×

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!

NHK Working To Make HDTV Obsolete

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the tech-doesn't-stand-still dept.

Television 299

An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at EEtimes.com Japanese company NHK has successfully demonstrated a live relay of 'Super Hi-Vision' television, which is 16x 1080i resolution -- 7680 x 4320!" From the article: "NHK developed a Super Hi-Vision camera equipped with 8 megapixel CCD image sensors that can take 4k x 8k images. In the field test, it sent the two cameras to a sea park and sent baseband signals without image compression using an fiberoptic network formed by multiple network companies. The signal of the total 24 gigabits per second was divided into 161.5 Gbps HD-SDI signals to sent using the DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplex) method."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

299 comments

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954762)

I just upgraded to HDTV!

Re:But... (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955176)

I just upgraded to HDTV!

So did I, unless this solution is $50 per month including 200 channels w. fibre connect I would say they might be right in 50 years.

What irks me about HDTV is the freaking sets can't seem to grasp they are getting a NTSC wide screen and adjust accordingly. Nor does my set have such and option...

A bit more info and obvious first application (4, Informative)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954765)

There's a little more info on the Open House 2005 site [nhk.or.jp] (where it was demo'd) that includes a graphic and mentions that it "employs a 22.2 channel 3D loudspeaker arrangement to realize excellent sound field reproduction and a wide listening range" ... whatever 22.2 is, it sure sounds like a lotta speakers. EETimes didn't say when this would be actually available to end-users, but PCWorld wrote on June 16th [pcworld.com] "... the NHK says its system is unlikely to be commercialized until sometime in the next decade" so it will be a while.

As with many new technologies, the p0rn industry will probably be the first to deploy this 33,177,600 pixel technology. Boy, I feel a bit inadaquate as my halloween webcam (goes offline Saturday night) [komar.org] only has 337,920 pixels (704x480) - I guess size matters, eh? ;-)

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (2, Funny)

kai.chan (795863) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954837)

I feel a bit inadaquate as my halloween webcam (goes offline Saturday night) only has 337,920 pixels (704x480) - I guess size matters, eh? ;-)

I've been to your site before -- great job, btw. Although your server is quite impressive, I want to see a live-feed of a 7680x4320 video @ 60-Hz showing us the server room (perferrably wired so that the visitors can cut the power of the cooling on demand) while it is being Slashdotted.

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955050)

Not to break your little heart, but... [komar.org]

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955121)

Now why do you have to go around and open up old wounds? Come on now.

Fool me once, shame on you, ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954860)

Alek, we will have to drive by and see if your web cam is for real this time. Hopefully, you are no longer bushwacking us. But I think that we will have to verify that.

Re:Fool me once, shame on you, ... (1)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954895)

My wife will be home in a few minutes - watch the garage door go up and all my kids pile out. I'll go wave to the webcam for you too ... but hey, it could be even even better simulation this year ... i.e. is it a trick or a treat?!? ;-) [komar.org]

P.S. 7680x4320 video @ 60-Hz would be pretty awesome - if someone knows the HNK guys, let 'em know I'd be happy to be a beta tester for 'em.

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954907)

Have you EVER posted a comment without linking back to your damn site?

Dear God, you're the worst type of spammer /. gets. I'd prefer any number of Hot Grits trolls to your insipid attempts to garner hits to your page.

Please... PLEASE - give it a rest. Stick your site in your sig and don't keep twisting every topic to be related to your own egocentric hobbies.

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (2, Informative)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954934)

22.2 = 22 mains, 2 subs.

8 mains at ear level (3 across front, 3 in rear, 2 on each center side), 7 mains each above and below ear level (no rear center).

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (2, Funny)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954951)

As with many new technologies, the p0rn industry will probably be the first to deploy this 33,177,600 pixel technology.

