round the corner -33 megapixel (7,680 x 4,320) resolution

[oddball]

Check this link out - Ultra High Defininition -

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.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/33-megapixel-super-hi-vision-ultra-hdtv-could-be-on-the-air-in/

Oddball xx

[DV_Ed]

Pointless!

[SimonMW]

Well, although it seems pointless, at least if it does ever become mainstream it should last a while!

[Chirpy]

Time to trade in my S-VHS Camcorder I guess! ;)

[RayL]

it's for the next stage in housebuilding, where the entire wall of a room is one giant screen.

Ray

[steve]

There will probably be a mobile phone along soon with a camera that claims that resolution, so there will be an ample supply of street culture video.

steve

[infocus]

it's for the next stage in housebuilding, where the entire wall of a room is one giant screen.
That'll make positioning the furniture difficult........... :)

[SimonMW]

It would be pretty neat having every wall in the house being a potential TV! Walking into any room, or viewing from any angle would be great. Except that arguments with the missus would be about whether to have The Bourne Supremacy or Laura Ashley as the wallpaper for the day ;)

[StevenBagley]

It would be pretty neat having every wall in the house being a potential TV! Walking into any room, or viewing from any angle would be great. Except that arguments with the missus would be about whether to have The Bourne Supremacy or Laura Ashley as the wallpaper for the day ;)

You could always deliver an (Bourne) Ultimatum to sort it out...


Steven

[Z Cheema]

Time to trade in my S-VHS Camcorder I guess! ;)

You lucky, lucky person , I only got my lovely JVC mini VHS-C the other day, the same one seen in back to the future.

Fractals are the way to go, the system is resolution independent then and you can have anything from YouTube to super duper HD, I know it's true as I saw it on Tomorrow's World.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/library/extra/ngf2r-test1.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=peG8TSNMlW0C&pg=RA1-PA393&lpg=RA1-PA393&dq=fractal+tv&source=web&ots=S_fPbXnyQy&sig=iuq1jHsZm_Eb1MxXdPrGiSNig5E

[James lundy]

It would be pretty neat having every wall in the house being a potential TV! Walking into any room, or viewing from any angle would be great. Except that arguments with the missus would be about whether to have The Bourne Supremacy or Laura Ashley as the wallpaper for the day ;)

Beats having mirrors on the ceiling. :D

[Rob James]

Beats having mirrors on the ceiling. :D

Shame :( No "Pink Champagne on ice"

[Richard Payne]

Doesn't matter what the resolution is, the pictures will always be better on the radio.

[Alan Roberts]

This project has been goi9ng steadily in Japan for at least 8 years, to my certain knowledge. Dr. Fujio (ex head of NHK R&D, started the HD work there in 1964) reckons it's a goer, but it needs a domestic display of around 200" to make sense, that's 8'4" high. I haven't got a room that high, let alone a door big enough to bring the panel in. The only sensible use for it is to replace IMAX, and, as far as I'm aware, that's the market they're aiming at. The cameras are immense, and the sound system for it is 22.2 channel. I'm having problems convincing my wife that stereo's not good enough :-(

I've seen pictures from the prototype camera, using IMAX lenses on a 4k projector about 4 years ago. They were stunning, but it took a large cinema to even get close to getting the best from it.

Rest assured, this isn't a tv system, it's large-screen Dcinema. Although the content distribution will probably be electronic (encrypted satellite channels), direct to the cinema in probably longer than real time.

[infocus]

.........it needs a domestic display of around 200" to make sense, that's 8'4" high. I haven't got a room that high, let alone a door big enough to bring the panel in.
Well, maybe in a few years time, you'll be able to bring it in rolled up.........:)
The only sensible use for it is to replace IMAX, and, as far as I'm aware, that's the market they're aiming at. The cameras are immense, .........
Whilst I don't realistically see it for home use, then I have heard other possible uses, though all non-entertainment ones. Flight simulators are an obvious possibility.

[nattt]

The 8k NHK demo material as seen at NAB was certainly impressive, but only impressive in the sense that over-sharpened over exposed video is "impressive". Even downsampled on a 4k display, the excessive sharpening artifacts were still highly evident, and quite frankly, I never want to see a sumo's armpit in that detail ever again.

Resolution is nothing without an aesthetic. Sheer pixel count on it's own means nothing if the image is not composed, exposed correctly and treated with care, attention, and a sense of , well... making an image that doesn't look like 33mp VHS!

[SimonMW]

Okay, I'm not a fan of over sharpening, but why is it that stills photographers (particularly landscape photographers) often go for a highly sharpened look, while in video we strive for the opposite?

[Alan Roberts]

Simon, the problem with over-sharpening is that, on stills, the effect doesn't move about, whereas on video it does. The false edges that the detail enhancement adds counts as an alias in the spatial domain, because it comes and goes with motion (and that's because it's easier to find an edge in a still frame than in one with motion, because the motion blur reduces the high frequencies that are looked for). So, it confuses motion-detecting compressors, like MPEG. It's easier to do sharpening in progressively scanned tv than in interlaced, but it still goes wrong when it moves, which is when your eye will look for and find the clues to motion, i.e. the stuff that's changing (and all too often, that's compression artefacts and not real detail).

[SimonMW]

Makes sense, thanks.