Slashdot Mirror
Ultra High Definition Video
hovermike writes "This story about UHDV (Ultra High Definition Video) comes from the NY Times. Here are a few specs from the article: 'picture size of 7,680 by 4,320 pixels'; 'UHDV's beefed-up refresh rate of 60 frames per second (twice that of conventional video), projected onto a 450-inch diagonal screen with more than 20 channels of audio'; '22.2 sound: 10 speakers at ear level, 9 above and 3 below, with another 2 for low frequency effects'; AND THE KICKER, 'All those sound channels and all those image pixels add up to a lot of data. In test, an 18-minute UHDV video gobbled up 3.5 terabytes of storage (equivalent to about 750 DVD's). The data was transmitted over 16 channels at a total rate of 24 gigabits per second.' Don't think I'll wait to buy regular 'old' HDTV..."
So *that's* what powers the view screen on the Enterprise. Cool! :)
The post-production touch-up jobs on porn acresses is going to have to get a *lot* better at that kind of resolution!
Please note: first thoughts != best thoughts
Even with the high data rates we can achief today, this will be a while to be usable I think
It's easy to make up insane specs n such, to be able to use them is a other
We're about a decade away from reaching the point where there increasing the resolution of the screen will not be detectable to the human eye, at which point, one could go about collecting a collection of Ultra-High Def DVD's without worrying about a 'better' version coming out soon. So you can get all of your 20th century and early 21st century media and know that your great grandkids will view it exactly the same.
I have to change my underwear now.. and have a smoke...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
I like the resolution and all, but in all seriousness... with ever decreasing space for our living, this is not exactly customer product. Your 68" tv does not need such high resolution, I hardly have space to put my 5.1 system in the 2 bedroom condo I am staying in...
Even if the price is within our reach, this piece of technology is going to be left to corporations and ultra rich people with lots of real estate. I fail to see point of having this, except for new digital cinemas.
My god, watching the latest holycrud with mind boggling resolution...
-- shortcut - the longest distance between two points.
regfree link here
So its half the resolution of a Japanese Television ;)
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
wouldn't need a 60GB ipod now?
Enough storage is never enough, more so when the porn industry catches on and will find a use for it.
Of course, we have to afford it first.
Jonathanjk.com
Oh come on... Isn't the resolution actually higher than that of our eyes?
I wonder how long it will be before the local utility offers a 24 Gb/s connection. (of course it will all be for naught if the uploads are still snaily)
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
This same thing was posted about the Japanese test months ago...
Inireland we still have no HDTV no broadband and even DVB-T has been abandoned. all i can do i lament a technology i'll never see.
--cros13
3.5 terabytes... and I just went and got my brand new DVD burner.
The power of modern GPU's could be put to use with this resolution, and we could once again have a resolution war between the various chip makers.
Let's learn to "walk" with images of this resolution, before we try and run.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
... when the cinemas have this system and the pirates film them with their hidden camcorders.
It looks like movies for this are about as useful as the 35TB RAID-0 array they'll come on
I expect you to give the quote "640k ought to be enough for anyone", and you are right, but by the time anyone can store this much data, we'll probably have holographic projectors, and 3D tv.
And would you like Ultra-High-Mega-Super-Happy-Fun Resolution 2D tv, or SDTV quality 3D.
Why do I bother asking....
Now George Lucas can let us all see, in the most perfect, clear, awe-inspiring beautiful picture imaginable, Greedo shoot first.
Damnit!
Actually a fairly insightful post, but the "cocksuckers" comment sort of ruined the karma whore potential of it.
BTW: I'm not into sucking cocks myself -- not really a fan of splooge mouth. I'll let you suck mine though. The ladies say my variety is somewhat salty.
...my kids put in the Ultra Hi Def Barney Video.
Serenity NOW!
Tim
"16 terabytes ought to be enough for everyone."
We know that 30/60 Hz from a normal TV causes brain waves that act like a drug. Wouldn't a faster frame rate cause better brain waves; like the ones that actually make us think.
