Slashdot Mirror
33 MegaPixel TV in 2015
psyph3r writes "The Japanese communications ministry is investing in a new broadcast display technology with NHK to launch a 33 million pixel, 24-point surround-sound broadcast standard by 2015. The standard will use a video data rate of 24Gbps and an audio data rate of 28Mbps. This must be surreal in person."
Wow, they invented movie theaters that run on internet streams.
This is supposed to be exciting?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Eye upgrades are expected to become available in 2016.
Technology is advancing far faster than the understanding humans have of themselves. I watch my NTSC 320 x 240 maximum resolution TV and usually feel that the resolution is higher than it needs to be considering that the low thought content of the TV show.
This must be surreal in person
If you think that is surreal you gotta try the acid. It'll blow your mind!
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I'd rather not when you can see all the pimples on the girls poon and the guys ball bag. I hope they include a filter to make things look fuzzy.
... without actually experiencing it.
How cool. A commission declares 24 gig bandwidth for tentacle rape cartoons! Luckily for them, they don't have to actually implement the thing!
Why they are at it, how about 92 megapixel, say 67 gig! The Utah commission has just spoken.
THL phish sticks
Sure, you will see only skin pores and little hairs because your room won't be large enough to be sufficiently far away to see an entire image.
Yes, if you MUST have 300Gbps streaming data to your home, we'll be glad to rent to you and your family the following items:
3 obnoxious people who will not watch the movie, but will interrupt your view of it
1 usher who is totally clueless as to what he should be doing as well as what movie is playing
2 rude 16 year olds who will get your order for popcorn wrong twice, then over charge you 50 cents on the medium soft drink
1 ticket taker who should have been replaced by a bar code reader years ago, and who roughly knows the direction to the toilets should you need them.
1 manager to sit in your den, pretending he knows what is going on, but has to ask the 18yr old up in the projection booth to be sure.
Finally, thanks to my business services, you can finally have a realistic movie theater experience in your own home. Congratulations and welcome to the 21st century.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I think the purpose for it is to seem real.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
Something like this was on display last year at NAB. NHK had 8K displays set up next to 4K, 1080p and standard def units. As I walked past starting from SD and moving up, my reaction was:
SD: yuch
1080p: oh, that's nice
4k: wow, that's fantastic
8K: holy shit, that's like looking out the window
I remember discussions something like a year ago that pornproducers worried about HD videos, because they could reveal some flaws on their stars; there were even suggestions to show some acteurs only from a specific perspective. They could become very upset.
However, I think it's a waste of bandwith.
Duke Nuke Em is going to look amazing on it!
But given a choice I would prefer stereo or 3D displays instead.
Too bad you'll need a Beowulf cluster of hard drives just to store a single movie.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
What's surreal is imagining that anyone could find anything worth watching at that resolution...
? syntax error
will i need a new graphics card for this display?
why are you laughing?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, we're halfway there already. I believe most studios that are now remastering for HD (especially HD DVD and Blu-Ray) are mastering the picture at 4K resolution: Blade Runner being one of those titles. The idea I guess is once "4K" becomes a standard, they'll have this content ready.
Sony already sells a 4K projector meant for digital cinemas. But, you can use it to show 4 HD signals at once, something which Sony has been trying to promote to sportsbooks, tradeshows, etc.
It all ultimately depends on visual acuity. Some people are already having trouble seeing the difference between an upscaled NTSC signal and an HD signal. I can only imagine this well get more troublesome as we keep ramping up the resolution.
Just remember, HD doesn't even get close to properly displaying all of the resolution of 35mm film. We've got ways to go, although I don't see more than one new generation replacing the current HDTV "standard" for consumer-level high-end technology.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Y'know, I figure the proper way to do porn in hi-def is simply to tile 16 different vids at a time, and you can check out the stream that interests you most.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I've always wondered what resolution would something need to be to be indistinguishable from reality. Clearly this is particular pixel density, I guess a simple experiment would be to play a dvd, and wait to see how far back you have to walk to make it indistinguishable from reality.
Mac users really need to get a sense of style. Already the bland white computers look bad, now this.
Yes, yes, I can, and as a result, I think there's good money to made in making real-time convolution processor accessories.
"Oh, holy shit, I don't want to see that!" *click* *click* Video Options:Transform:Real Time Blurs:Add Soft Focus.
The video display industry is finally catching up (in terms of pixels) to the video capture industry.
...Heh.
is trying to compensate for something, methinks.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
I saw them demo this live a couple of years ago. It's very impressive, but despite the post title they're not thinking about using it for domestic use any time soon, it's aimed at digital cinema and outdoor events and won't be commercially available till about 2025. What they are proposing is the standard to be ratified by 2015.
This was the company that demo'd HD TV in the early 80s and people thought it was at least 10 years away from being commercially available, they misjudged by over 10 years.
Sounds like it will be just in time for when:
1) I finally upgrade to "regular" HDTV...doh!