I might have to disagree. The recent "Weapons of Ass Destruction" was said to be cutting-edge--but it appeared to have been filmed with a 20 dollar webcam, and it was on a VHS in SLP mode!

my halloween webcam (goes offline Saturday night) only has 337,920 pixels (704x480)

If I watched that tape with this new technology, each testicle could take up as many pixels as your webcam!

Re:A bit more info and obvious first application (4, Informative)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955163)

This stuff was on Discovery Channel months ago... and NHK's plans are to use it for movie theaters. Availability for home system was not discussed and it will certainly take a while, if it ever does get there. The DC overview of the UHD system did not say much about the audio system that went with it though. (Nor did it go into any sort of details about how the system was setup for the demonstrations.)

Yah! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954768)

First Post!

What display? (1)

Narkov (576249) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954771)

Thats all well and good but what kind of display can handle that resolution?

Re:What display? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954853)

Thats all well and good but what kind of display can handle that resolution?

A super matrix of LCD panels. Really with the continuing advances in LCD quality and yields, they're going to continue to get cheaper and cheaper, and there will come a time not too long from now when you can do a Farenheit 451 and have a room with walls that are giant televisions.

Of course I'm still wondering how a 8K x 4K camera (32MP) comes out at "8MP". A quality 32MP camera is still years off.

Re:What display? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954884)

Of course I'm still wondering how a 8K x 4K camera (32MP) comes out at "8MP".

Thinking about it, I suppose they mean that they matrixed 4 8MP sensors to create one image (just like standard photo-stitching).

Re:What display? (2, Interesting)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954855)

A laser based device would be the easiest and best choice. We do have the ability to direct lasers with extreme precision and excellent accurate repeatability. However, you might want to clear away an entire wall of one room, do it over in silvered white paint, and forget about using a cone of space starting at the projector and going across the room spreading to the whole wall. Now you have a real good reason to get going on remodelling the basement to make a TV room.

Re:What display? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954993)

Thats all well and good but what kind of display can handle that resolution?

You make me chuckle. My father said "What's the point of HDTV if my current TV can't display it?" I reminded him that HIS parents (my grandparents) said "What's the point of color TV if our current tube won't display in color?"

Similarly, there are comments like "What's the point of a CD when all songs are only released on vinyl?" and I'm probably sure it dates well back to "What's the point of a horseless carriage when you need to re-fuel gas? Who sells GAS once you manage to drive 30 miles out of town?"

That's not the water main (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954775)

That's the pipe coming into my house so I can watch Three Stooges in Super Hi-Vision.

still can't get the EPL matches I want though, dammit

Obsolete? Hardly. (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954777)

Yeah. Obsolete, huh. Whatever. Nice hyperbole.

HDTV will be hitting in three or four years. It will be the standard for the next fifty years, just as we've stuck with the outdated "standard" we have now for however many decades. Don't expect to see any of this (in America, at least) in our lifetimes.

Re:Obsolete? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954831)

Will be hitting? I've had HD for 4 years now. Don't know what you're smoking or what hole(probally a mammoths rectum) you're living in.

Re:Obsolete? Hardly. (1)

Narkov (576249) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954914)

Hardly critical mass if one geek has bleeding edge technology. HDTV isn't there yet.

Re:Obsolete? Hardly. (0, Flamebait)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954946)

Great for you. You've had HDTV and a whole two channels of HDTV content to watch. Idiot.

Re:Obsolete? Hardly. (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955066)

You raise an interesting issue... will our new video standards last for 50 years like the first ones did?

IMHO, they will not... I think we'll see more frequent improvements. First generation equipment was all implemented in hardware with a certain number of scan lines, refresh rate, color fidelity, and encoding scheme, yet downloaded videos vary in ALL of these parameters. From the early postage-stamp animated gifs, to video clip mpg, to VCD, SVCD, xVid, and now full DVD rips seem to be catching on. And even HDTV features not 1 but 3 different resolutions, which is a step in the right direction for special-purpose TV hardware.

