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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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! >>>
...it's to bad nobody reads anymore.
It's a shame that writing skills are on the decline, too.
This guy's the limit!
I would but I couldn't find any videos about it.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
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.'"
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.
"It's just that only around now has technology reached the point where HDTV is practical. (Wasn't the original HDTV rollout years something like 1997, 2000, 2003, and so on until technology became cheap and available?)"
I'm probably the only one here who is 1) old enough to remember, and 2) actually paying attention to the HDTV fiasco from 1985 onwards.
Analog HDTV was rolled out in Japan in the 1980's. A bit stung, the American television manufactures and the networks hammered together a proposal to broadcast 1080p in the following way: standard def over the usual VHF channels, while the HD component would be broadcast over unused channels. Thus, Channel 2 CBS would go out as normal, while an HDTV set would take that signal and add information broadcast over channel, say, 3. All analog. All broadcast. The rollout would have been around 1990 or so.
A funny thing happened. Digital video. The broadcasters saw what digital compression could do for them. Why just one channel, using all that bandwidth, when we can now use the same two channels and broadcast 4 programs simo? We promise that sometimes we'll broadcast in HD; just most of the time, we'd like to make more money with four low-def channels. And they demanded, and got, 1080 (i), to halve the signal and enable more channels on the side thereby.
And their wish was granted. These were the years of no-regulation, after all. The issue of public ownership of the airwaves was going bye-bye, and the government would like to auction off those frequencies anyway, which leads us to
Cable. Since so much programming was going over cable, the Gov decided that public regulation of public airwaves was silly and undermining competition. So long Fairness Doctrine, so long limits on corporate ownership and monopoly control. And so additionally, why force public airwaves to go digital when cable could deliver it so much better than they?
And network TV didn't really want to pay to upgrade, either, so that slowed it down a lot. Delay after delay...
THEN the kicker. The "content owners" saw that in the digital age they had a chance to lock down signals and force people to pay each time they accessed their "property". They wanted taping to go away as well -- they hated VCR's and almost killed the tech in 1984. They could win this one, and so was born the Broadcast Flag, a digital lock on transmissions that controlled the use of the program. Cue a big delay as HDMI, HTCP and all the other locks were developed and approved by the "content" industry.
Now... it's the 21st century. almost 20 years late, and we've crappy 1080i signals going over the air, infomercials clogging all those channels we can access for free, and we can't record the standard 1080i signal.
Remember, the public airwaves are supposed to belong to we the people, and the broadcasters and producers are supposed to dance to our tune. Somehow they are now the masters, and we those begging for mercy.
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.
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