2) George Lucas' re-re-release of Star Wars original trilogy in this crazy new format
3) playing some Duke Nukem Forever on my PS9
stuff |
so that the next version of windows (Vista 2K10) will work?
What?
You can't even get a 12Mbps connection in the US for less than $1000/mo. Max for any reasonable price is around 6Mbps.
Heresy! God uses emacs.
One of the things that TV manufacturers contend with is what screen size versus resolution. The uptake of true 1080p on screen sizes of 32" or less has been slow because there's virtually no visual difference between 720p/WXGA screens at those screen sizes for the average viewing distance in a living room. I'm also not talking about computer output, though you wouldn't be able to read much unless you bumped the font size up by quite a bit at 1080p.
Now, 37" is marginal and 42" is where it really starts getting to be noticeable. This is also the sweet spot for a primary panel for the next few years. Beyond this resolution, you'll start noticing 1080p from the next highest resolution (i.e. quad-720p or 1440p) at the 56-63" screen size. But there's one problem with 63" and larger screens: they are close to the limit for what most homes can pass through their door!. In fact, a monolithic 71" 1080p plasma that a large Korean company allowed us to borrow for our lab work wouldn't go properly around normal corners and with standard door widths. So all your dreams of 102" LCDs in your living rooms may be short lived given you won't be able to get it around any corners. Most luxury homes these days, by the way, usually have this in mind when the house is architected so that there's enough room to get these sets into the house from outside. Also, bear in mind that the scaling technology, although advancing rapidly, can only do so much with standard definition material and it just looks worse as you get a larger screen size.
Now, even if it's possible to build a seamless, high-reliability large screen like a flexible screen that can fit in your room, you start hitting a visual limit again at around quad-1080p (3840x2160) for the height of an average room in most of the developed world without even considering how much eye/neck strain this will cause for the average viewer. In case you weren't counting already, we're at around ~8 Megapixels at that size. So, having an 8k x 4k resolution system like the one proposed will require a double size wall which - surprise! - is pretty much where most theaters are going for online distribution of movies. Heck, they already get away with 4k x 2k resolution in digital theaters anyway and most people don't even notice it. And when I saw their demo of 4k, my entire field of view needed to be taken up to see any differences.
As for the audio, never mind that 24 position audio is completely impractical from an installation perspective in the average home and can be easily emulated using far fewer speakers and using virtual surround positioning techniques. This is why it's funny when DTS versus DTS-HD gets brought up - unless you're an audiophile or are in a movie theater, you probably won't care about or notice the difference.
And this gets us back to one immutable point - that this technology is complete overkill for broadcast applications. If broadcast is the target market, and given the rise of personalized on-demand/online video, then this an essentially completely futile effort.
Now that's high-resolution. Hmm, 33 MPix hentai...
I think it's overkill. The vast majority of us don't have that kind of room, bandwidth, money, and vision to benefit from this.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
"This must be surreal in person"
..?
'...that must be unreal in reality...'
As opposed to surreal not in person? How else can one do surreal anyhoo.
Here's an idea, why not try changing the channel? What's that... you only paid for basic channels. Here's a list of educational and also fun to watch programs I'd like to see someone try to rip apart:
Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, The First 48, The Daily Show, etc...
Things have changed since the A-Team and Knight Rider...
Wow, they're actually throwing 300 million yen ($3 million) at this project? They must really be serious about it. Is that just the bureaucratic overhead for the planning commission, or the whole R&D budget? I'm pretty sure we've spent more than that in the US warning people that their old analog TVs will stop working when we switch over to HDTV.
Impressive, but diminishing returns will relegate this to...well i have no idea what scientific la la la will make use.
:)
"low def" to 480p (huge improvement)
480p -> -> -> 1080i (noticable improvement with proper equipment)
1080i -> wtfpwnedx1000 will be a minor improvement useful only for those with the equipment, a huge screen, etc.
Looking at cost...it scales extremely quickly but i guess the ferrari isn't $995,000 faster than the Scion either.
Though...somewhere around this level of resolution you make a "virtual window" available to apartments with no exterior walls. But hey, if you can afford a 3 bagillion $ TV for a window you can probably get a nicer apartment
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
I saw them demo this live a couple of years ago. It's very impressive, but despite the post title they're not thinking about using it for domestic use any time soon, it's aimed at digital cinema and outdoor events and won't be commercially available till about 2025. What they are proposing is the standard to be ratified by 2015.
This was the same company that demo'd HD TV in the early 80s and people thought it was at least 10 years away from being commercially available, they misjudged by over 10 years. They know their technology but not their lead times. Like most companies in this sector.
*Yawn*
I still have better resolution with my good ol' eyes looking at the real world.
Next.
We'll be able to enjoy at our local hovercar drive-in theatres!
