What's after High Definition???

[dantruon]

There are alot of buzz and PR going around regarding High Definition and esepcially HDTV, HDDVD, Bluray and etc. So my main question is that what kind of technologies would be likely to be the successor of High Definition in 10 years time. Is it HHD? - High High Definition (joking).

And can someone tell me the jump from standard definition to high definition like the image quality and its resolutions.

 

[epicstruggle]

Click link to take you to the link where the story is.
Google

HIGH-DEFINITION television may be only just beginning to catch on, but researchers at the Japanese national broadcaster NHK are already working on a successor. The format, called Ultra High Definition Video, or UHDV, has a resolution 16 times greater than plain-old HDTV, and its stated goal is to achieve a level of sensory immersion that approximates actually being there.

At a picture size of 7,680 by 4,320 pixels -- that works out to 32 million pixels -- UHDV's resolution trounces even high-end digital still cameras. HDTV, by comparison, has about two million pixels, and normal TV about 200,000 (and only 480 lines of horizontal resolution versus 4,000 with UHDV).

Add to that UHDV's beefed-up refresh rate of 60 frames per second (twice that of conventional video), projected onto a 450-inch diagonal screen with more than 20 channels of audio, and you've got an impressive home theater on your hands.

epic

 

[dantruon]

Click link to take you to the link where the story is.
Google

HIGH-DEFINITION television may be only just beginning to catch on, but researchers at the Japanese national broadcaster NHK are already working on a successor. The format, called Ultra High Definition Video, or UHDV, has a resolution 16 times greater than plain-old HDTV, and its stated goal is to achieve a level of sensory immersion that approximates actually being there.

At a picture size of 7,680 by 4,320 pixels -- that works out to 32 million pixels -- UHDV's resolution trounces even high-end digital still cameras. HDTV, by comparison, has about two million pixels, and normal TV about 200,000 (and only 480 lines of horizontal resolution versus 4,000 with UHDV).

Add to that UHDV's beefed-up refresh rate of 60 frames per second (twice that of conventional video), projected onto a 450-inch diagonal screen with more than 20 channels of audio, and you've got an impressive home theater on your hands.

epic

wow !!!

But can our eyes tell the differences after HD?

 

[pcchen]

That would depend on how close you look, of course
According to tests, human eye resolution is about 0.3 arc minute (of course it's depends on many conditions), that's about 0.087 mm (about 300 dpi) at one meter distance, and about 100 dpi at 3 meters distance. That means for a 42" 16:9 screen, at 3 meters distance it should have about 3600x2000.

 

[epicstruggle]

That would depend on how close you look, of course
According to tests, human eye resolution is about 0.3 arc minute (of course it's depends on many conditions), that's about 0.087 mm (about 300 dpi) at one meter distance, and about 100 dpi at 3 meters distance. That means for a 42" 16:9 screen, at 3 meters distance it should have about 3600x2000.

I think your numbers are off. Are you sure about that .3 arc minute. Ive only seen studies/papers/sites that mention 1+ arc minute (b/w).

epic

 

[pcchen]

Actually there are many numbers. For example, this one suggests 0.3 arc minutes in good lighting condition. This one suggests about 1 arc minute at near point. There are also a lot of numbers here.

 

[Crisidelm]

Holographic Tv anyone?

 

[Guden Oden]

20 channels of audio sounds (no pun intended) VERY overkill. I shudder to think of the cable clutter that would ensue from such a surround setup. :?

 

[epicstruggle]

Actually there are many numbers. For example, this one suggests 0.3 arc minutes in good lighting condition. This one suggests about 1 arc minute at near point. There are also a lot of numbers here.

Wow, thanks mate. I looked over the first link, will do the others a bit later. Thanks again for the info.

epic

 

[dantruon]

Actually there are many numbers. For example, this one suggests 0.3 arc minutes in good lighting condition. This one suggests about 1 arc minute at near point. There are also a lot of numbers here.

Wow, thanks mate. I looked over the first link, will do the others a bit later. Thanks again for the info.

epic

Yeah i agreed, it was a good read.
Thanks

 

[Diplo]

After High Definition there will be a reaction against it and Old Skool pixelation will make a come back. We will all worship Manic Miner and 3D Monster Maze and feel better people for it.

