What is Digg?56 Comments
- d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Here's the only relevant picture I could find. 7690x4320 resolution.
http://www.3dnews.ru/documents/10234/Luna_1.jpg
next year it will be doubled. - yeehawjared, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I read somewhere that people get sick upon seeing images so clear. People threw up when shown footage from a camera mounted on a truck driving through city streets. Their brains couldn't comprehend that they weren't actually there... pretty cool if you ask me.
here's the article:
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067 - u3b3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13ya, your depth perception sucks.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The only real benefit I find from resolution this good or better is being able to ZOOM in to see details better. You need to have a HUGE screen in order to make it any better than current HD resolutions. Other than using it for much bigger screens or for ZOOMING in, it is fairly pointless.
It's like having a digital camera take a picture at 100 Mega-pixels and then printing it off as a normal size 4X9" card or something. And if that's what you're using it for, why not just take it 5MP instead of 100MP? It'll look the exact same at that size. How will you ever tell the difference unless you keep it on a computer where you can ZOOM in? Honestly, who can afford a screen that HUGE unless you have your own Cinema complex?
They need to work on 3D viewing instead of increased resolution now. - WayneGoode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14dupe
http://digg.com/technology/Forget_1080p_HD,_Ultra_HD_4320p_television_is_demoed - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5How long before we see a 'Special Special Edition' of Star Wars for this home theatre?
- Markdoggin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Maybe someone can fill me in on the point where HD becomes overkill for the average consumer. Isn't there a resolution in which your eye is unable to discern the difference between something like ultra HD and supreme maximus ultimus HD?
- smenkhare, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Young adults can't resolve more than 50 cycles per degree (sinusoidal, high-contrast luminance grating). If you only use 2 pixels per cycle and view from a couple of metres this corresponds to 100 pixels per degree - 100 pixels in about 1.75cm at 2m viewing distance. You would, however, get visible aliasing with so few pixels per cycle so you might want to quadruple this (at least, although you won't notice the aliasing much if the image is moving). IBM made 200 pix per cm displays years ago, but not very big. For 2m viewing you want a fairly big display - say 1.60 by 0.9m - so 9000 x 5000 pixels assuming 2 pixels per cycle. I would therefore guess that this technology is close (but close, as I said, might mean you could at least quadruple it) to the human resolution limit if you stay a long way away from the display.
- kruykaze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd hit that!
- Eywanadi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about they up the frames per second rather than hike the resolution up more. HD is great but 30fps can really suck sometimes. It is perfect for still shots of people talking but when a camera moves fast then 30fps becomes an eye sore. I have read somewhere, long-ago, that film makers take this into account and limit themselves to the format. Wouldn't it be great to take away that limit?
Right now video uses motion blurring to hide the 30 frames per second from the human eye ... is it just me or does it seem a little odd to have that high of a resolution only to need to add motion blurring to it? I would much rather see a normal HDTV do 60 or better yet 120 fps than to see this. - jmnormand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2its because the contrast on hd video is artificially enhanced to make it look clearer. plus if you live in a major city you are getting a lot of light distortion from smog. go out to a rural area on a clear sunny day and you will no longer think hd is better.
- Yankees368, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what cable/satellite company in the world has the kind of bandwidth to carry something like this. My cable company dosent even have enough for 720p/1080i signals.
- nachochease, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The same thing will make this happen like most other technologies: Porn.
- r3z0nate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look, an extreme close-up of a camel toe! [/end childish comment]
- sotloo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So real.....woha!!!!
- gahal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Disease: 'Well (will) I honestly notice a difference?'
Sure you will. Most noticeable difference is that a full DVDs worth of data will only provide a few minutes worth of viewing.
Actually, can anyone pump out some figures on this? That has to be an insane amount of data for that kind of res. Hell the sound alone has to be huge for that many channels. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except there is no content that meets that resolution. Have you ever tried to watch VHS tapes or older video games (anything before Dreamcast ) on an HDTV? It looks like utter crap. I couldn't imagine how bad even BluRay or HD-DVD movies would look on this.
If the content matches the monitor's resolution, andi s not upscaled, it looks great. But it's a little sad when VHS on a standard TV looks better than a DVD on an HDTV. Somewhere, the engineers are missing something...
The worst part about this is that somewhere, some guy with no girlfriend and a lot of extra money will be impressed by the number of pixels and want to buy one of these right away. - scottmoss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes it's great... Now the bad news release date is 2018 and there are currently only 2 cameras in the world that can shoot at 4320i
- BloodyDischarge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's great resolution, but do they even have a camera that can capture images to display at that high of a resolution?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Now would like to play old Snes games on that
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"People can have seizures from movies/games moving too fast or rapid blinking though."
Umm, yeah, it's called epilepsy. It doesn't happen to MOST people. There are different degree of epilepsy. just because a person isn't inhibited from normal daily functioning and thus not diagnosed doesn't mean they don't have a trace amount of the disorder as well. I don't care how good the resolution is...I will never be convinced I'm there by looking at a 2-D screen. Maybe once they have 3D. - shortkid422, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sweet, 18 minutes is more than 3Tb! Hopefully that holographic hard-drive could work with this!
/end dreaming - Rigbymatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Several of todays films are shot on 35mm and then scanned in at this resolution (called 4K) and edited, primarily on AVID, but Adobe Premiere and i think Final Cut now support 4K too, then it is rerecorded onto 35mm for distribution
- ArcaneDevice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2a dupe from month or so I could forgive, but this was front page story last week.