... and it was totally amazing. Like looking out a huge picture window. They had some stored content (playing off a fast RAID array I believe) and some streaming content from a camera array mounted on the roof. The projector alignment tech was awesome; there were no visible seams anywhere. This was in a room basically the same size as the one on the linked web site; maybe 50' x 30'; viewing distance around 10-20'. It was beautiful.
But, they could only run it about 10 minutes per hour. Not sure whether it was heat, storage, or whatever, but it was definitely not at all ready for prime time. Still, when it worked it was just stunningly gorgeous.
Are those shows actually better on a $1000 high-def flatscreen TV? Those shows are good because of good writing, good thinking, and charismatic presentation. As such, they're just as enjoyable on a 20 year old SD television...
The only stuff that really benefits from an HD tv are sports and summer "blockbusters" like Transformers.
P.S. The A-Team ruled.lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Ummm...
This is the connection *I* have. (The 15Mbps one with iProvo).
15Mbps for $40/month. In the US.
http://mstarmetro.net/offerings/fastestnet.php
https://www.facebook.com/digitizeicm -- Show your support for the digitization of the Iron County Miner newspaper archiv
Well, we're halfway there already. I believe most studios that are now remastering for HD (especially HD DVD and Blu-Ray) are mastering the picture at 4K resolution: Blade Runner being one of those titles. The idea I guess is once "4K" becomes a standard, they'll have this content ready.
I'm confused... George Lucas hasn't already re-released the original Star Wars Trilogy in 4K? He must be getting slow in his old age.
If that's your attitude, why watch TV? Why not just read a book?
This system was shown at the National Association of Broadcaster's convention in Las Vegas last year. The camera looked like something out of a horror film, as did the microphone system. Still, it worked well and the picture.... lets just say it was hard to tell it from the surrounding wall, other than the slight reflection of the hall lights. I have a brief shot of this camera here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9YPwIrr1g at about 1:38 into the clip.
Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
Do you think any of those shows are really enhanced by the difference between SD and HD? Let alone 33 megapixels...
Mythbusters: Blowing shit up and building expensive rigs to (dis)prove pointless myths, even though anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics could easily calculate the result. You don't get hands-on experience from watching someone else doing it on TV.
This 7680x4320 is 1920*4x1080*4, or 16 times larger area than HD.
sqrt( 7680^2 + 4320^2 = 58982400 + 18662400 = 77644800 ) = 8,811.62868 pixels diagonal
At the typical 100 pixels per inch of computer LCDs today, that's an 88.1-inch display.
I doubt I'd be using that in portrait mode.
An an exercise, if "Frank's 2000-inch TV" is a 16x9 display at 100 ppi, what's the resolution? Given that most >HD resolutions are an integer multiple of 1920x1080, which is the nearest probable x*HD resolution?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
There was a recent article about the cost of maintaining digital film as well as the tailings of production, versus real film. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/26/1727237 One of the earlier comments suggested that digital cinema is currenty using 2K projectors (2048 pixels wide), which would effectively be 3.1 MP. If we're going to 33 MP video then, the quote from the other article of $208,569 being the annual cost of preserving a digital movie would be multiplied by a factor of 10.5 (33 MP / 3.1 MP) to equal a rough annual cost of $2,187,975.88 just to preserve each video that is produced for this format. WOW As much as I enjoy high-rez video, I think this may be a little too much. :(
"Now, 37" is marginal and 42" is where it really starts getting to be noticeable"
You, Sir, have obviously never watched terrestrial HD TV on a 24" Intel iMac... 1920x1080, 16.37 Mbps, 29.97 fps DD5.1, 48 kHz, 384 kbps.
And while you position yourself as an expert, your time in the supposed lab is perhaps restricting your view of technology overall, where video is one of the drivers. Increased video performance drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives...
Isn't that craptastic?
Paul Allen's music museum has an LED TV screen along one wall which must be at least 50-feet tall. It uses LED quads red-blue-green-white to light-up pixels. I recall it as about 1000 by 700 pixels - pretty much medium standard HD-TV. If the resolution increased an order of magnitude in each direction, it would be even more fantastic.
I was looking for a web page describing this screen, but couldnt find it.
If the show has any cinematography to speak of then it will infact look better on a high resolution 60" TV.
Video is a visual medium. It's silly to not expect it to have a visual quality that would be improved by size and clarity.
There are bound to be shots even in the A-Team that benefit from good viewing hardware.
A 20 year old SD Television doesn't even display SD content well.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wow... All these High Def options and I'm still stuck with my Low Def Life
My Comcast is $33 per month and speedtest.net benchmarks it around 13mbps
Do you think any of those shows are really enhanced by the difference between SD and HD? Let alone 33 megapixels...
:).
Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: I previously had a 27" TV. Even standard TV looked fine on it. Fast forward to today where I did my research and bought a 42" LCD. At those sizes the standard TV signal looks like crap when its stretched that big (yes even in 4:3 mode). However, watching HDTV is great... even non-sports related shows like Dirty Jobs. I really like seeing various animal feces in HDTV, you can really see the individual hay in the hippo crap in HD
Rude Answer: Contrary to what your wife keeps telling you, size does matter!
