Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Surgeon Performs World's First 4X HD Surgery

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the capture-more-gore dept.

Medicine 101

docinthemachine writes with word of some "research just presented at the 65th ASRM on 4K surgery. Using bleeding-edge Hollywood 4K cameras coupled to laparoscopes, surgery was performed in 4K, or 4X the resolution of HD. Since laparoscopy is performed while viewing on a video monitor, this is a huge advancement of resolution and clarity for the surgeon. It only took a million dollars of projectors to show it to the audience."

cancel ×

101 comments

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29866945)

nice e-peen.

720p ought to be enough for just about anybody.

Re:wow (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867037)

nice e-peen. 720p ought to be enough for just about anybody.

You mean e-heart, and if you ask me 720 pumps (per minute) is WAY too much.

Re:wow (2, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867183)

Red One only outputs 720p, so they are not going to use the full 4k resolution while previewing.

I have worked with Red One many times. Somewhat buggy software, camera crashing mid turning over.

Re:wow (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879367)

Summary is misleading. It wasn't a live presentation. They recorded 4k for presentation at a medical conference. And yes it used RED.

Re:wow (3, Informative)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868031)

720p ought to be enough for just about anybody.

We should ask, why do we have 1080i and 720p? Because viewing tests showed that at three picture heights, these resolutions pretty much maxed out the human visual resolution. There was not much to be gained from increased resolution.

Now if you view closer than three picture heights, higher resolution becomes important...

Re:wow (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868953)

720p ought to be enough for just about anybody.

We should ask, why do we have 1080i and 720p? Because viewing tests showed that at three picture heights, these resolutions pretty much maxed out the human visual resolution. There was not much to be gained from increased resolution.

Now if you view closer than three picture heights, higher resolution becomes important...

Man, for a second there I thought building my "porn wall" was a bad investment... thanks for clearing that up!
So, I should be 30' away from my 10' tall display? That seems like a waste of floorspace.

"bleeding-edge" (5, Funny)

SigILL (6475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29866947)

What an unfortunate choice of words.

Re:"bleeding-edge" (4, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867159)

I'm sure cutting-edge would have been more appropriate.

This guy did an IMAX colonoscopy (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29866957)

The reviews were stinky. Entirely too long and the plot seemingly went in circles.

Re:This guy did an IMAX colonoscopy (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867227)

Not to mention that you couldn't get up and leave as the exit was blocked.

4X The resolution of HD? (1)

not-too-smatr (1659369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29866963)

Must have been more real than seeing it for yourself...

Re:4X The resolution of HD? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867019)

Must have been more real than seeing it for yourself...

Indeed. From the article: "Amazingly, the surgeons in the conference were able to visualize the surgery they were watching better than if they had been in the operating room live."

Re:4X The resolution of HD? (2, Funny)

von_rick (944421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867865)

Not to mention the fact that you can fast forward through the commercials and have an instant replay of everything one might find interesting during such a procedure.

Re:4X The resolution of HD? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29871337)

Pretty soon they'll be able to see individual cells, similar to a microscope, and remove a cell at a time rather than tear the tissue with a primitive scalpel.

BTW the summary is wrong. It's *2* times the resolution... just the same as a DVD (704 across) is about twice the resolution of VHS (350 across).

Re:4X The resolution of HD? (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29871721)

I seriously doubt that. Everything from the lack of back-lighting to the inability to perform staining to the much more basic fact that some cells are so small that just light can't resolve them. Still, you could get to the point of being able to see cells, even if you couldn't get to the point of removing a cell at a time.

Re:4X The resolution of HD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29887159)

Fluorescent imaging techniques are already being targeted to cancer cells, so that eliminates the issues of back-lighting and staining right there. Your statement that some human cells are just too small to be resolved by light is simply wrong, you can see cells quite clearly with only a 20x objective.

price (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29866965)

"It only took a million dollars of projectors to show it to the audience."

Only?!?

Re:price (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#29866981)

Well, they probably just added it to the patient's hospital bill, so it was not a big deal.

