33 megapixel Super Hi-Vision (Ultra HDTV) could be on the air in 2015
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. Fortunately, some forward thinker in Japan's Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry -- that we are strongly considering as a write in candidate for the presidential elections -- is beginning a joint project with private companies to make this happen, beginning with a research investment of about $2.7 million this year alone. If you're still confused as to how much more res this is than anything you currently own, check out the handy chart after the break.
Filed under: Regulatory, Displays, OTA
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sean @ Jan 14th 2008 1:20PM
Go Japan! I love that country.
Nate Thelen @ Jan 14th 2008 1:50PM
Looking here: http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html and considering a standard distance of around 10 feet from the TV, you would need something like a 200 inch screen to be able to see 4K resolution, why would you ever need somethig like this? I guess if maybe that resolution was plastered over a 360 degree experience?
Michael @ Jan 14th 2008 2:59PM
Just think about what people were saying about High Def back in the day DVDs came out... I know most people I talked to thought DVD was the greatest picture they would ever need and didn't see any reason to have anything better.
In fact, many people out there still don't see a need for it.
Marrvia @ Jan 14th 2008 4:42PM
I will most likely have a 200 inch projection screen soon in my new house, since I dedicating a big rec room to my projector to make a nice home theater. So for me, this would be great. I'm sure you can tell the difference between Super Hi-Vision and HD even on a 30 inch screen, although it may be only a slight difference, and the bigger the screen gets, but bigger the difference. I can't wait for this technology, although I highly doubt it will be anywhere near mainstream in the next 10 years.
JeffDM @ Jan 14th 2008 5:29PM
That site makes assumptions that I don't think are true.
With correction, I have 20/20 vision, and on a 150" 1080p projected image, sitting 10ft away, I can see the narrow gaps between the pixel rows. I think 4k at 100" is still a visible improvement, and UHDTV at 200" is probably still a visible improvement. I've seen the NHK UHDTV demo on a 300" screen. The funny thing is that it had a single stuck pixel.
I think this assumption
"Based on the resolving ability of the human eye (with 20/20 vision it is possible to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc)"
Is based on the ability to see that two different shapes that size are indeed different (a square from a circle), which means that 20/20 human vision can probably resolve about 1/120th of a degree.
Andy Anonymous @ Jan 14th 2008 2:14PM
That's very nice for the Japanese. Given the time, money, and hassle that's been involved in the switch to digital TV here in the US, it's pretty hard to imagine the FCC being anxious to start work on yet another new standard...at least, for another decade or so.
TexRob @ Jan 14th 2008 2:21PM
Is it April Fools already? 22.2 ch sound? That is just stupid. That is merely for the sake of doing it, not because it is needed. My guess is, the way they really intended it, was 22.2 channels of available sound, which makes a little more sense. Then you can have 3-5 different languages simulcast in surround sound.
colek42 @ Jan 15th 2008 9:03AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2
Peter @ Jan 14th 2008 3:17PM
In all seriousness, do you guys have a larger resolution image of that display resolution chart?
Bob Sintas @ Jan 14th 2008 5:43PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video
Peter @ Jan 14th 2008 6:48PM
Thanks.
Ken @ Jan 14th 2008 5:42PM
I have spent time with the 1080p 71" LG plasma, and I can say for a fact that it would most certainly benefit from some more resolution at 'movie viewing distances'.
Especially when you consider the upcoming 75-85" displays, having 2160p (1080p x 2) or above would not be bad...if anything, to reduce the pixel size and visibility. Imagine the pixel size of a 42" 1080p display on a 84" display :-)
seanc @ Jan 14th 2008 7:23PM
You could arguably increase the pixel count and pixel density of the screen itself to increase the perceived definition without having to increase the video bandwidth. You then process the hell out of the video frame to make it look better on a higher pixel density display, especially when talking about 70" to 100" displays.
What you end up with is a picture that gets *fuzzier* as you get closer, as opposed to a picture that gets blockier.
Bob P. @ Jan 15th 2008 10:02AM
With the convergence of tv's and monitors higher resolutions are definately going to be needed. I have a 52" 1080P LCD tv which I use as a computer monitor and it's not big enough for me to read everything when I sit 10 ft away. 57" would be just about right, but when I tried it the picture looked worse since it didn't have good enough resolution. 2160P would be perfect for a 65"
VampireHunter Z @ Jan 15th 2008 10:40AM
Wow, looking at that chart 1080p is just PIP size. What sources of Digital Cinema are there? And I wonder how Super Hi-vision compares to something like IMAX?
I can see Quad HD taking off soon but this thing got a long way to go before it's mainstream.