Re:Obsolete? Hardly. (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955113)

What does it mean for a standard to last? If enough content is generated that is compatible with that standard, and in fact is created for it, that standard can be said to last.

We need to be suspicious of the rhetoric of obselesence. Obviously, we never have the "best" technology possible - it's always a balance and negotiation between budgets, economies of scale, resources, and the like. And people's lives aren't all about what's called 'progressive time,' in which we are oriented only to a promised, unfolding future which justifies and motivates the present.

The problem with tech neophilia is that it turns into permanent future-orientation, living for a time that is always about to arrive.

Sounds super-dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954780)

So how do you suspect we will get this data, at 24gbps, from source to destination? I have a feeling that it won't be going over the airwaves....nor the current cable-tv system.

The picture is great... (4, Funny)

Chocolate Teapot (639869) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954782)

"Super Hi-Vision has huge information and was difficult to transmit. Using 16 waves on optic fiber, we succeeded a live relay over a long distance."

...but the sound is still a little disjointed.

Re:The picture is great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955114)

well duhh its in japaneese so what do you expect?

My beta camcorder? (1)

Barkley44 (919010) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954783)

So is this the next bext thing to retire my beta camcorder? Every time I'm about to make a choice, something better comes out ;)

Random thought (5, Funny)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954790)

"The signal of the total 24 gigabits per second was divided into 161.5 Gbps HD-SDI signals to sent using the DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplex) method."

What color ray is that disc going to need? I'm guessing puce.

OMG, They've gone plaid! [nt] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954955)

(actual message text inserted to avoid lameness filter)

Re:Random thought (4, Interesting)

Punboy (737239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954999)

For this I am assuming 1cmx1cmx5mm for the size of Samsung's 16Gbit flash chip. This is probably slightly larger, but we must include the board on which they are soldered

People made do with huge VHS tapes for years, right?

So lets see how much storage we can cram into a VHS tape using flash.

first lets gets the area of a VHS tape... 7 3/8 x 4 1/16 x 1. Thats in inches. So, lets use Google to calculate that into cubic centimeters.
Thats about 491 Cubic centimeters.

Now lets see how many cubic centimeters a single flash chip is.
Thats 0.5 cubic centimeters. Now lets divide 491 by 0.5.
Thats a whopping 982 flash chips!

Now, how many gigabits of storage is that?
15,712 Gigabits of storage space in a single VHS tape filled with 16Gbit flash. Wow. What is that in GB?
1,964 gigabytes

Ok, so we'd need 10 of those for a 2-hour movie. But you have to remember, thats uncompressed. If we compress it, we just may get a single movie into a 1,964GB flassette (flash-cassette, something i just made up).

Woot.

Re:Random thought (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955083)

The 1 terabyte holographic discs they've been promising us for years now, obviously.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954796)

Butt zits in porn at this resolution?

Iew.

Sounds nice..... (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954798)

Let's see data transfer and storage catch up with this development to consider it an alternative to HDTV instead of it's eventual replacement....

Re:Sounds nice..... (1)

Danga (307709) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955029)

Let's see data transfer and storage catch up with this development to consider it an alternative to HDTV instead of it's eventual replacement....

That is exactly what I was thinking as well. I thought I had a decent amount of storage but jeez even if it was all free I would only have enough space for recording about 20 seconds! It will be quite a long time I think before this would be feasable to use for mainstream recording with the current hardware limitations/prices.

Good Job NHK!! (1)

Knight Thrasher (766792) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954799)

Now when I finish my Newest Investion Ever(TM) - the 5-Terabyte storage method, that can be mass-produced and then easily distributed, you can actually start getting companies to adopt your content! =D

On a more serious note, this isn't making HDTV obsolete by any means - HDTV is just getting started, and can barely squeeze into broadcasters budgets. Since when will we ever live to see terabit fiberoptic connections to our homes, to carry multiple channels of this?

