Slashdot Mirror
Ultra HDTV on Display for the First Time
fdiskne1 writes "According to a story by the BBC, the successor to HDTV is already out there. The resolution? 7680 x 4320 pixels. Despite the 'wow' factor, the only screens capable of using Ultra High Definition Television are large movie screens, and no television channel has the bandwidth needed for this image. Some experts, in fact, say the technology is only a novelty. Until the rest of the necessary technology catches up, the only foreseen use for Ultra HDTV is in movie theatres and museum video archives." From the article: "Dr. Masaru Kanazawa, one of NHK's senior research engineers, helped develop the technology. He told the BBC News website: 'When we designed HDTV 40 years ago our target was to make people feel like they were watching the real object. Our target now is to make people feel that they are in the scene.' As well as the higher picture resolution, the Ultra HD standard incorporates an advanced version of surround sound that uses 24 loudspeakers. "
And i just bought an HDTV last week.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Title says it all...
An excuse to not upgrade to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD!
Now I won't have to lose geek credibility when I say SD is "good enough."
Man, you really need that seminar!
Also required blood to be sampled and only one life form to be detected in the room before it allows you to play your DNA proteced version of "Stars Wars IV - Remix 92 - The Jedi Beat The Terrorists (2020 release)".
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
I want to see if it looks better than my computer monitor resolution.
640 (by 480) ought to be enough for anyone...
This guy's the limit!
The inventors were overheard as saying; "Big deal. IT'S THE CONTENT STUPID!"
Atleast books will always have a higher (mental) resolution, it's to bad nobody reads anymore.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
However, it is unlikely to be available to the public for at least 25 years.
/. posted a story that is ahead of time!
Whoah,
That's quite the resolution.
I wonder, can the human eye even see such high resolution; does it even matter at that point? I mean,
According to this page it would appear that each human eye is a 15 megapixel camera.
If my maths are correctish then 7680 x 4320 is 33 million pixels.
So then, the question is - does this mean that by adding both eyes together, at best humans have 30 megapixel resolution vision?
Could this be considered "full human" resolution?
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
The article says we might start to see these UHDTV sets in about 25 years. Although SDTV can be said to have started in the 1920s or 30s practically speaking it's about 55 or so years old as the transition to high definition picks up steam. (2006 will be the first year more high definition sets than standard definition sets are sold in the US.) With the rate of technological change and Moore's law it seems reasonable to me that the next generation will arrive in about half the time SDTV lasted.
Insert witty sig here.
I'll be able to hook this up to a server and run my console apps at a *really* high resolution.
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
you wait 40 years to upgrade and a week later you're obsolete.
what I hate about TV is how the specs are so hardware-dependent. all kinds of numbers and letters and if it differs by 1 character your thousands of dollars might have been wasted.
imo it should be more like computers: you basically have a processor that determines your data processing and a display device that determines your viewable resolution. almost everything else is software and thus improvements are continuous and ongoing. it's a much better model than upgrading every couple of decades, with a half-decade period when your TV is too good for the signal.
once TV is based on more internet-like digital technologies this will hopefully happen.
Pitty money and time is spent on increasing the specs of something that is already in abundance.
As technology matures there's a race for bigger, faster, and finer. But this race is not eternal: in few years the sweet spot is hit and people are not interested in higher resolutions.
With TV resolution this sweet spot is already somewhere between DVD and EDTV, way below 1800p. So yea, don't expect "technology to catch up" in that respect, as the summary suggest, since noone cares for it to catch up in this way.
"When we designed HDTV 40 years ago..."
Whoa! 40 Years ago!? Amazing! Crazy how long it took to go public/mainstream. I guess it's one thing to design something and quite another to build upon it.
-Buddy of DoQ
The focus of this article seems to be on the domestic/consumer future for this technology. I don't doubt that U-HDTV is an impressive and immersing experience, but is there really a place for this in our homes? There is a limit to the level of detail we can see on a average-sized (say, 28") television across the room. The size of potential television screen we could purchase is somewhat limited by the size of living room we can afford, after all - and HDTV sets large enough for the viewer to appreciate the quality of picture they display tend to dwarf all but the largest of rooms. The article suggests that U-HDTV might be available to consumers in around 25 years, but, even then, will we want or need it?
Man wird am besten für seine Tugenden bestraft.
