Japan to Promote Ultra High-Def TV

tvpredictions.com ^ | October 28, 2010 | Philip Swann

[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.

[DTogo]

Ugh, NHK, the "PBS" of Japan that attempts to charge individual users door-to-door for receiving reception. Aside from Sumo and Okasaasan to Issho (Together with Mom) if you have small kids, it's mostly boring old folk TV. "Ultra" HDTV via NHK sounds like gee-whiz technology funded by the Japanese Govt that well-connected private sector companies (Sony, Toshiba, Matsushita, etc) will get to sell to consumers with little else to do in their rabbit hutches.

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)

[Strk321]

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.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You sure? Much of what passes for comedy these days are fart and body odor jokes.

[Kellis91789]

It has nothing to do with the size of the image. What matters is the ratio of distance between viewer and screen to the size of the screen. At HD 1080p resolution, you can comfortably sit about 1:1 ratio from the screen. Try holding that 4x5 picture closer than 6 inches from your eye and you'll see the pixels. Sit closer than 5 feet away from a 60” screen and the pixel structure is distracting. Right now I'm sitting 10 feet away from my 120” 1080p TV. Sitting closer than 10 feet would expose the pixel structure. This UHDTV would allow for a more immersive viewing experience, where I'd be able to use a larger screen and actually have to turn my head to follow the action on the screen.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This UHDTV would allow for a more immersive viewing experience, where I'd be able to use a larger screen and actually have to turn my head to follow the action on the screen.

Drugs would do the same thing.

At a certain point, it IS the same thing.

[greatdefender]

If they have this on Ultra HD, I am definitely getting one !

[Publius6961]

Most FReepers don’t even understand, much less have, such technology.

You better never need an MRI, cuz if you can't understand the technology, you won't be allowed to use it.

[Nowhere Man]

Crap, does this mean I’ll have to buy another converter box for my 1982 Zenith?

[freedumb2003]

>>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.

:)

[freedumb2003]

I just grabbed my 3D glasses to take a closer look at your post!

[Nowhere Man]

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.

It's like the old argument I heard back in the 1980's on stereo systems. If you buy a $100 ghetto blaster, it sounds OK, but a $250 stereo system would sound a lot better. If you shell out $500, that system will even sound better than the $250 one. When you get to $1000, it sounds so great at that point. Now if you take it to $5000 to even $10,000, you will still get improvements but they are not as great sounding over the $1000 system as the $250 is over the ghetto blaster, the $500 over the $250 system or even the $1000 over the $500. There is a point you get to where you ask, "is it worth the money, computing power, bandwidth, effort," to get from 99% to 99.9%?

[giotto]

With that kind of resolution, why in the world couldn’t I use it as a computer monitor? I’m STILL waiting for integrated TV and internet.

[Nowhere Man]

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 can't wait for the new "Megamind" movie to come out in VHS or the next Michael Buble album to come out in 8-Track or reel-to-reel. B-D

[greatdefender]

Take your time because some details do require “through” investigation! ;p

[freedumb2003]

Take your time because some details do require “through” investigation! ;p

[Strk321]

As an example, DVDs were clearly a major step above VHS (except for not being rewritable), but Blu-Ray hasn’t done that well because it’s not as big an improvement.

DVDs will work on essentially any TV ever made (I saw a website where a guy was using one with a Dumont from 1948), plus any PC made in the last decade. Blu-Ray needs a 1080p HDTV to work properly (smaller sets are only 720p) and can’t be used in computers.

[Kellis91789]

I wouldn’t know. I’m not a drug user. But if that works for you, to each his own ...

[ProtectOurFreedom]

But will it finally cure banding, digital noise, “mosquitos” and other nasty digital artifacts? They make hi-def crappy compared to analog pictures.

[GraceG]

Why don’t they just make a computer that will hook directly into your visual cortex and feed that data directly into your brain......

It would save money on actually making the screen elements, just beware computer viruses....

[Trod Upon]

I was a skeptic until getting one. HDTV is fantastic for sporting events, and pretty much nothing else (maybe scenic travel and nature shows). Even so, I’m not sure I could discern the difference between regular hdtv and the ultra version though.