Beta
×

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!

Sources Say ITU Has Approved Ultra-High Definition TV Standard

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the pore-decision-making dept.

Television 341

Qedward writes with this excerpt from Techworld: "A new television format that has 16 times the resolution of current High Definition TV has been approved by an international standards body, Japanese sources said earlier today. UHDTV, or Ultra High Definition Television, allows for programming and broadcasts at resolutions of up to 7680 by 4320, along with frame refresh rates of up to 120Hz, double that of most current HDTV broadcasts. The format also calls for a broader palette of colours that can be displayed on screen. The video format was approved earlier this month by member nations of the International Telecommunication Union, a standards and regulatory body agency of the United Nations, according to an official at NHK, Japan's public broadcasting station, and another at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Both spoke on condition of anonymity."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094115)

Same old shit in high resolution! =D

Re:Great! (0)

nischal360 (2713011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094905)

Test

Re:Great! (0)

nischal360 (2713011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094997)

Agree

Re:Great! (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095153)

for twice the cost and comes with twice the DRM, along with limited availability! enjoy!

useless aspect ratio (-1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094139)

Sorry, 7680x4320 means a 16x9 aspect ratio, and a monitor by that proportion is useless for any actual work.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

R0UTE (807673) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094167)

That's why it's a TV (Television) standard...

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

Kinthelt (96845) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094189)

To be completely fair, there is no mention of computer monitors anywhere in that article. You sure you read it?

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094321)

It's about image format; since people move away from dedicated TVs at a rapid rate, forcing people to watch their movies on a narrow strip of a screen means they'll either end up with a display unsuitable for anything else, or will complain about black strips.

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094197)

Not for windows 9 they will have plenty of resolution to waste on their over simplified stupid UI

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094229)

huh, wot? Academy radio monitors are about out for good...

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094291)

What makes a 4:3 ratio so much better than a 16:9 ratio for your monitor?

Re:useless aspect ratio (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094425)

The fact that real work is done with lots of text, and text goes from top to bottom far more frequently then scales off endlessly to the right?

We have these stupidly huge 16:9 monitors today that can't even display one page of a PDF without scrolling and yet 2/3 of the screen is sitting empty. It's a terrible aspect ratio for computers.

Re:useless aspect ratio (5, Insightful)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094511)

Not useless for everyone, just you.

Even so - there are monitors that pivot from portrait to landscape. 16x9 is great for office work if you rotate it 90 degrees.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094513)

Why not rotate your monitor to be portrait rather than landscape?

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094587)

They still make 4:3 (actually 5:4) monitors. It just costs more at the same display size.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

Jamu (852752) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094779)

The problem is only the lack of vertical resolution. The horizontal resolution is almost certainly adequate on a wide-screen monitor. The complaint about aspect ratio is more a complaint about unused screen space. Something that is easily fixed on a wide-screen by displaying two pages side-by-side. Like in an opened book.

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094927)

You use no windows? On a 7680x4320 screen?

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41095009)

I do plenty of real work that consists of lines of code/text/numbers and the plots that are generated at the same time. I've got one 16x9 and two 4x3 monitors on the same workstation and the 16x9 gets the most action.

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41095091)

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if you really care about screen real estate most video cards allow you to rotate your monitor 90 degrees. In fact, you can even buy stands that swivel to make this easier. It may not be a common configuration, but if you want it, you can do it.

Re:useless aspect ratio (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095189)

16:9 is great for having windows side by side. And as someone else pointed out, if you prefer to see lots of text at once, why not get a HD display and rotate it 90 degrees? Then you basically have two and a half 1024x768 displays piled on top of each other. Basically a desktop publishing type setup.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

cawpin (875453) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095203)

The fact that real work is done with lots of text

That's funny. My Solidworks models have no text at all on them and the drawings fit perfectly on a widescreen monitor.

Re:useless aspect ratio (2)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094457)

What makes a 4:3 ratio so much better than a 16:9 ratio for your monitor?

I think that 16:10 is nice, through something in between 4:3 and 16:10 would be ideal. Much of the work I do involves source documents and a working document. Since most of those are formatted for the 8.5" x 11" written page, a 16:10.3 monitor is the right size to hold two. Given some additional space for menus, a taskbar, etc., I think that the idea ratio is about 16:10.5.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094635)

So, why don't they make 1:1 monitors?