Re:price (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867009)

and $5 million in damages to the MPAA for illegally pirating an episode of ER

Re:price (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867361)

But it was the most expensive machine in the whole hospital, think of the administrators!

Re:price (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29868883)

Ah. I see you have the machine that goes PING.

Re:price (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867535)

Only indeed. You can buy a Sony 4k Projector for less than $50k. Depending on the size of the audience they could have used the new sony 4k projector with 20k lumens for I think around $300k. Someone got overcharged me thinks.

Re:price (1)

docinthemachine (1031976) | more than 4 years ago | (#29931629)

No -- we used the sony projector (SRX-220) but due to audience size we needed 3 of them, them add 3D and stack them in double. Add couple of hundred K for real D 3D lenses and for 4K servers. Sony was the partner who set up equipment for us thank goodness.

Google is interested in the technology (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29866969)

I knew the

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

that is tattooed on my ass would come handy.

Re:Google is interested in the technology (1)

Maxhrk (680390) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867837)

brillant statement of the day.

new? (1, Informative)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867027)

4x HD may be new for video imaging, but other medical imaging techniques have used higher resolutions forever. >HD monitors are quite common in medical applications, too.

Re:new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867175)

Any examples?

Re:new? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867387)

The IBM T220 and T221 22.2" LCD monitors run at 3840×2400 native resolution. They've been around for several years in the medical, CAD, and other detailed design/analysis fields.

Re:new? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867287)

4x HD may be new for video imaging, but other medical imaging techniques have used higher resolutions forever.

So? 1080p is only 2 MP. Even consumer-level digicams have offered more than than for forever. 30-60 fps is quite a different thing than still imagery.

>HD monitors are quite common in medical applications, too.

The video in this article is greater than 8 MP. Are those common? This vendor [medicaldis...orless.com] doesn't seem to have any at all.

4X Surgery (3, Funny)

IorDMUX (870522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867033)

Presenting Sid Meyers's and Issac Asmiov's Fantastic Voyage: The Invisible War
  • eXplore dozens of interconnected body systems
  • eXpand from cells to organs to systems... to other organisms!
  • eXploit body resources and endocrine systems--manipulate amino acids to make new and powerful proteins
  • eXterminate the competing infection and bring the body under your command!

Oh... not that kind of 4X? In that case, I'll pass.

Re:4X Surgery (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867375)

Does that game exist already? Because I want it.

Re:4X Surgery (1)

Acer500 (846698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29873245)

Does that game exist already? Because I want it.

True, that. Brilliant !!! (btw, are there more "surgery sim" or "medicine sim" games? I remember one of those back in the olden days... )

Re:4X Surgery (1)

Keiseth (1064792) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868819)

If you're feeling particularly radical, try the new Sins of a Solar Surgeon.

Is it water on the knee... (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867063)

This technology has the potential to allow doctors to perform hard operations (writer's cramp, wrenched ankle) with the ease of the anklebone's connected to the knee bone procedure.

Re:Is it water on the knee... (1)

drizek (1481461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867231)

Yes, but can it be used to cure Writer's Block?

Red One cameras are changing video and film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867087)

Congrads to Red Cameras. The really amazing thing is they have a 28K chip coming out so 4K is fairly low res.

4x HD for $1m (0)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867103)

Why?!?

Re:4x HD for $1m (2, Interesting)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867137)

From the article:

Why we did it- the Hollywood connection: New cinematic technologies are transforming the film business today. The two major revolutionary developments are 1) beyond high def “4k” technology - which brings resolution to 4 times that of HD and 2) realistic immersive high definition 3D. I set out to introduce these technologies to the medical world and to see if we could for the first time directly perform surgery in 4k. Setting the goal to once again use technological innovation to improve our patient outcomes.

In other words, "We did it because HD is a buzzword." If the camera is less than a few cm away from what you're looking at, do you really need that high of a resolution?

