8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 725 Old 09-17-2012, 01:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Oh my. 4K is called Quad HD not because horizontal resolution is close to 4000 but because its resolution is 4 times higher than HD.

This is nonsense. Resolution is measured in pixels (per horizontal/vertical line). HD is called 2K since it has about 2000 pixels per horizontal line, 4K has close to 4000 pixels. Quad HD is a buzzword invented to show that 4 HD screens would fit into one 4K screen, but incidentally it also refers to the number 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Octo HD would be a panel with resolution 8 times higher than HD. There is no such panel as far as I know.

This is as much aberrant thinking as denying that HD ~ 2K. So as far as HD is NOT ~ K but to 2K, the Octo HD corresponds to 8K and 'Octo' precisely reflects it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

Now, it would be misleading to call 8K "end of the resolution". That applies if horizontal viewing angle is ~60 degrees or less. For head-mounted displays that aim to cover larger field of view 8K is not "end of the resolution".

The talk here is about the TV viewing scenario.
irkuck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 725 Old 09-17-2012, 01:23 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is nonsense. Resolution is measured in pixels (per horizontal/vertical line). HD is called 2K since it has about 2000 pixels per horizontal line, 4K has close to 4000 pixels. Quad HD is a buzzword invented to show that 4 HD screens would fit into one 4K screen, but incidentally it also refers to the number 4.

That is NOT the definition of "Quad HD." Quad HD has 8.3 MP. It has 4X (Quad) the number of pixels that HD (2 MP) has.
Quote:
This is as much aberrant thinking as denying that HD ~ 2K. So as far as HD is NOT ~ K but to 2K, the Octo HD corresponds to 8K and 'Octo' precisely reflects it.
The talk here is about the TV viewing scenario.

Octopus HD only has 16 MP. Not 33 MP like Super Hi-Vision/8K has.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #93 of 725 Old 09-17-2012, 02:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Randomoneh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Quad HD is a buzzword invented to show that 4 HD screens would fit into one 4K screen
I usually say 4K when I refer to cinema resolution of 4096x2160 and Quad HD when referring to "home" 3840x2160, because that's what it is - resolution four times the "HD" (Full HD, 1920x1080). I don't equal 1920*xxxx to 2K. 2K is 2048*xxxx.
Randomoneh is offline  
post #94 of 725 Old 09-17-2012, 03:16 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomoneh View Post

I usually say 4K when I refer to cinema resolution of 4096x2160 and Quad HD when referring to "home" 3840x2160, because that's what it is - resolution four times the "HD" (Full HD, 1920x1080). I don't equal 1920*xxxx to 2K. 2K is 2048*xxxx.

And Matt Cowan agrees with you - about the professional formats - from 2003:

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #95 of 725 Old 09-17-2012, 10:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

This is nonsense. Resolution is measured in pixels (per horizontal/vertical line). HD is called 2K since it has about 2000 pixels per horizontal line, 4K has close to 4000 pixels. Quad HD is a buzzword invented to show that 4 HD screens would fit into one 4K screen, but incidentally it also refers to the number 4.
This is as much aberrant thinking as denying that HD ~ 2K. So as far as HD is NOT ~ K but to 2K, the Octo HD corresponds to 8K and 'Octo' precisely reflects it.

This is another one of your half-knowledge posts that relegated to trying to defend it. Another incarnation.

PC guys would know the 1k= 1024 bytes which is where the TV industry borrowed the nomenclature since it is going (or gone) digital. The confusion here is of course consumers assume k is 1000. So QHD is approximately 4k depending which perspective we're looking at. Professional users from digital cinema scanning to graphics will look at 4096. It took a lot of effort to converge at 1080X1920 from NTSC 480, PAL 576 broadcast and 720p intermediate. There are historical and legacy reasons why they ended at 1080X1920 instead of 2048.

4k is 4X HD because it is much easier to scale by doubling resolution on the length and breath. Same reason why Retina Display is 4X standard HVGA. That is also the reason why 4:3 is transposed to 16:9 by squaring it. These numbers are not incidental.

so 8k would be approximately 16XHD.
Djyinn likes this.
specuvestor is offline  
post #96 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 12:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Once again about basic logic. HD was made synonymous with 2K, so now 2K is used both for the 1920 and 2048. The term Quad HD is used as quadruple of HD meaning that the display area is 4x HD but at the same time Quad means 4. The term 4K was indeed used first in digital cinema but now it is increasingly used in relation with the 2K from HD. So the 4K evolved and is used interchangeably with Quad HD, even gaining on it.