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094591)

Almost anything I deal with would be better viewed in a portrait orientation. Code generally shouldn't exceed 80 columns while having more lines on the screen is a nice thing to have. For ordinary text, centuries of typographic practice established the optimal width of a column of text at around 60 characters, on a narrow strip of a monitor this means either a small font size (and thus eyestrain) or having to scroll every a few lines. There's a reason it's hard to find a paper publication in landscape.

Too bad, while a 4:3 screen can be easily rotated into 3:4 (and is good enough even without rotation), 9:16 would be way over the other edge. That's why you can't buy a 16:9 pivot -- it'd be even more useless than 16:9 landscape is.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094945)

Well, OP didn't actually say which aspect ratio would be preferred, although I'd guess that more vertical real estate is extremely likely as I also find 16:9 to be somewhat awkward for working on. Despite widescreen monitors being commonplace, GUIs and applications still tend to be designed with a 4:3 ratio in mind, with menus and toolbars across the top, which on widescreen displays leaves a letterbox proportioned working area that just looks "wrong" to me. When word processing, even with two pages side by side, that means there's usually far too much space wasted horizontally, and if you prefer to have your documents one above the other then it's even worse. Full screen spreadsheets are more of a mixed bag depending on which direction the data primarily extends to; if you have a large vertically orientated spreadsheet the extra scrolling can soon add up. After that, it gets a little more application specific, depending on the layout of toolbars and so on, but generally I'd go with more vertical space than 16:9 for work every time.

Now for leisure apps, on the otherhand - viewing movies and playing first person perspective games - then the narrower aspect ratios make more sense to me as they provide a more cinematic experience and help cut down on distractions in your peripheral vision respectively. Since this standard is being driven by the cinema and broadcast industries, it's pretty obvious where their priorities are going to lie.

Re:useless aspect ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094331)

TV standards and computer standards have common physical interfaces, but different sets of timings. Even on-the-wire, the timings of TV-land 1920x1080 and computer-land 1920x1080 are quite different, although the vast majority of computer monitors accept both standards.

Re:useless aspect ratio (2)

TheTrueScotsman (1191887) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094345)

I don't agree. As long as you have sufficient vertical resolution (1080 isn't enough, 1200 is ok, 1440 is great for me at the moment), then horizontal resolution is fine at either 16:9 or 16:10. In fact, at (say) 1200 vertical, 16:9 would give you a more useful monitor (won't ever exist, of course).

1920x1080 is, of course, an abomination for work and I think this is where the hatred of 16:9 comes from. Whereas 2560x1440 looks great from where I'm sitting.

Re:useless aspect ratio (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094495)

you may have a point.

most people, myself included, complain because 1080 vertical lines of resolution is a regression from where we were headed in the mid-2000s. all of a sudden, circa 2009 or 2010, 1080 vertical lines of resolution was the maximum you could get, no matter what monitor size you purchased, unless you were willing to spend over $1000 on a monitor. It's like every panel manufactuer in existance decided to just quit. all of them were constantly increasing pixel density every few years and then they all quit. just... gave up. either that or moved to smartphones.

This new standard, while laughably high, at least gives me hope that pretty soon pixel densities on standard computer monitors might start going up again. 16x9 ratio monitors might indeed be "ok" if we had double the vertical resolution we have now.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094741)

Sorry, 7680x4320 means a 16x9 aspect ratio, and a monitor by that proportion is useless for any actual work.

I don't know about you, but I don't use my TV as a monitor, and I have a separate set of monitors for my computer work.

Re:useless aspect ratio (5, Insightful)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094831)

I think the GP is referring to the fact that once we had a high resolution TV spec, pretty much all panel manufactuers decided that "what's good for TVs is good for computers" and no longer make any higher resolution than 1920x1080 unless you're willing to spend close to $1000 or more.

I see no reason to expect they'll do otherwise in the future, so any future TV resolution spec has immediate implications on future computer monitor resolutions.

Re:useless aspect ratio (1)

brainzach (2032950) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095113)

The 16:9 aspect ratio is better for multitasking since you can view two windows side by side.

