33 megapixel Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HDTV) could be on the air in 2015
By Richard Lawler 
posted Jan 14th 2008 1:07PM
posted Jan 14th 2008 1:07PM
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. 
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
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
And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM.
And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM.
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.
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???
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...
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.
in 2016 Bose will release a system, where one speaker creates the same ambiance as those 22 speakers. Mark my words.
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
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).
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.
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...
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!
@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...
test
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can see a use for it in cinemas...i cant really see a use for it at home.
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?
So the abbreviation will be
S.H.V.U.H.D.TV or more appropriately
The S.H.I.T.
Officially the real world will be boring, least in Japan
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.
Forget about having a wall of TVs, to make this worthwhile, people are going to need one of their walls to BE a TV.
thoughts of Fahrenheit 415 anyone?
^ Exactly what I was thinking :)
Like this?
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/review-63-Panasonic's+interactive+TV+wall,+the+demo.html
umm... can you increase the resolution in your resolution chart?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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."
22.2?
no more HTiBs.... now it'll be HTiMV.
Home Theater in a Moving Van.
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
Introduction in 2015 means mainstream in 2025 or 2030... When it comes to image information, more is generally better...
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?
people got motion sickness when they first demoed this idea..
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.
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.
With resolution like that, why would you ever want to leave?
so, that's roughly 16 times the information than a 1080 signal. We'll need 700GB Discs to support that.
To see the difference between this and a 1080p TV I'll need laser surgery. That'll up my investment by about $4k.
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.
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.
I think you've got your bits mixed with your Bytes there
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.
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...
That's 24 gigabits, so make that about 36 seconds. And remember, this is uncompressed, the compressed stream will be much smaller.
That said, this does seem excessive and impractical outside a few niche uses, such as an outdoor screens.
If you really think we will still be using optical discs for the storage of movies when this tech becomes viable, then you have another thing coming. Not to mention the 24Gbps is the raw stream not an MP4(or by that time MP6) stream.
no moron. holographic or HVD is 100 TB. TERABYTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's interesting about this is that it really makes you think about what comes after this as far as display technology goes. After 7k is there really a point to pushing the resolution any higher? And by that time 'trillion-to-one' contrast ratios and perfectly accurate color will surely be standard on all sets. So what's next, Retinal Projection?
Anyone want some HDRP?
I would guess the next step after that would be 3D Ultra HD (perhaps 7,680 x 4,320 x 7,680?). I couldn't even begin to imagine the data bandwidth for that.
its kinda funny, i always think about game technology and the rate at which it is improving. im sure in 20 years time we will be playing photo realistic games .
it is amzing to think that every thing we know as high tech is just a stepping stone to something even err .. higher tech, and eventually we'll consider everything from this era as relic and scoff and laugh at the people who can only afford a 1080p lcd tv , because they are so poor. ( not that i would laugh at them ).
I think part of the reasoning for higher resolution is quite sound. For example, if you were watching a person across the room and they showed you a book, you could actually walk over there and read it. If you are watching that same person on a SHDTV, you could zoom in onto it for more detail, maybe read the title and the words on the cover. No need for those super-closeup shots during your ballgame, you can do it yourself, within reason. You probably don't need more than XXX dpi on the screen at a certain distance to watch the show normally, but you can zoom in lets say 10x and still have 1:1 pixel mapping. It doesn't mean the screen has to show all the pixels, for most people 1080p is enough unless the screen is really large, that will just be downscaled from the SHDTV image. It also means you can screenshot something on TV and print it out and it will still look good.
Why is it stupid? I haven't seen a valid argument yet. People it's progress. So instead of waiting 8 years and then say "hey whats beyond hdtv" they are planning it now. Sure there currently is no way to record, store, or transmit this stuff, but that's how we come up with it.
Remember when computers first came into use many thought why would anybody want a computer for the home. I remember attending a worlds fair and they discussed why voice reconition would never work, because the learning database would have to be 5 megs large. It seem insane at the time, but not now.
Why is it stupid? I haven't seen a valid argument yet. People it's
progress. So instead of waiting 8 years and then say "hey what’s
beyond hdtv" they are planning it now. Sure there currently is no way
to record, store, or transmit this stuff, but that's how we come up
with it.
