To make film work at the IMAX level, you would be on the way to a 2d virtuality. If you stick to the 35mm paradigm, any close up would be impossibly close, it's not interesting anymore, it's oppressive -- the giant head from 1984 overwhelming your visual pathway, leaving you no place to look.
Just wanted to say that there is a current Tylenol commercial series with EXTREME closeups of a complaining, worried woman. The ad makes me really annoyed and literally upsets me (angers me). Its very odd reaction but I hate that big face staring at me.
Then there are the Canon EOS sample images that shows way too much detail of a model. (She's attractive but there's not much escaping the little flaws anymore with today's clarity).
And anyone remember the Newsweek with a Trump picture that showed the plaque in his teeth?
On one hand, in gaming or in porn, such gratuitous closeups or detail might be a plus, but in many other contexts, closeups and detail are disconcerting.
What would Barbara Walters look like in UHDV without that Star Trek (Original Series) female blur effect? Boggles the mind.
But I think we are forgetting that in the future, viewers might have more choices to actually alter the thing they are watching, less control for the directors and more for the viewers - particularly in CGI movies. (At home anyway, if not somehow in theaters). Imagine that they merely capture the scene and we the viewers are zooming and panning as we see fit (already somewhat available). Viewers will be able to use custom filters too (as we do in XBOX replays).
Games and cinema will converge completely. FARCRY now lets you place cameras throughout the 3D islands and sets and lets you capture to files. People are making their own movies in the artificial environment. If motion capture becomes easy and realtime, we can act and be extras in movies/games - live.
It's going to be a blast. I'm taking care of my health more just to live to see it.
Japanese engineers have been testing out a prototype of ultra high definition video (UHDV) which has 16 times greater image resolution than today?s best standard HDTV. UHDV uses 4,000 horizontal scanning lines, which is 4 times that of HDTV and over 6 times that of regular TV PAL broadcasts.
As no existing equipment could handle such as resolution, they had to make a custom built camera, storage and projection system using arrays of existing components in order test a prototype. To even store just 18 minutes of UHDV footage, they had used 16 HDTV recorders (likely a 4 x 4 array) with a capacity of 3.5 terabytes 3 minutes of footage was recorded from the custom made camera mounted to a vehicle and then driven about the streets.
The footage was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see it while in an enclosed section.
Now THAT would be cool. HD manufacturers just have to love this. They would sell by the multiple Terabytes. I could see something like this becoming big within 20 years. Once consumers have HDTV in their homes and running Projections systems the theaters are going to have to do something to draw the users back in. UHDV seems like just that sort of "jaw dropping" adventure that would fill seats.
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
1. Why are you buying equipment at Wal Mart?
2. In January I bought a 27inch HD Ready TV for just over $500 and upgraded to HD Digital cable for another $10 a month. That's cheap.
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
iPod someone has to create the content If you only knew the explosion we're seeing in HD recording you'd grasp why this is momentus. Within 3 years Walmart will be carrying camcorders that record in HD. The consumer has long since gotten used to waiting for technology to trickle down. Instead things have sped and technology rushes down as if poured from a cliff. Computers are vastly changing the landscape we live in. No one is complecent and willing to rest on their laurels.
Sharp just announced a 45" LCD with a HDTV resolution. It's going to be upon us like a "Panther". Once consumers see HDTV regular broadcast will not suffice. They will seek out better quality.
iPod someone has to create the content If you only knew the explosion we're seeing in HD recording you'd grasp why this is momentus. Within 3 years Walmart will be carrying camcorders that record in HD. The consumer has long since gotten used to waiting for technology to trickle down. Instead things have sped and technology rushes down as if poured from a cliff. Computers are vastly changing the landscape we live in. No one is complecent and willing to rest on their laurels.
Sharp just announced a 45" LCD with a HDTV resolution. It's going to be upon us like a "Panther". Once consumers see HDTV regular broadcast will not suffice. They will seek out better quality.
Your exactly right. In the world of Network Television, HD is standard now. Cable is still SD, but a lot of programs are moving to DVCPro50 or full HD and are archiving to HD for the future.
There are a lot of HD ready TVs that are reasonably priced for consumers and you can get a progressive scan DVD player for less than a hundred bucks. Why not have an HD set to watch DVDs on at the least.
I think that the real future will be consumer televisions capable of playing back multiple formats (SD, 24p, 1080i, etc.) on the fly as newer Broadcast monitors can.
HDTV is a lot better than a mere 50% resolution improvement over PAL. What I think they meant to say is UHDV is four times the resolution of HDTV, and HDTV is 6 times the resolution of PAL, making UHDV 24 times the the resolution of PAL.
