Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ultra High Definition Video

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the now-thats-a-lot-of-pixels dept.

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.

25 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. Hight Definition Porn by Trigun · · Score: 4, Funny

    YES!

    oh, and Star Trek will look nice as well.

  2. Damn! by stevesliva · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
  3. Frame Rate by augustz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Frame Rate by Trigun · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm starting to wish they would shoot movies at 60fps.

      With wonderful films such as Gigli and Justin and Kimberly bing made every day, I'd be happy if they just shot the movies, period.

    2. Re:Frame Rate by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, some movies HAVE been shot at 60fps (or at least sections of them). "Brainstorm" was one such film.

      In fact, Douglas Trumball as at one time a very vocal advocate of trying to get Hollywood to transition to 60fps.

      Too bad it did not happen. There are PLENTY of advantages to doing so.

    3. Re:Frame Rate by pixas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Theater movies are shot in 25 fps, but the cinema projector displays every frame three times, resulting in 75 fps. but since the movie is shot at 25 fps, motion can still flicker.

      lots of info (about deinterlacing, fps and other interesting stuff) is avalibe here.

  4. Just one step closer by xTBDx · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Just one step closer by potpie · · Score: 3, Funny

      I commend your ability to insult Microsoft in a seemingly unrelated topic! Good work!

      --
      Esoteric reference.
  5. Coincidentaly by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. They have to be careful with the video by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If it had been an ultra high resolution movie of a train coming at the camera, the audience might have died of fright.

    1. Re:They have to be careful with the video by zapp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ohhh... fright..

      I thought you said they might die of freight ...
      yuk yuk.

      --
      no comment
  7. Re:Who wants to bet... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you REALLY want to be able to see the hairs growing out of that mole?

    Sometimes lack of resolution is a good thing...

  8. Technology marches on by mst76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Damn it! by Transcendent · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I just bought a $10,000 HD Plasma TV!!! Now it's obsolete!!! ::crys:: I can never win with technology!

  10. Not that exciting by fleener · · Score: 4, Funny

    >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.

  11. Need a bigger HD for my TiVo by BluePenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  12. This remids me of the old Sierra games. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  13. Good tv as well by Celt · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  14. What compression did they use? by JFMulder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What compression did they use? by MrResistor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I repair high end digital video servers. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

      First, they probably are using MPEG or MPEG2, or maybe MJPEG, but that's pretty unlikely these days. Just because they're using the codec doesn't mean they're going to use the full compression it allows them. Remember that there's a trade-off there; the more it's compressed the more quality they lose. The bottom line is, if they want to show off the technology they will be compressing it as little as possible, because the degradation will be visible to someone who's an expert.

      One of the things that has hampered digital technology in filmmaking is the quality of the final image. At 2k lines digital becomes competitive, in fact with a 2k telecine (converts film to video) you can just start to make out the grain of the film. At 4k digital is better than film, and thats going to win over a lot of directors and producers who never would have considered it otherwise. For myself, movies in the theater look a little fuzzy to me. Not bad, but noticable. I would welcome the improved quality this tech will bring.

      I strongly suspect that's the market this tech is aimed at, because nobody is going to be broadcasting uncompressed 4k video.

      Additionally, the rule in the industry is that you never compress your source material. A lot of that is superstition at this point IMHO, but the fact remains that there is going to be a need for this. That stance is kind of ironic, considering that most broadcasters will compress what they're sending out as much as they can get away with.

      I very much doubt that the problem is scaling processing power to do the compression. Any pro-level setup has dedicated hardware to do that, and if one encoder chip can't handle the bandwidth itself than they just use multiple chips. Moving the data around the rest of the system is a bigger design challenge than the compression is.

      One more point (bordering on OT, but it is related), video is the most demanding application that hard drives are used in. I have to torture test every single drive we send out myself, using our own methods, because none of the standard drive testing tools/suites even compare to what we consider "normal" use of our product.

      For most data applications one only needs to worry about capacity and bandwidth. Latency is rarely considered at all, it doesn't matter if the data arrives 500ms late. For video, that isn't the case, latency is a very big issue. That 500ms delay represents a very annoying glitch on the output.

      Here's some numbers to chew on: What we consider high quality standard definition NTSC video is about 50Mbps (that's about 100,000 bits per field for MJPEG, double that for MPEG), TV broadcasts are typically in the 10-15Mbps range. A 5 drive RAID3 (4 data drives + 1 parity drive) array of 73GB Seagate Cheetah Vs (10kRPM) attached by fibrechannel can handle simultaneous record and playback of 2 50Mbps streams, with about 12 hours of record time total (less than that actually, since it's highly recommended that you leave about 10% of the drive free). That doesn't include audio, and I honestly don't know what accompanies the video on that stream, but I do know that there is some vertical synch info added to make editing MPEG less of a PITA.

      I don't work on HD stuff right now, but I can tell you that we typically run it at 70Mbps and the RAID described above cannot handle 2 of those streams.

      Finally, while I don't know all the details, my company does offer a 4k telecine, and IIRC it uses 16 1Gbps fibreoptic cables in parralell to move all the data around.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  15. nice, but... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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*

  16. Because perhaps 24fps is better for film by Small+Hairy+Troll · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:At what point do they have to be careful? by bdeclerc · · Score: 5, Informative

    In answer to your questions:

    There is no exact "frame-rate" of the human eye, because different parts of the eye respond differently to change, some parts have higher refresh than others. This is why screen-flicker is easier to detect by looking at a screen sideways (the edge of vision has higher refresh rates, probably an evolutionary left-over, being able to detect movement quickly near the edge of vision is the closest we can come to having eyes on the back of our head).

    As for resolution, this is highest near the center of your eye's field of view, and is mainly dependant on how close together the light-sensitive cells are in the middle of the eye. In practical terms, max resolution of most people's eyes is a couple of arc-minutes (1 arc-minute = 1/60 of a degree). To put this in real terms, 1 arc-minute is the angular size of an object when viewed from a distance 3437x its size, so a 1.8m (6ft) human being seen at 6.2km (3.9 miles) is about an arc minute high.

    For a Computer monitor, that means that people with good vision (say 2 arc minute resolution) sitting 1 foot (30cm) away from a monitor, should be able to distinguish a pixel 0.09mm (0.0034") across, but only just. Typical LCD-screens have pixels 0.25-0.30 mm across.

  18. 72 is the magic number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  19. Frame Rate is 60p by MrHuevos · · Score: 3, Informative

    The specs are 7680x4320 (16:9 aspect ratio, just like HD), 60 progressive frames/sec.

    Check the original paper at:
    http://www.studio-systems.com/broadfeatures/MarApr 2003/Ultra/Ultra38.htm