Mythbusters is fun as is Dirty Jobs. Educational maybe a little.
The Daily Show? Fun if it matches your politics but frankly it is the Fox News for people that have a liberal bent. Of course I unusual in that I think any news source that contains a one liners is trash. If you want news listen to NPR, read a few news papers, and or watch the Sunday news shows like Meet the Press. If you just want to laugh and have your world view reinforced then the Daily Show is just fine.
For educational TV I am still a big fan of Nova on PBS.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Most likely the parent was talking about dedicated lines that are guaranteed to deliver that bandwidth 24/7. Think T-3 or somesuch. Those are quite expensive, but if you absolutely need them you'll end up coughing up the cash.
The old EST/Forum Six Day training used to feature something like this. You and the others doing the course were led into a room and seated. Without warning, the lights went out and a dozen or so projectors started up, showing very hardcore porn on one or more walls of the room. I'm talking anal Nazi fisting and the like--everything you can imagine short of child porn or snuff.
The resulting conversation was designed to demonstrate that whichever film you couldn't stop watching was the one you "couldn't be with." Most everyone agreed that they tended to ignore the tamer (or familiar) scenes and found themselves staring at the strange.
I notice that my tastes in entertainment continue to change--and that we think we need bigger and sharper vidscreens. Compare and contrast to the technicians who create bigger/sharper/better vidscreens: I think they're in it more for the "we have the technology" angle.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
This might be a practical way to fight piracy by pushing up the bandwidth requirement to get the content to the level, where it's not economical or it takes way too long for the general public to share.
It's somewhat similar method what the music and movie industry used in the past to curb competition by pushing recording and film production costs to the sky and publicize the myth that one can't make decent music of movie without spending a fortune, discrediting any efforts by low-budget competitors.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Eh. It's still just TV.
"There are bound to be shots even in the A-Team that benefit from good viewing hardware."
No! Very much no. I don't think high-def A-Team is such a good idea. You can already spot issues with the special effects as it is. No need to compound the problem by making it that much more obvious how all the explosions and car crashes were rigged.
You, sir, obviously have some reading comprehension problems. From the parent post:
Increased video performance will only drive other technologies if the consumer sees some benefit to the increased video performance. The parent post was arguing (quite correctly IMHO) that the technology described in the OP was far beyond what was practical for consumers today.
is still shit. 99 channels of shit is still shit. 999 channels of shit still shit? Still shit !! In double-quadraphonic? Still shit.
Besides, I'll have my personal gyroplane then and will have no more time then than I do now, what with my hover car and robot chicks.
Just wait a little longer and you can have this AND maybe even bypass Blew Ray. I've decided my "big" TV will be the one that does the best job displaying standard definition. Any suggestions?
*cough* FIOS.
Still, while a scripted show's quality won't be improved by the clarity of a TV's display, I derive more enjoyment from the overall experience when watching shows that are already quality productions in their own right (granted, hard to find many) in HD over the same show in standard def.
Naturally, YMMV per your taste.
You're right about most programming not needing HD, especially here in the UK where digital 480 widescreen is already the norm. You just don't need HD to get the full enjoyment of non-cinematic shows.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
actually, it is 576i widescreen in the UK , not 480.
While mostly liberal in content, Daily Show does bash their own "side" quite frequently. Unlike fox news, they are writing jokes, and don't try and pass off jokes as being real.
I would love to, but my cable company won't sell me just Discovery Channel and Comedy Central. I'd need to purchase the extended cable package which, without even being digital, costs another $40/mo. Digital or HD feeds of the same push it up another boatload.
ahem... yeah, but try to use all of that bandwidth continuously and see what happens.... You can probably use all your megabits continuously for the duration of that test. but not for a whole hour, heck not even a few minutes. Comcast has traffic shaping that will quickly put your streams in the back burner to allow more interactive packets to get thru in time.
but remember, the bland white computers replaced the standard beige/offwhite desktop of the 90's. they'll get on top of this current issue. next stop: translucent. the invisiMac!
I know US broadband has major suckitude, but I find this hard to believe.
I live in Norway, a large country with only 5 million people or so, and lots of fjords and mountains. (i.e. expensive to network), my ISP Lyse has 10Mbps/symetrical (i.e. 10Mbps upload and the same download) as the -slowest- available speed, 100Mbps/symetrical is the fastest, but only because currently there is no demand for more. It's all fibre-to-the-basement anyway, and we all know the fibre can do a few orders of magnitude more than 100Mbps.
Cost ? $50/month - $100/month depending on capcaity. It's actually cheaper than that measured against wages (which is what counts for normal people: how long must I work to pay for X?), because salaries here are somewhat higher than in the US. Put differently, 10Mbps/symetrical costs what you would earn for 3 hours of burgerflipping or thereabouts.