Re:Good Job NHK!! (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954909)

You wouldn't need multiple channels, just have the reciever send a request for a certain channel to the distribution server and it servers only that channel down the pipe. At most you'd want what, 4 TVs in your house? So you'd only need bandwidth for at most 4 channels at once.

Video Downloads (1)

lappy512 (853357) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954800)

Yeah, but only the Japanese have the 100Mbit pipes to download large videos like that, the people in america have 1-4 Mbit pipes :(

Re:Video Downloads (1)

spd303 (928605) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955063)

Not true! We have them here in Sweden, until recently it was a download limit and expensive but now all 10mbit fiber customers get 100mbit =) six weeks to go for me, sweet!

That's a bit of an overstatment... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954804)

Resolution doesn't make sense unless you can see it. HDTV adoption is slow at best, and consumers aren't going to move to a better format than that for many many decades. This format might be interesting for cinemas and such, but it's not significant to HDTV at all.

Re:That's a bit of an overstatment... (1)

Superfarstucker (621775) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954913)

Even more to the point - no video source has a resolution even half of that. All the masters in existance would have to be upsampled to fit the format. Just think of the processing power used decoding something like that! It's truly amazing that they even rolled out the solution considering the costs involved and its relevance today

Re:That's a bit of an overstatment... (3, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954943)

HDTV adoption is slow at best, and consumers aren't going to move to a better format than that for many many decades.

One of the benefits of HDTV, as commonly deployed, is that it decouples the display from the source - e.g. you can watch an 1080i signal on a 480i SDTV screen, a 720p, or a 1080i, or hypothetically anything larger. My LCD TV accepts a DVI input feeding from 480i to 1080i, and it displays it on the 720p screen.

This decoupling is a major benefit, because if one of the satellite providers wanted to support this new hyper-format, they'd likely have a traditional DVI output, along with a new Super-DVI or whatever output.

The huge schism that happened between NTSC and HDTV never needs to happen again, and there is no reason why we can't continually scale up. LCD prices are dropping, and it seems entirely reasonable that large grids of high resolution displays will become economical within a decade.

Re:That's a bit of an overstatment... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955047)

Resolution doesn't make sense unless you can see it. HDTV adoption is slow at best, and consumers aren't going to move to a better format than that for many many decades.

In the U.S., maybe. You may be interested in looking at the stats of households that have plasma flat screen HDTV units in Japan. They're selling like crazy. I don't have one, but all my co-workers do. Supposedly the entire terrestrial broadcasting system is going digital in 2007 in Japan. THat is, analog broadcasts end. Digital is already here, and a lot of it is HDTV.

Considering the way Japanese consumerism goes (buy, use, trash, buy again) by the time this S-HDTV goes consumer level, I'm sure it'll sell. Even in the U.S., once the prices go low enough. Think about it. How many places still sell (or even make) B&W TVs? When your TV dies and no one sells analog non-HDTV units, you don't really have a choice other than giving up TV altogether. Which, by the way, doesn't sound like such a bad idea. My TV is used primarily for watching movies, and not for receiving TV signals. I already have an LCD projector, and I'm wondering if it isn't time to chuck the TV for once and for all.

I don't know about that... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955053)

I've had HDTV for a few years now and honestly I never was blown away. What I did get was a big hard to move cini-screen set that I'd be more then happy to part with for something better and thinner/lighter.

Its all about how they position it. You plasm screen owners might be a little harder to convince, but that resolution is a big jump and by the time the rest of the technology catches up you might be ready for an upgrade anyway (we don't have 21TB dvd's yet and at least here in the US streaming that kind of data to a regular home would be out of the question).

Anyway, its innovation, thats exciting.

Re:That's a bit of an ... Hologram ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955169)

Enough dataflo for an NTSC quality 3D hologram.