Remember when computers first came into use many thought why would
anybody want a computer for the home. I remember attending the worlds
fair and they discussed why voice recognition would never work,
because the learning database would have to be 5 megs large. It seemed
insane at the time, but not now.
Because honestly the human eye is probably not even able to see the difference. There are a large number of people that can't tell the difference between SD television and HD television. Honestly, although I can see the difference and appreciate it, I have no doubt I won't see a difference between this an HD unless the screen size is wall sized (or larger) as someone above mentioned. I don't need, nor want a TV that large.
Now this MIGHT be relevant as a public display resolution, say on billboards, score boards and movie theaters but in the home? Fat chance. Not only that but the amount of spectrum required to transmit this over the air would basically preclude it from ever happening. It would only be available via fiber optic and in 2015 there isn't going to fiber optic to every home in the US, in fact we'll be lucky is this country even has 25% of the homes hooked up to fiber optic cables.
I would like to make up my own mind as to whether or not I can distinguish this ultra high def from HDTV. I know I can certainly see a huge difference between SD and HDTV, as can anyone not blind.
Computer capacity doubles every 1 1/2 years or so, and we might as well put that to good use. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to zoom in on your favorite scene? I think it would enable completely new uses...
It will make things more difficult for movie producers b/c people will be able to see mistakes much more easily.
wake me in 7 years
that would make me have to mount on my roof and watch tv from across the street.
this is useless.
It only took HD 25 years to get on the air, here's to Super Hi-Vision!
Complete waste of pixels.
Actually, for me even the standard definition is more than enough... Sometimes I have to go closer to the TV to be able to read the fine text.
I love the new HDTVs, but I cannot tell the difference between HD and SD if the TV is farther than 10 feet from me. Watching from very close, the HD looks awesome indeed. :-)
YEEEEEEA BOY! FLAVA FLAV!
With the two demos I've seen of this, on a 15' or so diagonal screen, you had to walk up to the screen to be able to see any pixels, and yes, the 22.2 channel sound is noticeably better than normal 5.1 or 7.1. They've shown it the last 2 years at NAB in Vegas.
If only they would spend so much effort on the quality of the programming...
...Sigh...
screw this... gimme some 3D holographic image TVs...
wow! i'm my country we are still using 4:3 aspect ratio for the tv show... I think we have to wait untill all the cameras are melted to see something live in 16:9 and at least 25 years more to see something in HD... :)
when will someone come along and really integrate a computer into a tv?
i know most of you are saying no because we have computers for that
but look theres markets for anything if they push it out as "look our tv can go on the internet (with firefox), and watch dumb youtube videos" (in full hd??!!), without the need for some external peripheral
i'm sure throwing a mid range AMD proc 2 gigs of ram (1 if it runs some sort of linux) and a decent graphics card would have dramatic effects on the industry.
even throwing in a dvd (hd/blu ...protein coated..) player and making the tv, a tv-computer of monstrous (50 inch) proportions.
7,680 x 4,320
Japan owns. Period.
This bandwidth would firstly allow for 3D Television in true 1080P quality, offering a total of 16 viewing zones. Current 3d display technology is limited to 9 viewing zones in low NTSC quality:
current(2008): 9 views / NTSC
then (2015): 16 views / 1080P
http://www.philips.com/3Dsolutions/
http://www.wowvx.com/video.html
You can see detail about super Hi-Vision system at the link below.
Super Hi-Vision broadcasting plan to use satellite.
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20050527/nhk2.htm
I can't even understand how a 22.2 setup would work. Are you going to have them hanging from wires to form some sort of sphere around you?
Also, at resolution that high you'd have to have a large screen to fit them all in, and then you'd have to move farther away for the optimal viewing distance, so you wouldn't be able to make them out.
I like progress, but shouldn't we work on finishing setting up stuff for the current HD video standard before starting on what looks like a jump of several generations of technology? This seems comparable to upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Vista, but using the same hardware.
Dear God- imagine watching pron in 7,680 x 4,320...
*Shudder*
I'm pretty sure i've seen a demo of this system at IBC in Amsterdam (Sept 2006 I think).
I can't recall all the technical details, but they were using a projector, linked to a live video stream from across the street, and it was just like looking out of a window, the detail was incredible. I can imagine seeing this in cinema's one day, but for home use, it may be just more detail than can be seen, unless you have a very large wall, and want to walk right up to it and still find more detail.