It's usefulness is diminished when using a multi-monitor set up, but the majority of the market uses a single monitor.

screw that (4, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094207)

I am going to wait for CSUHDTV

Crazy Super Ultra High Definition TV.

Re:screw that (3, Funny)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094659)

And in other news, Comcast and AT&T said they will charge sh** loads of money for that service as well, and they will cap it (if you exceed 10GFrames per mo, they will only deliver at 5fps).

Re:screw that (4, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094705)

I don't understand why they skipped Super HDTV ... anyone that grew up in the 80s knows that Super is before Ultra.

I dont see the point, yet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094225)

We can barely get 720p on most of our "HD" channels, and then the feed is compressed. Having a standard is nice for the future, but I think it is still too early. We need better video compressing standards before we make the switch. Besides blu-ray has not yet fully penetrated the market anyway.

Re:I dont see the point, yet (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094451)

Or less channels - most of the linear channels out there are carrying nothing but pre-recorded content which could be delivered over IP rather than QAM in a much more satisfying experience for the average TV watcher. Ditch a couple dozen of those things and you can open up the spectrum for higher bandwidth video real quick.

Re:I dont see the point, yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094523)

Why shouldn't there be a standard? Maybe it will finally give these companies a kick in the ass when their customers move to another company that isn't two generations behind. It is also better than multiple companies inventing incompatible proprietary super-HD definitions.

And have you thought of the implications for porn???

Re:I dont see the point, yet (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094679)

I dont see the point, yet

People buying the TVs subsidizing the economy of scale lowering the price of equally resolant computer monitors. And incidentally releasing us from the purgatory of 1920x1080 low dpi crap that is spun as high-end by CE marketing departments everywhere.

But what for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094237)

I mean, seriously, anything bigger than 1080p is not really visible for my usual viewing habits anyway (24'' monitor in ~ 1 meter distance, or projection with 3m diagonally in about 4m distance)

Re:But what for? (1)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094527)

Also as we get older, eyesight fails...
I think my HDTV is great! Like looking out a window... actually maybe I am looking out a window?

Re:But what for? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094633)

Maybe you should go outside.

What about the encoding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094241)

And with the lousy encoding that people CBS use on their prime-time shows, we can now have super sharp square artifacting on the screen. How about they give us decent HD first?

Another piece of the puzzle. (4, Informative)

mister2au (1707664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094253)

We have Bluray that can pump out 40 Mbps and a new High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard coming that support 4K/60Hz video at around 40 Mbps

We also have a few 4K displays just starting to appear.

And now a UHDTV 4K video standard (as well as 8K).

So looking good for the new gen with broadcast, storage, encoding and display standards all sorted out .. bring it on !!!

Re:Another piece of the puzzle. (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094369)

4k could end up getting skipped as a broadcast standard given how quickly 8k is growing up. It will be a lot easier to dedicate that much bandwidth to a single channel once we eliminate those which serve no useful purpose in the linear domain (those which carry only pre-recorded shows).

The sooner the better (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094261)

Expect to hear a lot of "but I just bought an HDTV" hand wringing but if you think about it, 1080P was barely if at all pushing the envelope when it went mainstream. I have CRTs that I bought second hand 10 years ago with 1600x1200 pixels and that is nothing special. This actually pushes display tech and pixel density forward and gets us close to the Hollywood OS ideal of photorealistic no-discernable pixel displays many of us have lusted after since seeing the main viewscreen on ST:TOS.

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094401)

And most TV in the US is not even produced at 1080p, but rather 720p.

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094847)

Some shows are broadcast at 720p, but recorded on either 35 mm or 1080p/24 HDCAM.
For Instance:

Bones [imdb.com]

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094881)

sure, some shows are, but most shows are not. Interestingly enough, recording something at 1080p and then down-converting it to 720 usually yields a superior product to shooting in 720 naively.

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094953)

I should temper my statement a little. Live television is almost always produced at 720p rather than 1080. The penetration is higher in non-live production.

Re:The sooner the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094969)

Kind of like dithering 24 bit audio down to 16 (or something like that) producing superior results?