Re:4x HD for $1m (1)

danknight (570145) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867651)

Say what you will about Hollywood,But other than the Military or NASA (I wonder what resolution they're running at ?) They apparently drive the market for this stuff. And they're an Entertainment organization! That has GOT to be a damn good argument against Government run health care.

Re:4x HD for $1m (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29870957)

how on earth is that an argument against UHC? after trillions of profits hollywood puts a tiny bit of money into R&D and comes up with a simple resolution improvement? sounds to me that's more like an argument against single payer
(as a brit i have to say the nhs is brilliant and if you insult it i will eat you)

Yes, you do. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29868187)

Surgery is a rather imprecise and hackish profession, even today. The more high resolution the pictures you can give to a surgeon, the more solid their repairs can be. Laparoscopy took surgeries that used to leave huge 4" incisions across peoples chests down to a surgery which leave you with a few bandaid-sized scratches. Internally, even scratches of those sizes still take too long to heal; the smaller and more well-defined the repair, the faster the healing times, the less time you spend in a hospital bed and not out living your life.

Surgeons are clamoring for this technology. For smaller laparoscopic instruments with broader angle and higher resolution views. For the ability to do more surgical procedures with smaller cuts and less bleeding.

Re:4x HD for $1m (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868835)

You might as well ask why anyone would need a magnifying glass, or a microscope.

Non-story (1)

One_Minute_Too_Late (1226718) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867185)

The linked article could only have been written by a surgeon with incoherent longings for stardom and filthy lucre.

This technology offers no increased assistance for surgeons. It really doesn't matter when you're that close in a laparoscopy. It's not like the structures you need to see are that small for most laparoscopic procedures. I would have been more impressed if they'd hooked this up for use in neurosurgery, eye surgery, vascular surgery, something where real resolution and delicacy is required.

Big MEH.

Re:Non-story (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867473)

Yep. Nothing to see here.

He sure makes some bold statements of how better detail is going to give better outcomes, but of course hasn't a shred of evidence to back him up. Even for a slashvertisement, this one's pretty bad. Laproscopic surgery is all about getting a good visual field, ie, moving everything else out of the way. Not visual details.

Re:Non-story (1)

swamp_ig (466489) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867711)

What is more, in my experience at least half the time when you're doing lap surgery the camera is all fogged from being squidged around in body fluids, and you just ignore it because it's a PITA to keep pulling it out to wipe off the gunge.

Now what would be a real advantage is if the scope was sterioscopic, seeing where things are in 3D is often the trickiest bit.

Re:Non-story (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867887)

What is more, in my experience at least half the time when you're doing lap surgery the camera is all fogged from being squidged around in body fluids, and you just ignore it because it's a PITA to keep pulling it out to wipe off the gunge.

Does that also mean that you can miss lasering off the diseased tissue. Reason I ask is my girlfriend had to have 2 laparoscopy surgeries about a year apart - poor thing - she was in a lot of pain. Is it something that ever goes away?

Re:Non-story (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868621)

If she was operated on for endometriosis, and it didn't immediately get better, here's a hint: you'd better love her, because she'll always be crazy and the pain will never stop.

Re:Non-story (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868811)

If she was operated on for endometriosis, and it didn't immediately get better

well it seems much better the second time around.

because she'll always be crazy and the pain will never stop.

Well I do and she is absolutely awesome. I'm wondering, are these personal experiences you are talking of?

Re:Non-story (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29870347)

Professional. I'm an anesthesiologist; my training included several months of chronic pain management. Chronic pelvic pain is a mysterious and evil thing. Not everyone who has it necessarily starts out crazy, but if they don't get better, they end up there.

Re:Non-story (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29871157)

Professional.

I hope you don't mind me asking you these questions but it seems hard to get a straight answer and I've only really learned of this 18 or so months ago. Some people have been telling me that endometriosis can sometimes stop after childbirth, do you know if this has any substance? Is it ever life threatening?

Re:Non-story (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29871849)

Hes calling it a Professional opinion but hes going off of goddamn anecdotal data and talking about a case hes never heard of. I would quickly stop listening to him.