The 8K is obviously Quad Quad HD, strictly speaking it is not a Quad 4K in the digital cinema sense of 4K. The only reasonable moniker is thus Octo HD which refers to the number 8.
irkuck is offline  
post #97 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 12:51 AM
Member
 
Djyinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

This is another one of your half-knowledge posts that relegated to trying to defend it. Another incarnation.
PC guys would know the 1k= 1024 bytes which is where the TV industry borrowed the nomenclature since it is going (or gone) digital. The confusion here is of course consumers assume k is 1000. So QHD is approximately 4k depending which perspective we're looking at. Professional users from digital cinema scanning to graphics will look at 4096. It took a lot of effort to converge at 1080X1920 from NTSC 480, PAL 576 broadcast and 720p intermediate. There are historical and legacy reasons why they ended at 1080X1920 instead of 2048.
4k is 4X HD because it is much easier to scale by doubling resolution on the length and breath. Same reason why Retina Display is 4X standard HVGA. That is also the reason why 4:3 is transposed to 16:9 by squaring it. These numbers are not incidental.
so 8k would be approximately 16XHD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Once again about basic logic. HD was made synonymous with 2K, so now 2K is used both for the 1920 and 2048. The term Quad HD is used as quadruple of HD meaning that the display area is 4x HD but at the same time Quad means 4. The term 4K was indeed used first in digital cinema but now it is increasingly used in relation with the 2K from HD. So the 4K evolved and is used interchangeably with Quad HD, even gaining on it.
The 8K is obviously Quad Quad HD, strictly speaking it is not a Quad 4K in the digital cinema sense of 4K. The only reasonable moniker is thus Octo HD which refers to the number 8.

Seriously, girls, you're both pretty.

Watch this video, the keynote address by Tim Sweeney. Take a minute, chill out, and respect eachothers disposition... Even though you would need a pop up book to follow along with Irkuck's analogy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQweemn2_A
Djyinn is offline  
post #98 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 01:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Once again about basic logic. HD was made synonymous with 2K, so now 2K is used both for the 1920 and 2048. The term Quad HD is used as quadruple of HD meaning that the display area is 4x HD but at the same time Quad means 4. The term 4K was indeed used first in digital cinema but now it is increasingly used in relation with the 2K from HD. So the 4K evolved and is used interchangeably with Quad HD, even gaining on it.
The 8K is obviously Quad Quad HD, strictly speaking it is not a Quad 4K in the digital cinema sense of 4K. The only reasonable moniker is thus Octo HD which refers to the number 8.
If you accept that quad HD is 4x the area (4 times the number of pixels) as 1920x1080 (HD), then surely "Octo HD" (where Octo means 8) for a format that is 16x the number of pixels as 1920x1080 (HD) would be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck 
The 8K is obviously Quad Quad HD,... The only reasonable moniker is thus Octo HD which refers to the number 8
4 4s are 16. Quad quad is 16x. If you quadruple a number, then quadruple it again, it becomes 16x the original number.

7680x4320 is 16 times the number of pixels as 1920x1080, and 4x the width or height in pixels. So "Octo HD" (meaning 8x HD resolution) doesn't make sense for a format that is 7680x4320 pixels (assuming HD=1920x1080).
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck 
Resolution is measured in pixels (per horizontal/vertical line)
Then since 7680x4320 is 4x the number of pixels in width (not 8x) of 1920x1080, calling it "Octo" (8) HD is still wrong.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #99 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 02:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djyinn View Post

