Talk:Ultra High Definition Video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Clean Up

Clean up is needed for this page. The graphic covers up part of the text.

[edit] Motion Sickness

Is the part about Motion sickness verifiable? Questioning validity since none of the links/sources had that in.

I've seen this referenced in multiple places, but never in a rock-solid-reliable source. That doesn't mean it's not true, however. See here for more info: http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=8067

I don't know if this qualifies as a 'rock-solid-reliable source' but I remember in an NHK news broadcast (Nov/Dec last year) there was a report covering a test screening of this new technology, and they showed footage of a few audience members who looked a little 'queasy'...! PantsCorp 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I have found what I think is the reference for this. In 2004 the developers of UHDV published an article in Broadcast Technology in which they wrote:

"While large, wide-screen images present a stronger sensation of reality or sensation of immersion to a viewer, a concern is that watching such moving pictures might cause a sort of motion sickness. ... It is thought that a thorough examination must be made on motion sickness induced by watching moving pictures, to ensure that TV system doesn't have undesirable effects."

I suspect this was the source of the whole thing. I am going to delete the reference to motion sickness. Martin.leese 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

People may have been feeling 'queasy' but the notion that their motion sickness was caused by the image being "too good" is a tenuous hypothesis to say the least. The space that the image occupied in their field of vision may have had an impact but it is unlikely that the resolution would play any part. People got sick watching Blair Witch, right?

This is again anecdotal, but the same effect is supposed to have happened with an iMAX film of a roller coaster ride down a mineshaft. I never saw the film, but did see the trailer; I can perfectly believe people started throwing up. As this poster suggests, the problem is a combination of a very large sceen and motion into it, and not the suggestion of the next poster of 60 Hz flicker.Martin.leese 04:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My suspcion would be the 60 frames per second flash rate as HDTV has reportedly caused seziures as have videogames and computer displays for years. Turrets <sp?> sezure disorder can be caused by fluorecent lights let alone UHDTV. Subcronic autism may be reveiled by this stuff, heck maybe it can be linked to the vaccine record to see which ones had the most damage. April Fools???

“The UHDV format offers 4,000 horizontal scanning lines, HDTV offers 1,000 and standard broadcasts using the NTSC format offer 480 lines out of a possible 525.”

No, 525 lines are not possible on analogue NTSC. Instead, the remaining 40 (or 45) lines are reserved for timing purposes, as CRTs need a vertical retrace. Also, HDTV has 1080 visible lines out of 1125, not 1000. -- Sloyment 20:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

22.2 audio? Even if I could afford 24 speakers, the magnetic field would wipe all my videotapes!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee M (talk • contribs).

So that's what they use on the bridge of the Enterprise!

Is UHDV the same as 4K Scanning, or can it be? 4000 is so close to 4320, it'd be a shame to not just make them the same vertical resolution. Otherwise, someday watching a 4K scan of an (by then) old movie on a UHDV display would result in an image that wasn't pixel for pixel identical for vertical resolution, and/or would have slight letterboxing of 160 pixels on the top and bottom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.115.125 (talk • contribs).

No, 4k is 4096x2160. The "4k" refers to the horizontal resolution, not the vertical res. So a UHDV screen would actually be capable of showing an 8k image (~8000x4000)! The Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) spec only goes up to 4k at the moment, so UHDV would be better than DCI! Dan AKA Jack 26th Sept 2005 16:41

Um, I thought UHDV was a joke? Can anyone verify that this article isn't an April's Fool's type affair? Dan AKA Jack 26th Sept 2005 16:41

[edit] 24 speakers?

Ugh. Why should we use 24 speakers? I think that 5 speakers is more than enough to produce 3D audio. Henri Tapani Heinonen 11:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Depends how you define 3-D. 5.1 speakers only gives you horizontal. There are easier ways of getting full-sphere than 22.2 (see Ambisonics), but five speakers in a ring wont do it. Martin.leese 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NHK once said that it was meant for theatres. Wuffyz

Actually, 4 speakers is only needed. But it would be really hard to EXACTLY let the audio come from the front, sides, up, down and so on. Diagonally however 4 speakers is enough.

[edit] April Fool's Joke?

Strongly suspect this is an april fools joke.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.138.233.121 (talk • contribs).

Hmm, me too. Can anyone prove it's real? If not, we should edit the main page to state that this is an April fools joke. I would suggest that we do *not* delete it though because it's important to inform people of April-fools jokes. Dan aka jack 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not an April Fools joke. I've added a enternal link to the article to NHK's specs on the technology that should remove some doubt. Also keep in mind NHK began developing and testing the original HDTV format back in the eighties, so even though the UHDV specs seem a bit excessive, these things take time to become commonplace... :~)
Over on 22.2 I have included a link to a review of the demo at NAB 2006. The system has also been demonstrated at Expo 2005. Clearly not an April Fool's joke.Martin.leese 05:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
One question for more veteran Wikipedian's though - the specific UHDV page on NHK's site is buried within a frameset, so the link I provided for this article points to the parent page/frameset instead. From here, readers would need to click Super Hi Vision from the left-hand menu.
Is this the preferred Wikipedia style? Or should I link directly to the content (or add Select 'Super Hi Vision' from menu text after the article link)? Thanks in advance... PantsCorp 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Figured I'd just put in my $.02. Although when it comes to video one might think of UHDV as excessive, I can easily imagine it not being enough. Someday we'll have OLED and some even more advanced display technology covering entire walls and that would mean UHDV pixels could be about a half millimeter square. Plenty for video, but a bit large for virtual wallpaper, virtual clocks, digital picture frames, and for a section to act as a computer/video display. And when you think about the resolutions required for effective electronic replacement of large print magazine or a sheet of newspaper, UHDV may be quite inadequate. UHDV may be as high as you'd ever need to go for video, but compared to the resolutions required by some future applications, it may not be nearly enough.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.112.233 (talk • contribs).

