Slashdot Mirror
Ultra High Definition Video
mr.henry writes "Engineers at the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) have developed a prototype ultra high definition video (UHDV) system. How good is it? When it was shown to the public, some viewers experienced nausea because of the ultra realistic visual effect of speed without the usual physical sensation of movement. 18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes." 4,000 horizontal scanlines. Excellent.
Brings a whole New Meaning to Live Broadcast :)
YES!
oh, and Star Trek will look nice as well.
...that the first third-party UHDV production will be pr0n?
insert obligatory virtual reality porn comment _here_ now, would one store this on their 1.11tb hard drive firewire array?
why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
Does anyone know which framerate(s) this system supports? 30/60hz seems likely since this is in Japan. And do they use interlacing?
I think I will be dead and cold before this new standard gets adopted :)
At least we will have something to take up all of that excess drive space...
Ligaguinggligagiggagoogoogwillgo
And I was just saying we'd never need 128 bits of memory addressing earlier this week.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
The question is what is the frame rate. At 60 fps (i) they may have experienced nausea from that. If it was 60 fps progressive that would be something very nice.
I'm starting to wish they would shoot movies at 60fps.
Can I hook my computer up to it? QUAKE!!! CUBE!!! DOOM!!! that would be so awesome!
Esoteric reference.
I bet if they displayed that seizure-inducing cartoon, we could have a real party!
The third rail of broadcasting?
Just one step closer to the Matrix. On a side note, it's also a novel way of giving people nausea and filling state-of-the-art hard drives in minutes flat - without installing Windows!
both your examples have equally quality plot AND dialog.
Let me know when they have a TV that improves the script.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Soo... getting sick is a feature?
Now I need to change my pants.
If it had been an ultra high resolution movie of a train coming at the camera, the audience might have died of fright.
Um, nauseau? Admittedly movies have a low (30) fps framerate, but film is already there in terms of definition. If people were getting sick, I'm skeptical that it was from the "ultra-high" resolution.
My cat can eat a whole watermelon
It sure uses a lot of bandwidth, even assuming it was compressed. How many channels could you carry in this format over existing cable infrastructure systems? 3, 4?
Shh.
Some people get nauseous looking at practically any video source. I don't suffer from this, but I know a lot of people who can't watch or play 3D games.
I don't think it's really a measure of how sharp a display is. Ever been in an Omnimax? That's a lot more immersive than a flat display, and higher resolution too. Seems like these same nauseous viewers would get the same reaction watching a regular film movie.
...
some viewers experienced nausea because of the ultra realistic visual effect of speed without the usual physical sensation of movement.
This is the japanese after all, even Pokemon gave thousands of them seizures.
Let's see...18 minutes of UHDV @ 3.5 terabytes... that is about 3.3 gigabytes being read every second. Let's hope you've got a really nice FC SAN array to play this from.
Now all we need is crystalline storage so we can record multi-audio track movies. 3.32GB/s of video will lead to high quality, but how is this supposed to be made consumer friendly?
...from Joe's Obsolete Video Card Company, the human eye cannot resolve beyond 640x480 pixels and any more than 24 fps. Anything faster or higher resolution is a waste of money.
Does anyone have any pictures of this online?
(that was supposed to be funny)
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
At 3.5 *terabytes* for 18 minutes of video, I doubt we'll see this in our homes for a good long while.
Maybe it's time to give those data-over-electric-lines people a kick in the pants.. get things moving along a little.
This process is really just a technical achievement. It was built by having existing devices function in parallel to produce more bandwidth on all edges. I highly doubt that anyone thought this was impossible beforehand. While this is an interesting hack, don't make the mistake that this is a significant contribution to human knowledge.
did someone develop an almost useless camera? or did they just figure some new way to do it without a camera? (ya right) someone fill me in
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
Actually, I think the biggest immediate problems are going to be:
a. finding a camera with 4000 lines of resolution at Fry's for less than $1500.
b. finding a 4000 line projector at Good Guys for less that $2000.
c. finding a 60 terabyte drive to hold the media for your average stupid hollywood star vehicle, at any price.
Actually, there will prolly be all the money and drive space in the world for that crap. *sigh*. Just what I need - 60 Tb of Leonardo DiCrapio.... or Demi Moore. or JLo... or Affleck...Urk. As if any of them are worth 4.7gigs of plastic and aluminium, much less 60Tb of hard earned drive space...
Oh, welll...Moore's law to the Rescue, doubletime!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Here's the explanation, for those who missed out on this one.
Omnimax has great picture quality, and I always get the feeling of movement (which I suppose could turn to nausea in more sensitive people) when I watch an Omni movie... Anybody have a comparison between the two specs (yes, I know one is film-based)?
.
