8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 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.

Octopus HD only has 16 MP. Not 33 MP like Super Hi-Vision/8K has.

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

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.
Edited by specuvestor - 9/17/12 at 10:06pm

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

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.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/18/12 at 1:27am

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.

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.

Quad has been a term used for computer resolutions such as QXGA (2048x1536).

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?

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:

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

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. 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.

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.

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

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
Edited by Lee Stewart - 9/18/12 at 5:13pm

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

Ron

Honestly, in the infamous words of a billionare, "640k ought to be enough for anybody".

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?
Edited by Richard Paul - 9/18/12 at 5:14pm

New MPEG format paves the way for UHDTV

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/15/hevc_video_standard/

NHK's R&D Strategy on Broadcast Technologies

www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/Kubota.pdf

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

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
Everybody likes to tell people of their contribution to future TV standards:
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).
Edited by coolscan - 9/19/12 at 5:25am

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?
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 9/19/12 at 1:17pm

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.
Edited by Richard Paul - 9/19/12 at 8:22am

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.
Edited by coolscan - 9/19/12 at 11:59am

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.
Edited by Lee Stewart - 9/19/12 at 12:23pm

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.