Tim Sweeney (Founder of Epic Games and creator of the Unreal software package) did a great key-note address on not only the future of gaming but the future of panel technology as a whole. This may be very interesting to some of you paying attention to this thread. Now, you have to get passed the fact that he is a terrible public speaker (by his own admission) and once you get passed the fact that he looks like he is about to projectile vomit and pass out, it actually is a very interesting and informing address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiQweemn2_A
That is an interesting look into the past progression of computer graphics and what might be possible in the future. I think his information on frame rate was a bit old since the NHK showed that with larger viewing angles the need for a higher frame rate goes up. For example this NHK article shows that even going from 120 fps to 240 fps resulted in a small improvement in video quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It isn't the basic parameters that get patented, It's the execution - the equipment.
The NHK did spend a lot of money on UHDTV R&D so if that is true I would not see a problem with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Has SMPTE accepted the standards for 8K as written by NHK?
Well the ITU UHDTV standard was agreed on so it wasn't written by the NHK. And from what I have read an ITU standard is very important in terms of international standards so I don't think the SMPTE UHDTV standard matters anymore. I wouldn't mind reading the SMPTE UHDTV standard but it costs $75 to download from the SMPTE website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Quad HD is a buzzword invented to show that 4 HD screens would fit into one 4K screen, but incidentally it also refers to the number 4.
Quad has been a term used for computer resolutions such as QXGA (2048x1536).
Joe Bloggs likes this.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #100 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

The NHK did spend a lot of money on UHDTV R&D so if that is true I would not see a problem with it.
Well the ITU UHDTV standard was agreed on so it wasn't written by the NHK. And from what I have read an ITU standard is very important in terms of international standards so I don't think the SMPTE UHDTV standard matters anymore. I wouldn't mind reading the SMPTE UHDTV standard but it costs $75 to download from the SMPTE website.
AFAIK, the ITU UHDTV standards recommendation is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research.
The ITU Recommendation can be found here; http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.2020-0-201208-I/en

Slightly OT, but might be of interest in the topic of this thread;
Quote:
However, as the resolution increases (and 8K is 16 times the resolution of HD), motion defects become much more noticeable. “300 frames per second might just be acceptable, but 600fps would be better,” said colour scientist and camera consultant, Alan Roberts. At 300fps, the material would also be easily compatible with displays that run at either 50Hz (Europe) and 60Hz (US + Japan).

Using Long GoP compression, which typically combines a group of pictures in half a second, would lead to a GoP of 150 or 300 frames, but this wouldn’t lead to huge bandwidth requirements. “The motion between frames is very small, so the compression is much easier,” he explained, which means the increase in bit rate needed to convey high framerate material is minimal.
http://www.tvbeurope.com/newslettersportsbroadcast-content/full/super-hi-vision-at-120fps-for-olympics

Will this discovery increase the possibility to deliver increasingly more data in very small packages?
Quote:
The faster-than-fast Fourier transform

The Fourier transform is one of the most fundamental concepts in the information sciences. It’s a method for representing an irregular signal — such as the voltage fluctuations in the wire that connects an MP3 player to a loudspeaker — as a combination of pure frequencies. It’s universal in signal processing, but it can also be used to compress image and audio files, solve differential equations and price stock options, among other things.

The reason the Fourier transform is so prevalent is an algorithm called the fast Fourier transform (FFT), devised in the mid-1960s, which made it practical to calculate Fourier transforms on the fly. Ever since the FFT was proposed, however, people have wondered whether an even faster algorithm could be found.

At the Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) this week, a group of MIT researchers will present a new algorithm that, in a large range of practically important cases, improves on the fast Fourier transform. Under some circumstances, the improvement can be dramatic — a tenfold increase in speed.

Like the FFT, the new algorithm works on digital signals. A digital signal is just a series of numbers — discrete samples of an analog signal, such as the sound of a musical instrument. The FFT takes a digital signal containing a certain number of samples and expresses it as the weighted sum of an equivalent number of frequencies.

“Weighted” means that some of those frequencies count more toward the total than others. Indeed, many of the frequencies may have such low weights that they can be safely disregarded. That’s why the Fourier transform is useful for compression.

An eight-by-eight block of pixels can be thought of as a 64-sample signal, and thus as the sum of 64 different frequencies. But as the researchers point out in their new paper, empirical studies show that on average, 57 of those frequencies can be discarded with minimal loss of image quality.


coolscan is offline  
post #101 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

AFAIK, the ITU UHDTV standards recommendation is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research.
The ITU Recommendation can be found here; http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.2020-0-201208-I/en
SMPTE is a different organization and doesn't have anything to do with the ITU. Also here is some information from an ITU press release that explains how the ITU Recommendation for UHDTV was made:
Quote:
...
The experts, which include scientists and engineers from around the world, have been working together for several years in the ITU Study Group on Broadcasting Service (ITU-R Study Group 6) to jointly develop and agree on the technical specifications that will successfully create ‘UHDTV’.
...
Richard Paul is offline  
post #102 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 08:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Will this discovery increase the possibility to deliver increasingly more data in very small packages?

