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!

33 MegaPixel TV in 2015

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the gonna-need-a-bigger-hard-drive dept.

Television 240

psyph3r writes "The Japanese communications ministry is investing in a new broadcast display technology with NHK to launch a 33 million pixel, 24-point surround-sound broadcast standard by 2015. The standard will use a video data rate of 24Gbps and an audio data rate of 28Mbps. This must be surreal in person."

cancel ×

240 comments

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

Wow (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035834)

Wow, they invented movie theaters that run on internet streams.

This is supposed to be exciting?

Re:Wow (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035860)

When the movie theater is sitting in your own living room, yes.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036186)

Wait, shouldn't that be the other way around?

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

argiedot (1035754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036770)

It should, but then you get someone else's popcorn on your carpet.

You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater (3, Funny)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035938)

Yes, if you MUST have 300Gbps streaming data to your home, we'll be glad to rent to you and your family the following items:

3 obnoxious people who will not watch the movie, but will interrupt your view of it
1 usher who is totally clueless as to what he should be doing as well as what movie is playing
2 rude 16 year olds who will get your order for popcorn wrong twice, then over charge you 50 cents on the medium soft drink
1 ticket taker who should have been replaced by a bar code reader years ago, and who roughly knows the direction to the toilets should you need them.
1 manager to sit in your den, pretending he knows what is going on, but has to ask the 18yr old up in the projection booth to be sure.

Finally, thanks to my business services, you can finally have a realistic movie theater experience in your own home. Congratulations and welcome to the 21st century.

Re:You insensitive clod, I own a movie theater (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036452)

Pah, your package sounds pretty standard.. is there a premium version complete with a big sweaty fat guy in the seat next to you? Do we get complimentary sticky floors? What kind of adverts do you provide prior to each movie?

Re:Wow (5, Informative)

JackHoffman (1033824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035952)

Digital cinema currently uses 2K projectors (2048 pixels wide), which is about the same resolution as you effectively get from analog projection (and only very slightly higher than HDTV 1080p). State of the art projectors are capable of showing pictures which are 4096 pixels wide (4K), which is significantly better than analog projection. At a 2:1 aspect ratio those formats are 2 and 8 megapixels.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036054)

What they've failed to account for is, all the old bastards who can afford this, well, their eyes aren't really that great anymore.

Or, to put it another way...

"Sorry Sonny, I can't see a difference... just let me get my bifocals out..."

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036480)

It's not for home use. I think there are some in use. One system was demonstrated at NAB 2007 and IBC 2006. I think some museums are using it. It's actually quite nice. It's almost possible to recognize the t-shirt designs audience members are wearing from across a football stadium.

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036688)

What they've failed to account for is, all the old bastards who can afford this, well, their eyes aren't really that great anymore.

My father just purchased a Sharp Aquios 52" HDTV before Christmas for their new house. I was there visiting and hated it. Why? Well, not just because I believe HDTV to be a pointless joke but b/c he didn't have an HD feed from his satellite provider. I asked, "why did you buy an HDTV when you don't have HD?" He said, "because it's bigger and my eyes aren't so good anymore."

For someone who used to be so in tune with technology and so on top of shit, I was surprised when he made this illogical reasoning. All that TV does now is over-distort an already distorted image and make it 52" wide. It's blurry as shit and obnoxious to watch unless you have a newer DVD in there. Older DVDs -- which he has more than a few -- look like ass on there because it won't upconvert them to anything near the 1080 it will do. Newer DVDs, like his copy of Ratatouille looked fine upconverted to 1080.

The only useful thing for HD is watching the NFL and I can do that for free at someone else's house or at the bar where I usually am on Sunday anyway since Minnesota still has fucking pointless Blue Laws and you can't buy anything except 3.2 in the stores.

Re:Wow (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036084)

It's fun to extend the limits of our display technology - High res looks nice. But can somebody explain to me why in the hell would we ever need a 28 Mbps audio stream even with 24 channels?

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036544)

This isn't about need. :D

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

rasputin465 (1032646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036580)

But can somebody explain to me why in the hell would we ever need a 28 Mbps audio stream even with 24 channels?