In ten years, optical / quantum ought to be arriving to ordinary consumers. Or, maybe, entangled links : a block of transmitter photons entangled to reciever photons under the screen. And some quantumdot-like voodoo to read and display on a point-by-point basis.

If it's fast enough, they could record and retransmit wavefront data. => Holograms !

Made into thin sheets, you could "mod" houseware items / cars... spouses... pets... ?

A wall covered with the "retirement center" scene from Solyent Green would be neat ! And music from Zardoz, of course. :)

But...But...But.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954806)

This is HDTV! It's got better resolution than real life.

16x 1080i What?? (2, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954811)

In typical slashdot byline fashion: Is this the end of HDTV? Tune in and see!

The two places it would be great are:
-Digital cinema. It might keep the movie theaters open a few more years. On the production side: Talk about a storage problem when you have to store all of the raw footage!
-"jumbotron" type displays for arena-style live events.

Re:16x 1080i What?? (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954975)

You know, the individual pixels in jumbotrons are blocks of LEDs -- they're that big! We're just far enough away that they look fine anyway.

So if honking LEDs suffice, I suspect super-duper-teeny-pixels won't quite be necessary!

Why i? (1)

molrak (541582) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954819)

I skimmed the article--it's a bit light on the details, but I didn't read anywhere in the article that their Super Hi-Vision was interlaced. I would hope that the next generation of TV's (or whatever form they take) would get rid of this idiotic interlacing nonsense.

Per hour (4, Informative)

Punboy (737239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954840)

24 (gigabits / sec) = 10.546875 terabytes / hour

Thats 21TB for a standard-length movie! ~21,000GB! Foly Huck!

Re:Per hour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954959)

Now think about the poor islanders in the north that have to pay $84/GB "foreign download" :)

They'll be paying One Million, Eight Hundred And Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six U.S.Dollars for that 'Spiderman Seventhousand' movie.

UGH ! :)

Re:Per hour (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954970)

Let's assume that video content can be compressed by 2000x in 10 years time. Currently H.264 can get a compression ratio of 1200:1 (http://www.shapeofdays.com/h264/ [shapeofdays.com] bottom) so this might not be too far out.

21TB -> compression -> 11GB.

Even if we decide that 2000:1 compression ratio is really taking it too far, a 500:1 compression ration would still give us a movie that would fit on next year's dual-layer Bluray disc. A 250:1 compression ratio will require a 4 layer disc however.

Re:Per hour (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955079)

Currently H.264 can get a compression ratio of 1200:1 but he says you can see the artifacts even at 250:1. You can do something that looks surprisingly well all the same, but 1200:1 is certainly past the sweet spot where you should have less resolution and less compression though.

Re:Per hour (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955137)

So H.265 will be great at 250:1 in 5-10 years time. We'll have 100GB discs in the form of 4-layer BluRay, and they'll have been popular for 5 years and we'll be talking about 500GB VioRay and 10TB 'next-year' holographic discs, whilst you can get BluRay recorders for $99 in Best Buy. Slashdot will still be posting dupes.

In 10 years this resolution of television will be completely viable, even with what we know will be out techology-wise in the next 5 years. We might need 8 10GHz Cell processors to decode it all though! :)

4k x 8k = 8m ????? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954873)

NHK developed a Super Hi-Vision camera equipped with 8 megapixel CCD image sensors that can take 4k x 8k images

Um, 4k x 8k = 32 m

Where did the 8 megapixel come from?

Re:4k x 8k = 8m ????? (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954890)

probably 4, 8MP CCDs in a 2x2 grid. The "new development" is probably that the image surface takes up the entire CCD, so they managed to create a 32MP sensor from 8MP chips with no borders.

Re:4k x 8k = 8m ????? (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954971)

I would have just made a 4 lens camera. Use software to stitch it together, and don't tell anyone that you're missing two rows of pixels. They're going to have to show the image on 16 HDTV's, so nobody will notice anyways.