57 channels and nothing on. Bah humbug!
well, that's one way to keep people from sharing the files...
Anybody got a bittorrent link to the 3.5 terabyte file?
What, only 2 dimensions?
Synergy is your friend
I need to add some fine detail to my Powerpoint presentations.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Well, as far as internet streaming goes, that's out of the question. But 24gbps isn't unachievable with today's broadcast techniques. There's also a question of how compression is done.
A cluster of ASICs could be used to decode the signal.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Judging by how long it's taking the industy AND general public to accept HDTV... well, if it's any indicator, then we might want to take a rain check on these.
By the time they (UHDTV - creative name, huh...)HYPOTHETICALLY are released to public, it woulden't be much to assume that there will be an entirely new technology out that'll completely overshadow it. Right now digital projectors are all the rage, who knows where that'll lead.
Stop the world, I want to change the channel!
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
..it is expected to start services in what 3005 ?
Striving to be common...
are you going to see this in a home theater setup anytime soon? NO! of course not! this seems to me like it would be more practical for use in the movie theaters. it'd be like the DLP theaters, of which there are only a few dozen around the country.
Maybe many years from now we'll see it in a home setup... of course it was about 8 years ago when i bought a 1 gig hdd for 200 or 300 bucks (don't remember specifically now) that someone told me "what are you going to use that for? you'll never be able to use all that space!"
Who's laughing now?
> I call it AtomVideo. The whole world is stored
> as atoms. Each atom has it's own dynamic path.
> This allows the viewer to move around in the
> movie as they would in real life, and even
> interact with it.
Sadly, most nerds around here cannot figure out how to work this video style's porn.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
We aren't going to have cities designed around the segway... actually, we're going to have architects designing homes around our TV sets.
Yes.
What kind of porn are you watching, anyway, where they bother with post-production touch-up -- or plot, for that matter?
Main screen turn on!
Technology for the sake of technology is called 'progress'. First we make the prototype, which is too big and/or too expensive, then we make it smaller and cheaper and smaller and cheaper, until it becomes consumable.
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
...I'm sure they'll make it so that the copyright is infinitely durable, and your discs far from it even in perfect care, which isn't going to be the case anyway. And don't think you'll have the luxury of back-ups. So you can get all of your 20th century and early 21st century media and know that your great grandkids will have to buy exactly the same disc over and over again.
Of course, all I get here is interlaced PAL on cable. Earth to TV networks: I'm getting better progressive/HDTV feeds via newsgroups than you're able to deliver via a $$$ connection. Sigh. It's funny when the pirates deliver not only a cheaper but also better product. Though I suppose that'll be the norm rather than the exception with DRM...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...but just watch, genetic engineers will start giving humans sharper eyesight, better color definition and infrared/ultraviolet visual range, and hearing in what is presently supersonic and subsonic audio range.
Things like this will look as realistic as stroboscopic, garishly-colored cartoons with Stephen Hawking robovoices until some future super-duper ultrafantastically-enormously-high definition TV comes out.
... if they'll still use interlacing as they do (in live broadcasts) for HDTV...
I thought Lucas changed it back to Han shooting first for the New Hope DVD.
If it approximates "being there", you could make some mind blowing 3D movies with this technology!
My rights don't need management.
This was reported last year UHDV.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I'm still waiting for "conventional" high-definition programming to become mainstream. Sure, we now have consumer level HD cameras but the local news broadcasts are still SD. Alias is in HD, and Jennifer Garner makes my HDTV purchase worth it (don't tell my wife), but every commercial is still in SD.
The FCC-mandated transition to digital broadcasts probably won't help make HD content mainstream either. Stations may be broadcasting all digital, but they'll still be broadcasting Gilligan's Island reruns at SD or (gasp) upconverted to 1080i.
UHDV technology may be the future, but the expense of producing content won't make it mainstream. Oh, and Slashdot covered this before.