Re:Non-story (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879287)

I don't know; ask an OB. I've dealt with the chronic pelvic pain aspect of things. The ones who got better after a round or two of treatment didn't ever make it to the pain clinic... but in the gyn operative suite we definitely saw some people coming back for their fourth or fifth endometriosis ablation. By that point they were definitely becoming squirrely - this may be selection bias as much as anything else, but the OB/GYNs generally backed it up...

Re:Non-story (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879659)

ok, thank you for your insights.

Re:Non-story (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868635)

Besides, your resolution is always limited by the number of fibers in the scope - especially if a flexible is involved. Pedi bronchoscopes, for example. WTF is the point of HD if the number of pixels is in the hundreds?

I am impressed (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867237)

I just checked their screenshots on my 1280x1024 17" LCD and I'm really amazed at the picture quality that 4x HD can provide!

Re:I am impressed (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867613)

I'm amazed too!

4096 x 2048

That's over four times the resolution of 480p!

Unless they meant four times the megapixels.

Re:I am impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29869051)

Meh. I'm not interested in 4xHD until I can see ass or titties on it.

Re:I am impressed (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#29870769)

If you zoom in 400% you can tell the image has high resolution even on a low resolution screen. Especially if you compare with a low-res image.

4K = 4x ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867293)

I was under the impression that 1080p resolution was just a hair lower than 2K resolution. So wouldn't 4K be roughly 2x HD res?

Re:4K = 4x ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867319)

Its not just twice as wide, its also twice as tall. When you double the sides of a rectangle, you quadruple its area.

Re:4K = 4x ? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867573)

You are forgetting that area is the square of length.

Re:4K = 4x ? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868439)

I was under the impression that 1080p resolution was just a hair lower than 2K resolution. So wouldn't 4K be roughly 2x HD res?

4096 * 2048 = 8388608

2048 * 1024 = 2097152

8388608 / 2097152 = 4 (as opposed to 2)

When you double the number, you double both dimensions. Double 2 = 4. :)

Hollywood 4K = horizontal resolution (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867305)

With Hollywood, 4K refers to the horizontal resolution. With HDTVs, 1080p means the vertical resolution of 1920x1080. Therefore, it is approximately twice the resolution in the X dimension.

Re:Hollywood 4K = horizontal resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867489)

Twice the resolution in X and Y = 4x as many pixels = 4x the resolution.

Re:Hollywood 4K = horizontal resolution (1)

Casandro (751346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869171)

Absolutely. Resolution _always_ is one dimension. So at most it's a bit more than twice the resolution. It's about 4 times the number of pixels.

We own a 4x HD monitor (5, Informative)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867453)

Well, actually, it's around 3.5 HD, but it's the thought that counts.

This baby is awesome. I get to look at tons of displays for work and this one still takes the cake- it's made by Barco, is incredibly bright, has a built in calibration puck, comes with some decent software (ie, easily 'configured' for our purposes), and all around blows the socks off of everything on the market.

Don't mind the $16K price tag.

The diffuser used is so clean you could eat off it- none of that nasty subsurface artifacting that looks like dust on your screen (speckle). Just pure, rich, saturated colors that are accurately represented with no TFT structure to worry about.

Now, IBM had the T221 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors) which had a native resolution of 3840x2200- at 200ppi- so that your eyes could never make out the substructure of the pixels. Best of all the monitor had hardware interpolation- it could be used at 1/2x to basically present the user a clean screen with nothing to distract your eyes from. IBM did this back in 2000!

Re:We own a 4x HD monitor (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869063)

Is this similar to that ultra-hd I had heard about on /. years back? I seem to recall them setting up a test monitor in Japan somewhere and playing a video of the ocean and supposedly it looked so realistic people thought water was going to splash on them.

I remember being not just impressed with the specs but also the producer of the video...to make something with camera angles, lighting, sound, etc. that fit that well into the location must have been tricky and likely had more of an impact than the resolution.

but wait, there's less... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29867503)

I don't think they were too eager to talk about the display device actually used during the surgery itself...words that it was a 40" Vizio 720p LCD (affectionately called "1K"), from a pre-Black Friday extreme deal (you got to save where you can).