At last there is another use for those penis enlargement spams.
The hard disks you will need for this kind of video will put pinocchio to shame.
.
In every article on recent PC advancements, there have been remarks along the lines of "who needs 64-bit on the desktop" and "how are we ever going to fill a 250GB hard disk". This should shut them up for a while. Remember what passed for "rich multimedia experience" only 10 years ago? Grainy 15fps 320x200 video clips that lasted half a minute. Playing something with dvd or divx quality from your hard disk seemed like science fiction. Who knows, maybe in 15 years our current dvd and divx quality will seem just as laughable.
And I just bought a $10,000 HD Plasma TV!!! Now it's obsolete!!! ::crys:: I can never win with technology!
What good is it, when the equipment is so expensive, and people's visual acuity isn't high enough to make it have any perceiveable difference?
I suspect that, at 6k scanlines, the cause of the nausia wasn't the quality, but the low FPS. 6k scanlines would be a lot to push, period. You'd need a very, very hardcore system (or set of systems) to get that to a screen at something sane. Many of the females I know were made ill by the first few generations of FPS games, due to how they pushed the hardware (low fps). Now that hardware is fast enough to put most FPS games at a dozen or so fps above 60 (or more) without a problem, most of these same people don't seem to have a problem with them (and sometimes even play them).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
>some viewers experienced nausea
>because of the ultra realistic visual
>effect of speed without the usual
>physical sensation of movement
Ummm, my 13" VGA monitor proved as powerful in 1991 when I played Wolfenstein 3-D. Half the dorm couldn't watch. Hell, 1995's Midi-Maze produced the same sensation of movement and nausea on my high-tek Atari 520 ST.
This is nothing new. What do you think you are looking at right now? Reality?
I think the nausea was caused when they were shown the suggested retail price.
at 3.5 terrabytes for 18 minutes a 100 minute will take roughly 19.5 terrabytes. At roughly a dollar a gig for large hard drives, or a little less for dvd's, that 20k for the storage media for a movie. I think that will give the MPAA a little breathing room.
Ah well.
This sig no verb.
This is obviously the MPAA's new copy protection scheme - if 18 minutes is 3 terabytes, then NOBODY's boing to be able to copy this.
/joke
.2 terabyte in a single US$220 Firewire drive bay right now - setting up 100 TB of RAID5 for a theater vs. having those huge IMAX movie rolls might not be a bad thing.
It will work just as well as their previous schemes - i.e. not at all, as people reduce the rez to something meaningful.
Seriously, this is something I've wondered about for IMAX/Omnimax style theaters - if they could go to a 60 Hz or better refresh rate it would really help on the long pans and flyover sequences, but since the screen is so large (or more precisely since the screen subtends such a large angle of the viewer's vision) you need a boatload of pixels to avoid the "pixels as big as your fist" effect.
And sure, it might at first seem difficult to have the 10 terabytes per 40 minute IMAX movie, but I have
Of course you'd need one HELL of a DMD projector to make this work, but.... Moore's law marches on.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Can I just say how happy I am for the Chicago Cubs? w000t!
Yes, it's offtopic, but I'm damn happy anyway.
Wow, 3TB for 18 minutes? Impressive, but nothing I'd want to have to record in its native format. And here I though the TB array I just put in my Digital Video box would last me a while. ::mumble mubmle:: back to Fry's ::mumble mumble::
If I can't see it in Lynx I'm not interested.
It's difficult in many situations to tell the different between EDTV and HDTV. Maybe you can in an A-B situation, but not after you've been sitting on your sofa for 5 minutes. Is anyone (i.e. consumers) actually clammering for MORE resolution?
People tend to forget that most of the "experience" of gaming and movies is in the SOUND, not the video. You want to be on the edge of your seat? Get a kick-ass home theater system (and get some decent room treatments and spend time on speaker placement)--don't waste gobs of money on a few more lines of resolution.
[tom sherman | fancy sig | mod me down]
Back in the mid to late 80s on my XT the "3d Role Playing games" from sierra take up to 12 floppy disks to pay. I could see a DVD movie in this format. Every couple of minutes it goes. Please insert Disk i to continue. Then it takes a view minutes to load the DVD into the ram then it will play for a little while then repeat.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Reading this article it reminds me just how infintile we are with our technology. I used to think that a 200GB 7200 RPM hard drive was nice and big/fast. Now I can't help but think, "It's not enough!"
Who knows what the future will hold? If they can reproduce this resolution on a pair of VR goggles some day, computer games will take on a whole new experience =)
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I've seen the resolution of 35 mm film being compared to the Canon D60 (6 megapixels). The article gives the indication that the tv will be giving off 33 megapixels.