I want to see this applied to OmniMAX and IMAX films.
My biggest problem with [Omni|I]MAX is that at 24fps, scenes with slow pans get very jumpy (fast pans blur enough to not be noticable). However, if you just ran the film at 60fps, the size of the reels would be unmanagiable, and the speed of the film through the transport would be dangerous!
But imagine a [Omni|I]MAX theater with 100TB of storage (not a big deal nowadays) and a DMD/DLV projector at these kinds of resolutions and refresh rates. They could play any movie they have pretty much instantly, they could have longer running movies, and the movies would be absolutely immersive (esp. for OmniMAX movies - on a 120 degree screen pretty much your entire field of view would be the movie.)
Of course, they'd need to make sure people understood the "If you feel yourself getting sick, just CLOSE YOUR EYES AND BREATH!" a bit more.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I can all ready see every pixel on the bloody screen with my uber TV. Why the hell do I need more pizels to see? When will people relisethat HUGE TVs reduce the quality because most things arn't filmed so they can be shown on a cinema screen -.-
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
...When we were doing text, people thought having 100kb pictures would keep them from sharing.
...When we were doing pictures, people thought having 3mb music files would keep them from sharing.
...When we were doing music, people thought having 100mb applications would keep them from sharing.
...When we were doing applications, people thought having 700mb movies would keep them from sharing.
...When we were doing movies, people thought having 12TB/hr HDTV would keep them from sharing.
Information (as in raw bytes/sec) will continue to become cheaper and cheaper. The price of content is quite stable. Add 2+2 and see where it is going. More, faster and more "profitable". I know several people that are probably "millionaires" by now.
At the estimates for piracy, using the full penalty of the law, the total piracy is more than the GNP of the world - not just this year - but (estimating like a geometric sequence) for all eternity since the dawn of time.
How's that possible? Simple. We make "money" out of thin air. You give me a million, I give you a million, and we both keep it as well. At $0/content, we could all have all the content in the world. So the loss = 7 billion people * millions of CDs/DVDs/Apps/Games/whatever * full retail price. Yeah. Right.
Copyright will have to change because pretty soon everyone will have millions in liability - it will simply be common. I've seen it in every age group from 8 to 80, both sexes, all sorts of people. It's bigger than prohibition in the sense that "everybody" is doing it. There's simply no stopping that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The possibility of HDTV in the UK would be nice. We're quite far advanced as far as widescreen and digital TV penetration is concerned, but there aren't any HDTV channels over here at all, and as far as I am aware there are no plans to introduce any...
I saw a 60 fps movie at Expo86 in Vancouver, 18 years ago. It had incredible realism.
The high frame rate eliminates the strobing effect that occurs when the camera pans, or an object moves quickly across the screen. I noticed the strobing when watching LOTR in the movie theater, but the effect isn't visible on TV.
This kind of display would be huge, and better then most (if not all) displays I have seen.
How did this get 'Informative'? I think I know what the post is trying to say, but it get rather confused and make a couple of glaring errors (PAL is 50Hz, NTSC is 60Hz).
because I've an 500gb RAID 5 Array.
NHK of Japan invented an analogue high definition television system called Muse in the 1970s and 1980s, which looked wonderful compared with standard definition at the time, but its bandwidth requirements were much too high, sets were too expensive, and by the time it got into production it was becoming clear that digital technologies using data compression and consequently that would work using much lower bandwidth and would provide much more in the way of interactive services were viable. So Muse was abandoned and digital services were rolled out.
For this new system to work, we need much larger bandwidth and/or much better compression than we have now, which in practice means more powerful CPUs than we have now. This will come, but I think this will be a decade or more off. (At that point, any system invented by the Japanese right now will be superceded by something newer invented in the mean time).