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095137)

Perhaps it's your cable company that's to blame. Why have only one channel featuring crystal clear, pristine video when you can have five featuring an approximation of what was intended?

Re:The sooner the better (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095193)

If that's what the customer wants! That will probably change soon though

Jarring clarity (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094267)

The crabs on porn stars will look like invading sci-fi monsters.

Re:Jarring clarity (3, Funny)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094463)

And thusly a new sub-genre of fetish porn was born...

Way more than 2x (2)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094269)

This is actually much more than 2x standard broadcasts in terms of resolution as far as the US market is concerned. In the US almost everything "HD" is 720 @ 60fps (or sometimes even 30!). This is 8k, which is 16x the resolution of 1080, and twice the frame rate.

Already past what eye can resolve (2)

muhula (621678) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094271)

For 1080p screens, if you're sitting further than 2x the diagonal screen width, your eye can't resolve more detail on the screen even with more pixels. This is called the Lechner Distance. Does anyone actually sit that close? It's certainly not how far the average person sits from the screen.

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (0)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094429)

Funny though that "REAL LIFE" is always more crisper then the content on TV's, regardless of what bullshit math you use. Obviously the human eye is capable if discerning more detail then what pixels on a screen can resolve. You might not be able to distinguish two pixels on the screen, but your eyes are more then capable of knowing there is a disconnect between what is supposed to be a continuous line joining those two pixels.

  I think there is room for improvement in screen resolutions however my objections are that most content providers are barely delivering acceptable 720p content.

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094489)

Some providers are much better than others at not ruining the signals. You should switch!

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (3, Informative)

pikine (771084) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094737)

Real life is crisper because of the dynamic range of the intensities of light. All the technical details of photography---ISO range, aperture, neutral density filter, etc.---are just clever ways to clamp down the dynamic range to get a reasonable approximation of real life. Even high dynamic range (HDR) photography is an approximation. It still has to be presented through a low dynamic range display. It just means HDR is using a different clamping function.

Consider that there are also people who are tetrachromatic who can see a color between red and green. Surely all computer and TV displays, being RGB, are always lacking a color for them. Imagine seeing the world through a broken display where one of the colors isn't working.

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (4, Informative)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094849)

What you're talking about is little to do with resolution so much as colour gamut, accurate reproduction and (yes) true 3D.

Also your eye is pretty bad unless it's looking directly as something. Then that thing comes into focus because you focus on it. That can't happen with a screen showing already-chosen focus on something else. So no matter how you squint, your eyes can't get the background trees into focus when they pass over them (and thus it's not "real") - and they probably pass over them several times a second while you're watching content that you've never seen before.

What you're saying is that watching a flat box showing colour reproductions of pre-recorded 2D imagery isn't like "real-life". And it isn't. Because even the best colour elements in a TV can't replicate real-life (and some people can even perceive UV and not know it!), even the best 3D TV can't provide depth to the image sufficiently, even the best camera doesn't record everything in "focus-free" format so that you *CAN* focus on any part of the image you like, etc. etc. etc. In the same way that Stereo, 5.1, 7.2, or anything else you choose cannot accurately reproduce an arbitrary sound in an arbitrary location around your head.

The room for improvement is not in resolution. You honestly *cannot* resolve it at a decent distance with a pure datastream (companies badly compressing video? That's another issue entirely). Even though you *can* see the light of a candle in complete darkness from MILES away, you're not measuring the same things.

The best room for improvement would probably be proper "free-focus" imagery. Where you can put up an image and I can see EVERY pixel in pin-sharp detail whether it was one mile away from the camera or one inch (and not have to refocus my eyes, or to fool them sufficiently that they AUTOMATICALLY refocus themselves). Because that pixel element behind the actor's shoulder ISN'T REALLY six foot behind the one that represents his shoulder when it's displayed, so it will not look "real".

Until you have proper, full, 3D and such free-focus media, you won't get what you want. And we know how well 3D has gone down - just as well as it does every time it's "reinvented" for another generation.

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094529)

For 1080p screens, if you're sitting further than 2x the diagonal screen width, your eye can't resolve more detail on the screen even with more pixels. This is called the Lechner Distance. Does anyone actually sit that close?