From IMAX's website: "The 15/70 frame is 10 times larger than the 35mm used in regular theatres and three times larger than standard 70mm film used in classic Hollywood epics."
So if 35mm is ~= 6 megapixels, IMAX ~= 60 megapixels? IMAX still looks better on a huge screen?
Mind you, seeing this kind of resolution on a smaller screen should be amazing.
The technology is probably amazing but to take the public nauseous feeling of the public as a proof is a bit far-fetched: it doesn't take a 7x4m screen showing a movie shot from a car speeding through city streets to make sensitive people sick, whatever the resolution is.
I personally feel sick playing tuxracer more than a few minutes on my 14 inch monitor, so I know how I would feel if I were watching such a movie on such a large screen, at any image resolution.
http://www.masquilier.org/republic/election/ Condorcet, Plurality voting and alternative voting enabled bulletin board.
blair witch project gave my sense of balance a bit of a thrashing...
Software patents delenda est.
I wanna see!
If fiber ever gets rolled out to the home (and actually attains speeds over 1 terabit/sec which it is theoretically capable of doing), then great, we already have an idea of some of the amazing things we can do with media.
Of course, all they did was fiddle with some HDTV boxes and make them work together. A proper media standard has codecs, etc. so maybe wtih better encoding it won't take so much bandwidth, memory, etc. to use it.
If they manage to develop a transport system for this video, the applications could be tremendous for non-video applications. Think how coaxial enabled the Cable Modem era - who knows what could be done with that kind of bandwidth?
Dependable, Reliable Furnishings
Well now we got good picture quality, all we need now is tv shows to watch on it...
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
HDTV on a 13 inch monitor is rather pointless from the distance most people watch it. That's why you only see HDTVs in "big-screen" models in stores, a small screen HDTV would be too hard to make and not worth the effort. So, how big of a screen is it going to take for the difference between this resolution and HDTV to be perceptable to the human eye?
From what I understand, tricking the brain into thinking you are moving is something that can be done with current resolutions, you just need a large screen and a much higher frame rate. I don't have any links, but I distinctly remember reading something about once you get to about 120 fps, its quite easy to fool the brain.
I didn't RTFA, but I suspect something of this quality isn't intended for the season premeir of Friends.
I would suspect this has a lot more potential for now in the scientific fields. Being able to capture video at such high quality could be useful for everything from video telescopes to microscopes.
If it does reach the consumer/entertainment end of things... I can only see it replacing IMAX, not TV.
no comment
by 2009 the human race will be a useless species which will spend 90% of time trying discern reality from fantasy, the ultra realism tv will create a nations of zombies...well actually i think we are already at this point even without uhdtv, imagine that!
For The Best Jazz/Hip-hop fusion > COlD DUCK
I mean, at 33 million pixels for a picture, let's say 25 (it's the number of PAL FRAMES, not fields, per seconds) times per second at 32 bits of depth and you get 3.3gigs per second.
Which makes you wonder if they used compression at all? Even if their system was doing 60 non-interlaced frames, you get roughly 8 gigs of uncompressed video per second. Compressed, it would have to be way less that 3.3GB/s.
And based on the numbers, you can see that they either didn't use audio, or it was included in the 3.3GB/S figure because 3.5TB / 18 minutes / 60 seconds = 3.3GB/S.
So, is there someone I forgot, or are these guys really using uncompressed video? And if they did, WHY? I know, uncompressed video will always be cleaner, but come on, this might be a little too much in this case.
File sharing is going to be a bitch.
-888 Geek Help (888-433-5435)
18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes
Uncompressed data of any format takes up a huge amount of storage. Standard MPEG2 compression could probably reduce that 18 minutes to perhaps 8 or 9 gigabytes.
when the NHK R & D center held its open house. They also had a very small OLED display on hand, but it wasn't nearly as impressive as this display.
And it is awesome. I didn't experience any nausea, but the scale and clarity of the image did throw me a bit, as it is VERY realistic. Beats the pants off 35mm film. Other than sheer size, IMAX has nothing on it.
They had the camera set up in the previous room, live on an object. Walking into the next room was like seeing the same object, except larger. The video was of the surrounding city and Shibuya. Watching the people cross the intersection was incredible, blew even IMAX away.
It is crystal clear. No flaws in the video, no flicker, no exposure flaws at all on the video. Only downside is the massive computer system in the back that has to be used to control it. I imagine that this too will shrink over time.
Does anyone have an Xvid or link to one of that video?
home
Showscan's R&D efforts demonstrated years ago that humans can see differences in frame rate up to about 80-100FPS. So that's where the technology should be going.
Motion compensation during compression still doesn't work as well as it should. Notice how static all those HDTV demo videos are. In stores, you always see closeups of static nature scenes, not NFL highlights.
