Super Hi-Vision, also known as SHV, Ultra HDTV, 8K, and simply 4320p, is the future of high-def video. With a whopping 16 times more pixels than even 1080p, SHV is dangerously sharp, with lenses and TVs having to be freshly invented to do it justice. The tech is likely a decade away from wide adoption (and even then, probably not in the States), but progress is being made swiftly: The BBC and Japan's NHK teamed up this week for the first SHV broadcast to be made over the Internet, a performance by British band The Charlatans.
SHV, proposed as the next standard by the BBC, NHK, and Italy's RAI, is highly experimental--when it was demonstrated back in 2003, it used 16 separate HDTV cameras to capture the demo video. These days, there are three cameras, all developed by NHK, that can handle the video's insane 7680 x 4320 resolution, but for this broadcast, the NHK had to create a customized lens and a 103-inch plasma screen for viewers. Even that screen doesn't quite have the pixel density to display the video properly.
The bigger problem is moving that much data at a reasonable speed. To give you an idea of how much data we're talking about, a 20-minute video requires about four terabytes of space. Other SHV broadcasts have had to drastically compress video and audio to fit the constraints of the connection. SHV requires a lightning-fast 24Gbps link, which isn't widely available; a demonstration in 2006 compressed the 24Gbps down to 180-600Mbps (which, we should add, is still crazily fast compared to home Internet in the States. Verizon's FiOS only gets about 50-60Mbps, and that's several times faster than most cable services).
This was the first true SHV mock-broadcast, in that it actually used a 24Gbps link to beam the video from the UK to Tokyo. Here's a behind-the-scenes video from the BBC:
NHK hopes the format will start rolling out in bits and pieces, possibly with the first bits coming as soon as the 2012 Olympics, both for BBC archives and possibly for giant public screens. So how long before you can get Super Hi-Vision in your living room? NHK aims to start broadcasting by 2020--although that might be only in Japan, or other countries with equivalent Internet speeds. North America has been quite slow in improving broadband speeds, partly due to infrastructure, partly to cost, and partly because the US is a massive country. But hopefully we'll have excruciatingly sharp ultra-high-def broadcasts within a couple decades, because 1080p just feels so...insignificant, compared to 4320p.
Most digital movie theaters have a resolution of 2048×1080p, including all 3d theaters. This is just marginally better than 1920x1080p that you have in your home. Some better theaters use a much better 4096×2160p resolution but the mpaa wont let them use it in 3d (my guess is they want to ensure early adopters don't face compilation by new places offering higher quality service)
Personally I hate 24fps content usually shot for cinema it looks choppy and sucks extra bad when some director goes full retard and starts using shackycam.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is at some point increasing the number of pixels will bring a insignificant benefit to the viewing experience and we are probably getting pretty close to that point. We are quite commonly using the bear minimum frame rate and if you wanted to biggest bang to your buck to improve the experonce I would vote for developing 2160p content and displays to run a native (not interpolated) 120 or (for shutter 3d) 240 hz speed.
Gamers would be cursing the world if they had to be stuck at 24 fps so why is such poor quality acceptable with professional prerecorded content?
Fail hard, so hard, fail oh so hard. The human eyes can only see a specific resolution at a given distance and tv's can become only so big before they start taking up too much space and become a burden. This IMO is gonna be a huge waste of time and money.
And I doubt ill be sitting 6 inches from a screen to tell the difference anyways.
I'm only human, we will see what happens.
Dude stfu....go hate some where you have to be a woman only reason you would make that post... this is freaking awesome....my only beef is I don't have it now!!
@Delkomatic: I shouldn't even have to mention how idiotic your statement is.
But I will anyway. It's as idiotic as you are. Being a woman does not mean you can't appreciate or use technology. I know of plenty that can code circles around me. Check your idiocy and sexism at the door. And before you namecall me as well, I am a guy, and I DO love good technology. And women. Women are awesome.
Regardless, I agree with scubasdsteve87 - this technology is absurd and useless. When comparing 720p vs 1080p on my own monitor, watching a good movie from a proper viewing distance, I can barely tell the difference. 1080p is already very high-resolution, and we can't tell the difference with anything higher unless we're going to start sitting two feet away from a six-foot TV set.
The 24 frame rate on movies is an aesthetic choice, a choice you have no say in. Besides video games require performance (more fps more performance) films not so much. Gamers aren't the standard the world runs by.
You fail HARD! Even at this resolution it doesn't even meet the top range of eye resolution.
what the hell? no 3d version yet?