"Ultra HD Signal; 16 Times Better Than HDTV"

[boweyang]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

"A single minute of Super Hi-Vision footage would require 194 GB of storage."

Hello! Can you imagine the media that this would need to store an entire movie?

"To help ease that burden, NHK is enlisting the help of ATEME, a provider of MPEG-4 and H.264 solutions, to compress the 7680 x 4320 "Ultra HD" video – creating a new video standard."

Can you imagine the amount of compression needed to make this even manageable for a storage medium?

7680 x 4320 = 33177600

So isnt that like 33 megapixels or something for one still frame?

[Digital Filmmaker]

I have seen this format demonstrated first-hand twice over the past two years.

It is absolutely breathtaking. It is to 1080 HD what IMAX is to Super 16mm film.

When you are watching it, you are not really consciously aware that you are looking at a projected image, but rather that you are looking through a large bay window at a live scene. It is that good.

The camera itself is quite large, but the outboard processors and gear is quite monstrous and certainly not in any way portable. I can imagine that over the next several years that the situation will change in the same way that HD cameras have shrunk from a large and quite heavy box to some models the size of a palmcorder in recent years.

[stockstar1138]

i read some where, can't find the source, that the human eye only sees 4000p from a standard viewing distance on a 50" screen, which would mean that normal viewers would not even be seeing full quality of this due to the fact that they naturally cannot process an image this clear with what God gave them.

[jubaiweaponx]

all I can say is yikes ,and its a long way off

[IamNhobdy]

While today’s best home theaters have 7.1 setups, the audio component paired with Super Hi-Vision is 22.2

Are they saying the new Home theater standard would be 22.2?
That's just unreasonable for anything other than a really large room/theater space. As a recording engineer I'm all for higher sampling rates and greater bit depth, but there's only reason to add more nearfields or subs and that's to fill the (acoustic)space of the room. 5.1 is insuficient in most newer stadium style movie theaters because of the size so the distance between the monitors becomes more obvious the farther apart they are(i.e. sounds jumping around the room instead of smoothe crossfades from monitor to monitor). The extra sub is to enhance LFE in these larger theaters. But how many living/bed rooms have enough space to justify 22 nearfield surround speakers and 2 subwoofers?
For most common rooms 5.1 is more than sufficient and for most larger rooms, 7.1 may be more than appropriate.

[Deciazulado]

8k would be nice for virtual reality. (What IMAX films try to do)

Now for most narrative films (you know the ones we watch with stories) I think about 4k (2000p) is about the practical limit. I think Showscan (70mm at 60fps) a better format than regular 35 or 70, tried.

If you want to check how much you can see, load this pattern on your native-resolution fixed-pixel display (hopefully it shows it at 100% response) and move back till it dissapears and then divide your required field of view with your screen's height and resolution.

(Example: if you have a 768 x 1024 12" high screen and at 2 feet you can't see the pixels and you want your "movie" screen to be 2 feet high and 4 feet wide from that vewing distance (probably fills most of your vision), that be 1536 x 3072 pixels (3k). Adjust numbers accordingly to your test resultts and your field of vision needs. There are other resolution patterns that might give better or worse results)

[Helicon]

Originally Posted by boweyang

7680 x 4320 = 33177600

So isnt that like 33 megapixels or something for one still frame?

That's insane.... 1080P is actually enough for most unless they have really big screens.