This isn't as big a breakthrough (2, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867599)

This isn't as big a breakthrough as I first thought.

I thought it said "sturgeon".

Red Camera not really 4K (2, Insightful)

chiefscienceofficer (1664265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867607)

By their own admission the Red camera is more like 2.8K - They use a 4K Beyer pattern sensor which produces much less resolution than the total number of horizontal elements. Images are at best comparable to those produced by standard video cameras using 2/3 inch prism optics. This has been scientifically proven by Kodak in extensive testing using standard image evaluation methodologies. The Sony projectors that were used while capable of 4K images only use a portion of the display area to produce HiDef (1920X1080) stereo images. So while portions of the program may have been presented in 4K the images were not by any stretch 4K if they were produced by the Red camera. The 3D portions were in HiDef if they used the Sony 4K projector for that portion of the presentation. As mentioned elsewhere, the realtime output of the red camera is less than 4K so the surgeon does not see a "4K" image as he is performing the surgery - he has to wait for the relatively lengthy post process to complete in order to see his pictures. Real 4K equipment does exist - they just weren't using it. They might have gotten quicker and higher quality results by using a 35mm film camera to record the operation - processing the film and scanning at 4K. It would have taken about as long as their post process and produced real 4K images.

Re:Red Camera not really 4K (2, Interesting)

Radagast (2416) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868971)

The Red One at 4k is about 3.2k resolution optically, if you test it with a resolution chart.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that that's similar to the resolution you get with video cameras with 2/3" optics and a prism. Video cameras are 1920x1080 at the most (many formats are less horizontally), and prism alignment is never perfect, but even if it were, you'd never get more than 1920 lines horizontally, which is far less than the Red One's 3.2k, or even the 2.8k you claim. Besides, they're claiming "4X HD", which would mean 3840 pixels horizontally, and 3.2k is quite close to that.

Also, I'd generally be skeptical of anything "scientifically proven by Kodak". There are certainly very smart people working on Imaging Science for Kodak, but there's a tiny bit of vested interest in making digital look worse than film here. Hell, if you go to the website for Kodak motion picture products, more than half the front page real estate consists of ads for why film is still better, digital has lots of problems, film is the standard for professionals, etc. I think Kodak doth protest too much...

bad title... (3, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29867939)

4K is roughly 4,000 pixels across, not 4X "HD", which is probably assuming HD to be defined as 1920X1080. 4x HD, if you multiply each dimension, would be 7680x4320, a lot higher. I did see a demo of an 8k system earlier this year at NAB, quite nice on a large screen. Downsampled to 4k on a smaller screen and it was jawdropping. now if overall you mean four times the data, then yes, because it's roughly x2 in each dimension in two dimensions.

We've always used the horizontal pixel resolution to define filmout resolutions for cinema. (2k, 4k, etc.) Consumer product manufacturers use the retarded "megapixels" number so it sounds larger and more impressive. (multiply width x height for total pixel count).

I'm impressed that the camera optics they rigged into the laproscopy procedure had enough fidelity to make a 4k image worthwhile from such a small imaging source.

The RED system is the current darling of high end 'indie' filmmakers, TV shows and commercial producers everywhere where 4k is desirable, while the Canon 5D Mk. II is being used extensively for 2k owing to its full frame, exceptionally sharp sensor combined with Canon's unbeatable lenses, despite the fact that it is primarily a still camera. Both were all over the place at NAB this year, and I have the 5D Mk. II myself. The tools are getting cheaper and better every year and a lot of the old names in broadcasting are fading away...

--M

Re:bad title... (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868005)

Digital Cinema 4K is defined as 4096×2160 progressive (compare with ATSC HDTV standards 1920x1080 interlaced or 1280x720 progressive).

The Sony SRX-T110 [sony.com] 4K projector costs around $114k, not a million!