The HDTV people blew it on frame rate. Existing HDTV broadcasts should go up to 1080p 72FPS, at least.
Remember those damn fireplace videos you could buy cause you were to lame to have a real fireplace in your closet appt? I can just see this now:
"Wow mommy I can almost feel the fire its so warm"
"No son that is the radiation from the 100tb hard drive they had to put in the dvd player"
______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
UHDV is so clear its sickening!
What the hell were they watching anyway?
--Joey
imagine!
...because that's what you'll need to handle your "Enterprise" season pass.
And Comcast just got video on demand working too. I guess now they are going to need a _much_ faster cable?
Beep beep.
I'd rather see a move towards 1080p (not i, for criminey's sake!), with much higher framerate. Tests by the military showed that figher pilots can perceive framerates up to at least 200fps, and while a successful fighter pilot is almost certainly going to be hardwired to be able to process such information faster, certainly a framerate well over the current 24fps for movies and 30fps for TV (in the U.S.) is desirable. Certainly filmmakers would appreciate being able to pan side to side much quicker than they're able to, without having stop-motion effects all over the place. I think a nice compromise would be 120fps. This is evenly divisible by both 24 and 30 (making for easy downgrades to older formats).
Widescreen 1080p, 120fps. Now *that's* what I'd like to have. And interlaced formats should be banned from the face of the Earth. Suitable only for spammers to view. *bleh*
Having more than 24fps is important and noticable if you want to move your eyes at all. Here is an example:
Watch a game of catch both in real life and in a movie.
In real life: The ball looks blurry if you are watching the thrower. OR, you can follow the ball with your eyes, the ball looks clear, and the thrower looks blurry.
at 24fps: The ball looks blurry if you are watching the thrower. If you try to follow the ball, the ball STILL looks very blurry, and so does everything else.
Ok, if you get ahold of the new Star Trek borg cube full of dvd's with _all_ the episodes, just get a big pizza and a bunch of drinks of your choice, and watch the $10,000 tv. You'll get your money's worth,
(maybe not mine, but your's anyway)
some viewers experienced nausea because of the ultra realistic visual effect of speed without the usual physical sensation of movement.
I can't wait... usually I have to drink heavily all night to get this effect.
The hell with watching TV. I want it for my computer monitor...can you imagine the number of xterms you can have open at the same time?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
They improve video quality ad nauseum?
FRA: STFU GTFO
Anybody have screenshots of this in action? ;-)
-Rob
-Rob Ewaschuk
But they still haven't solved the one-eyed camera view. You see this all the time in films with the cliche handheld stalker shot, usually from the POV of the bad guy.
Viewing any single-camera image on a screen will simply lack the depth perception those of us with two eyes perceive. This is especially true with a motion scene, such as a car driving, because the brain is processing the changes in forward depth in response to motion.
Mitani said the system was still at a basic stage of development, but he claimed it had proved that image qualities so realistic that they approximated to actually being at the recorded event were possible.
Last time I checked, being there was in three dimensions, not two.
That extra dimension is kinda cool.
Yes, Now we can really check out those ass zits and ingrown pubic hairs....
Here is a quote from the October 2003 issue of Digital Video. "24p: Back to the Future?"
"When Douglas Trumbull developed Showscan (70mm at 60 fps) in 1976, he noted a profound psychological reaction among his test audiences when the frame rate hit 60 fps: The film ceased to be a film and was more like a window into reality: It just wasn't any good for storytelling, Trumbull claimed. Showscan was thus relegated to theme park immersive venues, and a grand experiment in theatrical storytelling frame rates was shunted aside.
now the only thing we need is high-res goatse. maybe a beowulf cluster of /. trolls could accomplish that in a reasonable amount of time?
Well this is all fine and good, but the article makes it sound like something we've never seen before.
It's not like the image quality is way better than anything we've seen before (analog film), but now it's digital.
Since they say they use arrays of HDTV storage devices for storing their video, couldn't they broadcast it by just composing the data over 16 different satellite HDTV channels? Have the TV put it together - otherwise they'll have to figure out some way of transferring HUGE amounts of data over a smaller line, which would be better in the long run, though.
I do hope that this does make it to fruition, but I'm not holding my breath about being able to own one within the next decade, at least not until we have some sort of ultra-speed holographic storage device.
today is spelling optional day.
18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes." 4,000 horizontal scanlines. Excellent.
:grin:
Cool! Anyone has a bit-torrent link to an example video?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
They just can't take anything when it comes to movies or television. Still, not as bad as seizures during children's programming.
18 minutes in 3.5TB, that's 27185 megabit! Hell, you can easily do HD with MPEG4 in single digit, and this is only 16x more pixels than HD... So shouldn't we be seeing something like 80mbit? 100-150mbit max? 3.5TB should be storing ballpark 81 hours of UHDV!!!