Yeah, not sure what this is all about. Most internet radio streams are in the 100-200 kbps range for two channels, which comes out to the ~2.4 Mbps range at most for 24 ch. So they're saying they need roughly a factor of 10 more data per channel? Maybe they're not compressing the audio stream?

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036646)

Sure...

(44.1 KHz @ 24 bits per sample * 24 channels) / 1024 / 1024 = 24 Mbps. Little room for protocol overhead there.

Re:Wow (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036712)

Well, now instead of having to combine all sound effects into a single audio stream, we can give each sound effect it's own channel. So if two people were talking at the same time, you would be able to play one track, and then the other, and hear both voices clearly.

Re:Wow (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036374)

This is supposed to be exciting?

It is to me. I just bought a new TV 3 or 4 years ago, when this one has been out for a few years I'll be ready for a new TV and might even be actually to afford it (or not, as I'll be retired). Assuming I'm still alive then, of course.

A retired friend complained that he was on a fixed income. "You're lucky", I told him, "My income's broke."

Re:Wow (1)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036410)

This might sound out of place, but isn't at some point TV (for entertainment) just...TV? While increasing resolution is something I'm sure the enthusiast can appreciate, isn't there a point where size and quality of image cease to matter?

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036558)

Yes, but it's somewhere right around that level for the size of tv that most people have a large enough wall for. If you want to watch a ~60inch tv from the minimum field of view distance (something like 4ish feet), then you need about this number of pixels @120hz to pretty much max out human perception.

That's a lot of pixels (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035836)

Eye upgrades are expected to become available in 2016.

Re:That's a lot of pixels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036188)

Eye upgrades are nothing new. We have Lasik today (and RK yesterday).

What this could mean for SpanktraVision (-1, Redundant)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035862)

Can you imagine what porn will look like with that kind of resolution!

Re:What this could mean for SpanktraVision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035894)

I'd rather not when you can see all the pimples on the girls poon and the guys ball bag. I hope they include a filter to make things look fuzzy.

With that resolution, you can become a doctor. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035916)

Sure, you will see only skin pores and little hairs because your room won't be large enough to be sufficiently far away to see an entire image.

Re:What this could mean for SpanktraVision (1)

Deaddy (1090107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036002)

I remember discussions something like a year ago that pornproducers worried about HD videos, because they could reveal some flaws on their stars; there were even suggestions to show some acteurs only from a specific perspective. They could become very upset.

However, I think it's a waste of bandwith.

Re:What this could mean for SpanktraVision (2, Interesting)

Eccles (932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036088)

Y'know, I figure the proper way to do porn in hi-def is simply to tile 16 different vids at a time, and you can check out the stream that interests you most.

Re:What this could mean for SpanktraVision (1)

rk (6314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036160)

Yes, yes, I can, and as a result, I think there's good money to made in making real-time convolution [wikipedia.org] processor accessories.

"Oh, holy shit, I don't want to see that!" *click* *click* Video Options:Transform:Real Time Blurs:Add Soft Focus.

Humans have lost control of human development. (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035864)

Technology is advancing far faster than the understanding humans have of themselves. I watch my NTSC 320 x 240 maximum resolution TV and usually feel that the resolution is higher than it needs to be considering that the low thought content of the TV show.

Re:Humans have lost control of human development. (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036208)

So true. It feels like they're just making up numbers at this point.

Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show... (2, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036406)

Here's an idea, why not try changing the channel? What's that... you only paid for basic channels. Here's a list of educational and also fun to watch programs I'd like to see someone try to rip apart:
Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, The First 48, The Daily Show, etc...

Things have changed since the A-Team and Knight Rider...

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (1)

TomorrowPlusX (571956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036478)

Are those shows actually better on a $1000 high-def flatscreen TV? Those shows are good because of good writing, good thinking, and charismatic presentation. As such, they're just as enjoyable on a 20 year old SD television...

The only stuff that really benefits from an HD tv are sports and summer "blockbusters" like Transformers.

P.S. The A-Team ruled.

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036528)

If that's your attitude, why watch TV? Why not just read a book?