Not for video. The limiting factor for MPEG-2, H.264 and HEVC is always motion estimation (and good motion estimation has a direct effect on encoding picture quality). Most hardware encoders have a DSP that performs the DCT (usually in one instruction), so it's a fairly minor portion of the encoding process.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #103 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

SMPTE is a different organization and doesn't have anything to do with the ITU.
I think you misunderstand how this system works.

"International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an United Nation Organisation based in Geneva, Switzerland, is a member of the United Nations Development Group and its membership includes 193 Member States and around 700 Sector Members and Associates."

The ITU has working groups with representatives from various research, development, broadcast groups and organisations like SMPTE, EBU and NHK that study and examine proposals developed by others and settles for a global recommendation based on this work.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) working party for recommendation 2020 was chaired by EBU Deputy Director of the Technical Department, David Wood.
Quote:
The SMPTE first released Standard 2036 for UHDTV in 2007.
UHDTV was defined as having two levels called UHDTV1 (3840 × 2160 or 4K UHDTV) and UHDTV2 (7680 × 4320 or 8K UHDTV). Before 2011, UHDTV allowed for frame rates of 24, 25, 50, and 60 frames per second. In an ITU-R meeting during 2011, an additional frame rate was added to UHDTV of 120 frames per second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television
It would be strange if a group like Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) "An internationally recognized standards organizations, SMPTE has over 400 standards, Recommended Practices and Engineering Guidelines for television production, filmmaking, digital cinema, audio recording and medical imaging." was not some capacity included in the ITU working group for the UHDTV standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

Not for video. The limiting factor for MPEG-2, H.264 and HEVC is always motion estimation (and good motion estimation has a direct effect on encoding picture quality). Most hardware encoders have a DSP that performs the DCT (usually in one instruction), so it's a fairly minor portion of the encoding process.
Are you shure about this?

Reading some comments section to articles reporting on the Faster-than-Fourier Transform seems to have a different opinion on the usefulness of this in all types of compression because Fourier Transform is already widely in use for such, so a new Faster than Fourier algorithm would help very much in many applications.

Not that I know anything about this, but I get suspicious by the fast dismissal which is rather contrary to what others write about it applications.
Quote:
From the original link; The new algorithm could be particularly useful for image compression, enabling, say, smartphones to wirelessly transmit large video files without draining their batteries or consuming their monthly bandwidth allotments.

From The Verge;
The researchers claim that most kinds of data that you'd care about (including audio, images, and video) are "sparse," and therefore can be compressed with the new algorithm up to ten times faster. While there's no commercial application that uses the new algorithm yet, it is a promising development that may help us stay under our mobile data caps in the future.
coolscan is offline  
post #104 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 01:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

If you accept that quad HD is 4x the area (4 times the number of pixels) as 1920x1080 (HD), then surely "Octo HD" (where Octo means 8) for a format that is 16x the number of pixels as 1920x1080 (HD) would be wrong.
4 4s are 16. Quad quad is 16x. If you quadruple a number, then quadruple it again, it becomes 16x the original number.
7680x4320 is 16 times the number of pixels as 1920x1080, and 4x the width or height in pixels. So "Octo HD" (meaning 8x HD resolution) doesn't make sense for a format that is 7680x4320 pixels (assuming HD=1920x1080).
Then since 7680x4320 is 4x the number of pixels in width (not 8x) of 1920x1080, calling it "Octo" (8) HD is still wrong.

What you say is logic turned upside down. Octo HD refers to8 in the 8K. Obviously if one takes that HD=2K then 8K should be Quad HD. But Quad incidentally refers to both the 4K and area-based 4xHD. Thus, it is logical to use Octo HD=8K if Quad HD=4K even though the HD =2K. Simply forget the area-based description, it came by the misleading coincidence. Format descriptors were originally concerning only horizontal number of pixels: 2K, 4K and 8K. The Quad as area descriptor is due to aberrant thinking correct in one special case.
irkuck is offline  
post #105 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 01:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

AFAIK, the ITU UHDTV standards recommendation is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research.
The ITU Recommendation can be found here; http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.2020-0-201208-I/en
Slightly OT, but might be of interest in the topic of this thread;

Will this discovery increase the possibility to deliver increasingly more data in very small packages?

