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..."

18 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. Viewscreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So *that's* what powers the view screen on the Enterprise. Cool! :)

  2. First Thought.... by ricky-road-flats · · Score: 5, Funny

    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

  3. 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 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

  4. Thank you very much by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  5. 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.
  6. regfree link by werdnapk · · Score: 4, Informative

    regfree link here

  7. Re:Right ... by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the other hand, perhaps this may be better as an educational tool:

    "And here you can see the distribution of Influenza cases superimposed across this landsat image lower manhattan... and my apartment. Hey! There's me! And I have the flu."

  8. Monitors First by Skraut · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First of all I'd love to see a monitor with that resolution, but then it only makes sense for a monitor to come first. Look at the development of monitors vs. hdtv. Computer monitors were the first to have the resolutions that HDTV now has simply because it was easier to generate those images locally and send them over a short monitor cable than it is to have the bandwidth to send them over the air, cable or sattelite.

    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.
  9. Oh, Great... by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now George Lucas can let us all see, in the most perfect, clear, awe-inspiring beautiful picture imaginable, Greedo shoot first.

    Damnit!

  10. It was great until... by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...my kids put in the Ultra Hi Def Barney Video.

    Serenity NOW!

    Tim

  11. 12TB/hr? by utexaspunk · · Score: 4, Funny

    well, that's one way to keep people from sharing the files...

  12. No bittorrent link? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody got a bittorrent link to the 3.5 terabyte file?

  13. Is that the best you can come up with? by zbuffered · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, only 2 dimensions?

    --
    Synergy is your friend
  14. Confused by Bozdune · · Score: 4, Funny

    What kind of porn are you watching, anyway, where they bother with post-production touch-up -- or plot, for that matter?

  15. Of course... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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
  16. Why so many audio channels? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Why so many audio channels? by Anm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      2 channels only works well if you have headphones and massive amounts of on-the-fly processing (I believe it remains more than today's top-of-the-line PC's & consumer soundcards), and even then it isn't perfect. Others have replied about the frequency changes from in front/behind/above/below. But there are also variations in ear shape that each individual ('s brain) has become tuned too. And your comment about headphones + 360 degree sound doesn't address the fact that we live in a 3D environment, nor the problem of localization in the face of multiple competing sounds.

      And that doesn't even get into the social isolation headphones encourage. For the majority of settings, it is better to have multi-channel surround sound for an area that can encompass a group rather than a stack of headphones (and the sound processors that come with that).

      Your comments about center channel are also misled. The center channel is a tremble speaker so it projects voices from the center/screen area best. Panning voices between front left/right can causes the voices to seem off screen and can be very distracting to some people.

      So now you ask, what is my background? I do VR environments in colaboration with these people: http://imsc.usc.edu/research/project/immersiveaudi o/immersiveaudio_tech.pdf