounds rediculous for something I'd put in my home (for now anyway). However, I can see Hollywood latching on to this.
Movies used to be 4x3. Then the TV happened, so in order to keep you coming to theaters, Hollywood adopted widescreen. Now that widescreen is becoming a standard, Hollywood will need to come up with something else to keep you coming to the theaters. I can see this super-HD being just that.


Very high bandwidth for color
By ralith on 5/30/2007 9:15:56 AM , Rating: 3
In monochrome.
4000 frames/second * 7680 vertical lines * 4320 horizontal lines * 1 bit for colors per pixel = 132710400000 b/s = 15.44 GB/s.

In color.
4000 frames/second * 7680 vertical lines * 4320 horizontal lines * 32(?) bit for colors per pixel = 4246732800000 b/s = 494.4 GB/s.

Uncompressed color exceeds current graphics card bandwidth! They're going to have some interesting custom hardware for this stuff. I wonder what type of compression ratios they are going to be shooting for when they compress this stuff. Man it is going to take one serious system to decompress this realtime.




RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By ian whthse on 5/30/2007 9:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
Cameras, at least "traditional" HD/DV cameras don't use 32-bits per color (that's a huge amount, I think you'll agree).

They usually use between 10 and 14 bits per color.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By namechamps on 5/30/2007 6:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
he didn't say 32bit per color he said 32bit color. While color isn't 32bit (even on PC 32bit is 24bit + 8 transparency) his numbers are right on.
10bit/color would be 30bit
12bit/color would be 36bit

10bit would be slightly less than the # he quoted and 12bit would be slightly more.

Anyways the point is valid. We have nothing capable of that level of bandwidth. Even processing 4K (8MP or about 4x 1080P) takes tremendous computing power, bandwidth, and storage. Getting 4K in the living room would be a better idea than this ultra high tech nonsense.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By Ajax9000 on 5/30/2007 8:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Getting 4K in the living room would be a better idea than this ultra high tech nonsense.


Seconded.

But only if it is at 72Hz or higher!


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By nayy on 5/30/2007 9:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
Consider this is going to become mainstream in more than a decade, by that time regular CPUs and GPUs will probably be capable of handeling the load


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By darkpuppet on 5/30/2007 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
considering that HD was introduced in 1969, I think there's a bit of time before UHD comes into vogue...


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2007 1:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
PWND!

lol yes, this is true. I have a mitsubishi HDTV from the early 80's. hm..... it was a japan only model I bought in NYCity. It was out LONG ago to consumers not in america or europe.

Does anyone realize that 1080p is not used by networks for broadcast? they only use 720p at best. (we can say 1080i but its a useless format I feel over the "p" types)

Imagine the bandwidth costs of feeding 20x higher than they would ever want to.... "not gona do it" - Bush Senior

Ever read the book 1984? Yeah, its about as accurate a prediction as that. Not that I do not want it, but please.


By michal1980 on 5/31/2007 8:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
1080i is standard broadcast hd format. sorry to burst your bubble.


By Mintmanas on 6/1/2007 7:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
In the UK the over the air BBC HD channel is broadcast in 1080p, wish it was 720p tho, my PC can't quite decode H264 in real time at that resolution so I have to record it reecode it at 1280x720 and then watch it to avoid skipped frames.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By AMDfreak on 5/30/2007 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 1
Bring on the Core4 Extreme Hexadec CPUs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecagon


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By ralith on 5/30/2007 11:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Never said those future systems wouldn't be able to handle it. I just thought that:
1. It sounded like the dudes at the university were going to be getting some very cool custom hardware to play with;
2. Some serious computing power that we'll be taking for granted about 10 years from now.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By jconan on 5/31/2007 8:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
This resolution is gonna be behemoth in processing power requirements that even a teraflops processor won't be enough. It's gonna need some etremely specialized DSP encode and decode and even inphase holodiscs won't be enough to store the data for consumer distribution. Plus the 3d rendering for this resolution will take forever to render but the will the texture be close enough to life quality that someone will actually be able to tell the difference of the weave in fiber in a cloth or a scratch on the paint surface of a car?