Personally, I like the idea of this new system in principle. It is the first television system I have seen that generates pictures as good or better as conventional film. It will look fabulous if used in a digital cinema. (Current digital cinema technology only uses 1000 lines or so, and this is seriously lacking compared to film)
As for viewing this in your living room, it is probably overkill, unless we have screens covering entire walls of rooms (which of course we may). The 1080 lines max of conventional HDTV probably is good enough for 40 inch screens and the like. Current generation screens do show various digital artifacts, but these are more to do with the inadequacies of the display technologies than the number of pixels on the screen. (Things like LCD and plasma displays are simply not is good as conventional CRTs in terms of picture quality). Increasing the number of lines in such circumstances will certainly improve the picture further and it will probably happen some day, but larger gains in picture quality can probably be more easily gained in other ways for the moment.
If my math is right, to download this 18 minute clip over my 256 m/bit/sec cablemodem is around 40 hours.
So, start download when leaving the house for work on Monday...
Chip H.
...does Ireland have 4 cities? ; )
I'm surprised that they stopped at a flat screen. With all of those speaker positions, why didn't they have the screen wrap around the viewer? That would have made more sense even though it would be ssuper teadious to film videos for it.
One Nation:
Under God
Under Allah
Under Zeus
Under Satan
OR
One Nation Indivisible
All this much of data?
The higher the resolution, the higher the frequency, the data should not linearly go up. Not only that, it should dramatically drop from linearity.
Why I said this? There is much more similarity between frame when they're at higher refresh rate. At higher resolution, there's also much more similarity between neighboring pixels, which means there got to be many ways/algorithms to generate them automatically, and uses much less real data.
Please don't pattern on this idea. It's old.
No she doesnt, you lameass. get a life.
I can understand the incredibly high resolution, but why so many audio channels?
Two channels does quite a good job of reproducing all the sounds of an environment, assuming the stereo speakers are appropriately far apart.
5.1 channel sound added a sub-woofer, which is a positive development, and then 3 more speakers. Okay, the two rear channels I can understand, because most people don't have their speakers located well, and there's a certain gee-wiz factor in hearing something that is distinctly behind you. However, the center channel still makes little sense to me, since the stereo speakers can handle that area just as well (center channel is usually a crappy little set of treble-only speakers anyhow).
Now, I am really at a loss to understand why you need even more, especially 20+... Put on a pair of stereo headphones and pick any location, 360 degrees, and I'll make it sound like a noise is comming from that exact spot. So what can 20+ channels do for you?
Even if we start getting holograms comming out of the screen, I could still make a sound seem like it's comming from whatever position that object is located with just 4 speakers, and I could do a pretty good job with just 2 if needed.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
From the article: "But NHK is familiar with long-term projects: it began developing the HDTV standard in 1964, and the first high-definition content arrived only in 1982." And HDTV is finally filtering down to the masses, 40 years later. They're not just defining random specs, they're defining them for decades later down the road when people can support the bandwidth.
Pixels and Resolutions
name Herbert
status educator
age 60s
Question - Presently there is quite a bit of talk about pixels. Each
digital camera manufacrer claims there camera has 3 million pixels,
another 3.5 million, on and on. This reminds me of the 50's & 60's when
Hi-Fi audio manufacturers claimed there equipment had a wider bandwidth
than its competitor. So the question is what is the resolution of the
human eye, and can the figure be quoted in pixels?
I will answer as much as I can, but your questions about the limits of the
human eye should really be directed to a specialist in the theoretical
limits of the human eye. Right now that is a question that has been
researched quite well, and there are several formulas to help predict that.
From what I understand, the resolution of the human eye is not measured
directly in pixels, but by the angular difference between two points of
light that can be resolved. Here is a very good article on that:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may9 7/864446241.Ph.r.html
From this article, if I have done the math right, I understand that a
typical person has a maximum resolution of about 17000 point sources per
inch. This doesn't really equate to pixels, but, pixels can be changed into
pixels per inch, and that should be close enough.
Digital cameras do brag about their resolution, because, well, it really
does matter. It matters because their resolution is so poor compared to a
real cameras, or a decent printer that it is pathetic.
