33 megapixel Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HDTV) could be on the air in 2015

1080p and QuadHD / 4K can take a step back, the Japanese government has announced plans to bring Super Hi-Vision (a.k.a. Ultra High Definition) to life as a broadcast standard by 2015. With its 33 megapixel (7,680 x 4,320) resolution and 22.2 channel surround sound, challenges so far have included building a camera that can record it, and equipment to transfer the 24Gbps uncompressed stream. Fortunately, some forward thinker in Japan's Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry -- that we are strongly considering as a write in candidate for the presidential elections -- is beginning a joint project with private companies to make this happen, beginning with a research investment of about $2.7 million this year alone. If you're still confused as to how much more res this is than anything you currently own, check out the handy chart after the break.

[paragraph @ Jan 14th 2008 1:14PM]

22.2 Surround Sound?

...

...

Don't make me laugh...

Thats total call for shenanigans, since no-one in their right mind would have that many speakers, or a need for that many in the first place, but i'll entertain it for the audiophiles who say that this would lead to something or other...

Anyways...

thats just rediculous... it's not bad, but not good, it's insanse...

Where will they put all those TV's?

Practicaliy aside it's neat, cool, etc. But not practical :\ yet...

I'll see you in 2015 :-P

[rcastrousa @ Jan 14th 2008 1:26PM]

ok HD has finally jumped the shark...a 7k display...grt porn in 7k, dumb utube videos in 7k
the display will have to be 400 inches to take practical advantage

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 14th 2008 1:23PM]

And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 14th 2008 1:23PM]

And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM.

[Andrew @ Jan 14th 2008 1:40PM]

Resolution is not the same thing as size. You could have one (1) 42" set at that resolution. Someone's going to develop the technology and make a lot of money off of it. I, for one, welcome the resolution race. I can't wait until 1080 is on a handheld.

[jimbo @ Jan 14th 2008 1:47PM]

My wife would murder me in my sleep if I put 24? speakers in our living room. But in my basement(aka home movie theater)? This would be something special. Seriously though, from a bandwith point of view, say you have 100 HD channels at 24 Gbps. You're looking at 300 GB per second. Could FiOS swing that???

[rv @ Jan 14th 2008 2:09PM]

SWEETNESS. The only thing better than 2160p.... is 4320p. Considering we can't even broadcast 1080p right now how in hell will we put out 4320p with 22.2 fucking channels of sound in 8 years?????? Maybe in 80...

[Kamokazi @ Jan 14th 2008 2:18PM]

Just because it's available doesn't mean it has to be used.

I bet 22.2 downmixes to 7.1 a lot nicer than 5.1 upmixes to 7.1. And if you are the crazy SoB who wants a 22.2 system in their home theater, then you get to utilize it all.

[ClaMs @ Jan 14th 2008 2:20PM]

in 2016 Bose will release a system, where one speaker creates the same ambiance as those 22 speakers. Mark my words.

[Mark Capinzal @ Jan 14th 2008 4:43PM]

If 24 frams per second= 24x33 megapixel = 800 megas per second;

5760gb in a movie two hours...5,7 terabytes...115 blue rays (50 gb);

Useless

[AlexP @ Jan 14th 2008 4:55PM]

There's quite a difference between 640K of RAM, this level of HD (and so f'ing soon), and 22.2 surround sound.

(you don't need the latter to enjoy television or a movie - SD was enough for over 50 years, and HD is having a hard time taking off because of crap like this).

[Bob @ Jan 14th 2008 9:06PM]

Actually, if I had an all digital movie theater, this system would be perfect. Also if I were building the kinds of robotics envisioned by Ray Kurzweil (The Singularity is Near), this kind of system would be perfect for its vision systems.

Very interesting innovation.

[nikster @ Jan 14th 2008 8:28PM]

Mark this is uncompressed, add in a 1:10 compression factor (at least) and you have a 600GB movie which will easily fit on a disk in 7 years.

I think this is awesome + I wish at least Europe would jump on the bandwagon. And the digital cinema standards will have to follow for sure, I have no idea why they made them so low rez to begin with. 4000 pixels is not very much for a giant movie screen...

[Nogami @ Jan 15th 2008 12:28AM]

NHK demoed this system at NAB last year in Vegas. Granted, it was on a huge projection screen rather than a TV, but it was 8k resolution with 22.2 surround sound. And it looked absolutely amazing.

You can see a few pictures of the camera & ccu/hard disk setup here:

http://64.180.100.119/nhk/

It was a great technology demo, but I don't see it being practical for the masses any time soon.

Cue the next format war! HV-DVD vs UV-Ray!

[Sam Winter @ Jan 15th 2008 4:07AM]

@Mark Capinzal
wrong numbers....