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036680)

If the show has any cinematography to speak of then it will infact look better on a high resolution 60" TV.

Video is a visual medium. It's silly to not expect it to have a visual quality that would be improved by size and clarity.

There are bound to be shots even in the A-Team that benefit from good viewing hardware.

A 20 year old SD Television doesn't even display SD content well.

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (1)

slim (1652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036566)

Do you think any of those shows are really enhanced by the difference between SD and HD? Let alone 33 megapixels...

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (2, Informative)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036782)

Do you think any of those shows are really enhanced by the difference between SD and HD? Let alone 33 megapixels...

Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: I previously had a 27" TV. Even standard TV looked fine on it. Fast forward to today where I did my research and bought a 42" LCD. At those sizes the standard TV signal looks like crap when its stretched that big (yes even in 4:3 mode). However, watching HDTV is great... even non-sports related shows like Dirty Jobs. I really like seeing various animal feces in HDTV, you can really see the individual hay in the hippo crap in HD :).
Rude Answer: Contrary to what your wife keeps telling you, size does matter!

Re:Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, First 48, Daily Show.. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036570)

Mythbusters: Blowing shit up and building expensive rigs to (dis)prove pointless myths, even though anyone who didn't sleep through high school physics could easily calculate the result. You don't get hands-on experience from watching someone else doing it on TV.

Re:Humans have lost control of human development. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036412)

That reminds me of when DVDs were the big new thing. Some one I know got me to set up his new DVD player, and later was bragging about how crisp his new DVD picture was and how great digital was. Half way through the movie I told him the sad truth. His DVD player didn't work so we were watching a VHS copy of the movie. He got sullen and cranky after that.

Re:Humans have lost control of human development. (1)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036484)

What made you think we were in control of human development in the first place?

Re:Humans have lost control of human development. (1)

Nephrite (82592) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036568)

Oh, that's just another trick to make you pay. New TV sets, new DVD players, totally new broadcating infrastructure... yummy dollars... err, yens.

Really? (2, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035866)

This must be surreal in person

If you think that is surreal you gotta try the acid. It'll blow your mind!

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035988)

I don't like the interlacing.

Re:Really? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036656)

I don't like the interlacing.
I thought interlacing was for coke lines, not acid.

too much theraflu (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036394)

"This must be surreal in person"

'...that must be unreal in reality...' ..?

As opposed to surreal not in person? How else can one do surreal anyhoo.

In other news... (-1, Troll)

British (51765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035882)

Comcast to be expected not to support it even by 2020. It's Comcastic!

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036644)

Isn't that craptastic?

Soon you will be able to SEE reality... (1, Interesting)

triceice (1046486) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035896)

... without actually experiencing it.

Re:Soon you will be able to SEE reality... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036366)

We've had this technology for years, they're called windows.

Re:Soon you will be able to SEE reality... (3, Funny)

consoneo (442007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036622)

Leela: Fry, maybe yo should get outside and see the real world sometime instead of watching TV all the time.

Fry: But this is HD TV, it's higher resolution than the real world!

Design my Commission (1, Flamebait)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035900)

How cool. A commission declares 24 gig bandwidth for tentacle rape cartoons! Luckily for them, they don't have to actually implement the thing!
Why they are at it, how about 92 megapixel, say 67 gig! The Utah commission has just spoken.

Re:Design my Commission (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036562)

I don't want to design your commission. New clothes on boring farts still nets a room of boring farts.

Not surprised (-1, Troll)

martinpisto (1219438) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035930)

I am not surprised at all! And may be more than 33mp http://www.spymac.com/details/?2331213 [spymac.com]

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036100)

I am not surprised at all! And may be more than 33mp http://www.spymac.com/details/?2331213 [spymac.com]
Wow, the Spymac community looks like shite now.

Mac users really need to get a sense of style. Already the bland white computers look bad, now this.

phwoar (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035954)

i guess that screen can show the whole library of congress at once?

Not "surreal", exactly... (2, Insightful)

Bohnanza (523456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22035960)

This must be surreal in person.

I think the purpose for it is to seem real.