So what? Those japanese are always getting sick from stuff like this.
"I've got to stop masturbating! It makes me too lazy! Stop it, Albert. Stop it." -- Albert Einstein
The fact that people watching the screen got feelings of motion sickness doesn't seem to prove anything about the resolution. I have friends who felt ill playing the original Doom computer game at 320x200 resolution, which is less than plain-old NTSC TV.
and your broadband ISP will just fucking lose their mind, and send a hitman after you.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
At what point do they have to be careful? Is there a specific frame-rate or resolution when the human eye thinks something is 'real'?
And speaking of which, is there a resolution to the human eye?
Subject line says all...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
How good is it? When it was shown to the public, some viewers experienced nausea
Hey, I get that all the time! Especially on Fox News.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
no doubt the nausea is due to a poor refresh rate, like how a crappy slow monitor treats you ... rather than simply the great resolution without the accompanying motion your body expexts.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
And that's just 18 minutes. For a full length movie, say 120 minutes, that's 4360 DVD's, or about 37 DVD's per minute.
That's some freaky bandwidth, never mind that you'd wear out the tray on the DVD player before the opening credits finished.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
...they're advertising for a new miniseries about the exploits of the legendary samurai Miyamoto Musashi. The series costars Takeshi Kitano. Cool beans.
"but this is HDTV... it has better resolution than real life!" - Fry to Leela's complaints about his laziness.
so that's 3.24GHz of bandwidth for broadcasting--- the FCC can make a new broadcast band in the 100+GHz space!
It would be a scream if this evolved into a standard and it leapfrogged HDTV in terms of general popularity. Once in a while, I drop by a Best Buy and look at an HDTV. With most of the models on display, the picture is a real letdown. I'm single, and my favorite way of watching movies is still via DVD played off of my computer with a 13" svga monitor.
My eyesight is so bad from looking at screens all day that you can easily switch to PAL/SECAM halfway the show: I'll never notice!!!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
From what I remember, 70mm file has roughly 4000 rows or resolution ... so, I'm not sure why people would be so astounded by the resolution of this UHDV system. Perhaps the impressive part is really the frame rate?
what?! they never heard of divx? this clip is already available on p2p as an 80meg file.
There have been specialty CRTs made with ultrahigh resolution. One technique is to use multiple electron guns. Another is to keep the brightness low so that dots don't spread. Alas, these are monochrome CRTs.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'll be able to see Amy Wongs Tattoo.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
AS a matter of fact, its not even worth hanging on a wall. However your plight breings a tear to my eye, and thus I feel compelled to let you send it to me, And in return I'll pay you 100 bucks. Now, that mey not sound like much, it its a great way to start saving for your ULTRAHD TV.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They vary first movie shown to 'the public' was shone onto a white sheet, and it was of waves crashing on the beach.
Half the audience jumped up to avoid getting wet.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I can't imagine very many over-the-air broadcast events that would justify the use of this much bandwidth. If a single channel takes up as much of the spectrum as a dozen HD broadcasts or potentially hundreds of compressed lower res channels, or any number of internet users using short range frequency sharing schemes, then that single tv show or sporting event or whatever has to be more profitable or useful to society than any of those.
Eventually there will be home theater setups and storage media affordable to average consumers that will be the equivalent of this UHDTV, but barring extraordinary advances in compression technology will this ever be cost-effective to broadcast over the radiowaves?
Its developers at the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) said the system could be used to provide an ultra realistic 'immersive' viewing experience when, for example, showing sporting events.
Great! Now all they need is to replicate the sensation of being vomited upon by the drunken lout behind you in the stands, and it'll be perfect!
I can hardly wait!
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
How about we get the CURRENT HDTV standard rolled out in the US first? Seriously, how many markets still don't offer HDTV? How many cable companies do? I know where I am, Charter does not. Most Americans like HDTVs because they make their DVDs look better, but most Americans have never even seen a true HDTV source. I would much prefer to get HDTV mainstream than having a few select markets offering UHDTV.
And where is the good ole link to that 8000x4000 jpg of a frame of their video, at least they could let us scroll around and see the true detail of their system, rather than just text desc. And 3TB for 18min? What compression if any are they using?
- Forgot (Writhes hands madly.)
- Forgot obligatory Mr. Burns joke
What's happenning to this place?I bet that's the first time anyone ever said, "That's so good it makes me wanna puke!" and mean it! ;)
Thats why a lot of monitors used to have 72 as a refresh rate. Beyond that, there aren't many people who can tell the difference. I read an article about this awhile back where they did tests to see how high a refresh rate they could go with the person still being able to tell.
