Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

NHK demonstrates 8K display: 16x more detail than 1080p

yeah NHK has had this around for ahwhile now.. they left out the 22 channel surround sound part :)
 
I think Graeme was a touch harsh. It was wildly oversharpened to exaggerate the resolution and it looked very Video but it was still very impressive. Think TV, but really hi res.

M
 
Yes, it's very impressive, and very high rez, but was over-sharpened (like bad VHS is) and over-saturated (like bad VHS) and very video like (like VHS), hence my harsh comment.

My nicer comment is that it always reminds me that "resolution is not everything" and that you've got to look at the whole image, not just one aspect of it.

Graeme
 
RED one camera ( www.red.com) is not a UHDTV standard, and I have to make it clear here.

SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal vol. 116, no. 7-8, 2007, p. 279-286

E. Nakasu, Y. Nishida, M. Maeda, M. Kanazawa, S. Yano, M. Sugawara, K. Mitani, K. Hamasaki, and Y. Nojiri

An extremely high-resolution image system called Ultra High Definition TV (UHDTV) is being developed
by NHK.

The UHDTV system consists of an extremely high-resolution imagery system whose video
format comprises 7680x4320 pixels (16 times the total number of pixels of an HDTV)

and a super surround sound system which employs 22.2 multi channel system. This system provides audio and video with an
acute sense of reality so that viewers feel as if they are actually at the site of the filming. UHDTV cameras,
projectors, disk recorders, and three-dimensional sound systems have already been developed. UHDTV programs
were demonstrated at the 2005 World Exposition, Aichi, Japan , and the system worked successfully there during
the six-month run. This paper presents two aspects of the newly developed UHDTV transmission systems: an
optical transmission system with dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM) technology for contribution,
and a codec system based on MPEG-2 for program distribution. A live transmission of uncompressed material
through a 260-km single-mode fiber was also performed. For program distribution, some experiments were
conducted at bit rates of 200 to 640 Mbits/sec via experimental satellite transponders or IP networks. These
transmission experiments demonstrate the feasibility of using UHDTV in future broadcasting.

STEW.
2002 at NHK 's STRL Japan
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Yes, it's very impressive, and very high rez, but was over-sharpened (like bad VHS is) and over-saturated (like bad VHS) and very video like (like VHS), hence my harsh comment.

My nicer comment is that it always reminds me that "resolution is not everything" and that you've got to look at the whole image, not just one aspect of it.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Still harsh. it wasn't wobbly and the colour wasn't blotchy, both de rigueur features of bad VHS... surely.

Would be nice to see it without quite so much sharpening, I found that quite distracting. I could forgive a lot of the technical short comings like the mis-registration of colours and the dead pixels, after all it is very much work in progress, but it was a shame they felt it necessary to pump up the sharpening.

M
 
Ah, but there were some nasty chroma errors that looked like demosaic / lack of OLPF type artifacts on high contrast edges in some of the footage. So yes, I'm a little OTT on saying VHS, but it's meant more as a emotional response kind of thing that a detailed technical analysis.

Yeah, I'd have like to have seen a more "raw" presentation, but still, to even do what they did was very interesting.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Ah, but there were some nasty chroma errors that looked like demosaic / lack of OLPF type artifacts on high contrast edges in some of the footage. So yes, I'm a little OTT on saying VHS, but it's meant more as a emotional response kind of thing that a detailed technical analysis.

Yeah, I'd have like to have seen a more "raw" presentation, but still, to even do what they did was very interesting.
Click to expand...

From my nearly 43 years of knowing Japanese Imaging companies and TV stations.

My rankings is BBC is No.1
ABCNHK or vice versa ...sorry I confuse in those years.

Cheers,
STEW.
 
Usually when a displayed image looks too high resolution, it's not actually resolution that makes it look bad, but too much contrast at the low spatial frequencies (sharpening).

Anyone who has seen 70mm projection knows that it is quite pleasing to look at. And it has 4x the resolution of 35mm, but there is nothing harsh about it.

My personal theory is that the shape of the MTF curve is what makes something look natural or forced. This is why film can be very high res (especially projecting originals, such as slides), but it looks very natural.

One of the first things I noticed when I saw RED ONE footage was that it was very high res, but there was a smooth transition from the low frequencies to the high ones without excessive sharpening. It was the first really natural looking digital cinema capture that I had seen.

Nice work Graeme!
 
CREAMY look is what RED can deliver !

Am I correct Jim ? If SO,

I like CREAM though. But only love with the silk smooth feelings to please my SOUL. NOT my eyes !!!

STEW.
 
I just don't see the point. Its going to be at least another decade before true HD (1920x1080) is the standard broadcast everywhere. By then - who knows. I don't think resolution is the answer. Things like HDRI displays (Dolby) or 3D/Holographic displays are far more interesting technologies...

The point of TV (broadcast) is that You watch it at home. And unless You live in a cathedral You can only see so much resolution from normal viewing distance. HD is good, 4K is already overkill, but I will give You that much... Anything beyond that is sheer madness...
 
I checked out the D21. I would like to say that D21 has a lot of good features. D21 is a 2K camera but the picture looked pretty good. I liked it. I am not sure if the $350K price that was quoted include any extras. For that money, I can buy 3 REDs with a full set of Lenses. ARRI rep told that they already have few orders for D21 from rental houses. Who will rent D21 when RED can be owned at $17K ?
 
DanWood said:
I checked out the D21. I would like to say that D21 has a lot of good features. D21 is a 2K camera but the picture looked pretty good. I liked it. I am not sure if the $350K price that was quoted include any extras. For that money, I can buy 3 REDs with a full set of Lenses. ARRI rep told that they already have few orders for D21 from rental houses. Who will rent D21 when RED can be owned at $17K ?
Click to expand...


they quote me 300k, so the 350k they quote you was probably with some extras. if it was 6k camera,i'm sold.
 
Was the presentation for a theatre-style situation or a homestyle situation? (Is homestyle even the right term? Heh...) I saw the homestyle demo at NAB08 and wasn't really impressed. The viewing angle on the LCDs were poor so from where I was sitting (up close, center) I could see color shifting towards the edges. The very large bezels were extremely unimmersive- I just couldn't get past that.

I personally think that displays that do good blacks is the most promising technology. The eCinema DPX and the field emission prototypes have good looking blacks, in most cases better than a CRT. Without deep blacks, you don't have accurate color (or natural looking color) and the image doesn't look as sharp. Deep blacks also make images look sharper. The effect is usually more powerful than actual MTF.
And from a production / technical standpoint, no infrastructure needs to be changed for better images.

2- But then again, we will probably see some more 4k (e.g. Redray).
 
DanWood said:
I checked out the D21. I would like to say that D21 has a lot of good features. D21 is a 2K camera but the picture looked pretty good. I liked it. I am not sure if the $350K price that was quoted include any extras. For that money, I can buy 3 REDs with a full set of Lenses. ARRI rep told that they already have few orders for D21 from rental houses. Who will rent D21 when RED can be owned at $17K ?
Click to expand...

Someone can buy 3 HVX200 ( 3D camera and oen aback up as well ) for one RED one ( Lot of expensive Accessories ahead too )

It is fact though.

Leaders have options to play.

STEW.
HKG
 
I just wish that somebody would make an actual 4320p camera...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top