Re:Not "surreal", exactly... (1)

psyph3r (785014) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036060)

it can mean dreamlike. It would be dreamlike to have that TV in person

Re:Not "surreal", exactly... (1)

unchiujar (1030510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036126)

Baudrillard would disagree... (and yes I know, it's hyperreal...)

Last year (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22035972)

Something like this was on display last year at NAB. NHK had 8K displays set up next to 4K, 1080p and standard def units. As I walked past starting from SD and moving up, my reaction was:
SD: yuch
1080p: oh, that's nice
4k: wow, that's fantastic
8K: holy shit, that's like looking out the window

Had to be said.... (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036044)

Duke Nuke Em is going to look amazing on it!

Re:Had to be said.... (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036268)

Yeah, but this is 2015. I don't think the Duke will be ready in time.

Re:Had to be said.... (1)

lorenzino (1130749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036272)

Yeah, hopefully "forever" will be completed by then. Hopefully.

This is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036050)

But given a choice I would prefer stereo or 3D displays instead.

3.5 TB for 18 minutes of video? (2, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036056)

Too bad you'll need a Beowulf cluster of hard drives just to store a single movie.

Re:3.5 TB for 18 minutes of video? (-1, Troll)

Hybridmutant (995475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036294)

You should be shot in the head to minimize damaged to your ego, just look at what you said >_ "Too bad you'll need a _Beowulf cluster_ of hard drives just to store a single movie." what the fuck

Japan is superior (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036072)

Meanwhile in Portugal, country of internet slow and expensive i would kill for a internet superior of the max 12Mbps that didn't cost more than a 32Mbps outside (12mbps=32mbps in price :s).

Packing my bags ... i'm going to earthquake country... getting shaken that often is a small price to pay for that speed :P

Re:Japan is superior (2, Insightful)

n00854180t (866096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036362)

You can't even get a 12Mbps connection in the US for less than $1000/mo. Max for any reasonable price is around 6Mbps.

Re:Japan is superior (1)

dl_zero (933977) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036714)

My Comcast is $33 per month and speedtest.net benchmarks it around 13mbps

Hmmmm... (1)

onosson (1107107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036076)

What's surreal is imagining that anyone could find anything worth watching at that resolution...

will i need a new graphics card? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036078)

will i need a new graphics card for this display?

why are you laughing?

We're halfway there (4, Informative)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036080)

Well, we're halfway there already. I believe most studios that are now remastering for HD (especially HD DVD and Blu-Ray) are mastering the picture at 4K resolution: Blade Runner being one of those titles. The idea I guess is once "4K" becomes a standard, they'll have this content ready.

Sony already sells a 4K projector [abelcine.com] meant for digital cinemas. But, you can use it to show 4 HD signals at once, something which Sony has been trying to promote to sportsbooks, tradeshows, etc.

It all ultimately depends on visual acuity. Some people are already having trouble seeing the difference between an upscaled NTSC signal and an HD signal. I can only imagine this well get more troublesome as we keep ramping up the resolution.

Just remember, HD doesn't even get close to properly displaying all of the resolution of 35mm film. We've got ways to go, although I don't see more than one new generation replacing the current HDTV "standard" for consumer-level high-end technology.

Re:When is Lucas Re-Releasing SW in 33mp??? (3, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036504)

Well, we're halfway there already. I believe most studios that are now remastering for HD (especially HD DVD and Blu-Ray) are mastering the picture at 4K resolution: Blade Runner being one of those titles. The idea I guess is once "4K" becomes a standard, they'll have this content ready.

I'm confused... George Lucas hasn't already re-released the original Star Wars Trilogy in 4K? He must be getting slow in his old age.

Re:We're halfway there (1)

photomonkey (987563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036776)

I am one of those people who has some difficulty distinguishing between upsampled DVD and true HD channels. I've seen some HD broadcast shows that look fairly poor (by which I mean stuff originally shot in HD), and some upsampled movies look better than HD.

I myself am a pro photographer. I haven't shot a 35mm neg in years, but do still shoot medium and large format films. It all comes down to the source. A 35mm negative will enlarge acceptably well to ~24x36 reliably. I can do 24x36 inch gallery quality prints from my 12mp D2X bodies reliably, and while encountering the same types of problems you see enlarging a 35mm neg that much.

