Super High Definition TV is out...

[vipinkr3]

I could not believe it when I first read it...

Sharp (tv company) has produced a TV with a resolution of 7680 x 4320...

What do you call this???

I could not believe it...

Here is the source:

Sharp Makes World's First 7680 x 4320 Resolution LCD - Softpedia

Amazing... just amazing.. i just wonder what would be the movie experience on such a kind of tv...

[James81]

That's all well and good until they come out with SUPER MEGA ULTRA High Definition.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I don't own an HD TV or anything like that. It's all the same shows, just slightly clearer at a much higher cost, especially when you include the increased energy costs to render such a perfect image. Was television really so bad before all this came out? Why do we need to see the wrinkles on every news reporters' face??

[st33med]

It's highly unlikely that any shows or movies will come out to support this anytime soon mainly because the size for making a movie at that resolution is very unwieldy. HD movies are about 5 to 6 GB in size, so a "Super HD" movie would be about 4x that size -- 20 to 25 GB. If you are also looking for cable to support this format, that won't be likely at all because streaming that would require so much bandwidth that cable or even FiOS doesn't have.

[Lil Chris]

It's highly unlikely that any shows or movies will come out to support this anytime soon mainly because the size for making a movie at that resolution is very unwieldy. HD movies are about 5 to 6 GB in size, so a "Super HD" movie would be about 4x that size -- 20 to 25 GB. If you are also looking for cable to support this format, that won't be likely at all because streaming that would require so much bandwidth that cable or even FiOS doesn't have.

Actually, blu ray is about 30 gigs in size. So I would say 4 times that... Cable and Fios doesn't have those speeds "yet". Google ultra high speed internet is coming to kansas city and is reported to have 1000mb download speeds (gig download could probably handle it)

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Actually, blu ray is about 30 gigs in size. So I would say 4 times that... Cable and Fios doesn't have those speeds "yet". Google ultra high speed internet is coming to kansas city and is reported to have 1000mb download speeds (gig download could probably handle it)

They don't fill up the whole entire blu ray with the film however.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by vipinkr3

I could not believe it when I first read it...

Sharp (tv company) has produced a TV with a resolution of 7680 x 4320...

What do you call this???

I could not believe it...

Here is the source:

Sharp Makes World's First 7680 x 4320 Resolution LCD - Softpedia

Amazing... just amazing.. i just wonder what would be the movie experience on such a kind of tv...

Seems kind of worthless until there is actually something to watch on it that comes in that high of definition.

Still... I would love to play some console games on that thing.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Seems kind of worthless until there is actually something to watch on it that comes in that high of definition.

Still... I would love to play some console games on that thing.

Problem is you probably would have Xbox 1 graphics at max because well... there isn't any graphics card to my knowledge that can handle that resolution and draw hundreds of polygons at the same time.

[desertrat]

I got my tv about 2 yeard ago just so the tuner would work with the new broad cast standerds. I think there are 2 analog ch. still on the air. I think thoes are in Spanish (Phoenix market) . The tv works fine. The haft to make stuff better and better to sell new stuff . desert rat

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by st33med

Problem is you probably would have Xbox 1 graphics at max because well... there isn't any graphics card to my knowledge that can handle that resolution and draw hundreds of polygons at the same time.

Yeah maybe the next generation of consoles will be able to come up with something. Nintendo's next console comes out sometime around Q4 2012 but I don't know if it will be a high definition console or just another low-tech thing like the Wii.

[alexb5784]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Yeah maybe the next generation of consoles will be able to come up with something. Nintendo's next console comes out sometime around Q4 2012 but I don't know if it will be a high definition console or just another low-tech thing like the Wii.

I hope Nintendo comes out with something that plays Blu-Ray movies. Plus it would be nice to play 3D games. Wait, I think you can already do that on the DS but not the Wii.

Anyway, does anyone remember the consule Virtual Boy? It came out around, I think 1994 or 1995. It was the first 3D video game system. I was about 13 years old and begged my parents NOT to buy it for me. The games were in Red and Black 3D environments. I played the system twice but it hurt my eyes.

Anyone had one or I were thinking about buying it? Dude that system was crappy!

[wstein]

Who cares about HDTV? My computer needs a better monitor

[ragtag]

Full HD is 1920x1080 or 2073600 pixels, while this monster is 7680x4320 or 33177600 pixels, which is 16 times bigger. And if you get one with 3D support, you can multiply that number by 2.