For example, a really good digital camera might have a resolution of 2160 x
1440. If you made that into a 4x5 picture, you have a resolution of about
400 pixels per inch. Which isn't bad, but photo quality printers print at
2400 pixels per inch. If you decided to make it into a 8x10 photo, you end
up with about 200 pixels per inch. This was considered excellent quality 10
years ago, but is very poor quality by todays standards.
So, compared to the human eye, a real camera, or good printed material,
digital cameras aren't there yet. They do use a wide variety of software to
try and enhance the quality for printing, but there is still room for
improvement.
That doesn't mean digital cameras don't have a use. If you need pictures in
a digital form to be displayed on computer screens, then you have something.
A computer screen has a resolution of about 72 pixels per inch, and digital
cameras are definitely better than that. Also, since it is basically one
step from taking the picture to downloading it onto your computer, you get
better results than if you took a picture, developed it, and then scanned it
in, not to mention much faster results. With the popularity of the web,
digital cameras are great for creating images to place on a web site.
I hope this helps.
--Eric Tolman
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may 97/864446241.Ph.r.html
From this article, if I have done the math right, I understand that a
typical person has a maximum resolution of about 17000 point sources per
inch. This doesn't really equate to pixels, but, pixels can be changed
into pixels per inch, and that should be close enough.
It would seem to me that if the resolution of the human eye is one
arcminute at 10 inches, then the maximum resolution of the human eye is
found as follows:
You find the circumference of a circle of radius 10 inches, which comes to
62.83 inches. One 1/21600th (or 1/60th of a degree) of this is 0.002908
inches, the minimum possible perceptible distance by the human eye at 10
inches.
To get this much resolution, you need 343, not 17,000 pixels per inch.
Of course if you get even closer, the story changes, but what the
resolution of the human eye is at some other point that 10 inches I am not
sure.
Even taking a hypothetical one inch of distance with the exact same eye
resol
Ok seeing as the last one was fairly poorly written (I was at work and was distracted halfway through. I must have got confused myself, hence the confusing layout).
I got PAL and NTSC back to front (I do that a lot), but that isn't particularly important to the story. The point is that your TV uses a frame rate of about 25-30 frames and a refresh rate of about 50-60Hz.
I never said you wouldn't notice 60Hz flicker, the whole post was in fact meant to indicate that the 60Hz refresh was the REASON you had the flicker.
The phrase:
"If you have 30 frames per second and not notice a flicker, but as long as it remains at a constant 30 you will rarely notice. There will be no flickering either."
Should have read:
"If you have 30 frames per second at a refresh rate where you will not notice a flicker, you will not notice that it is 30 frames either".
I would say that is probably where I was distracted too, as that paragraph certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks like I stopped in the middle of a sentence then started it again.
You will notice that the significance 72Hz holds was explained here:
'(I use 72Hz as last I read that was the minimum "healthy" refresh rate).'
I got that value from a PC magazine review on monitors a few years ago so it has probably changed (72Hz does work pretty well though).
The significance of the eye's sensitivity to luminance is that if the phosphors of the screen go completely dark in between refreshes, the eye will notice this, wheras if they are not allowed to go dark then it is less noticable.
I apologise for the appaling presentation of the post (quite possibly the worst writing I have done), although obviously somebody got *some* information out of it.
Haven't you noticed that Joe Average couldn't give a fuck about HDTV yet? Once HDTV is established, useful and popular (ie in about 15 years time) then we can start worrying about something better, by which time it'll be a piece of cake to implement the tech anyway!
The tv industry is so stupid. It is obvious how to make hdtv or uhdtv popular. Follow the internt model - free porn! Just make a channel of free porn available only in the new format!
So what can 20+ channels do for you? Even if we start getting holograms comming out of the screen, I could still make a sound seem like it's comming from whatever position that object is located with just 4 speakers, and I could do a pretty good job with just 2 if needed.
