backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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.