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By maroon1 on 5/30/2007 10:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
Modern cameras usually have 24-bit of color, not 32-bit


By peternelson on 6/2/2007 12:28:35 AM , Rating: 2
"Modern cameras usually have 24-bit of color, not 32-bit"

Sorry maroon1, but by 24 bit per pixel you mean 8 bits per colour channel and you OUGHT to say..... "modern CONSUMER eg mini-DV cameras (and DVD content) usually have 24-bit color",

whereas the discussion above was in relation to colour depth in HD formats eg PROFESSIONAL raw HDSDI and similar where 10 or 12 bits per channel is commonplace. The HD disk formats HD-DVD and Bluray are not limited to 8 bits per color.

Further if you want to telecine some film you may scan it at perhaps 12,14,16 bpcc (and don't mention linear vs log) then do your color grading etc, before using the video at standard bit depths (or retain the depth during post production special effects).


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By Webgod on 5/30/2007 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 4
On the rizeal I think 4000 fps would be something left to experiments, or other special purposes. It's more reasonable to think that they might grant 60 fps to the public for broadcast (if possible, but maybe with compression) and leave a higher rate for recorded media, like LMNOPVD's. I think people would be really happy with 100, 120, or 200 fps.

It would be awesome if they started shooting movies even at 60 fps. I saw the Gone in 60 Seconds in the theaters a few years ago, and I (seriously) was like, man, this 24 fps is holding back the sensation of the speed they're driving at.

But realisticly we're only talking about Japan at this point. There are a lot of problems to solve to bring this to the US public. It could take 3 to 4 times as long to bring to the US, and HD in Japan vs the US was what, ~12 years? So perhaps even longer with the slug-like pace of Big Media and the telecoms. Then call me cynical, but another several years more to flog the patent trolls.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By gsellis on 5/31/2007 8:21:32 AM , Rating: 3
The cinema folks are really stuck in the 30's and want 24p still.

Side note, it is nice to see Sony trying to step up to the RED Cinema challenge. Now they just need to hit the price. RED does up to 4.5k at 60fps or 2k at 120fps. 4k using the REDCode (custom codec created by Nattress, Lohman, and their band of merry men) is 27MBps.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By Oregonian2 on 5/30/2007 1:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
The monochrome wouldn't be 1-bit per pixel, that would be a line drawing with no shading. Should allow at least 12 bits per pixel in monochrome.

Others have commented on your 32-bit per pixel color. Normal crappy PC video is usually at least 24-bit (8-bit per color). Seeing as how this is a super-high quality image resolution wise, it'd seem dumb to have perfect resolution and crap color, so at least 12~14 bits per color I think is reasonable (36~42 bits total per pixel).

Just a note that in 24-bit color, one has only 8-bits per color which means for something like a red-image, one has only 256 shadings between solid loud red and black. Adequate for TV, but not really photographic (which the resolution does provide).


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By ralith on 5/30/2007 11:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Monochrome taken in the context of picture means black or white, which can be represented by 1 bit. E.g. 0 = off (black) 1 = on white. I for one can't see why anyone would waste space on the other 11 bits you are alluding to. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochrome for more explaination. What your alluding to sounds more like greyscale which is a whole different beasty. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale for more on what you seem to be talking about.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By PrimarchLion on 5/31/2007 1:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
The sensor used for the camera probably is grayscale. The article says that they will use three of them to make a full color image. Would not be very interesting if they used three purely monochromatic sensors. Only 8 color combinations.


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By ralith on 5/31/2007 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
From the article:
quote:
The latest prototype Super Hi-Vision sensor is monochrome, but NHK plans to incorporate three sensors – one for each primary color – in order to capture color images.


I'll take what they say at face value and assume that it is monochrome. As you can see they said "primary colors" which generally means blue, green, red. So they will have a sensor for blue, a sensor for green, and a sensor for red. This is a common practice with higher end video cameras even today see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3CCD .


RE: Very high bandwidth for color
By Oregonian2 on 5/31/2007 5:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Monochrome" has always meant "with grayscale". Old TV's before color was added to NTSC had a grayscale. The analog luminence signal wasn't digital with only two states. Monochrome just means that there's one color (color of the CRT's phosphor), it doesn't mean no variation in brightness (grayscale). It's even literal in the name "Mono" - "chrome", one color. Not "no shading".