The 22.2 sound was also fantastic, i've never heard anything like it, and sounds could move around the roam with amazing positional detail. I remember that the speakers were not just at ear level, as in 7.1, but also up high, (and perhaps low). The wiring required to put this in my house would be just silly, and it wouldn't work correctly unless you had the right shaped room.
As a tech junkie, I already want to build my own house, and you can bet there will be a room ready for this setup. If you would like to see a photo of the finished installation, then please send me donations, as I can't afford the first brick yet, and Macworld opens tomorrow.. I'm confident that if everyone who reads engadget donated just $1, then i'd be ready to throw a big party in the house for the engadget staff, and their close friends by the time this setup is available.
My 1080p TV just cried itself a little.
lol this reminds me of futurama, when Fry says that the TV has better definition then reality.
But generally speaking, i want one. As long as its not like 100 inches, cuz i hate being far away from tv's.
LOL 22.2 surround sound, there would be a ring of speakers around my couch, i don't think i could even see the tv with that many speakers, or get in my couch.
it'll be interesting. see you in 2015!
They were demoing this at NAB the last few years, and it's unbelievable. They only way I know how to
describe it is that it's like a window to reality. After the demo we went back out to the show floor and regular old HD 1080p looked like crap. I hope they come out with it sooner than 2015.
Using the 106in (presumably 1080p) projection of a poster above gets you in the neighborhood of 21dpi on the screen. According to wikipedia, the average accuity of a human eye is 'better' than ~1/60 of a degree (1arcmin right in the center of the eye. Just for giggles at 10ft that's about .035in per side of a theoretical smallest perceivable pixel. That then is about 28.5dpi, give or take.
Using that 106in screen again, which is ~92.5x50in (using 1.85aspect ratio, should have used 1.77 apparently but too lazy to go back through everything) would get a resultion of ~2636x1425. Even assuming we underestimated the accuity of the eye and modified the dpi by a factor of 1.5 that get a 'usable' resolution of 3980x2150. Or just a bit more than double 1080p, give or take.
Personally I'd rather they work on brightness, contrast, and color reproduction. Really even upping the framerate on some formats would be nice, especially when viewing on huge screens. One problem I find with films shot in digital is that fast movements can be pretty choppy because the screen is large enough that I'm seeing things 'out of the corner of my eye' which is much more motion sensitive. Let's face it, 24fps was standardized at a time when movies were projected on a 10-15ft screen in a hall, not imax where you get a much broader field of view.
Can I have it as my ceiling
But Japanese homes are so tiny, they wouldn't be able to fit in a screen big engough to appreciate it.
it's called innovation...sure we could all be sitting in front of our B&W TV's still adjusting for a signal. but, why when we can watch things that look so real when the sun shines on my TV screen I get hot...
or we could still be walking around with out cars...because we all know how impractical having something like that would be...
things like this will never stop until we live in a world like the matrix and we can just order up stuff as we like...then at that point we aren't really going to need newer and better because the newer and better will only be what we can imagine and be totally cost free.
making all of you go for the UHDV...because your already plugged in.
I can see some appeal to 4320p resolution, but 22.2 sound is just stupid. No number of speakers will make up for the fact that the way the human ear judges the direction from which sound is coming is the relative time at which it arrives at your two ears. Unfortunately, AFAIK, that is not the way sound is recorded. Adding more speakers won't change that. Am I wrong? Enlighten me.
I predict a new format war in 2015: Green-ray and UHD-DVD.
Oh, those Japs. Stupid as always. I wonder who they stole that from??? Since we are in the ridiculous page of insanity why not make it 1,000-inches diagonally, self-powered, and only 3mm thick!
Imbeciles! They **think** they have the world in their yellow hands.
Man, I wanna play Crysis on one of these motherfuckers.