Quote:
The faster-than-fast Fourier transform

The Fourier transform is one of the most fundamental concepts in the information sciences. It’s a method for representing an irregular signal — such as the voltage fluctuations in the wire that connects an MP3 player to a loudspeaker — as a combination of pure frequencies. It’s universal in signal processing, but it can also be used to compress image and audio files, solve differential equations and price stock options, among other things.

The reason the Fourier transform is so prevalent is an algorithm called the fast Fourier transform (FFT), devised in the mid-1960s, which made it practical to calculate Fourier transforms on the fly. Ever since the FFT was proposed, however, people have wondered whether an even faster algorithm could be found.

At the Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) this week, a group of MIT researchers will present a new algorithm that, in a large range of practically important cases, improves on the fast Fourier transform. Under some circumstances, the improvement can be dramatic — a tenfold increase in speed.

Like the FFT, the new algorithm works on digital signals. A digital signal is just a series of numbers — discrete samples of an analog signal, such as the sound of a musical instrument. The FFT takes a digital signal containing a certain number of samples and expresses it as the weighted sum of an equivalent number of frequencies.

“Weighted” means that some of those frequencies count more toward the total than others. Indeed, many of the frequencies may have such low weights that they can be safely disregarded. That’s why the Fourier transform is useful for compression.

An eight-by-eight block of pixels can be thought of as a 64-sample signal, and thus as the sum of 64 different frequencies. But as the researchers point out in their new paper, empirical studies show that on average, 57 of those frequencies can be discarded with minimal loss of image quality.

No. What the above refers to is a method of fast calculation of the discrete Fourier transform when many frequencies are missing. This has nothing to do with perceptual packing of data, that is robust approximation by a small number of samples. In the packing area the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) is unbeatable and it is highly improbable anything better can be invented. The DCT is way better than the Fourier transform in packing applications.
irkuck is offline  
post #106 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 01:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Are you sure about this?

Of course I'm sure. I'm an insider in the compression community for the last 19 years, having worked at C-Cube Microsystems, LSI Logic and Magnum Semiconductor. My last well known project was the Motorola DSR-6100 IRD/Transcoder used for the ESPN MPEG-4 upgrade. If you watch ESPN or ESPN2 on any cable system in the US, it's through the DSR-6100.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #107 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 02:14 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

What you say is logic turned upside down. Octo HD refers to8 in the 8K.

No - that would be Octo K. THAT would be a descriptor for 8K:

Duo K = 2K
Quad K = 4K
Octo K = 8K

Duo, Quad, Octo are all Number Prefixes. (Latin/Greek - Cardinal)

NOTE: "Quad" is short for either quadri or quadru (Latin - Cardinal)

If you are using Octo as a Latin - Multiple, then it's 8 X HD. What is HD? 2K or 2 Megapixels. It doesn't work. Super Hi-Vision is 8K or 33 MP. Not 16K or 16 MP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #108 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 02:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

No. What the above refers to is a method of fast calculation of the discrete Fourier transform when many frequencies are missing. This has nothing to do with perceptual packing of data, that is robust approximation by a small number of samples. In the packing area the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) is unbeatable and it is highly improbable anything better can be invented. The DCT is way better than the Fourier transform in packing applications.

The DCT is essentially a DFT (Discrete Fourier Transform) with real numbers only.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #109 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Tazishere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Broadus, Montana
Posts: 250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Honestly, in the infamous words of a billionare, "640k ought to be enough for anybody".
Tazishere is offline  
post #110 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

It would be strange if a group like Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) "An internationally recognized standards organizations, SMPTE has over 400 standards, Recommended Practices and Engineering Guidelines for television production, filmmaking, digital cinema, audio recording and medical imaging." was not some capacity included in the ITU working group for the UHDTV standard.
I am very skeptical about your theory that the ITU UHDTV standard "is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research" since that goes against everything I have read. For example there is the ITU press release which said that an ITU study group has been working to develop UHDTV for years. In the past I have read several articles that mentioned the ITU study group on UHDTV. For example an article on page 14 of the December 2011 EBU Technical magazine described how at the previous ITU meeting on UHDTV there was discussion about two color space systems and that a group had been made by the ITU specifically to evaluate them. As such I am curious to know if you have evidence to support your theory. What evidence do you have that the ITU didn't do research on UHDTV? What evidence do you have that the ITU UHDTV standard was a proposal from SMPTE?
Richard Paul is offline  
post #111 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 06:25 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
New MPEG format paves the way for UHDTV
Quote:
The ITU’s response was that it expected HEVC to make UHDTV broadcasts possible. David Wood, chairman of the ITU-R Working Party 6C, which cooked up UHDTV, told us:

“If I had a personal guess it would be that with HEVC the 8K system with good transparency might come down to about 90Mbit/s and the 4K system to about 25 Mbit/s, but this is just an opinion. Also please don't forget that compression technology improves in cycles, and there may be a further cycle - the successor to HEVC - before the end of the decade that we can use for 8K UHDTV.”