Legal problems gettin' thick and hazy
Look at the people gettin' rich and crazy
Locked up in mansions on the top of the hill
Someone needs to tell them 'bout overkill
Overkill, overkill
Such a megalo modern problematic ill
Climb too fast and shove too hard
You'll be pushin' up the daisies in the old boneyard
Ah uh
Ah uh
Ah uh
Ah uh
I went to find the truth in the himalayas
Bundled up half-frozen munchin' milky way-uhs
Found a shaman in a diaper with a poppy pot
When I asked if he was cold he said I just think hot
Overkill, overkill
Such a megalo modern problematic ill
Climb too fast and shove too hard
You'll be pushin' up the daisies in some old boneyard
Ah uh
Ah uh
Wmr:
Out in hollywood the paper money rolls
They feed their egos instead of their souls
A million here, a million there
A mindless corporate dance
Gettin' paid for fuckin' off in the south of france
They don't do the shows
But they act like the stars
They fly around in g-4's and suck on big cigars
It ain't about the talent
It ain't about the skill
It's all about the silly stupid horseshit deal!
Overkill, overkill
Such a megalo modern problematic ill
Climb too fast and shove too hard
You'll be pushin' up the daisies in the old boneyard
[ horn/pan break ]
I got no corporate gig
I got no guru (ah uh)
I don't own ocean front in honolulu (ah uh)
You write the big checks
But I pay your bills
Now someone's got to tell you 'bout overkill
Overkill, overkill
Such a megalo modern problematic ill
Climb too fast and shove too hard
You'll be pushin' up the daisies in some old boneyard
Overkill, overkill
Such a megalo modern problematic ill
Climb too fast and shove too hard
You'll be pushin' up the daisies in some old boneyard
I want that to use as my second monitor. Good enough for editing text-files on.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Are there any videos of Ultra HDTV in action? I'd love to see how it looks on my monitor.
How will my pron collection look on this screen, i wonder.
So, did I do my math right? /1024 gives kb /1024 gives mb /1024 gives gb
x*y*bytes per pixel*frames per second gives bytes per section
7680*4320*3*25/1024/1024/1024 = 2.3174 gigabytes per second
that's quite a chunk for streaming video. of course, there will be compression techs and other tricks, but that's pretty impressive.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
First, it's pre-announced. Then there's a lag between the neat idea exposure and mass-market reality. It took about ten years for HDTV of the dull 1080i type to become affordable (if you consider just under a $1K affordable-- and it will drop further soon).
/. to begin with.
Digital photography was pre-announced. Looked great, even at megapixel rates. Kodak scoffed, so did Fuji. Both hedged their bets and it's a great thing they did or they'd be in Chapter 7. It took about the same time from pre-announcement to mass market approval. Now you can go to Brookstone and get a 640x320 matchbox-sized camera for $50, and digital 'disposibles' are arriving.
Cool-it is anti-consumption. Do we need television AT ALL? That's a question still to be answered. I'm all in favor for advancing technology, especially if it feeds the poor and gives quality of life a boost. While an UltraHD TV might have only speculative value, it pushes the boundary, and that's what humanity is all about.
So fie on your 'fringe' technology PCs were 'fringe' when I was soldering together and wire-wrapping motherboards in the pre-IBM and pre-Kaypro days. What we did, goofy as it sounds, is the reason you can post on
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
actually, we don't even use the full spec size of HD now. The real spec is for 1920x1080. We haven't even been using anything close to that. "Ultra", huh? What's next "Super-Duper" "Magnum" "mega-uber"
I'm sure the MPAA is already working up something to restrict this. After all, how would you think you'd have a right to get all those experiences for free? :-)
BTW, it's not true that you get it with unlimited resolution. There are several limits to the resolution you get. First is the wavelength of light. Red light has a wavelength of about 800 nm, so you can't see any more than that in red. Violet light has about 400 nm, so you have twice the resolution there, but it's still limited.
The second limit is in your eyes. You simply don't get more "pixels" than your retina provides. So even the light wavelength limit is actually purely theoretical. Note that you cannot offset this by going arbitrary close, because below some minimal distance your eyes won't focus any more.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This format may also be useful for showing the often missing moon landing movies.
Best TV related comment I have read in a great while.
Don't actually go outside and inteact with other people, sit at home and your TV will make you think you are interacting with other people.