If this is in fact true, which I doubt it really is, it's stupid. There are only a handful of lenses on this earth capable of resolving that kind of detail. Anyone who is in the industry or keeps tabs on digital cinema knows the Major challenges of capturing footage at even 4K. For home use this is beyond the defination of overkill. Digital theaters could use some more resolution. I'd say the limit of what the home would need is around 9MP, and I will bet money it will take another half century to impliment that.
don't make up stories. I am a member of NAB and attend.
i think its funny how so many complain about the 22.2 set up. Primarily because i have a 26.4 set up being matrixed through to 7.1 And damn it sounds pristine good. Just like a movie theater ya bunch of yeehaws! theaters have been doing this sort of matrixing since the beginning. i love it, friends love it, fiance couldn't care less. But to actually be able to have dedicated channels to most of my speakers would awesome! And yeah, the more definition the better. 10 foot screen at my place.
We should consider that as a retail medium available to the mass general public saying that super hi-vision is not a practical nor an achievable format in 8 years might sound true but unless you also factor that commercial use, think I-Max, it is a viable and practical format. Proposing a format that will bring a true theater performance is giving a little forethought to standardizing a concept which today may only seem like a concept but the technology is already there just not cost effect. We have projectors that can produce HD quality signals. String 16 of them together synchronized and calibrated and we have your format. Give each of them a cable line pumping HD content spliced on 16 channels, think 16 channels jigsaw puzzle. You wouldn't even need 16 cable lines you should probable get away with 4 cable line feeds into your theater for each movie/television production. It sounds like over kill but would it be possible... yes it would. As for 22.2 channels of sound think of each speaker as a player in an orchestra. The sound quality and clarity would be mind numbingly accurate to sitting front row in a private showing of the Boston pops. The technology is there and is getting better. The science will be microsizing everything for retail consumer use and that will be test bedding in a commercial setting by big names like showcase cinemas,i-max and others, etc.
the proposed format could lead to some other fantastic innovations such as providing a platform for unpararelled video quality and 3d tv. Imaging head motion tracking, check http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2IuSK0DIjE&watch_response
. Now imagine 16 HD video cameras taped side by side 4x4 making realtime playback of actual real video footage an actuality in 3D. It would only be immersive to one viewer but the format would be the base components to producing such a concept.
Think virtual reality desktop meets tv meets ultimate home theater experience. Jacked into your eye balls.
what the they are looking for with this is to win their application for the 2016 Olympic games in Tokyo.
yeah, we just need the next breakthrough in computer tech.
The microprocessor and the modern hard drive were kinda the last real steps. Once they get past this little "zelda puzzle," it will make things easier to progress this fast.
That's the thing. No one ever dreamed of having hd res back when they just came out with the COLOR tv. but things move faster in this day in time. Just look at flash memory. It basically doubles every year. In 10 years, it'll be increasin tenfold every year at the minimum.
Thing is 24gbps. That's pretty insane. Basically, a blu-ray disc every "theoretical second"
once compressed, that's still insane.
Also, riddle me this. If the telecom companies won't even push 100mbps when they really do have the technology, what makes anyone think this will be a reality.
but this res would look darn good on an OLED version of that tv
How many of the 33 million would be Dead pixels?
@paragraph
The 22 channels were obviously intended for a movie theater spec. I would assume that wouldn't be the broadcast norm for homes.
Anyone that says "you would need a 20' screen to notice any difference from 1080P" is dead wrong.
This has been demo'd in real life before on a large screen, and even then people described it as being so incredibly sharp that it looked "more real" than reality. I don't know exactly what that means, but it sure sounds good. We are nowhere near close to saturating our vision with ~50dpi screens, Even at 10 feet away. I GUARANTEE most people would be blown away at just comparing 720P or 1080P to 4K screens, I can only imagine "7k"/4320P screens. Think about it, 33 megapixels is about the highest $100,000 medium-format digital camera back you can buy. You could put the whole damn image at 100% on the screen! That's INSANE!
If anybody has seen a 5-10MP image on a 1080P HDTV via a media extender/ps3/xbox/appleTV, think about 4320P!!! insane
God bless the Japanese....
"billy bob thorton
@ Jan 14th 2008 9:48PM
don't make up stories. I am a member of NAB and attend. "
Billy Bob I'm sorry you missed it. Check this out:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/04/28/nhk-makes-a-showing-at-nab-and-brings-ultra-hd/
It was there, and it was amazing. Next time you come to NAB (if you really DO attend) you should get a map and check out the important things. This technology was Demoed in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. That's 4 years you missed the show!