A PAL broadcast, or rather an image in one of the 625-scan lines TV standards used along with PAL, B, G, I, D (the exception being Brazil, using PAL with the 525-linhes M standard), has each frame composed by 720 × 576 pixels, at a frequency of 25 frames per second.
A present high(est) definition broadcast has each frame composes by 1920 × 1080 pixels; assuming its use in lieu of PAL, that is in a country using 50 Hz AC (is there any such country with regular HDTV transmission today?), that could be a doubling of the frame rate: 50 frames per second.
So, if we count how many pixel are to be transmitted in one second, PAL's would be 10,368,000 pixels, and HDTV's would be 103,680,000 pixels, that is ten times more.
Even if the frame rate remained the same, that would still be five time more pixels.
Note that the ?CDfreaks? page only mentions ?4000 scan lines? without giving any information about actual image resolution or frame rate.
The propnent of UHDV, NHK, had pioneered HDTV in the nineteen-seventies, which at the time was supposed to be an analogue system, fully incompatible with any previous analogue TV standard (PAL or NTSC). ?Hi-Vision? or MUSE, it was also known, was proposed by NHK and the Japanese electronics manufacturers in the ninteen-eighties to the world broadcasting organisation, with the hope all would have to trash their old TVs and buy their new ones from Matsushita or Sony.
European states as well as electronics manufacturers (Philips, Thomson) were alarmed and scrambled to make their own analogue HDTV (with a limited upgrade path for existing PAL sets via a set top box). But the bigger market, the U.S. (which by the late eighties, was without much of a home electronics industry to speak of) decided to go for all-digital TV, which was actually a good idea although it seemd far-fetched to many at the time.
If UHDV is an evolution of current HDTV, it might have a future for the giant screens of the next-genration cinema theatres, but to become viable for home appliances it would first have to become dirt cheap.
Comments
Imagine Finding Nemo in 4K! Even as a technology demo it would be fantastic.
Originally posted by Matsu
To make film work at the IMAX level, you would be on the way to a 2d virtuality. If you stick to the 35mm paradigm, any close up would be impossibly close, it's not interesting anymore, it's oppressive -- the giant head from 1984 overwhelming your visual pathway, leaving you no place to look.
Just wanted to say that there is a current Tylenol commercial series with EXTREME closeups of a complaining, worried woman. The ad makes me really annoyed and literally upsets me (angers me). Its very odd reaction but I hate that big face staring at me.
Then there are the Canon EOS sample images that shows way too much detail of a model. (She's attractive but there's not much escaping the little flaws anymore with today's clarity).
And anyone remember the Newsweek with a Trump picture that showed the plaque in his teeth?
On one hand, in gaming or in porn, such gratuitous closeups or detail might be a plus, but in many other contexts, closeups and detail are disconcerting.
What would Barbara Walters look like in UHDV without that Star Trek (Original Series) female blur effect? Boggles the mind.
But I think we are forgetting that in the future, viewers might have more choices to actually alter the thing they are watching, less control for the directors and more for the viewers - particularly in CGI movies. (At home anyway, if not somehow in theaters). Imagine that they merely capture the scene and we the viewers are zooming and panning as we see fit (already somewhat available). Viewers will be able to use custom filters too (as we do in XBOX replays).
Games and cinema will converge completely. FARCRY now lets you place cameras throughout the 3D islands and sets and lets you capture to files. People are making their own movies in the artificial environment. If motion capture becomes easy and realtime, we can act and be extras in movies/games - live.
It's going to be a blast. I'm taking care of my health more just to live to see it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
And wait for Ultra High Definition
Japanese engineers have been testing out a prototype of ultra high definition video (UHDV) which has 16 times greater image resolution than today?s best standard HDTV. UHDV uses 4,000 horizontal scanning lines, which is 4 times that of HDTV and over 6 times that of regular TV PAL broadcasts.
As no existing equipment could handle such as resolution, they had to make a custom built camera, storage and projection system using arrays of existing components in order test a prototype. To even store just 18 minutes of UHDV footage, they had used 16 HDTV recorders (likely a 4 x 4 array) with a capacity of 3.5 terabytes 3 minutes of footage was recorded from the custom made camera mounted to a vehicle and then driven about the streets.
The footage was later projected on a 4 x 7 metre screen for public demonstration and the public were astonished. As the visual effect of the footage travelling down a road was so realistic, some viewers even experienced nausea as a side effect of seeing ultra realistic motion, but not physically feeling the motion. It's like the opposite of seasickness where you can feel movement, but cannot see it while in an enclosed section.