I have a 21.5" 1080p screen suspended over my bed, 23" from my eyes. I wanna replace it with a T221, but that will need a sturdier mount and a major upgrade to my nightstand PC, plus the refresh is a little slow for TV content.

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095039)

How about for monitors? Don't you think it would be a good idea to unify TVs with monitors?

Re:Already past what eye can resolve (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095221)

It seems inevitable doesn't it? They are all just displays in the end, some are bigger, some are smaller, some have different aspect ratios, etc. What matters are the use cases.

Oh good... (3, Funny)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094273)

A new international television standard. How long until we in the US invent our own entirely incompatible system just so it can depend on patents owned by American companies?

ATSC versus DVB-T, CDMA2000/EvDO vs. GSM/UMTS, etc.

Re:Oh good... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094599)

Yeah, they can come up with whatever standard they want as long as handbrake and whatever I happen to be using as a settop box at the time supports the resolution without skipping frames. On a related note I wonder what the dollar amount of broadcast standard related patent royalties is rolled into the typical price of an HDTV vs. an equally resolution equipped computer monitor.

Re:Oh good... (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094607)

NTSC: Never Twice the Same Color
SECAM: Something Essentially Contrary to the American Mode
PAL: not really

Cable Companies are the downfall (1)

Fool106 (977984) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094293)

I would love to see this into implementation so many years from now, but the problem is the cable companies. They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure so they compress their signal and current HDTV looks like crap on some channels. Until cable companies won't compress their signal then i'm not interested. I guess it's also fair to say that channels have to start delivering in HDTV as well too!

Re:Cable Companies are the downfall (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094417)

The infrastructure is sufficient but right now the market is asking for more channels and more internet bandwidth rather than higher quality video channels. The networks can handle the traffic, it's just not what people seem to want yet.

Re:Cable Companies are the downfall (1)

BaronM (122102) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094805)

I always get a bit of a kick over how much better the picture quality I get for free OTA is than the cable my friends pay for. Of course, they get far more channels, so there is a trade-off.

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094305)

What's next UbHD (uber higher definition)?

Also includes "4k" resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094337)

The standard also includes a smaller layout, which is 3840 by 2160 pixels.

So maybe I'll finally get a T221 replacement with higher refresh rates and modern video connections (i.e. not needing a stack of conversion hardware). Losing 240px of height is an acceptable tradeoff...

Wow (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094349)

Maybe cable companies might finally get FULL HD content to display on our Ultra HD TV's.

Another reason why cable companies need to be destroyed, because they don't even know how to provide state of the art, but feel inclined to comment on what the new standards should be.

About the only thing UltraHD is going to introduce is a new optical disk format because broadband and content providers are incapable of creating and delivering UltraHD content without massive compression and inferior audio.

Re:Wow (2)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094595)

Most of them can provide you with full HD, but the content typically is not being produced at full HD anyway (for regular television) and people seem to be giddy for lots of channels and internet bandwidth so they trade off quality for quantity. When some channels get eliminated you will get both higher internet bandwidth and higher quality video.

Re:Wow (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094755)

About the only thing UltraHD is going to introduce is a new optical disk format

And a new format war! Oh, and new and "improved" DRM. I can't wait to see who cracks it first. I'll get the popcorn ready.

Anyone seeing the point of this? (5, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094389)

We have a couple of 720p (not 1080p, 720p) TVs in our house, a 32" LCD, and a 50" plasma (hey, 720p plasma's cheap.)

How decent is 720p? Well, both TVs appear to be about the same quality as, or often a little higher than, watching a friggin' movie at the cinema, if the source is decent and relatively free of artifacts.

I think, for the most part, we're talking diminishing returns at this point adding pixels. So I'm a little baffled by this announcement. Is it real? Is there a serious market for TV for people with super exceptional eyesight? Is video compression technology really going to improve so much over the next ten years that this'll be worth using - especially over the Internet, which, let's be honest, is where everything's going at the moment.

I'm glad to see innovation, but I'm just finding it hard to believe that this improvement is significantly useful: arguably, like Blu-ray, it might actually hold back HD, rather than help it.

Re:Anyone seeing the point of this? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094665)

This. What exactly is it that you want to see with this much resolution?

