Super Hi-Vision Makes Your HDTV Obsolete Already

[Garfunkel]

hehe yep!

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php


You think your HDTV is impressive? Your HDTV sucks. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it's no longer cutting edge. 1920x1080? Please. Japanese broadcaster NHK has come up with what they call Super Hi-Vision, and it puts HD to shame with an insane resolution of 7680x4320. Yeah, that's the equivalent of 16 HDTVs crammed into one. Like I said, your HDTV sucks.

That's not all: The viewing distance can be four times as close as HDTV (.75 times the screen height versus 3 times the screen height for HDTV). Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending), you won't need to toss your HDTV for a SHV set anytime soon. That humungous resolution requires an insane 24Gbps stream for broadcast, which is nowhere near what we're currently capable of. Furthermore, they just developed the first sensor for cameras so they can actually, you know, shoot video at that resolution, but there's still a lot of work to be done. Seeing that NHK are the dudes who developed HDTV in 1969, it might be a while before these things start ending up in living rooms.
http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/05/NHK-SHV.jpg


Apparently, according to other sources: "The impressive numbers don’t end there – an uncompressed SHV stream weighs a massive 24Gbps, which is impossible to broadcast. Accordingly, NHK has used MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 to squeeze the data into a 128Mbps stream that’s still six times fatter than current HD broadcasts."

bit of a catch 22, we knew of that, and we knew it was coming but i wanna see it in motion!

[Viper]

Those would make excellent monitors for sports stadiums and concerts.

[VG Aficionado]

*throws his HDTV through the window*

[Garfunkel]

Those would make excellent monitors for sports stadiums and concerts.

Agreed! but getting the panels to be huge at the same time might be a challenge for the first few years of actually getting the bandwidth required to send this kind of signal.

*throws his HDTV through the window*

NOOOOO!!!! you bastard! why didn't you give it to me!!! GAAAAHHHHH!!!

[Viper]

Multiple sets of ATi HD2900XTX's in Crossfire could do it.

[Garfunkel]

yep, by the time it is available we should have something that will put sli/crossfire arrays to shame in a single slot configuration.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Lets see, four dual-link DVI connections for bandwidth or an optical link, ocular implants to distinguish the resolution, and bears, oh my.

In other news the R600 was a disappointment, I hope the refresh fixes the many problems along with a decent xp driver from DAAMIT(AMD/ATI).

[Viper]

With minimal spacing of the pixels, you could essentially have a monitor with a resolution so fine that it completely fools the eye.

Those window life like monitors we see in movies may not be too far off......for those with deep pockets I mean.

[=NukeBlaze=]

The dot pitch of most LCDs are average at best.

SEDs and OLEDs are the way forward for pitch minimization.

[Dralor]

And by deep pockets you mean Bill Fucking Gates:-p

[Viper]

The dot pitch of most LCDs are average at best.

SEDs and OLEDs are the way forward for pitch minimization.

Tell me they aren't relegating this to just an LCD monitor.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Oh, I hope not.

It will probably be just whatever display tech it is achievable on.

To fit that many pixels on an LCD monitor for a PC setup, you would need a small pixel pitch on LCDs, and to my understanding there is a trade off between LCD crystal size and function.

[Viper]

I've read the same. I wasn't even thinking LCD's while reading of this. There are so many new display technologies being developed it's really hard to keep up. Even water is supposedly being used as a major component for one project.

What I'm hoping for is that resolution isn't being limited to just an increase in TV size. It's the detail in same principle as newspaper printing and other print media. The smaller the dot matrix the more detail available in the same size image.

Combine this display technology, and the bandwidth required, with HVD and we could have a truly incredible visual experience.

We'd need a Hasselblad camera to give it justice with pictures though and at $30.000 I'm not sure I'm ready to spend that much on a camera.

[Garfunkel]

Viper, i wasn't thinking LCD either, by the time this tech can be used i expect oled/sed to be in full force for a while prior, they wouldn't have developed this for LCD's solely, that would have been DUM! They obviously thought ahead and will use this on oled/sed and take advantage of the lower dot pitch.