Now THAT would be cool. HD manufacturers just have to love this. They would sell by the multiple Terabytes. I could see something like this becoming big within 20 years. Once consumers have HDTV in their homes and running Projections systems the theaters are going to have to do something to draw the users back in. UHDV seems like just that sort of "jaw dropping" adventure that would fill seats.
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
1. Why are you buying equipment at Wal Mart?
2. In January I bought a 27inch HD Ready TV for just over $500 and upgraded to HD Digital cable for another $10 a month. That's cheap.
Wake up. HD is here.
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more. Until Wal-mart is selling hdtv sets to the masses and hd cable becomes affordable to the same people who get the hd sets from wal-mart, you might as well keep dreaming.
iPod someone has to create the content
Sharp just announced a 45" LCD with a HDTV resolution. It's going to be upon us like a "Panther". Once consumers see HDTV regular broadcast will not suffice. They will seek out better quality.
Originally posted by hmurchison
iPod someone has to create the content
Sharp just announced a 45" LCD with a HDTV resolution. It's going to be upon us like a "Panther". Once consumers see HDTV regular broadcast will not suffice. They will seek out better quality.
Your exactly right. In the world of Network Television, HD is standard now. Cable is still SD, but a lot of programs are moving to DVCPro50 or full HD and are archiving to HD for the future.
There are a lot of HD ready TVs that are reasonably priced for consumers and you can get a progressive scan DVD player for less than a hundred bucks. Why not have an HD set to watch DVDs on at the least.
I think that the real future will be consumer televisions capable of playing back multiple formats (SD, 24p, 1080i, etc.) on the fly as newer Broadcast monitors can.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
Hmm... I tihnk I'll wait until HDTV becomes REMOTELY mainstream before I even consider annything more.
I think you'll change your mind once you've seen porn shot in HD.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I think you'll change your mind once you've seen porn shot in HD.
That's a somewhat scary thought tcg
Originally posted by buckeye
1. Why are you buying equipment at Wal Mart?
2. In January I bought a 27inch HD Ready TV for just over $500 and upgraded to HD Digital cable for another $10 a month. That's cheap.
Wake up. HD is here.
wow ok--hd in southern indiana costs like 50 bucks a month. damn. just one more reason to leave and never look back. ok i take back my comments.
cool gut:
Originally posted by shetline
There's got to be something wrong the math here:
UHDV = 4 * HDTV
UHDV = 6 * PAL
4 * HDTV = 6 * PAL
HDTV = (6 * PAL) / 4 = 1.5 PAL
HDTV is a lot better than a mere 50% resolution improvement over PAL. What I think they meant to say is UHDV is four times the resolution of HDTV, and HDTV is 6 times the resolution of PAL, making UHDV 24 times the the resolution of PAL.
A PAL broadcast, or rather an image in one of the 625-scan lines TV standards used along with PAL, B, G, I, D (the exception being Brazil, using PAL with the 525-linhes M standard), has each frame composed by 720 × 576 pixels, at a frequency of 25 frames per second.
A present high(est) definition broadcast has each frame composes by 1920 × 1080 pixels; assuming its use in lieu of PAL, that is in a country using 50 Hz AC (is there any such country with regular HDTV transmission today?), that could be a doubling of the frame rate: 50 frames per second.
So, if we count how many pixel are to be transmitted in one second, PAL's would be 10,368,000 pixels, and HDTV's would be 103,680,000 pixels, that is ten times more.
Even if the frame rate remained the same, that would still be five time more pixels.
Note that the ?CDfreaks? page only mentions ?4000 scan lines? without giving any information about actual image resolution or frame rate.
The propnent of UHDV, NHK, had pioneered HDTV in the nineteen-seventies, which at the time was supposed to be an analogue system, fully incompatible with any previous analogue TV standard (PAL or NTSC). ?Hi-Vision? or MUSE, it was also known, was proposed by NHK and the Japanese electronics manufacturers in the ninteen-eighties to the world broadcasting organisation, with the hope all would have to trash their old TVs and buy their new ones from Matsushita or Sony.
European states as well as electronics manufacturers (Philips, Thomson) were alarmed and scrambled to make their own analogue HDTV (with a limited upgrade path for existing PAL sets via a set top box). But the bigger market, the U.S. (which by the late eighties, was without much of a home electronics industry to speak of) decided to go for all-digital TV, which was actually a good idea although it seemd far-fetched to many at the time.
If UHDV is an evolution of current HDTV, it might have a future for the giant screens of the next-genration cinema theatres, but to become viable for home appliances it would first have to become dirt cheap.