I hope that screen doesn't become popular any time soon, as the amount of data needed in post-production that will be needed is insane. A typical feature film as a non-lossy compressed high bitrate .dpx sequence, generally clocks in at around 1.5T (that's 1536Gigabytes), multiply that with 16 and you have 24T for one copy of a film. As a minimum you'll need one copy you read in, and one you render out again, which ends up around 48T...but more likely you'll be using 1.5 to 2 times that. So you'll need a raid with at least 72T that can output around 6 gigabytes a second for real time playback. It ain't gonna be cheap. Of course, you could always work on lower resolution proxies, and only use the full res files for rendering, which wouldn't require real-time playback.

A typical digital copy that gets shown in cinemas (dcp), is around 125G, and would be around 2T in this high resolution, which can actually fit on a single USB disk....so it's not that bad.

[Cado]

Man, I'm still using an old CRT tv because I don't see the point in current HD tech. At least they're too concerned with pushing 3D right now to bother with an even higher HD format. I know my gaming hobby has always been expensive but this is getting a -tad- ridiculous.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Cado

Man, I'm still using an old CRT tv because I don't see the point in current HD tech. At least they're too concerned with pushing 3D right now to bother with an even higher HD format. I know my gaming hobby has always been expensive but this is getting a -tad- ridiculous.

My only reason is lack of discretionary funds. Plus I know there will be a snowball effect. New flatscreen will make me want new surround sound, then a new HD video camera, which means new editing software, which will require a computer hardware upgrade......

[Johnny Metal]

You all need to get outside to watch the sunset, I haven't seen such amazing 3D graphics anywhere.

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Johnny Metal

You all need to get outside to watch the sunset, I haven't seen such amazing 3D graphics anywhere.

Yeah! I live on the west coast, so I see that show frequently. I have actually seen the green flash more than once.

[Mynder]

You know, I actually welcome this. I saw a few ultra high resolution displays on a trade show which were used for geographical stuff, map making etc. - it's amazing how crisp and readable even small text was.

Plus, we don't complain about sharp and crisp text on paper (did anybody not welcome higher resolution printers?), so why would I be unhappy about extremely high resolution displays?

I'm going to postulate that this is going to continue until we have displays where you can get up close to them and are simply unable to distinguish neighboring pixels anymore - and this is a good thing!

And eventually, it will drive new storage and transfer technologies to feed these monsters - I've been waiting for hard disks to become obsolete for a few years now...and seeing the growing amounts of data on my own box, and the still-less-than-awesome transfer speeds, there is a certain amount of yearning involved (yes, SSDs are faster than mechanical disks, and I own one, but they're just a temporary fix).

So...I'm welcoming this. Fun to come.

Edit: oh, and for 3D computer games...it will really make a difference in how far you can see, because distant objects will still be much clearer and crisper, too (once the computing power catches up to rendering at such a high resolution and viewing distance).

[LostMyMap]

Originally Posted by Mynder

(once the computing power catches up to rendering at such a high resolution and viewing distance).

There working on it Intel's 3D Transistor: Why It Matters | PCWorld

[Rezzy7]

I'm with Mynder...I welcome and embrace the most rapid pace of technological advancement possible!

I anxiously waited 12 years (or more) for HDTV (from when it was first announced it was coming) because even as a teen I considered the image quality of standard broadcast tv to be extremely poor. It's been "good enough" for most people, but I don't like good enough. I want detail, clarity and color fidelity when I watch a movie, play a game, and yeah, even watching the news.

[Cado]

My only concern with rapid technological advancement is cost. Look at today's games and yes they're amazing but they cost millions upon millions of dollars to make and only a slim percentage of $60 titles actually make a profit. Now, this is more a problem with the game industry's business model (read: sell every product in every niche for the same damn price) but for the games that can be made cheaper, that don't use all a console's bells and whistles, they wouldn't even begin to tap into the power that's available to them.

That's now, with current tech. I know it's one industry and this is one art form, but I can't imagine it's the only industry that would have trouble coming up with a sustainable business model under pressure of even more rapid technological advancement.

[Rezzy7]

$60 is quite a lot to pay for 1 game, but partly they try to justify it based on the (perceived) entertainment value. Blu-ray movies are another: Many studios are including the regular DVD and a disc with a "digital copy", both of which I would prefer they leave out and lower the price by $5. I will never, ever want the either of those. It's the video version of supersizing.