The MPEG says it expects HEVC to be finished in early 2013, with amendments to come in 2014. When it appears in actual kit is anyone's guess.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/15/hevc_video_standard/
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #112 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 06:32 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
NHK's R&D Strategy on Broadcast Technologies

www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/Kubota.pdf
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #113 of 725 Old 09-18-2012, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I am very skeptical about your theory that the ITU UHDTV standard "is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research" since that goes against everything I have read. For example there is the ITU press release which said that an ITU study group has been working to develop UHDTV for years. In the past I have read several articles that mentioned the ITU study group on UHDTV. For example an article on page 14 of the December 2011 EBU Technical magazine described how at the previous ITU meeting on UHDTV there was discussion about two color space systems and that a group had been made by the ITU specifically to evaluate them. As such I am curious to know if you have evidence to support your theory. What evidence do you have that the ITU didn't do research on UHDTV? What evidence do you have that the ITU UHDTV standard was a proposal from SMPTE?
ITU, SMPTE and NHK all work together on this stuff. Look how close the suggested colorimetry in this 2009 link is to ITU-R BT.2020.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/aboutstrl/annual2009/en/r1-1-1.html

Besides, ITU-R BT.2020 is worthless without SMPTE 2036-3 (10G-SDI). Without a way to transport the bits, it really doesn't matter how the bits are encoded.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is online now  
post #114 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I am very skeptical about your theory that the ITU UHDTV standard "is based on the research and proposal of the SMPTE and not on ITU own research" since that goes against everything I have read. For example there is the ITU press release which said that an ITU study group has been working to develop UHDTV for years. In the past I have read several articles that mentioned the ITU study group on UHDTV. For example an article on page 14 of the December 2011 EBU Technical magazine described how at the previous ITU meeting on UHDTV there was discussion about two color space systems and that a group had been made by the ITU specifically to evaluate them. As such I am curious to know if you have evidence to support your theory. What evidence do you have that the ITU didn't do research on UHDTV? What evidence do you have that the ITU UHDTV standard was a proposal from SMPTE?

I don't know exactly how to convince you. But consider this as an example:
All the government broadcasters in Europe have R&D departments that work on developing future technology. They again attend EBU conferences where they share their findings. EBU also have joint conferences with SMPTE.
When UHDTV has been on the agenda for these conferences, NHK has always been invited to demonstrate UHDTV in praxis, because NHK is the only broadcaster that has the equipment.

NHK is the largest contributor to the UHDTV (and HD standard before that) because they do the "heavy work" by having Japanese manufacturer build Cameras, switchers and displays for them.
When NHK does big scale UHDTV tests, they have always done this together with mainly BBC, but also RAI.

The leader of the ITU study group 6 is the same man who is leader of the EBU Technology & Innovation Department Technical Committee.
ITU and EBU both have their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Notice that the ITU groups (there are many) that work on standards are called Study Groups.
They study the findings done in the R&D departments of various broadcasters and other commercial companies.
In the end the 190 ITU members decide on a standard (called a recommendation) based on the study of all the R&D work done by the broadcasters and manufacturers.

EBU and SMPTE (as an example) meets several times a year in joint conferences which are attended by members of broadcaster companies.
Like: SMPTE Forum on Emerging Media Technologies Organized in collaboration with the EBU in Geneva 13-15 May 2012.
Even when the UHDTV standard is agreed upon in the ITU, SMPTE and EBU have conferences where UHDTV is one of the agendas.
Like; SMPTE and EBU driving media innovation at Geneva meetings 14 September 2012
Quote:
In the immediate aftermath of IBC 2012, technology experts are meeting in Geneva at the EBU for the SMPTE engineering meetings.
During four days they will drive for innovation and new standards in media.
The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) has a long history of collaborating with the EBU in the technical domain, so it's no surprise that the event also attracted a strong presence from European broadcasters presence with participants from, for example, the UK, Norway and Bulgaria.