My point is, the stuff shot and processed very well in SD stock will look good either as-is or upsampled on an HDTV. The stuff shot, processed and edited on intern night is going to look like crap, even if it was shot in IMAX and downsampled for humble old 4:3 SDTV.

And the same with still pictures.

Max Resolution? (1)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036098)

I've always wondered what resolution would something need to be to be indistinguishable from reality. Clearly this is particular pixel density, I guess a simple experiment would be to play a dvd, and wait to see how far back you have to walk to make it indistinguishable from reality.

Re:Max Resolution? (2, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036606)

A 2d display at *any* resolution is still a 2d display. Color balance, the fact that the images produced by currently widespread display tech glows, etc all contribute. Just look at still cameras--a nice 5MP camera with top-notch optics, sesors, etc will capture much better images than a cheap 10MP camera. More pixels aren't always better.

Re:Max Resolution? (2, Interesting)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036618)

It depends on viewing distance. But resolution is not the most significant contributing factor in the unrealism arena for modern displays. Color accuracy, dynamic range, and two dimensions are the most significant contributors to this.

Modern displays have decent color, but as long as we are limiting ourselves to red / green / blue color sources, this will always be distinguishable from real (real cyan is not a 50/50 mixture of blue and green light, it is a single wavelength between the two).

Dynamic range is how bright the brightest areas are and how dark the darkest areas are. Real dynamic range would show the sun so bright on the screen that it hurt your eyes to look at, with dark areas so dark that your eyes would not be able to see the detail even if the screen had no bright areas (but that detail would still be present).

And of course no matter what, as long as it is projected onto a single flat surface, it is 2D, and it will always look like a movie.

As for pixel count, many people are already unable to distinguish between standard definition and high definition when viewing at a standard viewing distance (of course different screen sizes have a different standard viewing distance). Of course in the TV store you can't get 8-12 feet away from the screen so when you're shopping, the differences seem obvious.

Re:Max Resolution? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036784)

This is HD TV, it has better resolution than the real world.

Re:Max Resolution? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036794)

You only need to take one step sideways to tell 2d from 3d. ;-)

Must be nice.. (-1, Offtopic)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036108)

to have an infrastructure that isnt ruled by the almighty lobbyist and can provide actual support for technology and **smacks hand on forehead** plans for the future. Ill take twisted pair and cable for the loss Wink.. sigh..

Capture (1)

The Lone Man (1017800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036196)

The video display industry is finally catching up (in terms of pixels) to the video capture industry.

...Heh.

The Japanese Communications Minister.. (0, Troll)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036280)

is trying to compensate for something, methinks.

OT: sig reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036376)

Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!

Heresy! God uses emacs.

Re:The Japanese Communications Minister.. (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036590)

is trying to compensate for something, methinks.

Not being in charge of Gundam?

I seen this live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036282)

I saw them demo this live a couple of years ago. It's very impressive, but despite the post title they're not thinking about using it for domestic use any time soon, it's aimed at digital cinema and outdoor events and won't be commercially available till about 2025. What they are proposing is the standard to be ratified by 2015.
This was the company that demo'd HD TV in the early 80s and people thought it was at least 10 years away from being commercially available, they misjudged by over 10 years.

Just in time (2, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036298)

Sounds like it will be just in time for when:
1) I finally upgrade to "regular" HDTV...doh!
2) George Lucas' re-re-release of Star Wars original trilogy in this crazy new format
3) playing some Duke Nukem Forever on my PS9

All this (1, Flamebait)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036302)

so that the next version of windows (Vista 2K10) will work?

Ridiculous given viewing distances and screen size (4, Interesting)

StandardCell (589682) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036378)

One of the things that TV manufacturers contend with is what screen size versus resolution. The uptake of true 1080p on screen sizes of 32" or less has been slow because there's virtually no visual difference between 720p/WXGA screens at those screen sizes for the average viewing distance in a living room. I'm also not talking about computer output, though you wouldn't be able to read much unless you bumped the font size up by quite a bit at 1080p.

