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..."

10 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Right ... by n0d3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  2. At least we have some good news by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:At least we have some good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      unless you grandchildrern have updated eye-chips installed in their brain :)

    2. Re:At least we have some good news by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There will always, however, be people who claim to be able to detect the undetctable and spend ungodly amounts of money not to detect it.

      KFG

    3. Re:At least we have some good news by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that in many cases (this isn't one of them) increasing the number of pixels simply means a bigger screen -- not better resolution.

      This technology probably won't be used to make a better picture on the 20" screen but will give you the ability to have a 200" screen without looking at gigantic pixels.

      --
      Rod Taylor
  3. nice, but what is the point? by randomized · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. where? by netfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  5. gah by Fullmetal+Edward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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]
  6. Re:First Thought.... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The flip side of this may be that the what conventional TV turned into "just a swamp" will look like an "interesting marshland ecosystem", and actually filming on location in a real 400 year old castle will make a version of Dracula that will spook your socks off.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  7. great, that's like having a ferrari by waspleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?