HDTV has been obsolete since day 1 (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954882)

HDTV is old news and an antiquated format. It was a government standard based on OTA standards.

Tomorrow's receivers will be much faster (a la XPMCE or MythTV). OTA is dead, we want IPTV. 7.2 surround is ready. 2.35:1 is required, at a resolution of 3392 x 1440, progressive.

We want fixed 6500K color standard, with no flesh-push or blue-push. We want an adaptable decoding processor, not something stuck in one mode.

HDTV isnt the future. A PC, Gnutella, and a HD2 projector is.

Re:HDTV has been obsolete since day 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955020)

Why the fuck do "we" want 2.35:1 pictures? 16:9 is bad enough, 2.35 is unwatchable.

Re:HDTV has been obsolete since day 1 (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955068)

HDTV isnt the future. A PC, Gnutella, and a HD2 projector is.

Yep. There are too many layers in these TV specifications. What field are they in? Video or communications? There will be a need for ultra high res video in the future, but TV is dying.

Every evening TV competes with /. for my time, and mostly loses. And I am not one of those who exhaust themselves on World of Warcraft until 3am then stagger into the office and pretend to work.

The Broadcasting model came out of the basic physics of radio transmission. We are not limited by that anymore, so broadcasting is out.

Re:HDTV has been obsolete since day 1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955170)

No, OTA isn't dying and IPTV isn't going to replace it. You can barely get broadband, how do you expect IPTV to work in an environment where 1 megabit download is considered broadband?

A PC might be the receiver of the future, but 8VSB or QAM will be part of the transmission method. IPTV is a pipe dream that won't happen.

Angular resolution of the human eye. (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954898)

Assuming the eye's lense is about 1-cm, the angular resolution of the human eye would give you about 54,212 x 54,212 pixels. assuming a 180x180 degree feild of view (with blue light). So we've still got a ways to go!

Re:Angular resolution of the human eye. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954997)

Actually, the resolution of the human eye is limited by the density of photoreceptors on the retina, and is thus closer to about 36k x 36k pixels (assuming a 180x180 field of view, and that the resolution is constant across the retina--two assumptions which I know for a fact do not hold, so it's quite a bit lower).

Compression? (2, Interesting)

TommydCat (791543) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954925)

What's the point if any service that feeds video to you compresses the crap out of it?

I've got a hddirectivo, but the compression is fairly obvious when compared to OTA broadcasts, and even those are easy to pick out artifacts.

I don't see any huge leaps in bandwidth from any provider Real Soon Now, and wouldn't any compression to fit the available bandwidth reduce the effective resolution?

However if this is for closed-circuit feed from Hugh Hefner's humble abode, I may be interested :)

Re:Compression? (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955006)

Umm, my first BBS in 85 was 300 bps. Today I have 10Mbs at home. 6Mbps sustained.

Tomorrow (2007) I expect 24Mbps (I could alpha test 18Mbps right now). 100Mbps is google close.

Weird signals (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954937)

The signal of the total 24 gigabits per second was divided into 161.5 Gbps HD-SDI signals to sent using the DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplex) method.

This must be very innovative technology. I wonder how they can divide one 24 Gbps signal into several 161.5 Gbps signals?

Even to divide into a single 161.5, they need to divide the 24 signal by 0.148606811145511.

This DWDM stuff sounds weird...

Kill HDTV Now. (1)

Argonne (913222) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954965)

I want HDTV to die a quick death. Maybe that will stop the government from its draconian attempts to outlaw standard TV broadcasting. The shift from standard NTSC TV to something better should be accomplished through market forces. Why not? You didn't have the government outlawing 8-tracks to force everyone to cassettes. Let it happen.... or not happen... on its own.

Re:Kill HDTV Now. (1)

kb7oeb (543726) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955183)

They are only forcing digital broadcasts for over the air. The reason is to use spectrum more efficiently. HDTV is optional for over the air broadcasters most of the smaller stations transmit only SD on their digital station. Cable and satellite have no obligations as far as HD. They are even allowed to down rez a local stations HD signal to SD. The market is driving HD otherwise no one would be doing it.