TV's are limited to 60 (well 59.94), so that's why for games they try to achieve a rocksolid 60 fps. We on the pc side get to benefit from beyond 60 fps. But if you getting 125 fps in a game with vsync off it's just a waste. Turn on vsync and cap your frames to 75 and be happy.
Here's a way to do a quick test yourself. Launch an old game like quake 1/2 where your system can easily achieve solid 80+ fps. Go into a middle of a fairly large room in a map and use the keyboard to rotate around one direction. Don't use the moust as the jerkiness can sometimes affect this.
Set you com_maxfps to say 30. And rotate around by just holding a rotate key on the keyboard. Should look really choppy. Then set it to 40, then 50, 60 etc. And keep trying it til you can't tell the difference. I got to around 70 and couldn't tell and the difference any more. At 60 you can notice a bit, it's not perfect but it's acceptable for most people.
developed a prototype ultra high definition video (UHDV) system.
Bah! I'm not going to shell out coin for anything less than super-duper-pooper ultra high-definition video.
Now that sounds like an interesting technology.
By all means, increase the number of lines on screen, make those tv's and movies we watch super clear..it's a good way to get the big technology push we need for better cpu's, faster/bigger memory chips and hard drives etc..ALSO..it wil show that we pay WAY-TO-MUCH for our $dollars/bits we get over those so-called broadband pipes we have into our homes (phone lines too). IF these future Ultra-high-performance displays are to be used (and they will). we will need a big increase in the performance and size (and likewise, decrease in costs) of all these new technologies. Nanotech technologies (like carbon nanotube displays) will help to make these super-big displays a reality, but we need to develop cheap fiber-to-the home AT cheap data-rates, not the rip-off rates crruently charged to broadband computer users by the big monopolies.
high rez video will be great for porn. just imagine, all those cum shots, they'll be in high rez!
"It's so good, you'll puke!"
I would like to know what storage media (and interface) was used?
Anyone have 18TB of media lying around which can read/write 3.3GB/s?!
Apologies if someone else has already made this obvious point.
When Quake came out, wasn't eh BS souted that 'it was so realistic some [idiot] people got motion sickness watching"?....
Pukavision..
People get nausea from playing or watching first-person shooters even at low resolutions, so the fact that some people in the audience reported feelings of nausea does not say anything about how "ultra realistic" this video was.
I do not believe that the human eyes can be actually fooled into believing this image is real and not on a screen if the picture is 2 dimensional.
I am sure the impression of nausea in fact the conflict between seeing detail as in real life, yet the image lacking all depth.
The specs are 7680x4320 (16:9 aspect ratio, just like HD), 60 progressive frames/sec.
r 2003/Ultra/Ultra38.htm
Check the original paper at:
http://www.studio-systems.com/broadfeatures/MarAp
Who knows, maybe in 15 years our current dvd and divx quality will seem just as laughable.
It's "good enough" in the sense that a good movie is still a good movie and a bad movie is still a bad movie. Something I could not say for the 320x200x15fps clips, they made movies bad.
I doubt people laugh at people listening to Elvis or the Beatles with their "laughably" low quality either. It might not be 192KHz/24bit digital perfection, but it's "good enough" too.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, from a purely technical perspective, 60 fps would be nice, but there are big drawbacks:
2.5x as high film costs
1/2.5 as many minutes of shooting between changing film canisters
2.5x higher light requirements for the same grain, since each exposure would only be 1/120th of a second. High light requirements are quite expensive, because of the additional setup required. The greater light sensitivity of CCD v. film is one of the big reasons behind the misnamed "DV revolution."
My video compression blog
Do you suppose seizure robots will be better or worse with this sort of high-def?
I'm waiting for entirely digital vector-based rendered films.
Make those indistinguishable from 'real-life'.
Create simple, handle-held devices that can output geometry and texture data.
Now that would be really cool
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Well, there wasn't THAT much wrong with the post. He got the frame rates wrong, but each frame *is* shown 3 times. Examining film will reveal that each frame (of the 24 per second) is repeated 3 times. Since people begin to detect motion well at 24 frames per second, and flicker stops being detectable at around 70 Hz, they triple up each frame to satisfy both visual subsystems. 72 Hertz to eliminate flicker and 24 fps to give illusory motion.
I don't agree. There is something aesthetically pleasing with 24 fps. Something about the mild jerk feels more satisfying -- you can tell the difference just by watching something 24fps versus 30 fps. 30 fps has an eerie reality to it -- television shows filmed (taped) at this rate seem almost too smooth. If they filmed at this rate, I don't think it would go over well at all -- with me in particular. I'm not too sure, but I think that most television shows are shown with 24 fps because of this effect.