It's hard to believe it costs $1000 in the US. How many hours of burgerflipping is that at US salaries, 100 ?
From some quick top-of-the-head calculations, that seems 25% greater than reality's resolution.
Wow...
Just the idea of a naked Ron Jeremy on super hi def is enough for me to feel sick already.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
That's only because the TV is so deep. you can get a king size box spring into most homes, so certainly if the televisions were not unnecessarily thick they would fit into the homes.
Both SED and the laser-based DLP televisions promise to greatly reduce the depth of the system, more or less eliminating this problem.
For my part, I prefer front projection, because of its versatility. I have a true XGA resolution projector with 1800 lumens coming, it's only $550 (but it's also LCD with 800:1 contrast, which is not amazing - good for LCD, horrible compared to DLP.) Hopefully it will not be a total lemon :)
Regardless, this is a fairly well-solved problem, and there are still more technologies on the horizon which promise to address issues like this, not the least of which is future generations of "e-paper".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Currently I have a Dell Inspiron 6000. It's display is a 15.4" Widescreen with a resolution of 1920x1200 (which for some reason they no longer offer). I have the desktop and all applications running at maximum resolution and I notice very easily the difference on a screen with just under a quarter of my 32" Widescreen Samsung TV. And that only runs on 720p. The difference isn't noticeable because there really isn't any media available for all the resolution on my laptop (perhaps I could get a Blu-ray player, but I doubt it would work, and gaming on this laptop at high resolution? Forget it). I play XBox and Wii on my TV and it looks amazing. I'm sure a 1080p 32" would be great as well. I don't consider my eyes above average, but I certainly can see the difference in resolutions if there was media enough to utilize it. Still, for me it's affordability and convenience. I just got my Samsung and I really like it.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
It must be sad to have such a poor imagination--or, worse yet, to think that a picture of something, no matter the resolution, could somehow look "better" than the real thing.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
If you think Americans can't bring a TV into thier house bigger than 65" because of door frames you must have been truly amazed at Christmas when people were brining 8'+ trees into their houses.
If you can bring a Queen or King sized mattress into your home your TV could obviously be that big.
At some point the industry may realize it would be better to use binaural technology instead. Hopefully this can happen before I'm required to position 5000 speakers.
You won't be able to make any copies when there exists no destination disk large enough.
$1000/mo? Have you checked out Verizon Fios? They offer 15Mbps up and down for $65 a month.
http://www22.verizon.com/content/ConsumerFiOS/packages+and+prices/packages+and+prices.htm%5C
Not a criticism of what you're saying, just an add-on:
In addition to different possibilities in resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#Digital_projection ), there's also the fact that for DLP-based system, individual, dedicated RGB projectors are used ( http://www.dlp.com/cinema/what.aspx ). This results in a superior viewing experience, not just because of the RGB breakout, but because the entire color system is superior. An abridged explanation is here - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema5.htm - if you're interested in some of the projection mechanics.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
The resulting conversation was designed to demonstrate that whichever film you couldn't stop watching was the one you "couldn't be with." Most everyone agreed that they tended to ignore the tamer (or familiar) scenes and found themselves staring at the strange. What's EST/Forum Six Day training? I have no idea what you're talking about but it sounds absolutely Clockwork Orange bizarre.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Can you imagine what porn will look like with that kind of resolution!
Yuck. There are some things not worth looking at in Ultra-HDTV.
We don't need better video standards, we need better programming. And better films. I suppose the ads will look REALLY GREAT on a setup like this. How will you be able to resist buying a new car when it is displayed at 4000 scan lines? Will they be able to slap enough makeup on the newscasters to keep you from counting the pores on their foreheads?
There are two kinds of societies: sustainable and doomed.
Your dad explained to you that he doesn't see so well anymore. His old TV set was obviously becoming too small for his aging eyes. While it looked perfectly clear to you, he could not see the picture on his old TV. While the current TV looks perfectly clear to him, it looks mottled to you. Get it?
Stop the brainwash
The Daily Show? Fun if it matches your politics but frankly it is the Fox News for people that have a liberal bent.
Clearly you didn't see the daily show before the GOP took office.
They're a bunch of Libertarians who attack whoever has the power. It's just that there's been no point to attacking democrats for a while now, because they haven't had the ability to do anything at all.
It's really sad that a lot of right-wing wonks like yourself are so fucking far gone on the 'i'm not a right-wing wonk, i'm just slightly conservative' that you can't tell the difference between a criticism of who holds the power and a partisan bent. I suggest you watch less Fox News, and shoot yourself in the face, you big-government loving, nation-building loving, nanny-state right-wing loser.
Although it would be great to have a home theater or a sport's stadium with all this technology, I see the most benefit going to hospitals and research buildings. It would lead to great detail of the area they are examining, scanning or performing surgery on.