Someone need to make this guy listen to She Watch Channel Zero.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Now I just have to wait for it to come down in price and I'll finally be able to have an HDTV LCD that displays ALL 3 common resolutions without doing funky scaling tricks
1080i/p pixels = 4x4 pixel block of real pysical pixels, 720p pixels = 6x6 block of physical pixels, 480i/p pixels = 9x9 block of physical pixels.
1080i pip is still 1080i at 1/4 of the screen. no down scaling.
THIS folks is what I've been waiting for ever since HDTV was announced.
If only I could afford to be an early adopter on this technology.
Seriously people, if you want REAL, then go OUTSIDE. That is true reality, you smell, taste, and see it all, with a unlimited resolution.
No, see you're missing the point. I don't want REAL LIFE. I want LIFELIKE. Because let's face it, no matter what happens in real life, I doubt I'm ever gonna have the opportunity to bend Elisha Cuthbert over the closest piece of furniture and give her the worst 30 seconds of her life.
But if we can make screens mimic reality, then we're one step closer to every twisted geek's fantasy - the Holodeck. And I guarantee you, Holodeck-Elisha is more open to experimentation. One just has to hope that Real-Holographic-Simulated-Evil-Lincoln doesn't spring to life and goes on a rampage, wrecking the ambience.
Say it with me: HOLODECK
Give me gyroscopes and holograms! It doesn't matter if that Klingon bat'leth is UHD resolution...all you'll see is a low-res blur before your very high res intestines spill out before you!
(Of course, those aren't really your intestines, but this holodeck goes for intensity in imagery.)
Meanwhile, CMDR Taco [deceased] writes on how playstations "neural implant connect-kinetic extremity dongle [N.I.C.K.E.D]...was 'actually just a rehash of the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis controller.
>>>Scanning for I.D.I.O.T.S. >>>
>>>I.D.I.O.T.S. FOUND! >>>
What's more, while all the electronics in digital cameras are quickly improving, the optics are not. The lenses of an expensive camera from the 80's are ground and set every bit as accurately as the lenses on new cameras. This is just not an area with much room for drastic improvements. But if 31Mpix is ever going to pay off, there had better be some drastic improvements in the optics. There isn't much use for the extra pixels if all they show is blur.
The $3000 version of the PS4 is built specifically for Ultra HDTV! Pre-order now!
Caffeine is my anti-drug!
Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
Evans and Sutherland is working on better. They are making a 8000x8000, 32bit color, 60Hz projector. The power consumption is a bit high for most people though, at 5kW. http://www.es.com/products/digital_theater/digista r3-laser.asp
Ramping up pixel count is like Detroit building bigger and bigger engines , 380 CuInches, baby vrrooom vrrooom. Hope they improve the dynamic range of these screens, which are all pathetic 1000 for most screens. Human eye has 1 million. Also why not some real depth perception too.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I'm serious when I say this, so bear that in mind as you snicker... ...but: what's the challenge, here? What's the innovation? If you're not worried about how you're going to fit it into an existing transmission medium (that is, they obviously aren't worried about sending OTA on a TV channel), then what's the challenge to designing a higher-resolution spec?
How is this different than me defining a video spec that operates at 1048576 x 589824 pixels x 120 fps, non-interlaced? Is it just that they spent the money to have custom hardware designed to meet their UHD spec?
(As I alluded to at the beginning, I suspect I'm just ignorant of what actually goes into developing this sort of thing - information replies will get a cookie. Never mind that it comes from slashdot.org, I promise that's my cookie you're getting)
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Just wait a few more years for WHUXGA...
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HUXGA
WHUXGA 7680×4800 16:10 37M
WHUXGA an abbreviation for Wide Hex[adecatuple] Ultra Extended Graphics Array, is a display standard that can support a resolution up to 7680 x 4800 pixels, assuming a 16:10 aspect ratio. The name comes from the fact that it has sixteen (hexadecatuple) times as many pixels as an WUXGA display. As of 2005, one would need 12 such displays to render certain single-shot digital pictures, for instance a 14836 x 20072 pixels image created by a Betterlight Super 10K-2.
Don't worry, we're still a long ways from human-eye resolution. The eye can detect a single photon, which means until the display has the control to know exactly how many photons it's emitting (not coming soon), it still won't be *quite* realistic. Well, that and the fact that it's a flat screen and we have binocular vision.
stuff |
This is pure nonsense, because our brain doesn't work in pixels. It works in concepts, and what you think you're seeing is actually constructed in your brain from a combination of what your optic nerve feeds to your brain, and what you remember about seeing similar things before. YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE REALITY. You perceive your brain's model of reality. This is the most important thing to remember about your senses, and most people have never heard it or are all too willing to forget and pretend that yes, they are directly connected to reality.