Re:bad title... (1)

chiefscienceofficer (1664265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29879019)

actually it is defined as 4096 X 1716 - which is the widescreen (scope) version 2.39:1 aspect ratio - the 4096 X 2160 is the container size and the image cannot exceed that size - practically the 4096 X 1716 picture is the widest that is transmitted -

Re:bad title... (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#29885495)

SMPTE 428M says that the Maximum resolution for DCDM operational level 1 is 4096x2160. That is the normative text.

It "informatively" says that 4096x1716 is the 2.39:1 AR for level 1. Similarly, 3996x2160 is the 1.85:1 AR for level 1.

But if you can't display the entire 4096x2160 DCDM (which would be a "funky" AR, I agree), I don't think you are fully SMPTE 428M DCDM operational level 1 compliant :)

Re:bad title... (1)

ERJ (600451) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868891)

I'm sure others will note this as well, but if you multiply the width and height by 2x you receive a total of 4x resolution. (i.e. you could fit 4 1920x1080 screens into one 4k x 2k screen). Another way to say it is that by multiplying the height and width by 2 you have 4x the number of pixels.

Re:bad title... (1)

njen (859685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29868945)

That may be the case, but everyone, and I mean *everyone* in the film, digital effects and imaging industries define 4k as being double HD resolution (2x). Where as 4x HD would be interpreted as 8k images. Only the horizontal width is calculated in regard to these terms, not the total area.

Also, the term HD in these industries almost always refers to 1920 x 1080 progressive, not 1280 x 720.

Note, I've worked in the CG film and effects industry for over 13 years.

Re:bad title... (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869045)

Well, it is 2x the width of HD, but it is absolutely 4x the resolution, or 4x the total area, of HD. It's not a matter of opinion. It's bloody 3rd grade math.

Re:bad title... (1)

njen (859685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869175)

You're right, it's not a matter of opinion, which is why everyone in the industry defines 4k as 2x HD.

No one uses the total area when speaking in these terms, and that's not an opinion.

Re:bad title... (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869195)

What is the "resolution" of 1080 HD? Would you say it's "1920", or would you say it's "1920x1080"?

Re:bad title... (1)

njen (859685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869323)

HD is 1920 x 1080, or commonly known as 2k. It's almost the same size as what most film is produced in as well (2048 x 1556). Which is why HD is so good to work with, because it's almost the same width as standard film. Like I said, don't take my word for it, it's what the industry refers to.

1080p refers to the number of horizontal lines, hence 1920 x 1080 = HD (widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio).

So when the title says 4x HD, most people would instantly think "wow, 8k resolution!", but 4k is not as special, that's what size Imax is.

Re:bad title... (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869395)

Someone should tell hdmi.org that they're not in "the industry" then, because they clearly refer to 4k as four times the resolution of 2k:

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx [hdmi.org]

Who do you work for, so we can all make sure NOT to hire you?

Re:bad title... (1)

njen (859685) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869519)

That website basically says the same thing. 4k x 2k is commonly referred to as 4k.

Half of 4k, is 2k, or 1920 x 1080, or also known as HD, or also known as 1080i. I don't know why you are arguing. This is simple industry information. I don't make the rules, I just abide by terms that have been in place for a long time.

If you still can't understand this simple bit of information, then I wish you well, and hope that you come around soon. All the best, it's the end for my part of this discussion as I have to return to work on a big budget feature film at a prominent visual effects studio.

Re:bad title... (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 4 years ago | (#29869607)

Are you fucking dense? From the page:

"4K x 2K is shorthand for 4,000 lines wide by 2,000 lines high, or roughly four times the resolution of a 1080p display."

Exactly how does that statement express, in any way, that 4k video is "two" times 1080 HD resolution? It actually says "four times" right there on the page.

Sorry, you're just plain old full of shit.

Re:bad title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29877523)

dude - 1080p is a vertical resolution - they really mean 1920x1080 - so 4x the pixel count would be double the height, and width, therefore 4 times to total pixels

3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

pay attention angry dude

Re:bad title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29886455)

Your math is fine, but your English is shit. Resolution has to do with resolving power in a particular direction, not pixel density. They are related but they are not the same. Read a little bit before you jump down people's throats. Especially people who work in the industry.