Now, 37" is marginal and 42" is where it really starts getting to be noticeable. This is also the sweet spot for a primary panel for the next few years. Beyond this resolution, you'll start noticing 1080p from the next highest resolution (i.e. quad-720p or 1440p) at the 56-63" screen size. But there's one problem with 63" and larger screens: they are close to the limit for what most homes can pass through their door!. In fact, a monolithic 71" 1080p plasma that a large Korean company allowed us to borrow for our lab work wouldn't go properly around normal corners and with standard door widths. So all your dreams of 102" LCDs in your living rooms may be short lived given you won't be able to get it around any corners. Most luxury homes these days, by the way, usually have this in mind when the house is architected so that there's enough room to get these sets into the house from outside. Also, bear in mind that the scaling technology, although advancing rapidly, can only do so much with standard definition material and it just looks worse as you get a larger screen size.

Now, even if it's possible to build a seamless, high-reliability large screen like a flexible screen that can fit in your room, you start hitting a visual limit again at around quad-1080p (3840x2160) for the height of an average room in most of the developed world without even considering how much eye/neck strain this will cause for the average viewer. In case you weren't counting already, we're at around ~8 Megapixels at that size. So, having an 8k x 4k resolution system like the one proposed will require a double size wall which - surprise! - is pretty much where most theaters are going for online distribution of movies. Heck, they already get away with 4k x 2k resolution in digital theaters anyway and most people don't even notice it. And when I saw their demo of 4k, my entire field of view needed to be taken up to see any differences.

As for the audio, never mind that 24 position audio is completely impractical from an installation perspective in the average home and can be easily emulated using far fewer speakers and using virtual surround positioning techniques. This is why it's funny when DTS versus DTS-HD gets brought up - unless you're an audiophile or are in a movie theater, you probably won't care about or notice the difference.

And this gets us back to one immutable point - that this technology is complete overkill for broadcast applications. If broadcast is the target market, and given the rise of personalized on-demand/online video, then this an essentially completely futile effort.

Re:Ridiculous given viewing distances and screen s (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036642)

"Now, 37" is marginal and 42" is where it really starts getting to be noticeable"

You, Sir, have obviously never watched terrestrial HD TV on a 24" Intel iMac... 1920x1080, 16.37 Mbps, 29.97 fps DD5.1, 48 kHz, 384 kbps.

And while you position yourself as an expert, your time in the supposed lab is perhaps restricting your view of technology overall, where video is one of the drivers. Increased video performance drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives drives faster pipes, increased storage, more efficient processors and improved displays which in turn drive increased video performance which drives...

Seattle Music Museum 50-foot(?) TV screen (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036658)

Paul Allen's music museum has an LED TV screen along one wall which must be at least 50-feet tall. It uses LED quads red-blue-green-white to light-up pixels. I recall it as about 1000 by 700 pixels - pretty much medium standard HD-TV. If the resolution increased an order of magnitude in each direction, it would be even more fantastic.

I was looking for a web page describing this screen, but couldnt find it.

Now that's high-resolution (2, Insightful)

Wiseman1024 (993899) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036380)

Now that's high-resolution. Hmm, 33 MPix hentai...

I think it's overkill. The vast majority of us don't have that kind of room, bandwidth, money, and vision to benefit from this.

Don't break the bank, guys (2, Funny)

uberhobo_one (1034544) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036414)

Wow, they're actually throwing 300 million yen ($3 million) at this project? They must really be serious about it. Is that just the bureaucratic overhead for the planning commission, or the whole R&D budget? I'm pretty sure we've spent more than that in the US warning people that their old analog TVs will stop working when we switch over to HDTV.

Diminishing Returns (3, Insightful)

torkus (1133985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036424)

Impressive, but diminishing returns will relegate this to...well i have no idea what scientific la la la will make use.

"low def" to 480p (huge improvement)
480p -> -> -> 1080i (noticable improvement with proper equipment)
1080i -> wtfpwnedx1000 will be a minor improvement useful only for those with the equipment, a huge screen, etc.

Looking at cost...it scales extremely quickly but i guess the ferrari isn't $995,000 faster than the Scion either.