Do some research on saccades... but here's the meaty part of the wikipedia page:
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It took 40 years, that shows how much we really need it, i suppose.
"Now, books in 3pt font! Rush to Best Buy for yours today!"
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
I predict that when this this tv becomes a household staple in 20 years that the Battleship Mauve-Ray discs will totally beat out the QD-DVD (quantum density) discs in terms of movie quality and that all you QD fanbois can cry more noobs.
This is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in...
Many people, when shown a 60" screen at a reasonable viewing distance, can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. The added resolution of UHDTV would only be of benefit on a large movie screen from a close viewing distance. But movies implemented the ideal screen resolution decades ago... It's called film.
I think it is completely reasonable to have this kind of technology in movie theaters. The whole concept of a movie theater is that it is an expensive experience that cannot be replicated at home. If you have HD-DVD at home plus a large format HD display or a projector, then what is the point of going to the movies. I think it is OK for theaters to invest in a technology that makes the answer to the previous question something other than "none".
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Ultra-HDTV's resolution is comparable to 30mm and 70mm film. This will probably be what's adopted when digital projection becomes mainstream in theaters.
No, I will not work for your startup
The Holodeck will be the last invention of mankind. Once you go in you'll never come out. I know I wouldn't. Alien archaeologists will find our remains in these little rooms all over the planet. Eventually they'll breakdown, but by then nobody will be left who knows how to fix them. I can't wait. -- "Doesn't own HDTV"
I don't know why we don't already just use 3 screens across at just 1600x1900 (UXGA) all the time. We look at the middle screen for detail, and the side screens fill our peripheral vision. It seems like mounting a bezel on the screens that pushes out past their frames to join in front in a seam is a lot easier than making a really big panel. And the lower detail demand for the side screens could mean the driving boards don't need to triple the UXGA performance.
I'd expect this kind of rig to already be standard for gamers, whose peripheral vision is essential for survival. And therefore fairly cheap for the rest of us who just want desktops and movies that aren't like chasing a carrot on a stick.
--
make install -not war
...in the same way that high resolution still images are -- they might not fit in their entirety on the screen, but it enables you to zoom in on details. If you processor is fast enough to keep up with all the data at all, that is.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I was told the downlink for the live camera was sending 52 Gbits/sec, which isn't quite the figures the others were coming up with. The data might have been 16 bits per channel. The camera was about a foot cube, which is pretty good as a blimped IMAX camera is the size of a small car.
I don't know where the figure of not being ready for 25 years comes from. The project never had a time to manufacture. I would imagine if there was demand, it could be ready a lot earlier.
Does it replace IMAX? I am not sure. I would like to see it show footage scanned from the original "North of Superior" footage. I have seen a strike from the original negative of that, and I remember the image being so impressive that you felt the tilt when the aeroplane cornered: you believed your eyes over your inner ear. It would be interesting to know if this rig could do the same.
You can settle for your Holodeck-Elisha. But I won't be happy until I get my Elisha-Cuthbert-Bot.
It's like sex, except I'm having it!
The reason we will almost always need more resolution is the Moire Effect.
It doesn't matter where the human eye's resolution tops out, as long as your display is made of discrete square dots you will experience Moire shimmering in certain scenes. Grass, screendoors, wallpaper on home improvement shows... because a television program or movie is made by moving a camera across a scene, eventually you're bound to hit a pattern that's a problem for the resolution you have.
In printing, where resolutions of thousands of DPI are available, they *still* have to watch out very carefully for Moire. Higher resolutions make it easier to avoid, but they don't entirely eliminate the problem.
As long as that shimmering is there, a scene will not be truly and convincingly immersive. You don't have to know about Moire to spot that something is off.
Do not make another interlaced standard!
I've seen this at NAB this year in Vegas. It's awesome. The sound system has 9 speakers on the upper layer surrounding the crowd, 10 middle speakers around and 3 lower speakers right in front, with two LFEs. It actually uses two projectors IIRC, one for chrominance and one for luminance. They showed a bunch of footage filmed for the occasion. Since it came from Japan, it involved a lot of soccer games, Japan landscapes and.... Ultra High Def sumo fat wiggling. At the end, they showed real-time footage from a tower on top of the convention center. It was pretty cool, tough you could see some noticeable compression artifacts in some places.
that's rape.