(Not njen, just sick of the typical Slashdotter armchair expert attitude...combined with your aggressiveness and inability to back down I can only assume that you are a terrible human being and semi-anonymous conversation is your last fucking refuge)

Re:bad title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29870739)

It's 4x the number of pixels. For resolution, just look at the root word. It's how much detail you can resolve (in any direction, so here we're talking double).

Re:bad title... (1)

keytoe (91531) | more than 4 years ago | (#29873641)

4K is roughly 4,000 pixels across, not 4X "HD", which is probably assuming HD to be defined as 1920X1080. 4x HD, if you multiply each dimension, would be 7680x4320, a lot higher.

Doubling the number of pixels in each dimension (eg, to 3840 x 2160) gives you four times the total pixels in the encompassed area.

Re:bad title... (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#29873799)

I am glad someone else said this. Many people (I was like this myself at one time) think that HDTV is 1k, as its generally defined as 1080i. However, its closer to 2k, 2k is defined as the width of the picture, not the height. 2k refrence resolution is 2048×1536 and 4k refence resolution is 4096×3072 (I guess this is a 4x3 resolution). The lower resolutions others have stated (4096x2160) are widescreen digital cinema, so you are NOT experiencing the full 4k standard. What would be smart would be for filmakers to use an anamorphic lense (like they do with film) to film at the full resolution of 4096x3072, and use an anamophic lense to play it back, as you would retain more information that way, but most filmmakers and theaters prefer to simply crop the picture.

That said, most visual effects for films this day and age are only rendered at 2k anyways, and the majority of post is done at 2k, unless the studio really wants to spend high dollar on CGI.

Re:bad title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29875399)

Interesting. So what the 'N k' names really mean are 'N times 1024 pixels wide'?

Re:bad title... (1)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#29877429)

Yes

Re:bad title... (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#29873823)

"exceptionally sharp sensor combined with Canon's unbeatable lenses"

I would not say Canon's lenses are 'unbeatable'. Most cinematography lenses are far better. Take Arri master primes, set you back £15k for each lens, a box of them can run well over £100k.

My Contax Carl Zeiss lenses beat Canon or Nikkor lenses.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29868451)

Did anyone else here read the article and think another group of programmers was getting together for a demoscene competition?

COACH women shoes,Ankh Royalty tracksuit woman (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29868675)

    You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like, Don't hesitate to contact us!
The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.
Features:
1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)
Size for women US5-8/10
2) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)
3) Many designs and colors available
4) Delivery can be prompt shipping
5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .

        You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like, Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos
OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                            Http://www.tntshoes.com

Finally, we can outsource surgery! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29868871)

We can now outsource surgery to India as well? "Oh, hold on, my internet connection got laggy. Oh, sorry, well, ya can't sue for malpractice from another country, can ya! "

With Sony, pay more for DRM features than picture (1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29870269)

The Sony SRXR220 has a lot of technology to prevent movie copying. The actual projector is only a small part of this.
It has:
-Enclosure Security System
-approved receipt of secured DCP content.
-Key security system
-remote monitoring allows content to remain secure
-Ethernet control to separate PC through secure TLS session
-Sony exclusive internal watermark system
-Lamp can be changed without having to enter secured area
-electronic operator key entry system
-multilevel security with operator roles
-security management.

How this is used in a digital movie theatre:
The movies are typically delivered on a HDD by a dedicated fleet of trucks operated by Dolby. The trucks have a secured cargo space similar to a bank transport. The Dolby employee carries the HDD to the secure area of the theatre together with the designated operator who opens the key lock to the room. The Dolby employee enters his credentials on the projector, ejects the old HDD, and inserts the new. The projector will print out a receipt of events, and both the movie theater operator and the Dolby employee signs the receipt, and keep a copy each. The truck leaves with the old movie.