The thin wires that hold props and whatnot in place for movies? Look, it's supposed to be a suspension of belief. That's what's required for a work of fiction. Too high of a resolution ruins the effect. Not to mention who wants to see every pore of every actor's face?

Even for documentaries: What's the point? Do you require this much resolution IRL? I'd venture to guess if you had an ultra-high resolution view of your pillow (including dust mites) you'd probably not be able to sleep.

Re:Anyone seeing the point of this? (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094697)

Higher resolution content will look better on your new 90"+ TV

Re:Anyone seeing the point of this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094701)

Sorta.

The difference between 720p material and 1080p, is noticeable. *IF* the original material is actually scanned out at 1080p. Most is just unconverted from 720p.

The only thing interesting is the increase in color resolution. Which is where the resolution will start to come into its own...

The thing is while many standards out there have excellent color response and contrast. The screens are not up to the job in many cases unless you dole out some serious cash.

I will not mind 720p dying a quick death. As many laptops out there are just using TV panels for their screens (as it is cheap to do). A good bump in res will be good for the rest of the industry using those same panels for other things.

Once you get past about 1200 dpi (most people are around 800dpi) you can not see the difference. But a 3-7 inch screen is not very interesting for watching a movie and hanging out on the couch.

Re:Anyone seeing the point of this? (2)

mister2au (1707664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095163)

How decent is 720p? Well, both TVs appear to be about the same quality as, or often a little higher than, watching a friggin' movie at the cinema, if the source is decent and relatively free of artifacts.

Wow - you really need access to a better cinema then ... I can assure you 720p (from a good source) is miles behind a good digital cinema ...

I, for one, have a 85ft (110ft diagonal) 4K digital locally in addition to IMAX, film and 2K digital ... I was fortunate to see The Bourne Legacy recently in 4K digital and it was stunning compared to even 2K digital, let alone 1080p and 720p.

If i can have a high-tech $1,000 4K 80" screen in 5 years or high-value $500 1080p 50" screen in 5 years .. hmmm ... easy decision .. bring on the tech I say :-)

Get ready to buy Star Wars again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094413)

(again)

Very disappointing (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094439)

I'm sure it's very nice, but these types of things are simply diverting time and resources away from what the true goal should be: sexbots. Anime themed sexbots, porn star themed sexbots, weird fetish sexbots -- sexbots.

Japan, why have you gone astray?

Too bad it's one step next to useless... (1)

h2okies (1203490) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094447)

due to market conditions and lack of infrastructure.

This will never see the light of day in the average home for 10+ years if not longer. People and broadcasters are still upgrading to 740p and 1080p(i) what makes anyone think this will come of anything?

Will John Q drop obscene money on televisions that will need to be the size of a wall to reveal all this new resolution and color palette? Sadly more than likely no one will care save for a few videophiles.

Re:Too bad it's one step next to useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094977)

A better color gamut would make a 13" TV shine just as well as a 130" one.

My screen is about 7 feet wide, and would look better if the source and projector were better than 1080p.

The real hangup seems to be broadcast, which is mostly 720p, and often pixelated by over-compression.

And people are going to watch this... how? (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094471)

Cable and Satellite can barely handle HD as it is right now due to bandwidth constraints. Unless this also comes with some miracle new encoding that can give us all this extra picture quality without increasing bitrates at all, it's not going to fly. Internet transfer caps make it totally unsuitable for streaming. Optical media isn't exactly the way of the future.

We're a *long* way off from this being available to home users in any kind of practical way.

Re:And people are going to watch this... how? (1)

dywolf (2673597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095253)

I dont see the need for it myself...but the average consumer doesnt think about that, they just see "BIGGER NUMBERS ARE BETTER!". And so they buy these things. And its too much for the current pipelines coming into the houses....

and viola! Hardcore, cannot be ignored (like it is now) market pressure to upgrade cable/telco infrastructure and deliver more bandwidth! So for that reason, I support it.

OK everybody! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094519)

Get ready to swap your TV's again! Remember it's all good for the economy. That way you can watch re-runs of Friends and Home Improvement in ultra ultra high resolution.

Re:OK everybody! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094907)

I expect those were both shot on video, but we could see older stuff in better resolution. It was nice to see Hogan's Heroes and the original Star Trek in HD.