One interesting thing that I have found is that if you look at the monitor with your peripheral vision (i.e. centering your vision just above the monitor but paying attention to the monitor itself) it is MUCH easier to see the flickering of a monitor than if you look straight at it. I have gotten people unable to see the flickering normally to observe it in this fashion.
Does anyone know the cause of this?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Premise 1: The Japanese had established an HDTV standard prior to 1989
Premise 2: In the 1990s, the Americans developed an HDTV standard based on digital techniques.
Premise 3: Once the HDTV standard based on digital techniques was established, the Japanese (and the Koreans) commercialized the technology.
Your primary conclusion is that it is NOT true that The foreigners claim that foreign brainpower helped the USA to leap ahead of Japan. (note how you neatly care to disregard the requirement of defining the term "leap ahead")
Your second conclusion is, using the example of India, that the US will out-commercialize any Indian invention. Why would the US all of a sudden become *better* at implementation when they stop hiring H1-B's?
You make no sense. I really take offence at the fact that you pass yourself off as a reporter, yet cannot even write a decent post.
The fact of the matter is, you are a xenophobe. H1B is a perfectly fine way for an individual's talent to be used NOW to the betterment of the individual (who may have access to money and work conditions not currently available) and to the corporation who can choose someone based on how well they can perform vs. where they were born. Frankly, from this article, I have the firm impression that you are a lazy American that thinks showing up for work deserves a 6 figure salary.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
I want to watch this on my 14" vga monitor right now...
It's one step closer to sex.
Zing!
The feeling among the film community is that 4000 lines is a minimum for digital projection to compete with film for spatial resolution. There is less consensus on frame rate and color bit depth. Although film scanning and recording for visual effect is all done at 10 bit log per color, there is a feeling that this is not enough. Partly this is because film stocks are getting better and film people want to maintain a quality lead over video. I expect that 16 bit log (or some other non-linear coding) will be here soon. We may also see high dynamic range formats, where there is a separate exponent value for the range of the pixel.
Resolution numbers don't tell the complete story. Digital projection already has two features that make it competitive with film, despite the lower spatial resolution and lower color resolution. Digital projectors have a larger range of colors that they can display (larger color gamut.) You can reds and yellows and purples that you have never seen on film. Also, digital projection does not have any film gate motion. In a film projector the film is not perfectly aligned from frame to frame because of physical variation. Digital projectors have none of this variation and it makes a huge difference. This is one of the reasons that film and video look different. On the down side, film has a higher dynamic range then digital. The brightens difference between the whitest and blackest parts of the images is much greater on film. This is not just a matter of the number of color bits, but how the light is modulated to the screen. Compared to film, the black of digital projection are not very dark. Digital projection has much room to improve.
On a side note, I saw a presentation at the Motion Picture Academy in LA where they were using digital techniques to restore 3 strip Technicolor films. This is the best of both worlds. The 3 strip process had a separate black and white film strip for each of the red, green and blue images, and the color was created by a process similar to printing, where color dyes were imbibed into a release print. This process required extremely good physical alignment. In the digital restoration, the three negative were scanned into a computer and then digitally registered and then projected with a digital projector. This is better then the originals. I saw colors and details that I had never seen before. They told a story about bringing the co-director of "Singing in the Rain" to see their work, and after the lights came up they found him crying. At first they thought that they had done such a bad job that he was insulted, but then he told them that it literally took him back to the day of the shoot, and he was overcome by emotion and he said it was better they any previous version he had seen. They also showed a clip from "Robin Hood" and it was great. If you ever get a chance to see these restorations, do yourself a favor and see them.
To get film to run on time on a 60Hz interlaced screen, the standard system is to play one frame from the 24fps film for 3 fields (1.5 frames), then play the next frame for 2 fields (1 frame). This leads to jerkiness, which can also be introduced using a DVE to native 30fps productions. 50Hz territories don't have this issue; 24fps material is played out at 25fps (slightly fast, but not enough to be noticeable).
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
At 3.5TB for 18 min, that works out to what... over 3GB/sec. What media do they intend to store this on, for playback in real-time?
Just because a technology exists doesn't mean it's practical.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
for the 3 people with UHDV-compatible television sets, and the guys at circut city to enjoy.
18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes.
.bittorrent link handy then? ;)
Cool, whos got a
18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes.
How many terabytes after the DRM is added?
So I'll start saving for a Lasik eye surgery!
Sure, the film no longer flickers when each frame is projected three times (flicker rate of 72 Hz), but flicker fusion isn't the only thing. Another thing is that pans across landscapes are much more jittery at 24fps than at 60fps. I often notice this in pan-and-scan presentations of movies on TV, where it's easy to tell 24fps pans that were part of the film from 60fps pans added in reformatting to 4:3.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Disney/Pixar's Toy Story was rendered with about 1 million color pixels per frame. Fox/Lucasfilm's Star Wars: Attack of the Clones was shot in the 1920x1080-pixel 24P HDTV format. Commercial digital cinema projectors also run up to 2 million pixels.