But with advancing tech there also comes lower prices, eventually. Sony announced a Playstation branded 3D tv package at a price that's more affordable than previously possible.

[StuartPE]

This is how the corporations keep us consuming. Sure there are legitimate improvements to be made. But this kind of thing is why we have such a screwed up planet right now. When will it ever end? Do you REALLY NEED that kind of detail? Of course not. Focus on value creation instead of consumption.

[openeyes]

I'm waiting for a holodeck.

[invisiblehouses]

Originally Posted by StuartPE

This is how the corporations keep us consuming. Sure there are legitimate improvements to be made. But this kind of thing is why we have such a screwed up planet right now. When will it ever end? Do you REALLY NEED that kind of detail? Of course not. Focus on value creation instead of consumption.

Exactly. I've been asking myself that question a lot over the last year or so, and over and over I come up with a resounding "NO." I'm at a point where there honestly isn't much I can think of that I even want. On a materialistic level, at least.

I already find the level of detail in a Blu-Ray movie distracting. I don't like it...it's like everything is in super-deep focus, from the face of the actor in the middle of the shot to the logo on the t-shirt of an extra a hundred yards in the background. Why do I need to see that?

In other words, you couldn't run fast enough to give me one of these hi-def gadgets. Most of the few remaining things I like to watch are in fuzzy old monochrome analog anyway. I think The Twilight Zone looks beautiful no matter what you watch it on, and the stories are what matters anyway.

[Mynder]

But the problem is not in the technology itself. It is in "always needing to have the best and the newest, and life balance be damned, I'm going to mortgage my soul for it".

I still have an old CRT TV in my living room, and it will stay as long as it functions reasonably well. When it goes out, though, I'm going to do a bit of research and see what the optimum specs seem to be at the limit of what I can reasonably spend on it.

And if you make enough to always buy the latest and greatest...well, your old stuff ends up SOMEWHERE, doesn't it? Meaning some price-aware person is probably going to get a reasonably good bargain, too.

What's more of a problem is, is that owing to the short lifecycle and technology turnaround times, devives are no longer built to last. If it serves the three years of manufacturer warranty, that's usually good enough (for them). By the time it fails, there's bound to be some new "latest and greatest" technology on the block.

But what are the alternatives?

[EternalOne]

Originally Posted by vipinkr3

Sharp (tv company) has produced a TV with a resolution of 7680 x 4320..

Where does it stop? Holographics?

[aussieNickuss]

Originally Posted by ragtag

I hope that screen doesn't become popular any time soon, as the amount of data needed in post-production that will be needed is insane. A typical feature film as a non-lossy compressed high bitrate .dpx sequence, generally clocks in at around 1.5T (that's 1536Gigabytes), multiply that with 16 and you have 24T for one copy of a film. As a minimum you'll need one copy you read in, and one you render out again, which ends up around 48T...but more likely you'll be using 1.5 to 2 times that. So you'll need a raid with at least 72T that can output around 6 gigabytes a second for real time playback. It ain't gonna be cheap. Of course, you could always work on lower resolution proxies, and only use the full res files for rendering, which wouldn't require real-time playback.

They sure are big numbers, but remember, it was probably only about 15-20 years ago (maybe even less) that those same numbers in GB units seemed astronomical.

I reckon in less than 10 years, a 72TB RAID with throughput of at least 6BG/sec would be considered "normal", just like 1TB or even 2TB drives are now considered to be a normal capacity when only a few years ago, they were huge.

[Mynder]

Capacity is growing faster than throughput, though. :-(

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by aussieNickuss

I reckon in less than 10 years, a 72TB RAID with throughput of at least 6BG/sec would be considered "normal", just like 1TB or even 2TB drives are now considered to be a normal capacity when only a few years ago, they were huge.

This is unlikely - as it stands now the number of atoms used to store a bit in a hard drive is pretty low. Something on the order of 10s of atoms/bit. It's simply impossible to continue exponential growth in storage capacity without a radical change in what the storage medium is to something with more atoms than a magnetic platter.

Just like moves to smaller semi-conductor processor geometries are no longer facilitating clock speed increases (and haven't for, what, 5 years?), the growth curve for hard disk drives is about done.