Though...somewhere around this level of resolution you make a "virtual window" available to apartments with no exterior walls. But hey, if you can afford a 3 bagillion $ TV for a window you can probably get a nicer apartment :)

Re:Diminishing Returns (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036754)

Costs do go down too though. Last summer I bought a 1080p projector for 1/12th the cost of the cheapest model two or three years ago. I think they're a little cheaper still now, but really, once the display elements ramp up in production, the costs can go way down to something that's getting to be affordable.

And the picture quality jump is more than just noticeable. I think 480p to 720p is quite noticeable even on crap equipment.

But I see an odd dichotomy, a crowd like Slashdot's readers as a whole doesn't see the value in 2MP video image, but as a whole, they also seem to gripe about not having a 5MP still camera in a phone. If you can't see a 1/3MP to 2MP jump in video, then what's the jump to 5MP really going to get you, even if it's a still shot?

I've seen this live and related industry talks (5, Informative)

Hairy Fop (48404) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036458)

I saw them demo this live a couple of years ago. It's very impressive, but despite the post title they're not thinking about using it for domestic use any time soon, it's aimed at digital cinema and outdoor events and won't be commercially available till about 2025. What they are proposing is the standard to be ratified by 2015.
This was the same company that demo'd HD TV in the early 80s and people thought it was at least 10 years away from being commercially available, they misjudged by over 10 years. They know their technology but not their lead times. Like most companies in this sector.

not impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22036462)

*Yawn*
I still have better resolution with my good ol' eyes looking at the real world.

Next.

2015 (1)

The Redster! (874352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036466)

We'll be able to enjoy at our local hovercar drive-in theatres!

Saw it last year at IBC in Amsterdam (4, Interesting)

SilentTristero (99253) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036472)

... and it was totally amazing. Like looking out a huge picture window. They had some stored content (playing off a fast RAID array I believe) and some streaming content from a camera array mounted on the roof. The projector alignment tech was awesome; there were no visible seams anywhere. This was in a room basically the same size as the one on the linked web site; maybe 50' x 30'; viewing distance around 10-20'. It was beautiful.

But, they could only run it about 10 minutes per hour. Not sure whether it was heat, storage, or whatever, but it was definitely not at all ready for prime time. Still, when it worked it was just stunningly gorgeous.

Seen it, Amazing (1)

Subgenius (95662) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036564)

This system was shown at the National Association of Broadcaster's convention in Las Vegas last year. The camera looked like something out of a horror film, as did the microphone system. Still, it worked well and the picture.... lets just say it was hard to tell it from the surrounding wall, other than the slight reflection of the hall lights. I have a brief shot of this camera here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9YPwIrr1g [youtube.com] at about 1:38 into the clip.

At 100 ppi that's an 88.1-inch display (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036588)

This 7680x4320 is 1920*4x1080*4, or 16 times larger area than HD.

sqrt( 7680^2 + 4320^2 = 58982400 + 18662400 = 77644800 ) = 8,811.62868 pixels diagonal

At the typical 100 pixels per inch of computer LCDs today, that's an 88.1-inch display.

I doubt I'd be using that in portrait mode.

An an exercise, if "Frank's 2000-inch TV" is a 16x9 display at 100 ppi, what's the resolution? Given that most >HD resolutions are an integer multiple of 1920x1080, which is the nearest probable x*HD resolution?

Cost of preservation (2, Interesting)

YutakaFrog (1074731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036632)

There was a recent article about the cost of maintaining digital film as well as the tailings of production, versus real film. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/26/1727237 [slashdot.org] One of the earlier comments suggested that digital cinema is currenty using 2K projectors (2048 pixels wide), which would effectively be 3.1 MP. If we're going to 33 MP video then, the quote from the other article of $208,569 being the annual cost of preserving a digital movie would be multiplied by a factor of 10.5 (33 MP / 3.1 MP) to equal a rough annual cost of $2,187,975.88 just to preserve each video that is produced for this format. WOW As much as I enjoy high-rez video, I think this may be a little too much. :(

Am I High Def (1)

Deep Orange (1137297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22036710)

Wow... All these High Def options and I'm still stuck with my Low Def Life
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>