TV makers are starting to be required to include digital tuners so that they can receive over the air signals (and most also support digital cable) but they have no obligation to make the set HD.

Yesterday Good Morning America started broadcasting HD, ABC has said they hope offering an HD signal will give them an edge over the today show.

will be obsolete soon enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13954978)

...in other news, Bob's Cameras has created a camera that will capture at 2048 megapixels, at 3D. The data is transmitted via multiple OC192s...

Really, how much difference does this make? Joe 6 pack can't afford HDTV now. This new stuff wont be market ready for another 5 years, and it'll take another 5 after that to make people want to seperate from their HDTV's.

An OC3 transmits at 155.52 Mbps, so you MIGHT be able to cram it down an OC3 with compression, (read: errors, lossiness) if the viewer wants to pony up the $6400 just for bandwidth. I'm still paying 50% more a month for my DSL than I ever did for dialup...

Secondly, a blu-ray can store 25GB per layer, this camera writes at 24gb/s, so I get one really nice photograph per layer on my blu-ray?

PS3 (Full HD) and beyond (Super HD) (1)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954991)

Now these recent words from Ken Kutaragi of Sony Computer Entertainment, the PlayStation guru, start to make sense...

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=1470&Itemid=46 [next-gen.biz]

>Generations to come

>Sony gave also a vision of things to come in terms of video
>quality and the format to support it. Today's TV sets are
>allowing resolution of 720 to 1080i. Sony calls it the 'HD ready
>generation' with a frame rate of 60 to 90 fps. This is
>symbolized by the DVD format.

>On the PC side, the WXGA is the standard with an average
>resolution of 1280x768. The coming generation called 'Full HD'
>will shift to 1080p (1920x1080) resolution for the TV and WUXGA
>(1920x1200) for the PC. TV sets will allow frame rates of 90 to
>120 fps and the Blu-ray will be the format to support this. Then
>Sony has stated its plan for the generation after called 'Super
>HD' which will start in 2008. TV sets and PC will reach a
>resolution of 2160p (4Kx2K), 240 fps of frame. The format is yet
>to be designed.

Re:PS3 (Full HD) and beyond (Super HD) (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955088)

Then Sony has stated its plan for the generation after called 'Super HD' which will start in 2008. TV sets and PC will reach a resolution of 2160p (4Kx2K), 240 fps of frame.

Arrrgh, let me buy a 1080p TV this decade and use it for a decent amount of time before changing the format, okay? I'm perfectly happy with 1920x1080 for a home television/movie system. I might be amenable to getting 60P and 120P signals however at that resolution.

Maybe you Americans with 4000sqft houses want to buy 120" TVs and thus need that resolution ... then again you seemed happy with giant 60" standard definition 4:3 TVs not 5 years ago!

Re:PS3 (Full HD) and beyond (Super HD) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955142)

240 fps? Bring me someone who can tell the difference from 60fps to anything higher.

P.S. I would just tell that person to get over it.

old news again (0, Offtopic)

fuck_this_shit (727749) | more than 8 years ago | (#13954998)

read that a while ago on a bunch of news sites. REAL news sites, not the joke that is slashdot. and I expect this post to return in a week with slightly different wording.

Useful? (1)

CyberVenom (697959) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955001)

The only real use I can think of for this technology, considering the bandwidth requirements, would be public closed-circuit viewing of live remote events. For example, imagine this set up at the Olympic games and transmitted to 5 or 6 special "viewing arenas" (glorified theaters) worldwide so that if you can't make it to the games physically, you can go to your nearest viewing arena and pay to watch it live. Or imagine it for NFL: a team establishes a dedicated link to their home stadium whenever they play away, and ticketholders who can't travel to the away game can watch the game DLP projected (by an whole array of projectors) onto a big white canvas stretched across the astroturf.