Just don't imagine a doctor performing a colonoscopy and watching it on the this kind of screen.
Modern non-brain-dead OS's (read everything but MS products) query the monitor for Physical resolution and use physical dimensions for fonts.
these visionaries should be put in charge of Gundam
FIOS 20Mbps at $50 per month. (only 5Mbps upstream though.....)
And you sir are forgetting that you're maybe 2~3 feet away from your Mac where you can see the individual pixels. Try being that close to a screen with larger pixels and there is indeed a difference, but scale out a little little 5~10 feet like you would in a living room and the content will looking strikingly similar, if not the same to the normal person.
I just hope they include multiple viewing angles so you can have stereo (3D) vision. That would be far more interesting than super-duper-ultra-high-def.
Considering the insane data rates and that it will be brand new in 2015, that's not too much to ask for.
As a comedy show it is funny but way to many people do think of it as their news source. I turned really sour on it when they had in interview with a person that wrote a book that was pro-life.
It wasn't funny and consisted of the host screaming at the author that he was pro-rape by being pro-life.
Frankly I find NPR far more balanced than the daily show and a much better source of news.
Frankly I find most news/comedy shows to be pretty disgusting. I think that many of the subjects that both sides use jokes with to frankly be too serious too be funny.
Of course my making an comment about why I don't like the daily show will bring out the mindless zelots. I am sure that at least one person will claim I am a Fox News watching right wing nut case. Of course that will skip over the fact that I recommended NPR as a source of news.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
For a 16:9 format, 33 million pixels gives an (approximate) measurement of 2 million pixel height to 3.6 million pixel width.
If there were 300 dpi (the resolution of high-quality magazine printing), that's...
300 dots per inch = 118 dots per centimeter.
= a screen 170 metres high and 312 metres long. Which is around the same area, if it were laid down, as an average village.
So what freaking resolution is this thing, because it's not THAT big... and is it actually necessary to display things at better resolution that we can notice?
What am I saying? This is Slashdot. Carry on...!
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
Can you imagine the amount of DRM they are going to need for this? Just the amount of processing power needed for the DRM is mind blowing!
Theoretical limits of human vision has been measured in 0.4 arc minute. Over 1 arc minute is considered below normal vision. The theoretical minimum visible object is normal computer monitor pixel (102ppi) from 14 feet away. Those with really perfect vision not just normal vision (which people speak as perfect vision).
(tan(pi/(360*60/0.4))*14feet) in inch = 0.00977384382 inch
1/0.00977384382 = 102.313892
Now the other way to consider the same limit is, 60/0.4=150 pixels per degrees of arch.
150*90= 10500 pixels horizontal gives you 90 degrees fov where you can concentrate your vision on any part of image and it is at limit of human perception.
60*120 = 7200 is a good target, 120 fov where each pixel is not smaller that worst of those who get 20/20 vision could see. 20/10 is still measurable vision and people get that also even people talk about 20/20 as "perfect" vision. But the market would be smaller and we are at the edge of what is possible.
©God
Yeah, I see where I went wrong. What the ..? Two million times 3-point-something million is something times ten to the power of twelve.
My bad.
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
"It's really sad that a lot of right-wing wonks like yourself are so fucking far gone on the 'i'm not a right-wing wonk, i'm just slightly conservative' that you can't tell the difference between a criticism of who holds the power and a partisan bent. I suggest you watch less Fox News, and shoot yourself in the face, you big-government loving, nation-building loving, nanny-state right-wing loser."
Yea that is why I suggested National Public Radio????
Just as I don't think that one liners are of any value when it comes to politics I really don't think calling names and foaming at the mouth ads anything.
Frankly I don't watch Fox News.
I don't like the way it uses one liners and over simplifies issues any more than I like the daily show. I really don't like any TV news because as far as I can tell they are all pretty counter productive to solving any of the real issues that people are facing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I must've gotten a different package. My upgrade came with the row of teens that yelled into their cellphones! They even had pop-music ringtones (gangsta rap if it was a rated-G movie) and that Nextel/Sprint Direct Connect sound every ten seconds!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
(The Hurd is so old and so obscure, few will understand this reference.)
Just where in HELL do you think you are? This is Slashdot! Show some respect!
I think all the other points you made were spot on (at least as far as I know, which isn't very far), but we should never underestimate some marketing guy's ability to convince the general public they need something 'better'--and bigger numbers make for the easiest sales pitch.
-se
Hi.
I'm using Cox High Speed Internet in Santa Barbara, CA.
I have a 12 Mbps connection, and yes, I do get those speeds consistently.
I pay about $125 a month for that connection, digital cable, HD service, and the rental of the HD DVR.
http://www.cox.com/santabarbara/highspeedinternet/packages.asp?campcode=sab_coxCom_hsiRtTopBox
Yay! I can make up big numbers too!
I'm actually working on new AV standard: 67 terapixel screen with 54,130.1 channel sound at 962kHz!