The resolution of film depends on the grain of the film stock. A film shot in 70mm will obviously have a higher resolution than a film shot in 35mm.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Can you please learn how to use A FUCKING APOSTROPHE???!!!
Thanks.
I would like to take this opportunity to tell you, esteemed 3 digit UID user, that you are A FCUKING NO LIFE FAGGOT!!!!!11
Bye.
I forget where I heard this, but the first public showing of the film projector was an image of a train flying toward the audience. It was very low quality, it was black and white, there was no sound, but a few people in the audience fainted with fright.
http://mediagoblin.org/
"Pushing Technology Further" (tm)
-Porn Strikes again.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
This could most certainly be the killer app for the new blue laser (maybe ultraviolet) DVD's. I figure they will both arrive at approximately the same time given the standard number of research setbacks. Now all we have to do is come out with a better cabiling system to keep all the home theater phreaks happy (oh yea, and support the transfer rate).
and make flickering visible. At around 50Hz of 240V I bet it will make even 75Hz frame rates flicker in occasions where lights in the same room are more or less reacting with that 50Hz of AC.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
What it sounds like you are doing is actually RAID 4, not RAID 3 (commonly confused, RAID 3 is basically never used, as it specifies a stripe size of a byte instead of a configurable block size).
You may want to try RAID 5. It has consistently better performance because the parity information is rotated around the drives so the single parity drive doesn't become the bottleneck.
Funny how laser printers original standard for text output was 300DPI and monitors seem to look good a 72HZ...
Oh wait, engineers already solved all these problems a while ago.
Why do I feel troll modding coming?
Maybe facelifts will go out of fashion, since you'll be able to see all the lines where the incisions were made.
Stick Men
How good is it? When it was shown to the public, some viewers experienced nausea because of the ultra realistic visual effect of speed without the usual physical sensation of movement.
so what ?
I experimented nausea 10 years ago while playing wolf3d. Now, I can play ut2003 on my plasma screen with no problem...
I just guess they already were used to smaller definition immersions before...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I always experience nausea when I watch reality shows. What's new with that ?
You are wrong in saying that frames are repeated 3 times on the film itself. Trust me, there's only 24 fps on the actual 35mm film stock -- I used to have to splice the stuff together as a projectionist. However, most modern projectors have a shutter that flickers 2 or 3 times per frame to give the illusion that you correctly describe. This was, of course, the most economical solution to the problem.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The mild jerk as seen on 60Hz TV...? Are you talking about Jerry Seinfeld?
Your numbers are confusing me. You mention 100,000 bits per field for MJPEG. I assume you mean bytes, since that is not enough space for a decent looking field of video. And you mention 50 Mbps (megabits) for high quality standard definition video. That sounds about right, and agrees with 100,000 bytes/field * 8 bits/byte * 60 fields/sec = 48 Mbps. That's 6 MBps (megabytes). Consumer equipment was doing one stream of video at that bandwidth years ago.
You said double that for MPEG. Why? MPEG requires less data for the same visual quality as MJPEG. You don't need 100 Mbps worth of MPEG to deliver visual transparency. Somewhere in the vicinity of 50 Mbps is the most needed for natural scenes.
Today's 10K RPM drives deliver over 40 MBps minimum sustained sequential transfer. A disk array with four data drives should deliver as much as 160 MBps depending on the interface and controller. You say your arrays only give you 3 streams, 2 playback and 1 recording, if I understand you correctly. But according to the above numbers you should have room for upwards of 15 streams of MPEG video. (Because video is sequential, buffering should allow you to keep the number of seeks down so that the actual performance of the drives is close to the theoretical maximum bandwidth.)
If we were talking about uncompressed 4:2:2 24-bit 720x480 video, then the bandwidth is about 41 MBps for each stream, and three streams would fit inside the bandwidth of the array with no room for a fourth. Is it possible this is what you had in mind?
H1-Bs were intended not to provide "better" workers to American corporations. H1-Bs were created to provide workers that American corporations simply couldn't find. They were never intended to continue to exist if there was a tight labor market for employees.
We are currently experiencing an "employers" market. Yet H1-Bs are still coming into our country and filling up jobs that should be held by (now out of work) American citizens.
In addition to that H1-Bs were never intended to eventually convert into citizens. We wanted them to work and then go home. Well... they're working, staying (and working hard I might add)
long enough to become citizens.
Congress needs to get it's act together and close the doors to H1-Bs.
~foooo
But the truth is, we simply need to be more protective of our own citizenry and their jobs. We don't need people working for less for jobs that are now hard to come by.