 

[poopypoo]

After High Definition there will be a reaction against it and Old Skool pixelation will make a come back. We will all worship Manic Miner and 3D Monster Maze and feel better people for it.

lode runner 4 life!

 

[London Geezer]

why bother when you can stick a long metal nail in your brain and have it all internally fed into your brain?

that is, if you survive the bleeding and various other injuries, at that point you'll hardly care about resolution and how many channels you can hear.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I think the obvious path leads to 3D viewing. High definition can emulate high resolution film, which is a great 2D representation of reality. But no matter how good the resolution of a picture is, you will never mistake it for something real.

Ever looked at a hologram/holograph and had that eerie feeling that even though you knew it was an illusion, it was still a real physical object?

The jump from 2D to 3D in our brains is a large jump. It enables the other half of our vision system to function. 3D IMAX and similar movies have a quality to them that makes you think you have just looked through a window into another reality, instead of a window onto a large photograph. lol, perhaps the porn industry will drive this technology.

In any case, there are still large technical hurdles to overcome, but cheap high definition high quality digital projection technology is a large piece of the puzzle that has essentially been "solved." There are many alternatives to how a 3D image can be produced, but they currently all have non-trivial limitations (eyeglasses, limited head movement, rather poor 3D effect, or otherwise).

 

[mistwalk]

7,680*4,320
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20050526/nhk.htm

 

[Ty]

lol, perhaps the porn industry will drive this technology.

Heh, don't they drive pretty much everything? The internet, VHS tapes, hell, even coming to UMDs I believe.

The funny thing is that I read an article that mentioned that HDTV might be a detriment to pr0n (and other visual media) because the increased detail allows people to see things that SDTV covers up, like acne.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I think the obvious path leads to 3D viewing. High definition can emulate high resolution film, which is a great 2D representation of reality. But no matter how good the resolution of a picture is, you will never mistake it for something real.

Ever looked at a hologram/holograph and had that eerie feeling that even though you knew it was an illusion, it was still a real physical object?

The jump from 2D to 3D in our brains is a large jump. It enables the other half of our vision system to function. 3D IMAX and similar movies have a quality to them that makes you think you have just looked through a window into another reality, instead of a window onto a large photograph. lol, perhaps the porn industry will drive this technology.

In any case, there are still large technical hurdles to overcome, but cheap high definition high quality digital projection technology is a large piece of the puzzle that has essentially been "solved." There are many alternatives to how a 3D image can be produced, but they currently all have non-trivial limitations (eyeglasses, limited head movement, rather poor 3D effect, or otherwise).

yes 3D would be great. but the only good method of displaying it is perhaps with OLED (or LCD) based head mounted display. I have LCD shutter glasses for games (the nvidia stereo driver is bugged and only works in opengl for me..), they work well but there's ghosting, especially with high contrasts.

I saw a 3D flat display in a supermarket, displaying ads. (you know, LCD display you can watch without goggles), the 3D effect works, but the image is so bad it can be only used as a demo IMO.

I think that before going 3D we should increase the framerate.
24 fps sucks! We've been using that for 80 years.

And digital is not the only solution (even if george lucas wants theaters to spend thousand of dollars to display his latest crap with pixel level accuracy).
I read a few years ago about a 48fps film format (which made better use of the surface too). 70mm film at 48fps should put to shame 24 fps digital with 35mm equivalent resolution.

 

[dantruon]

7,680*4,320
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20050526/nhk.htm

Is in japanese, you know not many people are japanese here.
But thanks for finding.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Oh, I definitely agree on the framerate issue. 30fps video doesn't bother me that much, even on HDTV bigscreens and/or projectors. But 24fps film drives me crazy on pans. I often think "jebus, do other people notice how horrid that looks!?"

But 3D is ultimately where we are going. Digital technologies (LCD and variants, DLP, plasma, etc.) are setting the stage. A lot more work needs to be done on the basic physics. Polarized schemes work really well, but I'm not sure if people will agree to wear any kind of head gear (even glasses) in their homes. Maybe so... maybe not.

On the way to 3D I have no doubt that we will see higher resolutions and framerates, but they are all just incremental steps. The only thing left that can really transform the movie watching experience is adding that missing dimension. We did it for sound... the video is just taking a lot longer.

 

[cthellis42]

Then after UHDTV comes... NeuralTV! Honestly, how much better than 7680 x 4320 before wiring it directly to your brain?