UHDV is made for a screen with a 37.5 foot diagonal -- hardly something you'd be able to fit in your standard living room. This is geared toward a theater setting. As for the sound, in a theater, not everyone can get into the "sweet spot" for 2 or even 4 speakers, so one needs to make the sweet spot as large as possible.
Super high resolution monitors have been done before, but usually as CRTs. Greyscale CRTs are easy to make, and have been used for medical X-ray viewing, where 5-megapixel displays are often used. The medical monitor makers are now offering 5-megapixel greyscale LCD panels. Color panels still have lower resolutions.
35mm movie film has an effective resolution better than 7200x4800, and IMAX is 10 times better than that. Because film grain sizes and locations have a random distribution, there's no moire or pixelation effects so film is better than digital at the same "resolution". (playing fast and loose with various definitions)
I can't speak to the audio channels, and I think the frame rate is only 30 fps, but I think *Max wins hands down on resolution.
Tech notes: IMAX uses "15 hole by 70mm film", but the frames are on the film lengthwise, 105 mm x 70 mm IIRC. Following data is from the IMAX website. Each frame is 10 times the size of a 35 mm frame, and 3 times the size of a 70 mm frame. The intro says the IMAX screen is "4317 times bigger than your computer monitor" - of course that's size, not resolution. Too bad - that'd be about 65000x49000 pixels! Using 9 instead of 10 as the scale factor, IMAX frames must be equivalent to at least 21,600 by 14,400 pixels. Still not bad.
IMAX now offers "DMR" - digital remastering of 35 mm movies so they don't look grainy on IMAX screens.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Slashdot should code their comments area to automagically detect NYT stories and translate the link to the reg-free version. There must be a bazillion perl coders on here willing to do it for you.
An A-size engineering drawing sheet is 48 x 36 inches (Metric A4 is slightly different, but similar). Paper is capable of better, but useful detail on a drawing is around 200 dpi. This means that a single engineering drawing is about 9600 x 7200 pixels = 69,840,000 pixels. Of course, these aren't moving images.
IMHO 200 dpi is about right for viewing without noticeable digitizing effects - moire, rasters, etc. Pencil lines at this resolution don't have visible jaggies if they're antialiased, and don't look out of focus either.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
The article states "HDTV offers only a 30-degree field of view horizontally, whereas UHDV's massive screen size expands this to about 100 degrees"
Uhh only if you get close enough to it. A 16:9 ratio is a 16:9 ratio. If you make the screen bigger you don't magically get a wider field of view. I suppose they mean to say that with the greater resolution you can get close enough to the screen so it takes up more of your field of view, while maintaining perceived picture quality. I do that by sitting in the first row at the movies.
For the record, human sight has an 8:1 ratio. If your vision is normal you can see about 120 degrees across (a third of a circle) and about 15 degrees vertically (5 degrees above the line of sight, 10 degrees below). Divide 120 by 15 and you get the 8:1 ratio. Now THAT would give you an immersive experience!
Insert witty sig here.
By your figures this is how the size ratio breaks down:
1:30 (text vs picture)
1:33 (picture vs music)
1:30 (music vs applications)
1:7 (application vs movie)
1:2000 (Movie vs UHDTV)
There's not an issue here with piracy, there's an issue with not having enough disk space to put the damn stuff in the first place. (Sure, you can compress it and drop channels and the like, but that misses the point of UHDTV in the first place so you really just end up with normal video.)
As for the rest of your post, before you start sprouting off stuff back it up with real numbers.
1. 7 Billion people in the world don't own a computer
2. Very few people own a million dollars worth of pirated stuff.
If the GNP of the US is 6 trillion dollars and its entire population (say 250 million) is pirating, then they'd each have to be fined about 25,000 for it to be equal.
You might be able to get away with saying that they're pirtating more than their GNP... however you'd be dead wrong about the dawn of time comment, even if you didn't want to account for inflation...