[Boggy700]

...ocular implants to distinguish the resolution...
Sure, if you actually want to see pixelation.

[Garfunkel]

no, he meant to tell the difference between 1080p and this.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Boggy:
Sure, if you actually want to see pixelation.

Aye, sarcasm it is. In the future though, you could achieve higher densities than cone/rods in the natural eye, the trick is in the electro-bio translation back to "da brain".

Its interesting though, the eye is composed of about 2% by number of cones which are blue receptive, compared to the red and green cones which share a ~ 64/32 percent split by number. If you look at the sensitivity, its is strange that the eye's reaction to blue light shares a simmilar senstivity to both red and green, but a large deficite in comparable number.

[Viper]

Is that due to wavelength of the light waves perhaps? if say an equal number ow waves can hit the cones/rods in a given amount of time despite the number of receptors, it would still give an equal number of actual points of perception.

Again that's dependent on the wavelengths varying to the same degree.

[Garfunkel]

yay for science!

[=NukeBlaze=]

Here is a nice article with some pictures of cone distribution.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v24/n2/full/ng0200_99.html

It is not fully understood the large difference of numbers and patterns of the cones, yet the eyes have similar sensitively to both red/blue/green, with a peak in green which is fitting because our sun peak around 500nm in light emission, and green is centered about 510nm. I think it interesting the the optics of the eye begin to absorb ultraviolet as the wavelength shrink below blue and violet.

[Viper]

I don't recall the oddity with such a limited blue reception, though I don't doubt it either, but that was my initial reaction if ti were perhaps related to the wavelength of each of the three primaries.

I'll take a look at that tomorrow.

If 510 is green, makes you thin k why we see it as yellow. Or even why it's even classified as a yellow dwarf as in our natural perception o fit despite the natural projection at near 510 nm's.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Well, a problem with the human eye is that a lot of the color interpretation is based on the intensity of the light, which is dictated by the absorption patterns of the cones in the eye. Green detecting cones have a range of sensitivity, and a peak at which they trigger a signal, as well do the rest of the cones.

If you look at the sun, you would be hard pressed to distinguish color because you eye is saturated across all cones. The rods, which look at just amounts of light instead of a color function, would also be saturated. Hence it is practically white when eyes observe it.

Be careful though of looking at the sun in the setting sky and saying "Look, its definitively yellow!". It is an artifact of the fact that longer wavelengths of light(yellow, orange, red) bend in the atmosphere at greater angles than shorter (green/blue/purple) in an air prism of sorts. The sun spits out a large spectrum of light( hence white), it just happen to peak in intensity around green.

Here is an example of an eye's cone sensitivity curve.

http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/images/6dimg3.gif

They peak, but they also absorb over a wide range.

[Garfunkel]

...smartass...

[Viper]

I've seen the curve graph before which is why I asked if wavelength may play a role.

I just realized that what we speak of and what the topic is is quite different.


Considering this, are blue/cyan wavelengths adjusted on monitors or ias that as user selectable setting like the color temperature setting?

[Garfunkel]

yeah, i would also like to know that, though i doubt it.

[=NukeBlaze=]

The "kelvin" system on monitor temperature is based off of black body radiation.

What black body radiation is, is a container, which is not clear "black", save for a little hole to probe the light inside for a given temperature, so light output it depending on temperature, as well the sun has a "K" blackbody profile for about 5800K, or a whitish yellow on this scale.

Essentially, the K system is a simplified way of looking at colors by knowing that in a black body, higher temperature yield lights with higher energies, hence blue, while lower temperature yield lower energy light: red/orange. A more precise measurement is looking how each wavelength contribute to the color spectroscopy of the light(Separation of the wavelengths, like rainbow of sorts to examine the light).


So, does changing the K setting on a monitor change the wavelength? Well, considering a CRT monitor has three types of phosphors (RGB), and the phospers emit at a peak and range of color, I suppose you could say that adjusting the electron beam's intensity with K settings would just increase the spectrum curve, so the color temperature would change the color distribution of the light from the monitor.

I was looking up some CRT phosphor curves, here is a wiki pic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CRT_phosphors.png

For our eyes, its all about the color balance.