Ultra high-definition TV

[Toss3]

TOKYO (AFP) - The Japanese government will begin a joint project with private companies to develop technology for next-generation ultra high-definition video, a daily newspaper report said Monday.
...
The technology, to be called "Super Hi-Vision", could show images of about 33 million pixels, 16 times more than the present Hi-Vision technology, a high-definition TV technology developed by public broadcaster NHK, it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080114/tc_afp/japantelecomtechnologysector

I say what's the point, unless they're developing 100inch+ displays as well? :o

[Peoples-Agent]

I guess the eventual idea is that what you see onscreen, would be like looking at it through a window... so to speak.

SHDTV sounds good to me.

[nekrosoft13]

Resolution: 7,680 × 4,320 pixels (16:9) (approximately 33 megapixels)
Frame rate: 60 frame/s.
Audio: 22.2 channels
9 — above ear level
10 — ear level
3 — below ear level
2 — low frequency effects
Bandwidth: 21 GHz frequency band
600 MHz, 500~6600 Mbit/s bandwidth

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/UHDV.svg/800px-UHDV.svg.png

[Bman212121]

I'll take two please. :D

[nekrosoft13]

they will have to sell movies on 2tb HDDs then

[Peoples-Agent]

Won't be much point in the home, but just imagine the clarity you could have at the cinema. Final nail in the projector's coffin.

[mullet]

Won't be much point in the home, but just imagine the clarity you could have at the cinema. Final nail in the projector's coffin.

AMEN!

[Rakeesh]

Thats about 33MP. The total "resolution" of the human eye (assuming the screen was planted right on your eyes) is about 576MP.

IMO they are doing the speakers wrong. Ideally, perfection should be 9 above, 10 ear, 9 below, arranged in a spherical configuration IMO. 2 LFE is good though, one for subsonic (shaker) other deep bass (woofer.)

Course my idea is a hell of a lot less practical :D

[XDanger]

Thats about 33MP. The total "resolution" of the human eye (assuming the screen was planted right on your eyes) is about 576MP.

Human eye is about 81MP according to some Wiki guy-

"A maximum resolution of the human eye in good light of 1.6 minute of arc per line pair will correspond to 1.25 lines per minute of arc. Assuming two pixels per line pair (one pixel per line) and a square field of 120 degrees, this would be equivalent to approximately 120×60×1.25 = 9000 pixels in each of the X and Y dimensions, or about 81 megapixels.[citation needed]"

Also "the human eye itself has only a small spot of sharp vision in the middle of the retina, the fovea centralis, the rest of the field of view being progressively lower resolution as it gets further from the fovea. The angle of the sharp vision being just a few degrees in the middle of the view, the sharp area thus barely achieves even a single megapixel resolution. The experience of wide sharp human vision is in fact based on turning the eyes towards the current point of interest in the field of view, the brain thus perceiving an observation of a wide sharp field of view."

So most of that screen will be wasted on our low resolution eyes :)

[Rakeesh]

Human eye is about 81MP according to some Wiki guy-

"A maximum resolution of the human eye in good light of 1.6 minute of arc per line pair will correspond to 1.25 lines per minute of arc. Assuming two pixels per line pair (one pixel per line) and a square field of 120 degrees, this would be equivalent to approximately 120×60×1.25 = 9000 pixels in each of the X and Y dimensions, or about 81 megapixels.[citation needed]"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=HkG&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=576+megapixel&spell=1

Wikipedia is often wrong. This is why you'll rarely if ever see me quote it. I've seen those so called estimates about the accuracy of wikipedia vs a real encyclopedia, but they are bullcrap made by guess who? Wikipedia editors who are often into the whole "communism is always better" philosophy.

[JaylumX]

I do wish these companies would stop focusing on increasing television pixel resolution and concentrate on increasing its brightness/contrast range (Higher dynamic range). The quciker they begin to do this (if they are not already) the sooner they can start making cameras that are capable of recoding that increased brightness range so that film and television Directors of Photography can experiment with that range artistically and redefine (albeit turd polishing) the cinematic experience for us the consumer.

More pixels means i have to buy a bigger TV to be able to notice the increased detail.

Sheesh

[XDanger]

I wish there was something worthwhile to watch on tv.

[XDanger]

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/85b0SGOABCa6ZoyKLpgneA7sRVnOs8gUlW--v4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

[NaitoSan]

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/85b0SGOABCa6ZoyKLpgneA7sRVnOs8gUlW--v4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg
hahahahahahaha i'll take two of super huge bigman o vision. :D

[Madpistol]

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/85b0SGOABCa6ZoyKLpgneA7sRVnOs8gUlW--v4xQp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

16,000 x 9,000 pixels. :D

[ViN86]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080114/tc_afp/japantelecomtechnologysector

I say what's the point, unless they're developing 100inch+ displays as well? :o
seriously LOL.

i mean what the hell is the point with the current size of TV's.

[jcrox]

seriously LOL.

i mean what the hell is the point with the current size of TV's.

I would imagine they'll incorporate it into things like the displays at sports arenas, displays at convention centers.... stuff like that.

[amk21]

I would imagine they'll incorporate it into things like the displays at sports arenas, displays at convention centers.... stuff like that.

Ya I don't think that tis is meant for mass market consumer resale.

[ViN86]

I would imagine they'll incorporate it into things like the displays at sports arenas, displays at convention centers.... stuff like that.
ahhh, that makes more sense.

[XDanger]

Put one on the moon, FREE TV FOR EVERYONE!!!!(nana2)

[Bearclaw]

they will have to sell movies on 2tb HDDs then
:lol:

[Zelda_fan]

Won't be much point in the home, but just imagine the clarity you could have at the cinema. Final nail in the projector's coffin.

Digital will never replace film and that has nothing to do with resolution. It has to do with the way film handles lighting. Digital will never look like film. Anyone who's ever picked up a film camera knows this.