Wow! It'll be awesome! I'll call it super-extra-real-actual-true-HD. Enhanced. MkIII. Pro. Special Champion Edition.
Now... for someone to implement it...
But seriously, I don't get this shit. Where's the prototypes? Where's the reference implementation? Is there any technical basis to this extrapolation, or do people just pluck big numbers out of the air for press?
Besides, what use is it planning a technology for 7 years in the future? What, are they going to do a 7 year project? Who does 7 year technology projects? Who knows what's going to change in the next 7 years? What if we start using direct neural interfacing, and we don't even use screens any more! What if we come up with some organic technology and everything's done in analogue again - what use is a digital standard? A lot can happen in 7 years.
Or... not happen - now, where are my 10GHz CPUs?
Small gains, people - steady improvements & occasional innovative breakthroughs, not lofty goals and long projects.
If my calculations are correct, it would require approximately 200GB for a 90 minute movie. Of course, all the extras would be recorded in standard def.
Found on another website:
[quote]The Forum is offered by a company called Werner Erhard and Associates, led by Werner Erhard -- real name Jack Rosenberg -- a shady self-made human potential guru.... The scandal-plagued Hunger Project is another est/Forum spinoff. Other fronts include the Education Project, Transformational Technologies, and others.
Although it has been toned down over the years in response to bad press, the Forum is an extremely intense, sometimes abusive indoctrination session, comprising four days over two consecutive weekends, from nine in the morning to often past midnight, with one meal break all day. Afterwards, participants are pressured to enroll in weekly seminars and advanced courses, including the infamous "six-day" course that takes place at a secluded encampment in the woods of upstate New York. The Forum costs over six hundred dollars, the weekly seminars typically one hundred, and the six-day nearly two thousand. Even more "advanced" courses are available, costing thousands. Intense pressure is put on participants not only to continue to spend money on seminars, but to recruit friends and co-workers.
Besides being, substantively, little more than new-age pop-psychology mumbo jumbo, the Forum seminar itself is, from a mental health standpoint, reckless and destructive. Forum leaders employ confrontational and abusive tactics, group hypnosis, and regression exercises, all in a completely closed environment with participants that have not had enough food or sleep. The Forum leaders have no mental health training, except in the purposely destructive techniques taught to them by Erhard.
Moreover, for many of the participants, though certainly not all, 1) the Forum, 2) the advanced courses that come after it, and 3) the group of people associated with it constitute a cult environment. In my experience, the Forum was indeed a cult, closely following the model outlined by Dr. Martin. In fact, disregarding the particular nonsense that makes up its teachings, the dynamics of the people around the Forum are hard to distinguish from those of the rest of the long list of religious, political, commercial, or other cults.[/quote]
I, for one, don't want my pornography that highly defined.
Well stated! It might also be pointed out that getting decent content even at the current HDTV resolution may be a problem. Some standard DVDs look pretty poor in terms of poor focus and noise. Better processing can fix some of the problems but it is not clear that there will be much benefit for releasing many movies beyond the current HD technology.
However, price isn't the only factor. One other thing is how much total bandwidth do you really get? I could run an ethernet cable to my neighbor and give them 100Mbps symmetrical from my router, but good luck if they try and shove that much through my cable modem. And it's great if you can get 100Mbps to everybody in Norway though that isn't so useful if a million users get throttled through a 1Gbps pipe on the other side. Also I'm guessing that service would come with a business-level SLA outlining uptime guarantees, etc. However, if you do get those kinds of speeds and you have dedicated bandwidth without it being throttled too much, then... wow! How's the housing prices over there?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
"I turned really sour on it when they had in interview with a person that wrote a book that was pro-life. It wasn't funny and consisted of the host screaming at the author that he was pro-rape by being pro-life."
You're pro-life and anti-TV? Let me guess you're Christian too and occasionally attend church but you still believe in evolution because the bible isn't to be taken literally. I'm still undecided on the Mac issue. You may not own one but you at least appreciate them. How close am I???
Pick your time in history and then pick your available medium for news. Nothing changes about the MSM and I wouldn't blame TV for that...
"If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers you are misinformed." Mark Twain
The UK digital OTA system (Freeview) is 720x576 interlaced (and less than 720 on some channels). And 4:3 programming is often presented in a widescreen window loosing further resolution.
No, but you get entertainment. Also, you get to annoy pissfilters like Anonymous Coward.
ResidntGeek
True, the most watched HD channels in my house are DiscoveryHD and WTTW-HD (PBS). Most other "HD" channels seem to be letterboxed or resized NTSC (which the TV could do anyways with the regular channels). But those nature programs really seem to pop when they use the extra res, in some cases it's more like looking into a screen than watching one.
HD's still probably going to be a bit so-so at pushing it's worth until a lot more broadcasters really get serious about supporting it in the way it's meant to be used.
Isn't it a dupe of this 16-month old article?