By Oregonian2 on 5/31/2007 6:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - That Wikipedia article needs some editing. Whomever wrote it was a slight bit off in his/her definition's emphasis (but was hedging a lot). Forgot to mention that olden days monochrome TV was called "Black and White", but it still had greyscale. Always did. It's in the 1940's NTSC standard. The ONLY "monochrome" I can think of that was generally only two states was the early CRT computer displays that were primarily text only. And even then it usually was amber and black or green and black. But that wasn't TV (what this thread is about) or photographic, which is related. My film recorders have in them a 7" rectangular hi-res monochromatic CRT, and they use RGB filters sequentially to paint photos onto film. Grayscale is the whole point of that unit, results in the full color image onto film (it's the opposite of a film scanner -- so one can go back and forth between film and digital images). Because the monchrome CRT's phosphor is continuous (no stripes or dots as on color CRTs) it's higher res that way overall.


I find it ironic...
By drunkenmastermind on 5/30/2007 8:00:13 AM , Rating: 5
That the 4869_large_070529_NHK_-SHV.png image to visually depict the comparison of Super Hi Vision to HDV is one of the the most dirty, disgusting crustiest images I have ever seen.

Ha




RE: I find it ironic...
By monitorjbl on 5/30/2007 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
I especially love how small the people are. If everything is in proportion, that screen is bigger than my house.

And I am so totally getting one.


RE: I find it ironic...
By masher2 (blog) on 5/30/2007 12:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
The picture doesn't explain it well, but this isn't about increased screen size as much as increased field of view. The higher resolution allows you to sit much closer to the screen without noticeable pixellation, which means the screen image occults a much larger percentage of your total field of view.

Whereas normal SDTV encompasses about a 20 degree FOV and HDTV 30 degrees, this would allow a 100 degree FOV. Humans vision is around 160 degrees, so this is pretty close to 'surround vision'.


RE: I find it ironic...
By mezman on 5/30/2007 3:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Get ready to have a lot of motion-sick people watching TV. If people get motion sick at IMAX movies, I don't see how this would be any better.


RE: I find it ironic...
By Webreviews on 5/31/2007 9:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the "effective" resolution of IMAX is. Granted, it used silver halide film, but if IMAX were digital what would be the resolution? (And by IMAX, I mean the full sized one such as you have in Boston, that covers the entire field of view, not the wimpy cut-down sized ones you have in Baltimore and DC.)


RE: I find it ironic...
By tygrus on 6/2/2007 10:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
We may have some peripheral vision that extends to 160 degrees wide, but we can't see, process and absorb everything at max res. I have to move my eyes/focus to see the game+score+ headlines. 20" 4:3 CRT at 3-4m. We have good detail in the middle, not so good further away. Big screen is a waste unless it's because of choice and no fast action.


Nice
By Herrterror on 5/30/2007 9:39:48 AM , Rating: 5
"demonstrated Super Hi-Vision technology capable of a 7680x4320 resolution" with a press packet containing a comparison image made in Microsoft paint.




RE: Nice
By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2007 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
PWND!


Vaseline?
By masteraleph on 5/30/2007 9:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Super Hi-Vision makes 1080p HDTV appear as clear as a Vaseline smear


Oh?

Have you actually seen said image? Do you have any evidence to suggest that people can perceive the difference between this new standard and one with, say, half the resolution? (or even a quarter?) Or is this just a theoretical vaseline smear?




RE: Vaseline?
By AvidDailyTechie on 5/30/2007 4:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
theoretical vaseline smear


lol, saucy

I think the dot pitch or pixle size would remain the same, so you'd end up with a very large tele... When the difference becomes inpreceiveable then they'll just scale with size I'd imagine...


RE: Vaseline?
By finnmich on 5/31/2007 7:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
I've seen the NHK demonstration and a demontration of Sony 4K(quarter the resolution), the difference is DEFINITELY noticeable!