The 80 or so technology experts present have discussed various new developments and the potential need for standardization to enhance interoperability, and thus increase efficiency in professional media production.
Highlights so far have been presentations on LED light measurements (NRK, BBC, EBU), media storage performance evaluations (BBC), EIDR (MovieLabs) and an MXF open source project. Further to this it was announced that the FIMS specification, fresh from its IBC Judges' Prize has been submitted to SMPTE.

Over the weekend the meetings will continue, discussing in particular Ultra High Definition TV, with a presentation by NHK; Essence and Compression formats; Television and Broadband; Networks and Interfaces; and new work in Digital Cinema.

Sunday will be taken up by a strategic discussion session on Metadata, followed in the afternoon by the SMPTE Standards Committee, which acts as a steering platform for all activities.

Everybody likes to tell people of their contribution to future TV standards:
Quote:
4K and 8K UHDTV defined
Lieven Vermaele, EBU Director of Technology and Development commented: "Facilitating these superb pictures hasn't been made possible overnight - this represents over ten years of technical discussion and experiment. It has been a long journey - but we are delighted to have arrived at this point and pleased that the EBU has been able to make a contribution to broadcasting history."

A last example of who the ITU groups consist of and where they actually work. Here are the chairmen who administer the various Working Parties consisting of contributing member from all over the world who are really employed at other companies.
ITU Working Party 6C (WP 6C) Group Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen
Chairman Working Party 6C
M. David WOOD
European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
Vice-Chairmen Working Party 6C
M. Vittorio BARONCINI, Italy.
Mr. Spencer LIENG
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. Craig TODD
Dolby Laboratories

Here you can check out the Chairmen of the other Study Groups and at which companies they are employed; ITU Study Groups.

So to conclude:
ITU doesn't have independent R&D laboratories that develop various standards or have technical employees (except for some administration posts) that are not employed somewhere else, but are collaborations between many organisations that in the end settles for global standard in the United Nations organisation 190 members International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
coolscan is offline  
post #115 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 06:56 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

No - that would be Octo K. THAT would be a descriptor for 8K:
Duo K = 2K
Quad K = 4K
Octo K = 8K
Duo, Quad, Octo are all Number Prefixes. (Latin/Greek - Cardinal)
NOTE: "Quad" is short for either quadri or quadru (Latin - Cardinal)
If you are using Octo as a Latin - Multiple, then it's 8 X HD. What is HD? 2K or 2 Megapixels. It doesn't work. Super Hi-Vision is 8K or 33 MP. Not 16K or 16 MP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_prefix

Now one can see your confusion comes due to math knowledge limited to basic arithmetics.. It is obvious Octo K does not make sense since there is no reference to HD, it is the limitation to basic arithmetics to think it should be 8 x HD. The Octo HD simply refers both to HD AND the number 8 - 'AND' means logical conjunction here and not multiplication. It is in the same style as Quad HD with the exception that Quad can also refer to the area of 4xHD. So try to go beyond basic math and include logical AND operation.
irkuck is offline  
post #116 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 08:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 175 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Now one can see your confusion comes due to math knowledge limited to basic arithmetics.. It is obvious Octo K does not make sense since there is no reference to HD, it is the limitation to basic arithmetics to think it should be 8 x HD. The Octo HD simply refers both to HD AND the number 8 - 'AND' means logical conjunction here and not multiplication. It is in the same style as Quad HD with the exception that Quad can also refer to the area of 4xHD. So try to go beyond basic math and include logical AND operation.
Who uses Quad HD to mean something other than 4xHD (4x the number of pixels as HD)? Does anyone like the EBU/ITU or anyone like that ever use the term to mean something other than 4x "full HD" res? Do you have any links?