This is old news...
See the announcement from 2003.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Where in my whole post did I speak about the brain?
Your brain usually doesn't say "pixel" even when you look at a screen with pixels large enough to see the difference. Just like your brain doesn't say "low frame rate", but "flicker".
And your quote from Wikipedia doesn't change anything from what I said: Your retina determines the resolution you get. The fact that this resolution is not constant throughout the visual field doesn't change that basic fact. Nor does the fact that you unknowingly move your eyes around in order to get a larger area in high resolution.
You simply don't get more information through your eyes than your retina gives you. The fact that your brain manipulates this information by filtering, adding from memory, and even modifying due to expectations, does in no way alter that fact any more than it does alter the fact that your TV has a limited resolution (despite the fact that your brain tells you there are people or things which move on the screen of your TV, instead of a rectangular array of colored dots).
No, you are the one who has no idea what I'm talking about.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
pop the little pimples on her rear.
If there was a Holodeck-Elisha, I would do anything to transport her off it. Damn the Heisenburg(sp?) Compensator!
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
I don't understand why a digital HD video spec needs to include limits on the H/W of the image in the first place. Shouldn't it just be arbitrary? It doesn't exactly take revolutionary technology to scale digital video to a given screen size & manage the differences in aspect ratio.
Am I missing something here? I can play 1080i MP4 files on a 720p screen. Ignoring the lack of source material for a minute, I could hypothetically have a file @ 2880 * 1620 and still play it on my current setup. Further, if my graphics card and TV both handled resolutions that high, is there any reason it wouldn't go through my DVI connection at this res?
Pi Ran Out
Leela: "Fry, you're wasting your life sitting in front of that TV. You need to get out and see the real world!"
Fry: "But this is HDTV! It's got better resolution than the real world!"
What is it with you non-interlaced freaks?
No, see you're missing the point. I don't want REAL LIFE. I want LIFELIKE.
You remind of something local journalists in my country started using way too much in news reports, odd given it's a nonsense.
They like to say that some actual event that happened in our actual world is "like a real reality show"...
"Driving on the roads with your car is like a real reality show".
There should honestly be minimal intelligence requirements for one to be a reporter, I think.
I'll bet Pong would look awesome at that resolution...
First of all, it is a TV, with moving pictures. We need less resolution for flickering frames than we need for static images. Secondly, 5-6MP are enough if you look at the whole picture (literally), final size does not matter, be it a postcard or building.
It's only when you want to examine a small details of the picture, you need more pixels, therefore the landscape photographers use all the megapixels they can get. But for TV or projection, it is just plain silly.
The coolness factor is high, though.
"Sony Super HDTV"....and so a new format war begins
The Ghost Of Christmas Future taunted me with this last year. He had Playstation 5 hooked up. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27607
FWIW my eyes do not cooperate[1], so I do not see depth they way most people do. I can see movement sure enough, but my brain has to do wetware emulation to figure out how far away something is, and close up it sucks. As a result I can't catch a ball but I can estimate how far away a moving car is, but it helps if I know about what size the object is and I must use visual context.
To emulate how I do it, just close one of your eyes and do things that way. I can see out of the other eye, of course, but the brain treats it as peripheral vision unless I'm using it to focus on an object -- I can swap which eye I use to focus at will.
[1] I was born with one of my eye muscles screwed up, so I was the opposite of cross-eyed.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Isn't this because your brain uses the difference of the angles between your two eyes to calculate distance and assist with focus?
Magic 8 ball says 'Signs point to yes'.
This will be more useful for surveillance cameras than for entertainment. High-res surveillance cameras are very useful, because you can zoom in to read license plates and recognize faces.
Already, improved resolution in surveillance cameras is paying off. Everybody used to have VHS, which is really only 260 to 320 lines, and zooming in was useless. Now, 640 x 480 digital is common, 1024 x 768 isn't expensive, and you can get 1920 x 1200. (Here's a gallery of high-resolution surveillance pictures.). With such high resolution, a camera with a distant view of a store or shopping mall generates usable information.
Noticed how much better those pictures on "Wanted" posters and news stories are getting? That's what this is all about.
