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."
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.
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1 ticket taker who should have been replaced by a bar code reader years ago, and who roughly knows the direction to the toilets should you need them.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
Digital cinema currently uses 2K projectors (2048 pixels wide), which is about the same resolution as you effectively get from analog projection (and only very slightly higher than HDTV 1080p). State of the art projectors are capable of showing pictures which are 4096 pixels wide (4K), which is significantly better than analog projection. At a 2:1 aspect ratio those formats are 2 and 8 megapixels.
I think the purpose for it is to seem real.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
What they've failed to account for is, all the old bastards who can afford this, well, their eyes aren't really that great anymore.
Or, to put it another way...
"Sorry Sonny, I can't see a difference... just let me get my bifocals out..."
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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!
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.
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 |
You can't even get a 12Mbps connection in the US for less than $1000/mo. Max for any reasonable price is around 6Mbps.
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.
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.
... 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.
It's not for home use. I think there are some in use. One system was demonstrated at NAB 2007 and IBC 2006. I think some museums are using it. It's actually quite nice. It's almost possible to recognize the t-shirt designs audience members are wearing from across a football stadium.
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 isn't about need. :D
Yes, but it's somewhere right around that level for the size of tv that most people have a large enough wall for. If you want to watch a ~60inch tv from the minimum field of view distance (something like 4ish feet), then you need about this number of pixels @120hz to pretty much max out human perception.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
But can somebody explain to me why in the hell would we ever need a 28 Mbps audio stream even with 24 channels?
Yeah, not sure what this is all about. Most internet radio streams are in the 100-200 kbps range for two channels, which comes out to the ~2.4 Mbps range at most for 24 ch. So they're saying they need roughly a factor of 10 more data per channel? Maybe they're not compressing the audio stream?
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?
A 2d display at *any* resolution is still a 2d display. Color balance, the fact that the images produced by currently widespread display tech glows, etc all contribute. Just look at still cameras--a nice 5MP camera with top-notch optics, sesors, etc will capture much better images than a cheap 10MP camera. More pixels aren't always better.
It depends on viewing distance. But resolution is not the most significant contributing factor in the unrealism arena for modern displays. Color accuracy, dynamic range, and two dimensions are the most significant contributors to this.
Modern displays have decent color, but as long as we are limiting ourselves to red / green / blue color sources, this will always be distinguishable from real (real cyan is not a 50/50 mixture of blue and green light, it is a single wavelength between the two).
Dynamic range is how bright the brightest areas are and how dark the darkest areas are. Real dynamic range would show the sun so bright on the screen that it hurt your eyes to look at, with dark areas so dark that your eyes would not be able to see the detail even if the screen had no bright areas (but that detail would still be present).
And of course no matter what, as long as it is projected onto a single flat surface, it is 2D, and it will always look like a movie.
As for pixel count, many people are already unable to distinguish between standard definition and high definition when viewing at a standard viewing distance (of course different screen sizes have a different standard viewing distance). Of course in the TV store you can't get 8-12 feet away from the screen so when you're shopping, the differences seem obvious.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Leela: Fry, maybe yo should get outside and see the real world sometime instead of watching TV all the time.
Fry: But this is HD TV, it's higher resolution than the real world!
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. :(
Sure...
(44.1 KHz @ 24 bits per sample * 24 channels) / 1024 / 1024 = 24 Mbps. Little room for protocol overhead there.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
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.
It should, but then you get someone else's popcorn on your carpet.
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!
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."
"Here, let me show you my demo of this amazing, super-HD display system... on YouTube."
Well, there's some refining to do to be sure, but the human eye is not a laboratory spectrometer. We have a finite number of types of color receptors that have their own sensitivity curves. You don't need to replicate every wavelength on the spectrum to replicate reality; you only need to stimulate the eye's color receptors to the same degree (and in the same ratios) that the reality does. That's why RGB displays work at all. Now, with current technology, and the current standards, RGB only covers a subset of the human-perceivable color space. But that's not to say it is impossible to do so with only a few color sources.
"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'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?
First, unless your father lives in the middle of nowhere, he doesn't need to buy the HD package from his satellite provider to use the HD features. A really crappy pair of bunny ears will suffice to get most of the "important" channels anyway. But, paying the extra $20 gets you lots of nice "other" channels.
Second, while football is nice, H-D programming looks so nice that I can't stand to watch regular television anymore. I was even somewhat surprised to notice real differences with things like the Simpsons.
Third, I have plenty of older DVDs that upconvert very nicely. They're not HD quality, but they are definitely better than on my standard TVs.
Finally, even if you don't buy an HDTV for the HD, if you want a flat-panel or something that's not a huge ugly beast, there's really no option. It boggles my mind that anyone purchases standard tvs for any reason any more. They're just so... big and ugly.
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!
It's blurry as shit and obnoxious to watch unless you have a newer DVD in there. Older DVDs -- which he has more than a few -- look like ass on there because it won't upconvert them to anything near the 1080 it will do. Newer DVDs, like his copy of Ratatouille looked fine upconverted to 1080.
Which has nothing to do with the age of the DVD or inability to upconvert, but is more an issue that early DVDs were encoded at lower then desirable bitrates. (Okay, some of the early encoders weren't the best either.) But even back in 96/97/98 (?) there were DVDs released as "SuperBit" releases where they trimmed ads and extras off the disk and gave it a higher bitrate.
There also may have been a few DVDs that were encoded as half-frames (360x480 a.k.a. half-D1?) instead of full-frame (720x480).
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
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?
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.
Actually throughput is always 1024. It uses bits instead of bytes to cut corners.
Its storage which uses 1000 to boost their numbers.
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
Its storage which uses 1000 to boost their numbers.
I'm afraid the grandparent AC is correct. Channel capacity (aka throughput) is a physical quantity, and used in lots of applications besides computing.
Incidentally, since the field of error-correction codes is based on communication channels, you could argue that the usage in hard drives is derived from that of communication.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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
You're only saying that because current display technology is still hard on the eyes. Do you look around the "real world" and have your eyes "almost bugging out of your head" because your entire field of view is full? No, you don't. I'm not saying improving the resolution and refresh rates will fully solve that, but it certainly won't make it worse. I can sit much closer to my 42" plasma than I could to my old 32" CRT without straining my eyes, for example.
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]