Given that Quad HD has come to mean 4x HD (4 x the total number of pixels of 1920x1080), wouldn't it be very misleading to introduce Octo (8) HD for something with 16x the total number of pixels of 1920x1080?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #117 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post

ITU, SMPTE and NHK all work together on this stuff. Look how close the suggested colorimetry in this 2009 link is to ITU-R BT.2020.
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/aboutstrl/annual2009/en/r1-1-1.html
I am just skeptical that the ITU UHDTV standard is based on a SMPTE proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

When UHDTV has been on the agenda for these conferences, NHK has always been invited to demonstrate UHDTV in praxis, because NHK is the only broadcaster that has the equipment.
NHK is the largest contributor to the UHDTV (and HD standard before that) because they do the "heavy work" by having Japanese manufacturer build Cameras, switchers and displays for them.
I agree that the NHK has done most of the research on UHDTV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

...
So to conclude:
ITU doesn't have independent R&D laboratories that develop various standards or have technical employees (except for some administration posts) that are not employed somewhere else, but are collaborations between many organisations that in the end settles for global standard in the United Nations organisation 190 members International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
It does sound like the ITU uses research from other companies/organizations though from what I have read they can assign research. I am skeptical though that the ITU UHDTV standard was based on a proposal from SMPTE since I have never seen any evidence for that. In my opinion if a proposal was initially used for the ITU UHDTV standard I think that it would have been from the NHK.
Richard Paul is offline  
post #118 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,814
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I am just skeptical that the ITU UHDTV standard is based on a SMPTE proposal.
I agree that the NHK has done most of the research on UHDTV.
It does sound like the ITU uses research from other companies/organizations though from what I have read they can assign research. I am skeptical though that the ITU UHDTV standard was based on a proposal from SMPTE since I have never seen any evidence for that. In my opinion if a proposal was initially used for the ITU UHDTV standard I think that it would have been from the NHK.
What you originally said was that "SMPTE has nothing to do with the ITU", which isn't the same as to say that the UHDTV standard was based on the SMPTE UHDTV standard.

SMPTE is an international recognized standards organization that has done research on UHDTV and settled a standard for themselves in 2007.
Just like all the other broadcaster unions like EBU, ABU(Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union) NABA (North American Broadcasters Association) and many more and individual countries/organisations that are members of ITU (193 UN countries) that have done R&D work on UHDTV (or any other standards settings) can submit their findings to the ITU working groups.
The broadcaster unions in the world take care that their member broadcasters are heard when international standards are settled in the ITU.
If SMPTE, ABU, and EBU, members have done most of the R&D work on UHDTV, like BBC(EBU) and NHK(ABU), then that work will be the major basis for the working groups to settle standards for UHDTV.
I think it would be very strange if the work done by SMPTE members would be ignored. Because then the US would not have a voice in the decisions, only EU and Japan.
coolscan is offline  
post #119 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 01:14 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

Now one can see your confusion comes due to math knowledge limited to basic arithmetics.. It is obvious Octo K does not make sense since there is no reference to HD, it is the limitation to basic arithmetics to think it should be 8 x HD. The Octo HD simply refers both to HD AND the number 8 - 'AND' means logical conjunction here and not multiplication. It is in the same style as Quad HD with the exception that Quad can also refer to the area of 4xHD. So try to go beyond basic math and include logical AND operation.

The problem is YOUR logic. NO ONE has agreed with you. They all disagree that Octo HD means 8K. That's the problem when you come up with your own defintion and don't understand the words and descriptions that they mean

"Octo" can mean either 8 (Cardinal) or 8X (Multiple) as shown in that link I provided. We all know what HD means. You have decided to ignore all that. Your math skills match your knowledge of Latin/Greek Number Prefixes - little or none.

And you specifically said in your response (post #105) to Joe B:

Octo HD refers to8 in the 8K.

I can see your problem. You have been backed into a corner and instead of admitting you are wrong - you keep coming up with incorrect descriptions in a vain attempt to defend what you think is right and everyone else who has responded to you knows is wrong. We have proven that a number of times.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #120 of 725 Old 09-19-2012, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
PubFiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Why dont we have the infrastructure. years ago ATI demonstrated the first eyefinity systems capable of running 6 x dell 30 inch monitors which is a total of over 24 MP. To think that this many years later GPUs are not capable of bumping that up 30% doe not seem reasonable. Like other high resolution monitors it can just take multiple inputs to push the bandwidth. The other issue is with size someone mentioned normal city dwellings, but tons of people actually sit closer to their TV than they should because their rooms are not big enough for practical placement of furniture further away. For all these people higher resolution is a bonus. When 1080p sets starting pushing out the infrastructure was not there and the same will be true of every increase in resolution. But the push is needed to get the reluctant parties to move forward. Display standards, OS DPI scaling, software DPI scaling, all of them are dragging their feet saying well there isnt that much high resolution stuff.
PubFiction is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off