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.
YES!
oh, and Star Trek will look nice as well.
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.
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?
If it had been an ultra high resolution movie of a train coming at the camera, the audience might have died of fright.
Do you REALLY want to be able to see the hairs growing out of that mole?
Sometimes lack of resolution is a good thing...
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 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.
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.
Here's the explanation, for those who missed out on this one.
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!
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I know the parent was a joke, but just some info:
since the human eye has on the order of 100 million rods/cones, it should have a maximum resolution of about 10 000*10 000 pixels if the object you are looking at fills your entire field of view.
True, the majority of rods/cones (cant remember which is which) only see shades of gray, but when you combine this ability with the color-sensing of the central 6 million or so, you get a nice synergistic effect which lets you enjoy the full resolution... (only in well-lit environments though)
and even though the "no need for more than 24 fps"-argument should be dead by now:
24 fps is the MINIMUM fps required for the eye to percieve "natural" motion from static images.. not the maximum needed.
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.
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*
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.
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?
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
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.
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?!
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
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
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
The nerves at the center of your vision are optimized for seeing detail (resolution), but not motion. The nerves in the periphery are sensitive to motion at the expense of detail (just try to read out of your peripheral vision).
I recall that this had something to do with detecting predators/prey moving in the periphery and then looking towards the motion to get a detailed image. I suppose this helps reduce the amount of information that your brain has to process at any given moment.