RIAA heard of this?
By AvidDailyTechie on 5/30/2007 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
now if someone wanted to get serious about piracy

quote:
...an uncompressed signal requires a bit-rate of 24Gbps. A single minute of Super Hi-Vision footage would require 194 GB of storage.


would sink thepiratebay--at least for us here in the US




RE: RIAA heard of this?
By Ver Greeneyes on 5/31/2007 9:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
ThePirateBay doesn't host any of the files the .torrent files link to, y'know. They're not hosted by any servers, they're uploaded by its users. Also remember that compression will compress this down to 10% of the uncompressed size if not lower (still very big, but more manageable)


RE: RIAA heard of this?
By Xavian on 6/2/2007 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
By the time this comes available, we will all be using 1Gbps links to the Internet2. We will also be using 100TB drives via a holographic medium.

So... yeah, people will be able to handle it, by the time it comes out. Not to mention we'll probably be using a Core 10 Duo/AMD Phenom 1000 processor to decrypt and copy those rental DVD's ;)


Vindicated
By masher2 (blog) on 5/30/2007 9:57:11 AM , Rating: 3
I've had more than a few debates here with people who believe 1080p will be "the" standard for the next 50 years, merely because of the past longevity of the old NTSC standard. The market today is vastly different, of course, and I've long said that higher-quality broadcast standards are just around the corner.




RE: Vindicated
By darkpuppet on 5/30/2007 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think the adoption rate of UHDTV if it comes out and is technically feasible will be hampered by whatever infrastructure that's already in place.

If it were simply reliant on everyone just buying a new TV, and you didn't have the question of bandwidth, compression, etc, then sure, it'll be here in 20 years max.

However, that's not quite the case. I do, however, think that it'll find broader adoption in niche markets including theatres, science/technology fields, etc...


WHAT A JOKE!!
By politicalslug on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: WHAT A JOKE!!
By Miggle on 5/30/2007 5:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, you've got to start somewhere. Not everything that's done needs to be mainstream right away.


RE: WHAT A JOKE!!
By someguy123 on 5/30/2007 5:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, this is technology designed now to be implemented whenever feasable. HD was available decades ago, but other technology just wasn't up to speed yet.


Format Wars
By Mitch101 on 5/30/2007 12:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone ready for the UHHD-DVD and Green-Ray wars in 2015? Im sure it will come down to sales of the PS5 and XBox 1920 though. What fun would it be without splitting consumers to one side or another.

Start working on your flame war statements now.




RE: Format Wars
By Xavian on 6/2/2007 7:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
But the Wii3 will put them both out of business.


IMAX!!
By supaflydaddyc on 5/30/2007 1:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Can you imagine Spiderman 10 in Super Hi-Vision?! :-D




RE: IMAX!!
By Webreviews on 5/31/2007 9:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like crappy content in even higher definition. Woo-hoo... (please note the sarcasm)


Finally!
By Goty on 5/30/2007 8:25:09 AM , Rating: 3
Look! A format that might actually need the amount of space available on a Blu-Ray Disc. Too bad it won't be here for another 13 years.




i've seen this!
By finnmich on 5/30/2007 5:13:33 AM , Rating: 2
I was in Japan with my university just before easter and we vitisted NHK's labs in Tokyo. We got a demonstration of this and it's definatly the most insane tech demo i've ever seen! We also visited the Sony building, and got a demonstration of their 4K Cinema technology... You can't even compare the two demos!
That beings said, NHK has a long way to go before something like this can be used in cinemas or homes, you need to upgrade the entire production line, broadcasting, screens/projectors+++ But im looking forward to 2020;) 4K is available now, in selected cinemas, at least here in Norway and in Japan




Here one hopes...
By Cunthor666 on 5/30/2007 7:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
I hope George Lucas is reading this article.




Theatres
By AlvinCool on 5/30/2007 8:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think this is being developed for home use. This technology is , I would think, for theatre use.




A Solution for Which There Was No Problem
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2007 1:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
NIce. i wish i hadnt written, I would up your vote.

sound levels in theatres already exceed osha standards.

yay.

going deaf for a movie that sux. yay.