Isn't 1080p enough? After a certain point the eye can not physically see any more resolution. When will the marketing madness end?--God Ω War 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't be so quick to write off human vision. While it's true at a sufficient distance even the lowest resolution display will equal the potential of human eyes, at regular viewing distances even UHDV might not be there. I've read about some supercomputing displays that can equal human vision, but they did it with walls of regular LCD's or projectors. Matching that is a tall order. Ask yourself, what resolution at what distance is needed to equal what an astronaut sees looking down on the earth from space?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.112.17 (talk • contribs).

Without my glasses I can't even tell the difference between SDTV and HDTV unless i'm 3 feet away from the screen.--God Ω War 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "human vision" makes the unstated assumption that it's actually the peak of human vision, not what you might have before you put on your glasses. If you can't tell the difference between HD and SD with corrected vision, you must be looking in the wrong direction. Based on what I've seen of HD (admittedly mostly in electronics stores), I'm sure I could see the quality difference of UHDV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.118.227 (talk • contribs).

The resolution of the eye over saccades is 400mp. UHD is only 33mp. HD is only 2mp which is close to reality at the corner of your eye. And SD is about 300kp. Maybe if you were standing about 40 feet away from a 40" UHD TV, you would not be able to see any more resolution from it. Wuffyz 05:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applications other than video?

Yes! With two of these displays stacked on top of each other I can finally play Metroid without scrolling! [1]

But seriously, what applications other than just video are they looking into for this? Video is only a small part of the potential for such displays. Someday it'd be cool to have a >70" wall of OLED of this resolution in front of me with difference sections acting as current multi-display setups do for high end multi-tasking.

And about video, what film stocks can equal the resolution of UHDV or will most UHDV be CGI? I suspect IMAX justifies UHDV, though the sky's the limit when it comes to CGI sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.112.17 (talk • contribs).

This isn't even close to touching IMAX, and it's too high for 35m (Imagine 16mm on 1080p).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.5.41.254 (talk • contribs).

Actually IMAX digital resolution is 5616 x 4096, so UHDV would be fine for it. I suppose if IMAX film was given the same treatment that 35mm is given for 4K scanning, then a higher res. would be justified. What I want to know is if there's been any attempt at creating a UHDV display with nine 30" 2560x1600 or sixteen 23" 1920x1200 or four 3840x2400 LCD's. If "surgery" was perfomed on the LCD's by some real professionals, how small could the gap between displays be reduced to?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.254.114.118 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 8k Digital Cinema

What is 8k Digital Cinema? Is it higher resolution than UHDV? UHD has 7000+ vertical lines (horizontal pixels) and 8k must have 8000+ vertical lines.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.226.245.75 (talk • contribs).

As said before, 8k means horisontally.

[edit] Audio Sampling Rate

--24.2.82.167 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)What is the sampling rate for the audio for UHDV? (Examples: 44,100 samples per second, 192,000, etc.) Or is it already specified and I was just too dense to notice it? It's not in the "Super-Hi Definition's main specifications" box near the top of the page, is it? Also, while I'm at it, what would be the bit resolution? (Ex: 16 bit, 24 bit, 32 bit...) Sorry for such trivial and stupid questions...the suspense is killing me though! (Hope it's not already in the article, that would be embarressing.) :{ If it is already in there, my justification is it was probably stated in a manner that went over my head. Thanks, guys. P.S. Is this the right place to ask a question like this? I'm kind of new to Wikipedia's talk pages and I didn't know if this was relevant or if it belongs somewhere else. :)

[edit] MPEG-2 Compression vs. Resolution

The article states:

"If 1920×1080p60 high definition video has a bitrate of 60 Mbit/s using current MPEG-2 compression technologies, then 4 times the width and 4 times the height will roughly require 16 times the bitrate, which translates to 100 GB for 18 minutes of UHDV, or 6 GB per minute if MPEG-2 video compression was used."

This, however, is incorrect. Compressed data rates do not scale linearly with resolution. Most of what we look at in a recorded film or video image is repeating or monotonous, and at some point all patterns break down and become large patches of color. Unless the marketing folks were to demand that all UHDV shots be of nauseatingly high-detail scenes (like large event stadiums where thousands of spectators are at an equal distance from the camera, and thus all in focus), much of the information in each frame would be highly related to the previous frame, as well as including large areas of nearly-solid colors which can easily be compressed to the MPEG equivalent of "draw a big huge blue square and add a smooth gradient of white tapering off at the top left corner" rather than the uncompressed equivalent of "draw five thousand pixels of varying shades of blue and white at these five thousand locations." Either one represents a portion of a sky image. One could go further in designing a UHDV codec by experimenting with larger macroblocks and longer motion vectors, though this would increase processing power requirements even more.

To sum up, even MPEG-2 would make short work of UHDV video.

So I'll let someone else edit this. I am nitrogen 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added this note to the "Capacity" section: "(These numbers assume compressed data rates scale linearly with resolution. They do not, so actual compression numbers would be much better.)" I don't really understand why this section is there at all. The system is for theatres, not the home, so a discussion of non-existant disc technologies is pretty irrelevant. Martin.leese 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/l/t/Talk%7EUltra_High_Definition_Video_681e.html"