HDTV 1920x1080 pixels = 2.074 Mpixels
Blu-Ray H.264 = 48mbps = 360MB/min
==========>21.6GB/hour

48mbps/2.074 Mpixels= 23.1 bits/pixel/s

Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HD) = 7,680 x 4,320 pixels = 33.178 Mpixels
33.178 Mpixel * 23.1 bits/pixel/s = 766.4mbps
==========> 345GB/hour

This is assuming H.264 compression scales linearly, which it doesn't. It actually achieves a much greater than linear compression. I'm not sure exactly how much but I would at least halve the number from 345 to 172.5 GB/hour. Still alot to hold for todays discs,
but a 10 layer Blu-ray (250GB) or one of the future disc technologies (holographic, volumetric, multi-layer-polymer, ultraviolet, etc)
could surely cover it. As for the 22.2 channel sound, I highly doubt that part of the standard would be used in homes...

[Satish @ Jan 15th 2008 11:12AM]

test

[chimchady @ Jan 17th 2008 8:14PM]

Okay, 24 speakers is insane. But if they are planning to have different hieght levels of speakers so if a helicopter comes you can hear it above you, that sounds whicked! Come to think of it, standared tv is at 24 frames a second, we'll probably be at 60+ by then. So add more to the memory. Though this might be okay since a certain company is working on disks that use the thinist rays of light (ultraviolet) to create 500 GBs on one disk.

[Jeff @ Jan 14th 2008 1:20PM]

2015 is slightly optimistic - by about 20 years.

Anyone remember how long it took to get HDTV off the ground? I remember working in an electronics store in 1985 and fielding calls from people asking when it was going to launch. Here we are in 2008 and still only about 30% of us own HDTV's. (In Japan that might be a bit higher, but if it is, it isn't by much. Widescreen *standard* def sets are probably still more popular than HDTV's there.)

No doubt the current standards (whether in NA or Japan or anywhere else) are not going to stay the same forever - there will be advances, and they will have to be big ones like this to get people to upgrade. But HDTV as it currently exists has proven how difficult it is to get new standards off the ground. And HDTV specs changed massively from the time they were first announced to launch, so expect the same for this when it finally does launch around 2035.

[mattweiler @ Jan 14th 2008 1:39PM]

Granted it took a while for HD to become a "standard", but the speed at which technology becomes accepted by main-stream has increased exponentially.

I think 2015 is a reasonable goal.

[mastercd @ Jan 14th 2008 4:02PM]

Actually Japan launched their analog HDTV system in 1991:

http://www.iht.com/articles/1991/10/08/hdtv.php?page=1

Over the years they switched over to a digital system similar to what US uses. Also, these specs are theoretical limits in todays resolution/channel setups. The bandwidth could be used for more interesting features that we just do not have today (smell, touch?). This is forward thinking that everybody should encourage. With the slow adoption rates in the US for HDTV, the 2015 in Japan is really 2030 in USA.

[paperless @ Jan 14th 2008 1:28PM]

I can see a use for it in cinemas...i cant really see a use for it at home.

[-ardcore Canadian @ Jan 14th 2008 3:22PM]

I seem to recall this research has been going on for a few years. They did a test of this for people (a 20 minute sample or something because the size demands for storage were so large) and actually disorientated them because the resolution was so crisp and life like that their brains couldn't figure out what was going on. Needless to say it was originally planned for theatre use only. But maybe things have changed?

[Mark Ott @ Jan 14th 2008 1:29PM]

So the abbreviation will be

S.H.V.U.H.D.TV or more appropriately

The S.H.I.T.

[rcastrousa @ Jan 14th 2008 1:37PM]

Officially the real world will be boring, least in Japan

[bl0nde @ Jan 14th 2008 1:30PM]

Forget about having a wall of TVs, to make this worthwhile, people are going to need one of their walls to BE a TV.

[rachub @ Jan 14th 2008 1:42PM]

thoughts of Fahrenheit 415 anyone?

[Alex @ Jan 14th 2008 2:00PM]

^ Exactly what I was thinking :)

[kempcross @ Jan 14th 2008 4:19PM]

Like this?

http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/review-63-Panasonic's+interactive+TV+wall,+the+demo.html

[robotrock @ Jan 14th 2008 1:31PM]

I agree the 22.2 speaker thing is a bit much...esp since DSP will probably takeover most of the surround duties in the future.

[fuma @ Jan 14th 2008 1:33PM]

umm... can you increase the resolution in your resolution chart?

[Wes @ Jan 14th 2008 1:41PM]

22.2?

no more HTiBs.... now it'll be HTiMV.

Home Theater in a Moving Van.

[rawhead @ Jan 14th 2008 1:41PM]

Simply, I would like to know from what size screen this resolution will become effective. If I remember correctly, 1080p at a reasonable distance away (say 6-8 ft) from the screen only becomes relevant somewhere between 42" and 50". So maybe quad will be relevant @ 120" and 18 ft away? And this SHV?? 300" at 30 ft away?

As someone said, doesn't sound like anything we'd need in our homes.


The signal itself, however, could be useful (and a quad HDTV that can process it). For example, if I could be watching a Discovery type show in 1080p on my 52 incher, which would let me, e.g., stop a pic and zoom in on an object 10x without pixellating... well, something like that could be nifty.