As we improve the details of displays, some will believe that we're nearing the specs of our eyes, and that we're "almost done". Keep in mind that these displays are not symmetrical emitters to our eyes' receivers. Their pixels are on a grid, which our eyes can see as a regular array, while our retinal receptors are in a radial organization, stochastically displaced ("pseudorandom"). And the retinal cell layout is as different for each person as their fingerprints (actually much more so, but also unique). Our eyes will see the grid itself, even if the individual pixels are too small (and fuzzy), as a consistent texture in all displayed images. The regular frame rate, even if much faster than the 17fps required to simulate continuous motion, is also sensed slightly differently, like a strobelight in a room, or even a 60Hz bulb compared to sunlight. Then there's the actual granularity of brightness and color, which even in a quantum model triggers internal retinal signals with a single photon.
Of course, displays are not used to simulate the retinas. They simulate materials that retinas sense. So perhaps the ultimate "realistic" display lies down the road a ways, when we've got illuminated nanomaterials that actually change their 3D shape to reflect different wavelengths in across actual simulated surfaces. Baywatch will never have looked so good.
--
make install -not war
I thought about it and realized the reason they DON'T do this in the stories is because then they could probably be sued for intentionally lying about the referrer. Whereas if posters do it, it's their responsibility.
Thanks. The funniest thing I read all week!
Some time in the future, they launch UHDTV with promises of ultra-crisp images. The broacasters realise they can multiplex channels, so they compress the fsck out of them and we end up with even more worse looking crap than we started with. It doesn't matter what the technology can do if the broadcasters go for quantity over quality and cram as much artifact-laden crap over the airwaves/fibre/whatever as they can (cf. digital TV vs. analog).
Intellectual Property
Intellectual: of the mind
Property: that over which one has control
Can't wait to see my favorite scenes at that screen res!!
When does she get her period?
Center channel is nice when you have a bigscreen TV. The speakers get really far apart (perhaps 6 feet) and since you sit fairly close to the TV (with HDTV it's around 6-10 feet optimially) it gets hard to pinpoint where the sound comes from the screen. It also doesn't sound that great. I mean, how many people listen to music with the speakers sitting 10 feet from each other? You gotta stay in the sweetspot.
My eyes are so sensitive that they can detect half a photon.
SuperHyperMaxiUltraHigh Definition Video! A 2-hour movie takes 950 Tb of storage, and transmission requires 256 2-Gbit channels. With no system in the world capable of handling it, this standard will finally put an end to video piracy!
Even if this was released tomorrow would there really be a point to it? i mean what do we really need that kind of surround sound and picture definition, to me 24fps on a regular nice big TV is fine and 5.1 surround is fine.
It is entireley pointless for regular viewing and as for gameing or anything like that imagine the power needed to process the imagaes and audio we would need a google.com sized cluster in the back room to use our PS2 with one of those!
to eliminate distortion, I'm working on a 44,081-speaker setup where each speaker will produce exactly one frequency in 1-Hz increments from 20 Hz to 44,100. Oh, wait, better make that 88,162 speakers--forgot about the right channel. Dammit, that'll make it impractical. Grr...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Please, someone, anyone, tell my why do all these standards for video, audio, storage, etc. limit themselves to a specific size (7,680 by 4,320)?? Why can the standards be size agnostic and extensible?
Also, this UHDV thing is just a bunch of dudes in Japan throwing around numbers for a standard. No actual technology exists yet. So since all we are doing is talking about numbers, I have a video standard that is even better! 9,223,453 x 7,343,297!!!!!!!! SWEEEEEEET!!!! You could like see the molecules on J-Lo's ass!!! hella ya!!
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
What Han Solo did (shooting first) was exactly
what Rhett Butler would do.
Lucas needs to go back and watch the original versions and go watch some classic films and see why the original star wars trilogy was so good with its reflection of some great movies.