22.2 would be neat though if you were a complete geek. 2 speakers for an audiophile normally do the trick for comprehending and enjoying a musical work. I guess if want to reinact what it is like to be in 'nam it would be good to have as many speakers as possible. then some schmuck who has no clue what 'nam actually sounded like will do the audio effects and editing making it sound more bassy and clear and loud than a real battle. yay.


I'll take 1080p first
By bunnyfubbles on 5/30/2007 11:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the current limit for HDTV is 720p/1080i, I'll [i]gladly[/i] "settle" for 1080p in the coming years if it can be done...progressive 1920x1080 @ 60fps...no more compromising with using 720p for sports and what not




When I think about it.
By Mitch101 on 5/30/2007 3:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
When I think about it I come up with a few things.

1-The massive resolution is great and can be utilized for movie theaters (Even a Digital to film transfer) and when possible for the home user. Sure its not ready for the home theater but thats ok. This would provide something superior for the movie theater while supporting a downscaled version of the recording for the home user with the ability to provide better versions as time progresses and the home cinema improves.

The problem today is that most recordings converted to HD today were not shot in high definition or digital so there is some loss in quality, detail, color over time. This process ensures future technology for the home will look better as the home technology scales closer to this massive resolution jump.

2-The 4000FPS while I read a lot of complaints is excellent for capturing super fast motion. Obviously you wont be watching a playback at 4000 fps. But 4000 fps recordings can be played back in wonderful detail for us at 24-60fps.

Being that all of this is digital if the shot is missed you just retake it until you get it. No wasted film.




I can't belive it
By henrikfm on 5/30/2007 3:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am sceptical about having large enough home-TVs in 2020 to enjoy movies at this resolution. The 22.2 audio makes me laugh.




By s12033722 on 5/30/2007 5:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
33 MP sensors are nothing new. Dalsa has had a 33 MP CCD out for a while, as have a few others. However, 4000 fps at 33 MP is highly unbelievable unless it is a burst capture that only takes a couple frames and then reads them out slowly. Current burst cameras are operating at 100 million FPS at 1k x 1k resolution, but only for 8 frames. It is possible that the sensor might be a CMOS sensor and be reading out a region of interest at 4000 fps, but not full resolution. I'd also be interested in knowing the dynamic range of the sensor along with the pixel size.




So... uh...
By Polynikes on 5/30/2007 5:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
This will never make it to the living room wide-scale. I mean, a 60" LCD is plenty enough. You'd have to devote an entire wall to fit that kind of resolution.




By biohazard420420 on 5/30/2007 8:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I can only really see this being put to use in movie theaters. For even a massive 100" screen at home hd resolution is by and large sufficicent. With resolution that high anything less than 100" would be useless as the average human could not resolve that kind of detail even with 20/20 vision. It is the same argument with 1080p resolution only being useful on screens 40" or larger. There is a limit to how much a human eye can resolve detail wise granted that depends on how accute your vision is but for the average joe 1080p or i or more than enough unless you want to sit 2 inches from a 50" screen and be able to make out EVERY blade of grass. How ever for a movie theater use this would be great and by movie theater i mean at least a 20 or 30 foot tall screen at that size the extra resolution will help sharpen the picture, because lets face it you go to the theater for the awesome sound (usually) and the huge picture but even with the new digital projectors the picture itself is a bit blurry i.e. no hard crisp edges that is where the mega ultra power hd will help but it is pointless for a home user. I think that is also what the 22.2 sound system is meant for as well, a 6.1 or 7.1 setup for the average home user assuming quality speakers is plenty. Beyond that and you dont really gain much from more speakers in a smallish room since the sound does not take that long to reach your ears.

I have always used this argument, you go to a movie theater for the great sound and the big picture even though in the past and sometimes now you can get a better although smaller picture at home but you dont have the awesome sound and it is the same reason you go to see a band live you will never get the same quality sound at a concert that you will from a cd but you get to see the band live. All this will do is bring movie theater sharpness to that of a quality hd tv at home.




Who has space for 22.2 speakers
By marco916 on 5/30/2007 8:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Where in the hell in Japan do you have space for 22.2 speakers, have you seen some of the living spaces of the average joes in Japan, let alone in the U.S where are you going to put 22.2 speakers in a average size house, the wife wouldn’t go for it. But you would be so deaf you wouldn't hear her anyway.