[NHAnimator @ Jan 14th 2008 1:44PM]

"Simply, I would like to know from what size screen this resolution will become effective. If I remember correctly, 1080p at a reasonable distance away (say 6-8 ft) from the screen only becomes relevant somewhere between 42" and 50". So maybe quad will be relevant @ 120" and 18 ft away? And this SHV?? 300" at 30 ft away?"

U.S. consumers will want to buy a Japanese set, but leave it right there in Japan for optimal viewing.

[Bill @ Jan 14th 2008 2:21PM]

Very true. I am running a 106" projection screen and 1080p front projector, and Blu-Ray movies are sharp as a tack. I don't think I'd see a huge difference on THAT screen going up to 4k.

This is movie theater and extreme enthusiast technology only.

For the rest of us, they need to just focus on cleaning up and catching up with the current technology. There's still a lot of work to be done on 1080i HDTV.

[Carl M @ Jan 14th 2008 4:16PM]

Expressed as an angle, the minimum pixel size that people can resolve is typically stated as 1 arc minute (1/60 of a degree).

For a given distance, the minimum pixel size you can resolve is constant.
So for an 8 foot viewing distance, the minimum pixel is ~0.7 mm.
For a 1920 pixel-wide display, the width of the screen is ~53 inches.
For a 7680 pixel-wide display, the width of the screen is ~214 inches, or 17 feet.

If you move the display back further, the width increases proportionally.

It's hard to immediately see the point behind such a dense display.

[Brian @ Jan 14th 2008 6:37PM]

Pretty sure they've had this resolution since the early 90's. In movies, anyway.

"Zoom in on that guy's ID badge, there. Now enhance."

[NHAnimator @ Jan 14th 2008 1:43PM]

This is ridiculous! How long do they really plan to continue this "planned obsolescence"? Just when you think you are keeping up with the Joneses, they go out and buy the flying car. I mean, we're gonna have to replace our PS4's with PS5's to play games in SuperDuperDef or whatever. When will the electronics companies learn that you just can't keep beating the customer down like this.

That all being said... Where can I get mine?

[Peter M @ Jan 14th 2008 1:44PM]

people got motion sickness when they first demoed this idea..

[R Verriotto @ Jan 14th 2008 1:44PM]

I mean, really. This one is a bit much.

So many people have yet to even buy a TV capable of HDTV and yet we are already thinking about going sooooo far beyond that. I wonder if it will come to a point that we ask ourselves "How much is enough...?"

I know that this might sound crazy but I think we go too far sometimes. Aren't there more pressing needs in the science/engineering/tech world right now then to make sure that we are all watching TV?

Just my $.02

[CraigJ @ Jan 14th 2008 1:55PM]

Introduction in 2015 means mainstream in 2025 or 2030... When it comes to image information, more is generally better...

[Rik @ Jan 14th 2008 1:47PM]

Well, I got 1920x1200 on my 15'4 inch laptop screen allready... that's getting pretty close to the pixel density of 60" ultraHD allready :-D.

[CharlieX @ Jan 14th 2008 1:48PM]

Those hikikomori need to get on a train and out into the world. the only reason for that much resolution is because you never leave your apartment.

[insertAlias @ Jan 14th 2008 3:36PM]

With resolution like that, why would you ever want to leave?

[CraigJ @ Jan 14th 2008 1:52PM]

so, that's roughly 16 times the information than a 1080 signal. We'll need 700GB Discs to support that.

[Jonathan @ Jan 14th 2008 1:52PM]

To see the difference between this and a 1080p TV I'll need laser surgery. That'll up my investment by about $4k.

[TrentD @ Jan 14th 2008 1:53PM]

This is stupid - a storage medium could never exist based on today's technology to even deliver this content!

24 gbps? That means even the mythical 100 GB Holographic discs could hold about 4.5 seconds of content. Give me a break.

[the_boo @ Jan 14th 2008 2:02PM]

Actually no, it would be 33.333333333333333333 seconds per disk, but still it would require a TB disk to record one episode of Robot Chicken.

[demonoftehfall @ Jan 14th 2008 2:07PM]

I think you've got your bits mixed with your Bytes there

[Kaeruyaki @ Jan 14th 2008 2:32PM]

ah, but I believe they mean 24 Giga-bits per second, meaning 3 Gigabytes. Still, there is no way the data will be uncompressed. I'm sure new formats (such as a new mpeg, or h.26) will be out, making data size manageable.
By 2015, I sure hope gimmicks like Bluray and HDDVD are done away with, and digital distribution via fiber or wireless are put in place.

[jimbo @ Jan 14th 2008 2:13PM]

24 Gb = 3GB, so technically, they could hold about 33 seconds. Commercial on a disk anyone??? But who needs a storage medium, if this ever catches, it'll all be VOD right? Hopefully they'll stop compressing it by then. VOD on timeWarner is so compressed I'd rather watch a standard DVD. It doesn't even compare to Blu...