I predict this will never see the light of day. It does little to address the real challenges of video, namely contrast ratio and refresh rate. For one thng, to look real and not give you that screen burn-in headache you will neeed much greater contrast ratios and refresh rates so the eye doesn't have to focus differntly. Also we won'e have this much data throughput for a while and by that time everyone iwll wnat 3-D projections, which would necessitate about a120hz refresh rate. Back to the drawing board...
to be stuck in traffic with every day
seriously, tv doesn't have enough decent CONTENT to use something like this, my roommate has a 36" hdtv and we cancelled the hdtv package from comcast becuase there is literally nothing to watch and it's pointless to pay an extra $35+ for hi res newscasts
the only place the hdtv shines so far is in showing cg scenes (return of the king is fucking amazing on the tv for example, much better than it was in the theater) but nothing else really improves so the question is begged why bother?
could it be that they're trying to outpace moore's law? how many people have multi-terrabyte beowulf clusters set up to manipulate video that massive?
Television is the absolute worst medium for education I can think of, except perhaps, say, oil pastels or "meatloaf smeared on canvas" or something ridiculous like that. It requires nothing of its audience except a slack jaw and a vacant stare, all the while emphasizing loudness over integrity and pandering, pandering, pandering. Read a book you filthy apes!
Emperor unveils new Summer wardrope.
[n/t]
'standard' high def doesn't look so bad, as far as things go.
its the compression to 19.2 Mbps that grunges the image up.
To watch my Andy Griffith videotapes on my new Ultra High Res UHDTV monitor, with 22.1 surround I should be able to hear them crickets and know exactly where they are.
That's an E size drawing. A is 8.5x11.
Digital, then HDTV, now this.
What next? Super Ultra High Def Rev 2.0?
All of these choices will confuse consumers into buying something they don't need, nor understand.
nothing.can.stop.me.now
I think that it's a good thing to make an attempt at setting the standards early, even before the technology is practical. This will help avoid the fragmentation and "format wars" that have hurt other industries.
While this is (for now) extreme overkill for the home, it will be good to have a standard for such things as digital movie theatres and digital IMAX. If/when such things become mainstream, a standard would help keep distribution costs down.
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Well, it's not like anyone distributes uncompressed video today!
I'm sure it would be compressed at least 30:1, and probably more like 100:1. With that many pixels, the quality of each one is less than with, say, a 320x240.
By the time sets like this are readily available, I bet we'll have codecs that could usefully drive that size image at maybe 40 Mbps. A lot of bandwidth today, but not inconceivable. Dual-layer blue laser DVD could do a 2 hour movie at those bitrates.
My video compression blog
Here's a perfectly good article--NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED--from International Herald Tribune:
IHT: In Japan, a look beyond HDTV
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
One of the main reason movies and records cost more and more money with each generation of delivery format is because the higher the resolution, the higher the detail in the image, which makes it even harder to hide a flaw, harder to make effects because they do not get the blur they need to blend them with the surrounding.
Equipement needed to record, edit, mix, master and archive go usually seriously up, the required staff to operate those equipement are either younger (fresh out of school where they learned the tech in question) or more expensive (more talent needed because of reason stated in previous paragraph or more experienced workers that keep up-to-date). Price go up, the consummer pays more and actually, if he would never had seen a movie in this increased resolution he would never ever have gave a damn about it...
In fact, there is a big difference between the 30 frames per second and the 60 fields per second.
In the 60 fields per second each field has half vertical resolution BUT updates 60 times per second. That means the temporal resolution is 60fps and not 30. If you merge two fields into one frame you will get interlace banding and also a blurred image and half temporal resolution - not a good thing.
Why not use holographic film in a normal camera to record ultra-high definition images? The holographic film I've looked at has a resolution of 3000 to 5000 lines per millimeter. You could duplicate the resolution of this UHDV system with a piece of holographic film that's 3 by 2 millimeters. The only problem is how to funnel the amount of light needed to form a big picture through it without melting the film.
If you want the ultimate of resolution, put a holographic plate in an 8X10 large format camera. Then, you'll have 1.4 TRILLION "pixels"! Beat that