You just got troll'd!
I got Planet Earth on DVD for Christmas: First DVD that really made me want a hidef TV. Absolutely stunning cinematography.
I've got the 10Mbps-thing, I generally get the full speed assuming the server on the other end handles that much pro connection. (which many servers don't)
There are no service-guarantees or similar, it's a normal residential internet-connection with normal residential rules, if there *where* guarantees, it'd probably cost a LOT more.
Housing prices are high. It's boom-times in Norway (though there are some signs that things are slowing down, it's still record-levels), so everyone who wants a job has a job. (essentially; there's 1.7% unemployment officially, but many of those are either in reality unfit for work, or they're just between jobs or something) And everyone earns well -- average salary-growth over the last 2 years was aproximately 11%. (no, there's not much inflation, 2% perhaps)
Here in Stavanger it's particularily expensive. Our main oil-town, which means lots of people make 6-digit salaries, which tend to push housing-prices upwards.
An average 100 square metre (1070 square feet) apartment costs roughly $350K, more if you're downtown, less if it's somewhat outside of town. I guess compared to Tokyo it's cheap, but compared to most places it's expensive. That has to be measured against average salaries being aproximately $75K. (so it'd be hard to afford something like that if you're single, rather easy if you're a couple)
Renting is uncommon for established couples, sure students and single-person-households and poor people will rent, but not many above 30 with normal jobs rent. If you -did- rent you'd probably rent something smaller, a couple might be happy with a 500 square feet modern apartment that they could rent for like $1500-$2000 depending on standard and location. Also expensive, but if they are average earners, they'll take home aproximately $7.500/month (after taxes) so they'll be able to afford it without any problem.
The -nice- thing about living in a place with high salaries and high prices is that it makes wonders for vacationing and for products that are "made in Korea" anyway. A single months salary will buy you hell of a vacation, since most places have much lower prices (and salaries) than Norway. What kinda vacation does a couple get if they plan to spend 2 weeks in Canada and spend $7500 ? Laptops are almost free, well, atleast you get a VERY good laptop for one weeks salary. Even the PS3 doesn't seem so outrageous here; $399 is less of a big deal when that in practice means: You have to work for -one- day to pay for this. (well, perhaps 1.5 days, but you get the point)
"Men have become the tools of their tools." --- Henry David Thoreau US Transcendentalist author (1817 - 1862)
Wikipedia says "Each frame consists of a total of 525 scanlines, of which 486 make up the visible raster."
So, you are right, the maximum resolution of the U.S. standard, NTSC is 486, apparently. However, I read somewhere that actual TV does not deliver a real resolution of 486, partly because the interlacing is not perfectly accurate.
NTSC delivers 243 lines of vertical resolution, then goes back and delivers another 243 lines interlaced (interspersed) with the first lines.
Indeed, sorry the numbers are entirely my mistake.
The AC's 720x576 is closer to HD than my quote of 480, so my point that for most programming HD isn't far enough from UK digital to be worth it, is actually more valid than I originally stated.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
"You're pro-life and anti-TV? Let me guess you're Christian too and occasionally attend church but you still believe in evolution because the bible isn't to be taken literally. I'm still undecided on the Mac issue. You may not own one but you at least appreciate them. How close am I???"
Actually I am pro-choice I am a Christian and I go to church every Sunday. What Mac issue? They are good PCs and I actually own an old Mac plus because I like classic computers.
So you are about as wrong as you can possible be.
What I don't like is when people think they are unbiased and reasonable and the prove to be totally biased and unreasonable. You sir a great example of the typical open minded liberal. You think you know all the answers and anyone that doesn't agree with you must wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Let's see.. 2000" probably means the diagonal. Assuming it was a 4:3 display:
Since a^2+b^2=c^2, b=~1.3333333333a, and c=2000, then...
a^2+(1.3333333333a)^2=4000000
a^2+1.7777777778a^2=4000000
2.7777777778a^2=4000000
a^2=1439999.999988
a=1199.999999995
So Frank's TV measures 1600x1200 inches (viewable) or a minimum of 160000x120000 pixels. Since Frank was probably American, let's use NTSC DVD resolution, 720x480. The next multiple of that that beats 100 DPI and is a power of 2 is 256x, or 184320x122880 pixels (115.2x102.4 DPI).
Just to be a smartass, a high-def 16:9 screen would set b=~1.7777777778a, so:
a^2+(1.7777777778a)^2=4000000
a^2+3.160493827a^2=4000000
4.160493827a^2=4000000
a^2=961424.3323442
a=980.5224792651
Late to respond here, but yeah, I DO read books, & I prefer to read books. You might want to look into it sometime. If you did read books, your reading comprehension might improve: you'd have grokked that I was *complementing* well written shows.
The fact that you got modded insightful for a know-nothing snarky response like that makes me fear for the world. As if reading books is a bad thing. For fuck's sake.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet