Japanese Invent "Ultra-High Definition TV"

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.news8austin.com/content/living/tech_beat/?ArID=161191&SecID=192' target='_blank'>http://www.news8austin.com/content/living/tech_beat/?ArID=161191&SecID=192</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Sorry, but it's just the way technology works. High-definition televisions are on the cutting edge, right? Well, I hate to break it to you but developers are already working on the next big thing to replace it. The Japanese at it again, this time with Ultra High-Definition TV. "This is actually 16 times the resolution of currently available, standard HDTV," Kojhi Mitani of NHK Japan said. "Think of it as four times horizontally and four times vertically the amount of information. This is still in an experimental stage. There's only two cameras, only two Ultra High-Definition cameras in the world, but we're envisioning in 20 years this will be in homes for broadcast use." The system also offers 22.2 multi-channel sound, in other words, sound as big and immersive as the screen."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/NHK_2.jpg" /> <br /><br />HDTV hasn't even got all the bugs sorted out yet, but researchers are already creating the next big thing. How big does a screen have to be to necessitate 16 times the resolution of HDTV? Pretty soon you'll need to hire a contractor to cut a hole in the side of your house just to get the TV inside! And 24 speakers? I could spend a month just setting those up! How about practical innovations, like reducing the manufacturing costs, improved compression techniques, better user interfaces...things that would really make a difference to the average consumer?

[Jason Dunn]

HDTV is already so life-like, I'm kind of puzzled about how much better it can possibly get...? 8O

[BugDude10]

22.2 multi-channel sound?! Then what am I supposed to do with the other 34 speakers in my system?! :roll:

[Jeremy Charette]

There are technical and biological limits to what the human sensory system can process, and I think we're fast approaching them. Further increases in the resolution or size of home audio/video systems will make such an insignificant difference that consumers will have no practical reason to upgrade. For instance, there have been extensive studies on the number and location of speakers needed to give listeners the ability to clearly distinguish 3D spatial orientation, and it's not a high number. I'd bet money that you don't need 24 speakers though. :?

I think a big flat screen 1080p hdtv and a 6.1 surround system will suit me just fine for quite a while, thankyouvery much. :wink:

[klinux]

What Jeremy said was that I used to think too but it is just too hard to estimate how much is too much.

Case in point: SACD/DVD-A. It seems like for most people out there, CD represented a sweet point and any benefits presented by SACD/DVD-A is merely incremental and not worth the cost or convenience to make the switch.

However, in the latest issue of BusinessWeek where it profiled Whirlpool and its innovation. The example used is a $300 Kitchenaid Pro Line waffle maker. Who in their right mind buys a $300 waffle maker?

Apparently a lot as Whirlpool is selling them as fast as they can make them.

I will end this by extending what Jeremy has said. I too believe any resolution and size increase will have incremental benefit and true advance in consumer A/V electronics has to come in some other form.

I am thinking spatial. Imaging is a big deal in audio. In video, you should be able to immerse yourself (not figuratively) with the material. Rather than spending money on that, I would rather the manufacturers spend the effort on compatibility and usability which we all know how likely that will happen.

[jeffd]

jeremy, resolution wise, sure, infact I'm sure with specific high resolution LCDs you can currently buy, that DPI is allready met. But we are still a ways from offering the balance in color, clarity, and brightness to compleatly fool the eye.

Also 16x resolution of hdtv.. afaik theres no PCs or displays capable of such resolutions. The bandwidth needed are also beyond our electronics atm... if I didn't know any better, this entire idea is a concept that is on paper only, in wich case I HARDLY doubt the japanese are the only ones who have ever thought up uber high res displays...

[Doug Johnson]

I saw this demonstrated at NAB last week. Very impressive.

The screen they used was probably 40-45 feet diagonal. And even with an image that large, there was a LOT of detail in the image when it was examined up close. I remember one particular part where they showed an outdoor scene with literally hundreds of people in the shot, and each face was not just clearly visible, but very detailed.

The demo video was about 15 minutes long, and the whole time my jaw was on the floor, totally amazed at the quality of the image.

The imaging of the sound was pretty intense too. I couldn't discern individual speakers no matter how hard I tried... they were just everywhere.

The camera they for it is pretty impressive too. For you tech-types, it outputs 16 HD-SDI signals, which are combined into one signal sent over a fiber optic cable.

The resolution is 7680 x 4320, which works out to 32 megapixels. I've heard that human vision is somewhere equivalent to the 45-55 megapixel range. So this is getting close, at least as far as resolution. Now they just need to make it 3D. :)

Oh, and they are not intending for this to go into homes. It is designed for projection type systems, such as where you might find IMAX theaters now.

[jeffd]

doug, what were they using to feed the video data from? what did the camera us as a medium?

[Damion Chaplin]

HDTV is already so life-like, I'm kind of puzzled about how much better it can possibly get...? 8O

Much better I think. I was just watching Star Trek the other day, and there was this part where Picard, as he often does, walks right up to the giant viewscreen on the bridge and the entire frame of the camera is him standing in front of stars. He's standing maybe a foot from the screen and everything is still perfectly clear. I remember commenting to my friend, "Boy, I wonder what the resolution of that baby is?" and we both had a laugh. Obviously, that was a simulated picture, but I guess we won't need to wait until the 24th century for that one...

[klinux]

Excellent detailed information, Doug.

[Doug Johnson]

doug, what were they using to feed the video data from? what did the camera us as a medium?
The video was stored on a RAID array and is transmitted via fiber. In order to get a picture large and bright enough, they used two stacked projectors, one handling green, the other handling red and blue. Couldn't tell what the projectors were; could only see the lens as the rest was hidden behind a curtain.

The camera was one that they developed in-house using someone else's CMOS sensors (though I can't for the life of me remember whose chip it was).

They also had some of the video processing equipment there, including a few 'preview' (1/4 resolution) LCDs. Even those looked great!