What was that sound? (1)

Squatting_Dog (96576) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094553)

Oh, it was my internet connection screaming in fear of the next video streaming bandwith requirements!

On the bright side (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094677)

I'd love to have all these lines just so the CRT video shaders in the future will start to look more convincing simulating vintage computing better preserving a history of analog signals for the rest of us retrofetishists.

What about the computer screens? (1)

Picardo85 (1408929) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094729)

Ok, so we have a Full HD standard at the moment which is pretty much the same quality as a better computer monitor from a generic brand. Why are the computer manufacturers lagging so far behind? Ok, Apple has launched their retina displays which do have a really good resolution but where's the rest of the industry? I myself have two laptops and they've both got pretty much the same resolution even though it's been six years between the times I bought them. IT-industry, get your heads out of your asses and start pushing out those really HD monitors already, this includes for both desktops and laptops!

Re:What about the computer screens? (1)

Miros (734652) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094771)

Remember that computer monitors are typically much smaller than televisions. Making a 50" 1080p display is a lot easier than making an 8" display of the same resolution. There are companies out there who are making 4k consumer displays, none of them are very small.

Re:What about the computer screens? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095155)

Ok, Apple has launched their retina displays which do have a really good resolution but where's the rest of the industry?

Apple can get an actual economy of scale with a line of consumer laptops costing over 2 grand. Nobody else has been able to pull that off. Also, since Apple has direct control over their OS, they can customize it as needed for non-mainstream hardware like high dpi displays. Their competitors are stuck with whatever MS sells them.

Oh yes, come on high-DPI! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41094787)

I want a monitor that has a retinal-locked density at an average viewing distance. ("retina display")

Something with this resolution at such a high DPI would be fantastic for this.
Of course, the price to create such a monitor with such a resolution, and more to the point on new hardware such as OLED, is going to be extremely expensive.
So I guess that won't happen, just big ass wall-screens for the living room / media center.

Games would be fantastic on a display like that.

Just what we need! (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094861)

This is just what we need!

Instead of developing ultra-hd tv, they should be developing content that is actually worth watching.

FOUR times the resolution, not 16 (1)

shking (125052) | more than 2 years ago | (#41094885)

Resolution is measured in pixels per inch (or mm), not per square inch

Define (1)

nischal360 (2713011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095023)

Tv standard

Standard (1)

nischal360 (2713011) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095073)

Tv stands

Talk about chewing through data caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41095077)

At that resolution, you probably can stream video long enough to get through the credits before reaching capacity on some data plans. (I'm looking at you, AT&T)

the human eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41095085)

Having been a gamer for almost a decade, we often try to push maximum FPS. From what I have read heard and witnessed over time is that the maximum frame rate the human eye can comprehend ranges from 60 to 80 fps (depends on the media and how fast that person’s optic nerve and brain can process the video stream.) I believe this is just a marketing gimmick to lure the less knowledgeable into wasting money.

Experienced system in operation during Olympics (4, Interesting)

chicane (38348) | more than 2 years ago | (#41095183)

The BBC and NHK collaborated to demonstrate this system during the olympics , broadcasting to 3 sites in UK , 2 in US and 2 in Japan.
Further detail See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-hi-visio.shtml [bbc.co.uk]
The opening/closing ceremony were broadcast live whereas during the rest of the week a daily hour long highlights package covering the opening ceremony and specific events package was compiled and broadcast on a daily basis.
I was fortunate enough to experience the system at Bradford Museum of the Moving Image on a 15 metre square screen and a couple of megawatts of sound..
With reputedly only 3 cameras in the world camera angles were somewhat limited, the opening ceremony coverage placed you in the heart of the stadium as if you were an audience member showing off the wide field of vision offered. I found the 22 channels of sound to be somewhat overwhelming in volume which I judged to be a bit of a cheap trick to impress. As with initial experience of Hidef the enhanced resolution can lead one to examine detail towards the edge of the field of vision. I was slightly disappointed that there was some blockiness at the edge. This may be due to focussing issues, focus is performed away from the camera.
All in all I found it quite comparable to the Imax experience excepting lack of 3d.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?