Big Brother is getting another vision upgrade.
Remember when you put off buying a PC because "just 'round the corner" was the next generation? Net result? The majority settled for being in the "second to best" generation, for simple monetary reasons. As soon as the next gen was out, the previously cutting edge technology's price plummeted and you bought that instead, since it was just as good for what "normal" users (and even gamers) need.
Whether we will be allowed (not able, allowed) to do the same depends on whether DRM will allow us to use older hardware instead of the newest stuff. Don't bother answering, I know the answer.
Unlike PCs, though, TVs are something everyone uses. From the pimple faced 14 year old in his room to the granny with her 80ish years. And I do think it would be a seriously difficult matter to explain to the latter group that an appliance they bought 2 years ago doesn't work anymore.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I too recently purchased a nice HDTV. Not because I had to have HD, but because I'm young and have the money and wanted to invest in something nice. I don't feel I'll need another set for at least 10 years. Anyways I feel that most companies are keeping the price of HD artificially high simply because they can. There are too many people out there that just *have* to have the best at any cost, and as long as they're paying that's all that matters to manufacturers.
My biggest complaint is the lack of decent HD programming out there. Even ESPN HD is almost 50% SD content because the cameras or original image weren't captured in high def or 16:9 format. Cable companies are the only people I see charging more money for the HD content and box while satellite has always had the extra equipment cost so the added abilities come free.
I scoff at the fact HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are going to cost a decent amount more when I feel Hollywood should have been producing higher quality formats 10 years ago.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Though a human eye may not be able to fully see the level of detail offered by this system, it allows for larger displays and zooming functionality without a loss of quality (up to a point). The same source can be used for small television displays as well as large theatre screens.
This will go on until we have the resolution required to generate the diffraction pattern required to recreate the wavefront in front of the screen: true holographic TV.
It's a nerd thing. Hand in your nerd card if you don't want completely non-lossy, non-interlaced media!
Many films are largely CGI now. Getting good focus on King Kong doesn't need a lens.
If the lifelike virtual actor thing ever works out then we could remove those pesky photons from the equation entirely.
I quit!
The retina determines resolution, but by moving the eye around the brain ends ups "seeing" a higher resolution. The same as Motion DSP can do with poor camera phone resolution. The 2nd example is really impressive - you actually read the book titles in the processed video.
More and more pixel resolution - fine!
There were experiments done from the 50s forward that showed massively increased frame rates enhance the "immersive" quality of an image much more than resolution. Douglass Trumbull's work with "Showscan" (70mm film at 60 frames per second) proved people see a "window into reality" instead of "just a film" as the frame rate approaches, and passes, 60 frames. Later work showed that even higher frame rates are even more immersive.
Early DLP home theatre projectors discovered that having the color wheel synced to the frame rate produced "rainbow" effects that made many people nauseous. Projectors now turn the wheel at 4, 5 or more times the frame rate of the underlying video.
60hz was selected for early TV to avoid interference from power line hum creeping into the analog electronics. Despite the "install base" of 24fps and 60i or 60p, is it time to move on? When will so called "High Def" increase frame rates?
Does this mean that they're gonna have to redo Duke Nukem Forever to run on a UHDTV resolution? Sigh... another 20 years of waiting...
A lot of hunting takes place at twilight. Once it's too dark for effective colour vision, humans are effectively blind when they reflexively look straight at prey or predator, which is hardly efficient. Also note that minature animals like insects, where it's really important that resources are used efficiently, don't use our vision system. Personally I think that saccades are an inevitable consequence of having a pulse, which evolution has handled fairly well, and that the fovea is a crude attempt to provide a zoom capability.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I wait all day for threads like these.
heh heh.. ZING!!
Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
It's you're, not your.
What kind of aspect ratio is that? What's wrong with 2:1 anyway?
It would be better for manufacturing (think about it). It would more closely match the wide screen format of movies. You can maintain "compatibility" with old tech 4:3 ratio TV using vertical bars on either side of the image if anyone is still watching reruns of Star Trek when these sets finally come out.
But what the heck is this 16:9 stuff about? That's just a silly number left over from the days of CRTs.
although i agree that bandwidth is a good limiting factor i hadn't considered as the major roadblock. I imagine that if it was truly necessary however, Netflix would be shipping/flipping hard drives filled with your movie selections, and not just a DVD.. that is, necessity would have bred such a thing faster.