ITS NOT 22 SPEAKERS!
By thatguy39 on 5/31/2007 3:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
its not 22 speakers, do some research before you kill it. each speaker box has several speakers built it, each with its own channel. so now 1 speaker box has 1 speaker on 1 channel, in the future, 1 speaker box, would have 3 speakers on 3 channels.

just wiki it.




By Topweasel on 5/31/2007 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
The important thing about this technology is movies themselves. Since 99 more and more movies are recorded on HD video and not film. This means that the best quality of these movies are the 1080P thats available on My HD-DVD or someone else's Blu-Ray disc (just with more compression). Film is comparable to about a 6k resolution, so in the future when Ultra HD-DVD comes out pre-99 movies will actually look better with more detail then movies like Attack of the Clones.

If we can get this into film makers hands ASAP we will be able to keep our Movies constantly available at our viewing resolutions or higher for 50+ years. This decade is going to come back and bite viewers and the Studios asses in the future.




By Hoser McMoose on 5/31/2007 7:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
... men with small penises!




Just gimme the UHDTV :)
By Fritzr on 6/1/2007 1:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
The first application for this tech to appear will likely be the next generation of HiRes computer monitors. This is a TV standard that offers resolution beyond anything currently generally available.

The first generation will be expensive, but will be scarfed up by anyone working in CAD or other computer graphic oriented fields.

The next generation will target the office workers. Finally a screen big enough to scatter multiple documents across the desktop and actually see all of them at full size.

The one I dream of is the home version which will give me the ability to have a display that is 40" diag that has the same pixel size as a current 20". Think it's ridiculous? Well you can always return to using a 15" VGA monitor. Not likely, but that was a very large display for it's day and had a very high res 640x480 display that could display real fonts in 80 column glory :)




By winterspan on 6/1/2007 5:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imax

quote:
...The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution comparable to about 10000 x 7000 pixels.


Imax 70mm filmstock equiv to 70,000,000 pixels? 70 Megapixels is nearly twice the resolution of Ultra HD -- although I assume Ultra HD content would be used on much smaller projection sizes like a normal movie theater or even a large plasma/lcd HDTV..
What do you guys make of this?




my opinion
By george33387 on 6/1/2007 10:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
the image Its good for the cinemas its useless for homes.

.The ideal sound system for me would be and it always has been 26.1 or 26.4 if you want you would never need more than 26 believe me (if its supossed to be established in your room and not to the cinema)

the 26 speakers would be setup like this:
Top View
. . .
. o .
. . .

Side left view
. . .
. . .
. . .

side right

. . .
. . .
. . .

Front
. . .
. . .
. . .

Back
. . .
. . .
. . .

plus one at the bottom and one at the ceiling.

You wouldnt need more than that dont you agree?




By Das Capitolin on 6/3/2007 11:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
I suppose this means that the article I wrote titled Guide: How to shop for your first HDTV may soon need an update. http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_c...

Sure, I think that this is you average e-penis news release from the far east, but it does offer a solid glimpse of the future. 20.2 Channel sound? Seriously? That seems like a huge waste of money on about a dozen useless speakers.




By drunkenmastermind on 5/30/2007 8:30:08 AM , Rating: 1
7680/1920=4
4320/1080=4

The comparison shows the SHV as 5.5 times more vertical and horizontal than HDV.

Maybe some stupid office lady made that image? Pisses me off!




Just in time...
By SGTPan on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Just in time...
By darkpuppet on 5/30/2007 12:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
I actually don't recall Sony forcing HD down our throats... Do you have any supporting evidence?


RE: Just in time...
By elpresidente2075 on 5/30/2007 7:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Have you ever heard of the Blue Ray?!?! Its the FUTURE!!!"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ljZOHnZNaBc


RE: Just in time...
By deeznuts on 5/30/2007 7:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just in time for Sony to force down our throats as a PS4 standard!


Maybe you have something else getting forced down your throat Sony hasn't made me buy anything.


Old News
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki