Skip to comments.Japan to Promote Ultra High-Def TV
Posted on 10/31/2010 5:41:05 PM PDT by Las Vegas Dave
Japanese broadcaster NHK is planning public displays of its Ultra High-Definition TV system which supposedly offers a picture 16 times clearer than today's HDTVs.
That's according to an article by The Hollywood Reporter.
However, before you get too excited, the publication adds that it could be 2020 before you see UHDTV in anyone's living room.
Still, NHK says it will shoot some of the 2012 London Olympics in the format and then transmit the images to public displays in Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Hollywood Reporter writes that the ultra-clear picture delivers detail so precise that it almost appears three-dimensional. The format offers 8K resolution; 7,680 horizontal pixels x 4,320 vertical pixels, says the publication. Today's HDTVs deliver about 2,000 horizontal pixels.
One obstacle in UHDTV's way: To display the ultra-clear image, sets should be in the 80-90 inch range.
Now I have to go out and spend another 2000 bucks on a big screen TV!
Overkill. Most HD sports programs are actually broadcast in 720.
I still have a tube TV.
Amazingly, I can see and enjoy the broadcast images thereupon.
The distance from 99.95% quality and 99.999% to get the HD stuff is pretty small — much less the 99.99999% suggested by the technology in the OP.
If all you want to do with a camera, for instance, is make 4"x5" prints, a few megapixels is adequate.
Higher resolution TV is only relevant if you want a screen the size of your wall. A 32" screen it 1080i is about as hi-def as you're going to get.
A 55" screen at the same resolution is not nearly as clear, but 2160i would be.
Amazingly, I can see and enjoy the broadcast images thereupon.
The distance from 99.95% quality and 99.999% to get the HD stuff is pretty small
Not exactly sure how you came up with your percentages, but to suggest that there isn't much difference between standard-def and high-def television is a bit absurd.
Ha ha, I still haven’t bought a HDTV — I gave my space on the technology treadmill to somebody else a long long time ago.
It helps my wallet that nobody yet has actually built an HDTV where the frames always update properly. I can’t stand seeing a close-up where every part of the face changes expression independently over eight or nine frames.
$2000 in 2020?
More like $60,000 + obamataxes, may get you closer to ownership.
Remember when plasma TV’s first arrived on the market, they were close to $12,000, (but dropped in price very quickly).
Exactly. I’ll stick with what I have.
The real purpose would be to get expensive film out of motion picture production.
Great, we get to see even more wrinkles, blackheads and wild hairs on newscasters’ faces than with HDTV.
Short of some revolution in content, I fail to see the value of the expenditure.
This is going to put a lot of newscasters with acne out of work forever.
A lot of people’s vision (mine included) is not good enough to appreciate such ultra-high resolution.
So I think that this is a limited market, just as IMAX is/was. We'll be wearing HD glasses a decade before we'll be watching UHD.
It would probably be better than what passes for 3d today. However, true HD content today looks almost 3d.
I have a 13” color set from 1978 (complete with tuner dials) that I use sometimes. Got it from a thrift store some years ago. It’s fun to hook the digital cable box up to it and watch football.
Nothing against HDTV, but I still wish manufacturers hadn’t discontinued CRT TVs. They didn’t want to spend the money to put digital tuners in them (now a requirement).
>>Not exactly sure how you came up with your percentages, but to suggest that there isn’t much difference between standard-def and high-def television is a bit absurd.<<
“Absurd” is a bit over the top. I assure you my enjoyment of what I watch is excellent. So you posit a difference without a distinction. The measure of the experience is the enjoyment factor. If I enjoy the content then I am missing nothing.
>>Nothing against HDTV, but I still wish manufacturers hadnt discontinued CRT TVs. They didnt want to spend the money to put digital tuners in them (now a requirement).<<
I gave all my old portable tube TVs to relatives in Mexico. I did buy a HD receiver and a small portable HD TV just in case of emergency.
I understand why the FCC did what it did — those fat broadband frequencies were just begging for re-purposing. But it is and was a it of a pain in the tucas.
>>So I think that this is a limited market, just as IMAX is/was. We’ll be wearing HD glasses a decade before we’ll be watching UHD.<<
Next up: Direct access jacks behind our ears a’la The Matrix.
Bzzzt. Logic error. Why? Are pixels a minimum size? It's really a matter of data bandwidth limitations. Try downloading an 1080p movie. Now imagine a 4320p. It'll take a week.
A lot of the programming smells like week old fish.
How about ultra-low-definition? So it wouldn’t show stuff like the flies crawling on Obama’s face?
Sorry, HD shows me enough pimples and clogged pores now, don’t need it any clearer...thanks anyway.
A technology post on FR always brings out the Luddites in droves, especially if it’s about TV, computers or cell phones. This one does not disappoint.
I hate my HDTV. Its too clear. It makes every show look like it was filmed on home video cameras. It takes the warm golden color richness of movies like Harry Potter or Indiana Jones and makes them look like the video quality of Soap Operas.
Best way to describe it is like the over bright lighting in an old K-Mart or discount store with cheap white tile floors compared to the warmth of a soft light, hardwood floor Macy’s.
Couldn’t they just make my tube TV thin and 55”?
I felt like you until a few years ago - and now I wish I had switched sooner. Go to Walmart or COSTCO - and get a Vizio ... they're cheap - and it's time. You'll love it.
>>A technology post on FR always brings out the Luddites in droves, especially if its about TV, computers or cell phones. This one does not disappoint.<<
I have Slingboxes on both my DVRs and have watched TV from 30,000 feet (GOGO Inflight) as well as from countries all over the planet (UDP — what’s not to like?).
Most FReepers don’t even understand, much less have, such technology.
Back thirty years ago, I was an audiophile, and we were all in this pissing match on who had the best THD (Total Harmonic distortion). Finally realized that once you got to a certain level the ear couldn’t discern the difference. Looks like the same kind of deal.
Marginal difference is NOT worth the price.
Just like 3D TV, no market for it.....
Comedy fecal crap in HHD?
I stopped into Best Buy a couple of weeks ago to checkout the new 3D TV’s. Pretty freaking cool! However having to wear the glasses sucks, especially since they didn’t come with the TV and prices for the glasses alone started at $150 each.
From what the salesman was telling me, that particular technology was already dead with new models now coming out that don’t require the glasses.
Since I’m not a big sports watcher I think I’ll wait till more channels broadcast in 3D other than ESPN.
my eyes aren’t that good.
Oh, I would take NTSC artifacts (dot crawl and color bleed) any day over MPEG artifacts and signal breakup. The analog signals would fade, but they didn’t freeze and the sound didn’t cut out. The main advantage of digital TV is that it frees up bandwidth for HD transmission. HDTVs are also poor at handling standard-definition stuff unless you get an expensive upscaler box.
If you still want a traditional TV, you can try and get ahold of a CRT security monitor. There are still loads of them around and they’re basically just TVs without a tuner.
Agree with the 3D TV. But like the article says, if you have a really big 70"+ screen, this would make a noticeable difference. For the vast majority of smaller screens, not so much.
Dude, you’re obsolete, dude!
日本＊ピング＊ (kono risuto ni hairitai ka detai wo shirasete kudasai : let me know if you want on or off this list)
Wouldn’t work. Due to the limitations of glass-blowing, the biggest size you can make a CRT is 40”.
Can’t really make them slimmer, either. Bigger CRT TVs (above 19”) all used 100-degree picture tubes to cut down on bulk, but then the edge of the screen blurs because the electron beam travels at a more shallow angle than on 90-degree tubes.
Toshiba briefly (around 2007) had an ultra-short CRT TV with a 115-degree tube, but the picture quality was not very good and it was quickly discontinued.
You sure? Much of what passes for comedy these days are fart and body odor jokes.
Drugs would do the same thing.
At a certain point, it IS the same thing.
You better never need an MRI, cuz if you can't understand the technology, you won't be allowed to use it.
Crap, does this mean I’ll have to buy another converter box for my 1982 Zenith?
>>You better never need an MRI, cuz if you can’t understand the technology, you won’t be allowed to use it.<<
Ooff — had one a few weeks ago.. oh man, it doesn’t matter whether I understand it or not, it really sucks! I was creating code in my head and praying it would end soon — eyes tightly closed and breathing measured.
Everyone I know who has had an MRI has had the same claustrophobic reaction. And I hear tell the so-called “open air” MRI isn’t much better.
I was just reacting to the “Luddite” remark — we all bend technology to our will, but where we draw the lines is as varied as shells on the beach.
I just grabbed my 3D glasses to take a closer look at your post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.