Good point tho!
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
I'm interested in your product and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
My point, which you handily missed, is that you cannot talk about vision without talking about the brain. Vision doesn't live in the eyes, or even in the optic nerve. That's simply where the data used for vision comes from, and where the preprocessing occurs. Vision exists in the brain, and your brain composites data from your eyes and from memory to produce an internal representaion of your surroundings that you perceive as visual data.
As such, talking about the resolution of the eye is, while not meaningless, at the very least exceptionally misdirecting.
Let me give you an example; perhaps you have heard of retinal implantation, which has successfully given partial sight to people whose retinal surface is either damaged or was ill-formed. The original implant was a four by four grid of receptors; each receptor is basically a photovoltaic solar cell hooked up to an electrode. The electrode conveys the electrical impulse to the optic nerve by way of the retina. This four by four monochrome element was sufficient to allow the recipient to find a doorway, recognize it as such, and walk through it without running into anything.
Now I think we can all agree that it is not possible to pick a doorway out of a sixteen pixel image, even with gray scales. Maybe a 16x16 pixel image, but 4x4 isn't diddly shit. However, your brain controls your eyes without your conscious input in order to build a more complete map of what you're looking at. Even when you believe yourself to be staring intently in one direction, one or both eyes may be jittering in order to build a better image.
And what you said is still complete nonsense because your brain, if anything, determines the resolution you get. Not your retina. The complexity of the image in your mind is limited not by any properties of your retina (the clarity is, but only due to ability to focus, or lack thereof) but by the characteristics of your brain. I'm tempted to insert the word "physical", as in physical characteristics, but honestly we know so little about the mechanisms involved in vision that it would be a fairly unfounded statement. Still, it seems likely that the overall complexity of the brain (hard to measure, in the case that quantum effects are significant, and some research points that way) is the limiting factor. We know it's not the number of elements in the retina.
Good thing I never said it did; nor, in fact, did you say it didn't. It's also true that our eyes/brain can distinguish detail finer than a pixel on an average-size HD display; some of us can discern the difference in quality between 300 and 600 dpi; pretty much everyone can tell the difference between 150 and 300; Anyone who can't see a difference between 75 and 150 dpi (or ppi, or whatever measurement we're using today) is probably using a screen reader.
The number of rods/cones on your retina very likely determines how quickly you can look at something and get a good picture of it, but it would seem to have very little to do with how clear an image you can build in your mind.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I've been paying attention too. I first saw HDVS in 1988. I never saw Hi-Vision, the first Japanese analog broadcast standard.
No, there was never a 1080P analog broadcast standard in the US. There never was any serious attention paid to delivering HDTV over the air in the US until digital compression came around. This is because it was expected to take 5 regular channels to send one HD channel. At this point it became a war between compressed 720p and compressed 1080i.
Both were considered the best that could be done correctly on a single 6MHz (14mbps) channel. Both contain the same amount of info, and it's not by accident.
As to your cable conspiracy, the FCC left cable alone. They didn't mandate must-carry for digital local channels. Additionally, note that cable uses the FCC-endorsed ATSC standard and that HD was not even available over cable until after it was available OTA. The FCC was in no way waiting for cable to take up the slack.
You're right that content providers decided they'd rather do 4 SD channels than one HD channel. Because of this the FCC put in place some crazy rule that says that if content providers provide additional content on those alternate channels that are not on the main channel, they must return the revenue derived from that content. I don't know if the rule is even enforced, but because of it, the alternate channels in my area are all either PBS, commercial-free content (often just weather radar or rolling news) or identical to the main channel except in format.
This was because these providers were not charged for this additional bandwidth and the FCC didn't want the TV stations essentially reselling it and competing against the FCC in bandwidth sales. This came into play after a few broadcasters opined that they would put data on the additional channels instead of TV and sell it to pager or data providers like the Microsoft "spot" watches.
HDMI and HDCP are not FCC mandated, and they are not required to view OTA ATSC content. Even barring of recording is not in place since there is no broadcast flag now. Oddly, the broadcast flag never even barred recording technically, it merely said that any device capable of receiving the broadcast flag must preserve it if it exports the content outside the box.