There is no UPS "overnight delivery" or any third party touching this.

Re:With Sony, pay more for DRM features than pictu (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 4 years ago | (#29873545)

The drives I've seen at theaters have big DHL stickers on them. Dolby would love to have a stranglehold on the delivery, but they do not appear to.

Re:With Sony, pay more for DRM features than pictu (1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29875295)

The procedure I described, was the one followed in a Cupertino theater last year. They told me this was the procedure in the Bay Area. I am curious if this has changed.

Used in engineering (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29870819)

We use 4xHD projectors at work... we have four of them all projecting on a 3-walled 'room' with a roof. We use it to project CAD images as 3-D images and with some funky Dame Edna glasses, you see a 3D image in front of you and when you move your head, the view changes along with it. So imagine having a car, you can open the door, sit inside it etc ... really really cool!

GOOD NEWS, Shipping Selling DC High man shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29870919)

    Our company are specialize in supplying famous name brand shoes,clothes,handbag,hat,etc.All of our goods are 100% authentic,most of them are overstock goods from the brand owner's factories and shops,we wholesale them at reasonable price,if you are interested,feel free to contact us,we offer dropshipping,all of our products please check out at our website: www.shopperstrade.com,if you have any question you can talk with us on line.Our products list: Shoes--Men's Sizes Nike Air Jordan: nike air jordan 1 nike air jordan 2 nike air jordan 3 nike air jordan 4 nike air jordan 5 nike air jordan 6 nike air jordan 7 nike air jordan 8 nike air jordan 9 nike air jordan 5.5 nike air jordan 11 nike air jordan spiz'ike nike air jordan 12 nike air jordan 13 nike air jordan 15 nike air jordan 16 nike air jordan 23 nike air jordan 18 aj4&af1 fution shoes aj5&af1 fution shoes aj12&af1 fution shoes aj23&af1 fution shoes aj7&af1 fution shoes aj3&af1 fution shoes Nike: nike dunk nike air force one nike air max ltd nike air max 2003 nike shox r3 nike max 360 nike tn nike max 90 nike max 97 nike max 87 nike max 95 nike shox r4 nike shox nz Bape: ape shoes air bape star Adidas: adidas 35th adidas nba adidas adicolor adidas country series adidas cities series adidas samba adidas classic Puma: puma countries series puma cities series puma 1st puma 2nd puma 3rd puma 4th ferrari series puma 3.5 puma others Other: gucci christian audigier (CA) timberland d&g dsquared2 prada Shoes-Women's shoes Nike: nike max 90 nike shox r3 tn nike shox r4 shox nz Nike air jordan: nike air jordan 1 nike air jordan 3 nike air jordan 4 nike air jordan 5 nike air jordan 7 nike air jordan 11 nike air jordan 13 nike air jordan 22 boots: ugg gucci lv Clothes-Men's Clothes Coat: abercrombie fitch (AF) bape hoody bbc hoody coogi lrg clh hoody artful dodger hoody ed hardy hoodies evisu kidrobot gino green global christan audigier (CA) bape jacket T-shirt: abercrombie fitch (AF) polo ed hardy affliction Christian Audigier (CA) armani artful dodger bbc coogi d&g evisu g-star gino green global lacoste smet crown holder t-shirts shirts: abercrombie fitch (AF) Jeans: aka stash house coogi g star shmack diesel ed hardy evisu gino green global rock true religion bape bbc artful dodger rmc lrg crown holder Shorts: abercrombie fitch (AF) bape bbc coogi evisu red monkey Clothes-Women's Clothes Coat: abercrombie fitch (AF) ed hardy juicy Suits: juicy couture baby phat T-shirt: ed hardy primp abercrombie fitch (AF) Jeans: edhardy rock true religion Bag Handbag: louis vuitton (LV) chanel hermes chole gucci burberry coach Hat Hat: christian audigier (CA) new era ed hardy..

          OUR WEBSITE:

                                                    YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

                                                                      HTTP://www.tntshoes.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...