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Took me about... 10 seconds. And my computer is like 4 or so years old.
- OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I take this isn't a hand-held system? Call me when this technology fits in my pocket, or on a write watch. (good old 22.2 audio on a watch)
- converge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2you will be dead before this is affordable.
- jmnormand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i can see this being great for theaters to draw people away from their couches but it'll be a long time before anything even remotely close to this reaches the home. first the resolution is useless on even the larger TVs you find in most homes, 1080p is pushing it on mid sized sets siting 8-10ft away. second 22.2 would be a nightmare to wire into your average living room. course all that aside id like one in my home theater please...
- gahal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1feucht: Have you ever watched porn? It's not all about the perfect looking airbrushed playboy ***** man. Sure there is a market for perfect looking figures, but what is considered perfect? Most people like imperfections, they like "real" looking people.
I sold a lot of porn, in a store environment, and I cannot recall when a person wanted perfect looking girls or guys. Actually most people wanted their porn dirty (guys and girls). When it comes to porn (and sex in general) people want what they want, and hardly ever is that a blemish free "perfect" body. - nannerla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2um no mod this guy down he has no idea. and also if you wanna sound smart check out 100fps.com it explains fps and all that.
- dickyducky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1thats insane!! i think 1080i + 7.1 channels is more than enough already..
where can i find such ultra HD plasma/lcd/led? 22.2 speakers???
O.o - threepio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It'll make me feel like I'm in the scene eh?
Render me up a forest so I can try to whistle Pop Goes the Weasle. - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yeah, but can you find anything better than that resolution? you could see everything at full res on the screen, - nono i get the usefullness of a big screen, but you just basically described the problems with having a small screen... (having to zoom in to see full res)
- G20NYK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+122.2 speakers....holy crapola
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah, 22 speakers and 2 subs.... not so much.
- cheshire76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No digg for something a week old.
The poster needs to spend the 20 seconds to verify what s/he submits. - cameraman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow, like you're really there huh? Why don't people just go out more?
- Disease, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well I honestly notice a difference?
- SimonX314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's the point of this technology, it is so detailed that your eyes can't tell the difference between it and real life. Creating an immersive effect.
- feucht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The porn industry is scared of all this stuff, there just aren't enough girls out there whose appearance will stand up to the scrutiny high def will allow, and are prepared to do the work.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's up with the negative comment diggs? I said correct me if I'm wrong...how about correcting me instead of just burying the comment.
- d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I still dont think 150 gig or whatever blu-ray claims to be capable of will ever be necessary just to watch a movie. I still dont see a problem with vhs videos. Mabye when they invent 3d tv.
- EvilPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was under the impression that the feeling of nausea comes from the field of view, as has happened with some games such as half life 2, rather than from the clarity of what is being viewed.
- AWBoy666, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I have a 720p projector on a 92" screen at around 11ft from my viewing point. Still not sharp enough for me. I'd definitely love 1080p or this UHD at some point once there is content to match.
- ratzfatz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wishful thinking. Reminds me about these demos I've seen on various trade shows. No content available - no broadcasting technology available - no hardware available. Nice to rank up the demand for pixel hunters, as we have seen in the digital camera market. My personal conclusion: nice try but much too far away from reality. No digg.
- jphmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I attended NAB this year and saw this system in person. Breathtaking!
The camera is an amazing piece of technology. From 30 feet away it looked like an old studio camera with a huge Fujinon lens. It was connected to a rack of electronics via 16 discreet SDI (Serial Digital Interface) lines, each providing 1.5Gb/s of bandwidth for a total of 25Gb/s! The SDI lines were aggregated into a custom mux which converted the signal to single mode fiber optics. The NHK engineer guarding the camera indicated that there are only two cameras like this in the world, one on the show floor and one on the roof of the LV convention center. About $10 million per camera. The signal was encoded and compressed to about 6Gb/s muxed with the 22.2 audio (about 100Mb/s, then routed around the exhibit via gig Ethernet switches with port trunking/bonding for the required bandwidth. Amazing. Now I know why Alcatel displayed their 48 port non-blocking 10GB switch at the show - these things need a device like that. No, the image did not make you sick, but it is weirdly clear - much more so than ordinary film. A film DP (cinematographer) next to me remarked that the image had far more latitude than a typical film stock, and virtually NO grain or noise. The color response curve and gamut was more like human vision, unlike photographic emulsions that must be skewed towards daylight or tungsten color temperatures. No real white balance required. Again, simply amazing. - mgleason007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What kind of cable would it take to carry that signal?
- Smeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Wow thats a lot of pixels. I would like to try Oblivion on that, too bad it will be 5 years before we have any graphics cards able to play the game maxed at a res like that.
- premedios, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Looking forward to this! Cudos to NHK! And no, I don't get sick with clear images. I feel pleasant actually. :D
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Righto...content is key in the HD market. It may be great to have that mammoth screen in your living room, but having nothing to play on it isn't going to do you any good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that even 1080p isn't that great (believe I heard it on the dl.tv videocast). I think they said something to the effect of needing content that is double the screen resolution, something about 1080p movies played on a 720p screen look far better than those played on a 1080p screen. So to meet the resolution of this massive screen you'd need content that is 15,360 x 8640...I think we're a LONG way off from that kind of content.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 