Yes, there is plenty of protection on BluRay/HD-DVD and you'll maybe have trouble recording HBO. But neither of those fall under the FCC's mandates nor the public airwaves.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
So, seeing as how vista limits you to 480p unless you use HDCP, I can only imagine what would come of this. Maybe they'll only let you run at 1080p unless you get a pc and monitor capable of some new equally-ultra-crippled hardware drm scheme and the lead-pipe sized uhdcp cable to use it :P
The Holodeck will be the last invention of mankind. Once you go in you'll never come out. I know I wouldn't. Alien archaeologists will find our remains in these little rooms all over the planet. Eventually they'll breakdown, but by then nobody will be left who knows how to fix them. I can't wait. -- "Doesn't own HDTV"
That's funny, clever and possible! I love it!
Oh Kif, it's beautiful! It's Spirit, the pony I always wanted but my parents said I already had too many ponies!
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Resolution doesn't have anything to do with sensitivity.
The human eye only has significant visual acuity in a small region of the retina, and even there it pales by the standards of a film camera or even a $200 digicam.
... watch Ultra Porn with.. awesome.. and thank you Futurama!
I Like Pie...
Anyone read the article- What's the framerate? I think we should start running big displays at like 40+ fps. And make it a nice even number, none of this 29.98 nonsense.
I remember visiting the Exploratorium in San Francisco many years ago (highly recommended) and playing with a visual optics experiment that showed how the human eye suffered from chromatic aberration that is corrected in the brain instead of the lens as is normally done outside of biology. While the blue side of the spectrum should give higher resolution do to wavelength it is limited by the relative scarcity of blue cones (2%) versus red (64%) and green (32%) cones. I have always made it a point in my technical schematics to avoid the use of blue where visual acuity was important.
it's the next totally cool full wide screen iPod, with 4 TB of storage, subspace radio ZM, and lots of cool cases...
The Official Announcement is September 25th !!!1!!1!
So let's see here. Give me a good HD resolution for a TV. Make it 1080p, or something comparable. Then make it semi-transparent, put another one behind it, and generate some true depth. Then crank up the dynamic range to at least ten times what it is now. Now THAT'S where they should be doing some innovation!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Bah! I won't upgrade again until they can give me a screen with Planck density resolution. Anything between my current 9 foot High Def TV and that is a waste of my time.
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
Are we still going to be using 8bit sRGB or low dynamic range YUV, and 8/10bit DACS or 6/8bit LCDs? At some point isn't that going to become a better avenue than resolution to achieve more realistic images?
a novelty."
Sorry, experts, I call you on this one. Who are these "experts" by the way? And why must we always defer to "experts" and "authorities". This one only requires common sense. Information is now digital and comes in all shapes and sizes, and the pipe it's carried on comes in various flow rates, so a single resolution for everyone will soon be (already is?) a thing of the past. Perhaps the available resolutions for video data, and/or the percentage of screens at a certain resolution probably follows some sort of a bell curve. The future is already here, it's just not widely distributed.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
But this is UHDTV! It has better resolution than the real world.
Humans and other animals do not look at a scene in a steady way. Instead, the eyes move around, locating interesting parts of the scene and building up a mental 'map' corresponding to the scene.
This is why 3D models of engineering concepts are so intriguing (to me, at least). On the other hand, having a constantly-moving object makes the brain re-focus on a point of reference from which the object must be viewed.
With complex, intertwined, highly-detailed systems (such as motherboard circuitry or the piping systems in, say, a refinery) this change of view can be confusing. When 3D modelling such systems it's easy to forget "where you are" due to the changed perspective and since most modelling programs do not feature onscreen text descriptions of the elements they portray, it's worse than 2D for the designer.
First of all, when Star Trek was at its peak of popularity, a full 65% of Americans considered themselves fans.
Secondly, a rather significant percentage of people with child fetishes are "Peter Pan" cases themselves, who have difficulty letting go of their childhood. If they enjoyed Star Trek in their teens, they would be likely to still decorate their homes with Trekkie swag in their 30s and 40s.
So, it's not surprising in the least that a lot of kiddie pr0n fans are Trekkies, but the corollary does not follow. Most Trekkies are not sexually deviant, apart from maybe a thing for "Klingon Forhead Bumps."
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Other could still just as easily be Han Solo.
So that's 3d then? I know there are theoretical limits to resolution--but I think the retina becomes a limiting factor way before then.
"There should honestly be minimal intelligence requirements for one to be a reporter, I think." But then how would they find reporters for Fox? Wait...