OK, cool.. but... (3, Insightful)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955035)

1080i transport streams run about 5 gigs for 40 minutes and require a ~2Ghz processor to decode without dropping any frames or choppiness. I know 2Ghz isn't considered too fast - even now, but I am finding the trend to require an insanely fast machine to watch / record tv sightly odd. Without someone out there to create a unit out there that makes it easy to view HD content - and by easy, I mean "dear old mom and dad" easy, I'm worried that people won't adopt it and choose to just stick with plain jane devices (which won't drop the price on the cool stuff for us)
There really isn't a lot of really great HDTV compatible stuff out there either. DirectTV is dragging their feet and the rest of the major players out there aren't exactly pushing anything terrible innovative either. Software for it is also pretty bad. I know a lot of people like MythTv, etc, but it could be a lot better.
There really isn't a efficient way to compress any 1080 streams either - you need loads of time, a fair bit of ram and a great machine - even then a 250gig drive fills up really quickly.

Also, and this is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine - is that with 1080i (and 720p), you can see if the camera isn't focused perfectly. I find this incredibly annoying. If the quality gets bumped up another couple of levels, this will be more noticable. I'm guessing this will be corrected as more and more people realize that it looks sloppy on the cameraman's part.

If you're bored, try and figure out storage requirements for the folks who film your favorite shows in 24p (BSG does, as well as a bunch of other shows) and then figure out the storage requirements for something recorded in this format ;)

with 16 times the resolution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955037)

you can now get 16 times view of Oprah!

ugh, I think I just vomited on my keyboard

Dammit!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955049)

I just bought an HDTV, don't make it obsolete so fast, ya bastards!!

early adopters (1)

nomaan (685185) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955061)

obviously the Pr0n industry hasn't heard of it. once they do, it'll become commercially viable ..

Resolution (1)

Universal Indicator (626874) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955065)

7680 x 4320.....I'm not entirely sure that it would be good to have porn in THAT much resolution. I don't need to be able to count the creases in some guy's hairy anus :-)

And yet... (2, Insightful)

Evil Butters (772669) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955108)

And yet, there will still only be 3-4 programs on TV/cable/satellite actually worth watching -- no matter what the resolution is!

t3h new maths? (1)

loraksus (171574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955157)

Ok, I suck at math and all, but I can't be the first one who picked this up.

1920 x 16 = 30720 != 7680
1080 x 16 = 17280 != 4320

Also, sometimes more resolution isn't always better. I don't really want to see the exact number of pimples on someone's face.
That sort of stuff is visible even in this screen cap [vehiclehitech.com], which is in 720p and encoded with xvid (cap is from HBO's "Rome", BTW). I really don't want to be able to make out globs of makeup on someone's face. Ignorance is bliss I guess (teeny bopper pop stars would look terrible in this, but perhaps there is an advantage to having teens disgusted by the face of the latest coke snorting "musician")

Re:t3h new maths? (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955193)

Ok, I suck at math and all, but I can't be the first one who picked this up.

1920 x 16 = 30720 != 7680
1080 x 16 = 17280 != 4320


Q1. What is 4 x 4?
A: 16!

Q2. What is 1920 x 4?
A: 7680!

Q3. What is 1080 x 4?
A: 4320!

This tech is a mere two generations away, assuming someone does a 3840x2160 format in 3-5 years time.

gov't regulation (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13955162)

THIS is why you don't want governments stepping in and saying Okay everybody you got five years to broadcast in X format and only in that format. Left in the free market, we would not have bound ourselves so tightly to something inferior to this (possibly).

As soon as I walk this Fiber Bundle up my stairs.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13955189)

Geeze! Over kill? Who got this bandwidth?

Maybe with some heavy hardware compression chips - this would be cool,
but that's just too much data to be pumpin' through the air (or cable, or dish).

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...