[glenned]

The International Society for Optical Engineering posted this headline on their website:


Just like high-definition TV, but with higher definition

3 June 2004


High-definition television may be only just beginning to catch on, but researchers at the Japanese national broadcaster NHK are already working on a successor. The format, called Ultra High Definition Video, or UHDV, has a resolution 16 times greater than plain-old HDTV, and its stated goal is to achieve a level of sensory immersion that approximates actually being there.

Full story from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/te...ts/03next.html (registration required) available through 9 June 2004. Full text of older articles may be purchased from the premium archive.


Glenn

 

[Art Sonneborn]

Now if they can just come up with away to display it that will achieve that goal. Using present DILA technology ain't it.


Art

 

[glenned]

Some Excerpts from the Article:


The pixel count of UHDV may be impressive, but as anyone who has tried to watch TV on a sunny beach knows, pixels are not the whole picture. "Resolution is only one of the key measurements," said John Lowry of Lowry Digital Images, a company in Burbank, Calif., that digitizes films at the highest possible quality for archival purposes. Perhaps even more important than pixels, he said, is the dynamic range of an image, which is measured in terms of contrast ratio. The eye can perceive contrasts between the brightest white and the darkest black of roughly 100,000 to one, whereas today's best projectors can only muster levels of about 4,000 to one.


To achieve truly realistic images, Mr. Lowry said, "the blacks have to be really black, while still seeing the glint off a diamond."


So while current projection technology cannot meet the demands of UHDV, the standard excels in other crucial areas, for example breadth of view. While both UHDV and HDTV use the widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio (standard TV uses 4:3), HDTV offers only a 30-degree field of view horizontally, whereas UHDV's massive screen size expands this to about 100 degrees, said Mr. Okano, who said his research indicates that this angle is where "immersive sensation" peaks.


In developing UHDV, NHK has also focused on sound. The standard calls for 22.2 sound: 10 speakers at ear level, 9 above and 3 below, with another 2 for low frequency effects. It is a setup that is well beyond the level of the multichannel systems currently in vogue, like the 5.1 surround system.


All those sound channels and all those image pixels add up to a lot of data. In test, an 18-minute UHDV video gobbled up 3.5 terabytes of storage (equivalent to about 750 DVD's). The data was transmitted over 16 channels at a total rate of 24 gigabits per second, thousands of times faster than a typical D.S.L. connection.


Glenn

 

[CPanther95]

Quote:

Originally posted by glenned All those sound channels and all those image pixels add up to a lot of data. In test, an 18-minute UHDV video gobbled up 3.5 terabytes of storage (equivalent to about 750 DVD's). The data was transmitted over 16 channels at a total rate of 24 gigabits per second, thousands of times faster than a typical D.S.L. connection. Glenn

....I guess when D* launches 9S, they'll be able to add one UHDV channel.

 

[anthonymoody]

This was posted a couple times earlier today


TM

 

[AcuraCL]

Quote:

Originally posted by CPanther95 ....I guess when D* launches 9S, they'll be able to add one UHDV channel.

Oh yes. I hear it's increasingly strongly more likely maybe.

 

[inti]

I've heard that when film is scanned to digital for adding digital effects, they use a resolution something like 4000x3000; and when movies are converted to the IMAX format they use a similar scanning resolution. That is only 9x HDTV, so this UHDV sounds awesome!

 

[mitchell_gusat]

"when film is scanned to digital for adding digital effects, they use a resolution something like 4000x3000"


Normal 35mm film is usually scanned today at 4000dpi (not for DVD transfers , while some even consumer scanners such as Minolta 5400 go [exceedingly] higher, to 5400dpi. The IMAX film could yield more than 20x HDTV resolution, but then the scanning, editing and transfer process takes too long with today's technology.


UHDV is the first real attempt of digital imaging technology to compete in raw resolution with film, 35mm and medium format. Aside from new sensors and displays, UHDV also requires supercomputer-class of storage and processors to handle the video stream. ETA would be 2020 +/- 5 years. We were born too early .


Mitch-

 

[AcuraCL]

Quote:

Originally posted by mitchell_gusat [BNormal 35mm film is usually scanned today at 4000dpi (not for DVD transfers , while some even consumer scanners such as Minolta 5400 go [exceedingly] higher, to 5400dpi. ... Mitch- [/b]

Somewhat OT ... I have that scanner. Sometimes, too much is ... too much. At that resolution you are actually scanning the film grain, which you then have to figure out how to remove in areas such as sky .... Great detail in the scans though.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Quote:

Somewhat OT ... I have that scanner. Sometimes, too much is ... too much. At that resolution you are actually scanning the film grain, which you then have to figure out how to remove in areas such as sky .... Great detail in the scans though.

That's the problem with the mindset of so much film-tape transferring these days.


If film grain was good enough for a 50' screen in a theater, it's good enough for your 8' home-theater screen.


Film grain should be recorded...in full resolution...along with all the other picture information in a 35mm film source. The digital medium should be transparent to the source--whatever that source may be.


-dave

 

[Andrikos]

Noooooooooooo!!!

Get rid of the grain.


Grain bad, nograin goood!

 

[Art Sonneborn]

Quote:

Originally posted by DaViD Boulet That's the problem with the mindset of so much film-tape transferring these days. If film grain was good enough for a 50' screen in a theater, it's good enough for your 8' home-theater screen. Film grain should be recorded...in full resolution...along with all the other picture information in a 35mm film source. The digital medium should be transparent to the source--whatever that source may be. -dave

This is an interesting aside I think to what you are saying( well interesting to me a least). When I was in my early 20s I built a crude remotely actuated camera and attached it to both model rockets and RC planes. I had my own dark room and I cut film to fit the camera from 4x5 sheets. When I would develop them and enlarge them with a compound lens I made I could see all the grains looking for focus as well as details on the ground. It is truly amazing what your brain can fabricate from random grain. I saw Oswald in the sixth floor window one time. But what is interesting also is how accepting I am I film grain but not digital artifacts and I'm not sure why.


Art

 

[rlindo]

how come so many have issues with film grain? I like crystal clear and spotless images but I also like film grain and think it adds character to some movies.

 

[ChaCha]

Art raises an interesting point. When we know it is "grain" it seems more natural (and perhaps what the "capturer" wanted us to see) Digital grain or other 'imperfections' are unacceptable. Marshall Macluen said "the medium IS the message".

 

[AnthonyP]

if they can get rid of film grain, great, but saying that there is such a thing as too much resolution because you will notice some of the original artifacts is ridiculous.

 

[jbm007]

What good is this 16 times resolution.


We can't even get 1080p delivered yet; and it looks like it could be several more years for that to happen.


I think the trickle down effect has longgggg way to go before we see anything.


I have one other question.


Does anyone know what the visual ability of the eye is. How much visual detail can be observed. At what point does too much information cause problems. I remember somewhere; a visual presentation that caused people to get sick and nausiated from the high rez. visual movement that the image created.

 

[Jerry Pease]

Quote:

Originally posted by jbm007 What good is this 16 times resolution. We can't even get 1080p delivered yet; and it looks like it could be several more years for that to happen.

what the hell, we can even get espn-hd full time. On that note, we can't even get a good dvd these day without any excessive edge enhancement.