next-generation ultra high-definition video

[mr soft]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8aMIX26vE-3xAaOShwrMP54ExQA

I thought this was more general news as it´s in the future, I´m sure there could be other innovations before this is released.

[mitsubishi]

Drooled over that before. Info about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDTV

Surely in reality though it complete overkill for home use. 2160p has been talked about, which is more sane, but even still requires quite extreme viewing conditions.

I do like the sound (pun intended :p) of the 22.2 audio though!

TBH what I really want from the next generation of TV standards is an end to all the telecine nonsense and for TV and media to just be stored/transmitted at the correct framerate.

[Dr.Khron]

TBH what I really want from the next generation of TV standards is an end to all the telecine nonsense and for TV and media to just be stored/transmitted at the correct framerate.

Hear, hear, I couldn't agree more. A few years back I was also hoping that our current HDTV standard would repair the NTSC/PAL scism, and produce one coherent world-wide standard... I guess there are still too many analog TVs in the world to take that step.

Besides, I'd rather that they work on improving digitial compression within the boundaries of the curent HD standard: a trip through the flat-screen isle at Costco yesterday revealed many expensive TVs that have serious issues with artifacts and dithering...

Oh well, hopefully the next standard will have all of the above.

[scharfis_brain]

@Dr.Khron: how do you want to create a world standard?
That one would need to has 300fps to store 50 and 60fps without timing problems or lossy conversion involved...

[JohnnyMalaria]

@Dr.Khron: how do you want to create a world standard?
That one would need to has 300fps to store 50 and 60fps without timing problems or lossy conversion involved...

If only! NTSC has that stupid fractional frame rate that messes up everything!

[scharfis_brain]

I'd just neglect it, cause this shouldn't be visible when converting to 300 fps :p

[um3k]

This would be great on an Imax-sized screen.

[Inventive Software]

Dude, you'd need something double that resolution for Imax! :D

[reepa]

@Dr.Khron: how do you want to create a world standard?

How about multiple frame rates or a completely variable frame rate (each frame has its own duration value)?

[scharfis_brain]

How about multiple frame rates or a completely variable frame rate (each frame has its own duration value)?

How would you mix 50Hz and 60Hz contents then without converting at least one of them in a lossy way?

[mitsubishi]

How would you mix 50Hz and 60Hz contents then without converting at least one of them in a lossy way?

But surely it has to be done at some point anyway. I'm certainly no expert with stuff, but my understanding is say, an NTSC DVD containing 24p is either already telecined to 60i or uses soft-telecine to instruct the player to do it. PAL similary uses "2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3" or speedup.

So why cannot soft and hard telecine be removed altogether and just allow the device to choose, if it connected to a display device capable of 24p, send it as it, if it needs 50/60i, telecine it.

The same goes for HTDV (or HDTV2), obviously the reciever when recieving couldn't decide to speed up 24p to 25p like a hard copy player could.

I'm just saying telecining the delivered media isn't needed because the device can do it if require, or not if not required.

EDIT: I may be completely misunderstanding all of it, as I say I know little of this. But say I am watching an American TV shot at 60i shown in the UK, then it has to be converted at some point to be sent out as 50i. I would just think it would be better to shift that responsability to the reciever. then I can just watch at 60i and someone with a TV which cannot handle it has their reciever convert it without them even knowing. Although I used to play import Dreamcast games at 60hz and all the TV's I tried it on were happy.

[reepa]

How would you mix 50Hz and 60Hz contents then without converting at least one of them in a lossy way?

If by "mix" you mean something like picture-in-picture then you need frame rate conversion. Fortunately not many types of programs need that (the news is one example). What I mean is the ability to switch frame rates the same way you can switch resolution and aspect ratio on the fly depending on the program. Scenario: BBC news at 50Hz, American sitcoms at 60Hz, movie at 24Hz.

edit: Mitsubishi put it well. Keep the content at its original frame rate and let the receiver do the rest if needed. If the display device is locked at a fixed refresh rate, the receiver can do what computer games do: render a video frame into an offscreen buffer and when the display has finished drawing the current frame, copy the rendered frame into the onscreen buffer.

[scharfis_brain]

If you do only sequentially mixing of contents then you're idea of a timecode based standard will be okay.

But what about mixing - let's say a 50 fps & a 60 fps squence within a frame (eg. PIP, or a soft transition)

There you have to do a lossy conversion!

sure: 24p and 25p contents can easily converted without loss using speedup/slowdown or telecine.

But it is not lossless possible with 30p, 50Hz, or 60Hz contents...

[Inventive Software]

Having 100Hz and 120Hz capability in the same TV would, I think, make this possible.

[Shinigami-Sama]

how about this
72hz becomes the standard
all framerates have to be an even multiple of this number

interlace get neutered and tossed in the garbage where it belongs

we only have one colour matrix to use not the 600/700 BS which can be a pain in the ass to figure out unless you hit up some very specific search terms

[Doobie]

Full HDTV has the same resolution as a two megapixal camera. It's a huge leap over the old analogue NTSC, but far short of the sort of thing where a single frame has photographic quality.

[um3k]

Dude, you'd need something double that resolution for Imax! :D

Maybe so, but I think the 60p framerate of UHDTV would be enough of an improvement over IMAX's 24p to cancel out the lower resolution. Going by pixels per second, UHDTV is actually higher resolution than IMAX, weighing in at 7680x4320x60=1,990,656,000 pps, vs. IMAX's 10000x7000x24=1,680,000,000 pps (according to wikipedia). Of course, pixels per second isn't exactly an established unit of measurement, and doesn't take into account human perception. Personally, though, I find 24p on a ridiculously huge screen to look rather unpleasant.

[benjust]

Hear, hear, I couldn't agree more. A few years back I was also hoping that our current HDTV standard would repair the NTSC/PAL scism

indeed. i held similar hopes for DVD, then DVB.. finally Blu-ray seems to have 24fps support for film content.

but yes, it shouldn't bloody matter. video should be played as it was recorded - end of story. it's certainly technically possible (it's not even that hard).

so NTSC 60i recordings would be played back at half horizontal 60p, same method for PAL, film recordings at 24p..

interlacing and telecining should have been but a memory long ago.. unfortunately still just another bizarre weapon in the industries war on image quality.

[Shinigami-Sama]

interlacing and telecining should have been but a memory long ago.. unfortunately still just another bizarre weapon in the industries war on image quality.

QFT
+1
-stolen for sig-

that my friend
is a very huge pet peeve of mine
interlacing should have died ten years ago....

[Mug Funky]

i'd love to see a film scanner that could do 7680x4320!

the one i use maxes out at 6144x4668. maybe IMAX could get that high...

i'd love to see more dynamic range in TV sooner than i saw more pixels. what's the point of 7k that's full of banding and dancing blocks?

[2Bdecided]

Maybe so, but I think the 60p framerate of UHDTV would be enough of an improvement over IMAX's 24p to cancel out the lower resolution. Going by pixels per second, UHDTV is actually higher resolution than IMAX, weighing in at 7680x4320x60=1,990,656,000 pps, vs. IMAX's 10000x7000x24=1,680,000,000 pps (according to wikipedia). Of course, pixels per second isn't exactly an established unit of measurement, and doesn't take into account human perception. Personally, though, I find 24p on a ridiculously huge screen to look rather unpleasant.
Very true, so why not 100fps or higher?

Sadly, many producers would degrade it to 24p or 25p, just like they do with current 50i, 50p, 60i, and 60p formats - to make it look like "film", even when it isn't. :(

Cheers,
David.