Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Launching 4K TV Channel

Posted by Soulskill on from the first-compelling-content dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA has announced that it's partnering with Harmonic to launch a new TV channel that delivers video at 4k resolution (4096x2160). The channel is called NASA TV UHD, and it'll go live on November 1. Content will be generated by cameras at the International Space Station and on other NASA missions, as well as any 4K content they can remaster from old footage.

20 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Where to watch? by NotJohnBoy · · Score: 1

    That sounds great, but DirecTV still doesn't even carry NASA TV in HD.

    1. Re:Where to watch? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Chris Hadfield here, the important thing: will it stream to the ISS?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    2. Re:Where to watch? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Comcast doesn't even carry it at all. Apparently a bunch of shopping and religious channels that are willing to pay them a pittance are worth more than something even slightly educational.

    3. Re:Where to watch? by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Thanks, this is just what I was thinking. What, do we still need to set up the Big Ugly Dish to watch NASA?

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  2. Re: And for their few dozen.,, by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    I bet there a good market for DVRs (or components like tuner cards) and cybercafés there

  3. And the confusion goes on... by BlueTemplar · · Score: 5, Informative

    4k and UltraHD are not the same format!
    http://www.extremetech.com/ext...

    (Digital Cinema Initiative) 4k resolution means 4*1024=4096 columns, and generally 2*1080=2160 lines (with a resulting aspect ratio of ~17:9). It has been used for several years in movie projectors.

    UHD-1 means 3840x2160 (16:9), which is 4 times the "Full HD" of 1920x1080 (or, as it's often abbreviated, 1080p, with 1080 for the number of lines, and p for progressive, 16:9 ratio implied)
    (While there's also UHD-2, which is 4 times UHD-1 at the gigantic 7680x4320.)

    Most screens sold as "4k" are in fact only "UHD-1", except some specific ones, generally used for very high-end video editing, now usually advertised as "True 4k" (which includes a larger color gamut, among other things).

    There's also an issue that if you run at 4096x2160, 60Hz, 12-bit JPEG2000 colors, the overwhelming majority of HDMI and DisplayPort cables won't be able to carry the signal due to insufficient bandwidth (it would seem that some monitors can use two cables as a workaround).

    1. Re:And the confusion goes on... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I would like a monitor that does 3840 x2400

    2. Re:And the confusion goes on... by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of UHD monitors around. I've got a £600 32" IPS (BENQ BL3201PT) which I can't praise enough. It is a fantastic display. There are many more at 28" with prices £250 upwards.

      I used to have a dual monitor setup but there is no way I'm going back to that now. It is that much better.

      --
      wot no sig
    3. Re:And the confusion goes on... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Those are 3840x2160 monitors. 3840x2400 would be the famous IBM T221 and its variants.

    4. Re:And the confusion goes on... by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      That doesn't nearly carry the rage that some people have for having black borders on the side of the screen.
      (Thankfully for them it's the smaller UHD-1 that seems to become widespread in consumer screens, rather than the larger 4k, and the 4k source sides will probably just end up being cut on UHD-1 screens, rather than the 4k source being scaled down, which would result in (some) blurriness...)

  4. Re:A pity UHD screens are only 3840 pixels wide by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

    Except that the NASA page has this picture :
    http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...

    Showing SD, HD, FullHD, and "4k 4096x2160" sizes and "4k is Four Times the resolution of Full HD", which is technically wrong (see my comment below).

  5. Audio important as well by Mandrel · · Score: 1

    I hope they also get some good microphones, and allocate decent audio bandwidth, so space feels less like the technological frontier it was 50 years ago, and so you don't need an interpreter to work out what they're saying.

    1. Re:Audio important as well by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      In space, no one can hear you scream because there are no microphones?

  6. Re:Format? by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

    Yep in between all the marketing dribble its HEVC, Main 10 profile. No vp9, licensed codec. Don't even care if the fees aren't that make, it's a lost battle in the war for a standard codec.

  7. Re: And for their few dozen.,, by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    I can't even drink water before it freezes, too cold in Canada.

  8. Re:A pity UHD screens are only 3840 pixels wide by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Obligatory

  9. "Content will be generated" -- by Photoshop! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    NASA knows there is a boundary; we can't get into space. Everything NASA produces is "generated", it's virtual reality, nothing is real.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  10. Great!! by rabbin · · Score: 1

    Now I can watch "VIDEO FILE" and "EDUCATION FILE" in 4K!

  11. Re:When are they going to put a 4K rover on the mo by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

    I fear that the power requirements to broadcast a 8Mpx/s signal from Mars towards Earth might be a bit steep?

  12. Re:A pity UHD screens are only 3840 pixels wide by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

    Harmonic press release (submitted by an AC below) mentions "4k UHD" and "2160p60" (and never 4096x2160), so it's UHD-1, not 4k.
    http://harmonicinc.com/news/na...
    It's NASA's press release that used a confusing picture... (and the Slashdot summary then re-used the wrong information)