BBC to take part in Super Hi-Vision trials

Zooropa

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2001
Messages
13,083
Reaction score
352
Location
Devon
Groundbreaking transmission trials of the Super Hi-Vision video format are being planned for later this year.

Super Hi-Vision, also known as Ultra High Definition, is proposed as a successor to the high definition standard. The specification includes 7680x4320 resolution images and 22.2 three-dimensional surround sound.

Two world-first test transmissions of UHD video will be carried out during the Amsterdam IBC 2008 technology show in September.

In the first, video will be fed by SIS Outside Broadcasts, formerly part of the BBC, over an ultra-broadband fibre connection to the event.

Another test will see Super Hi-Vision pictures transmitted live via satellite from Italy and displayed at the IBC show.

The BBC's research and innovation team will be showing compression and decompression of Super Hi-Vision using an algorithm they have developed.

Japanese broadcaster NHK has been leading the early development of the format. Dr Kenkichi Tanioka, director general of NHK's science and technical research labs, said: "It is a tribute to the alliance of forward-looking companies working on this project that we are confident all will be well.

"In particular, I know that my colleagues at the BBC and RAI would like to thank our industry partners who are investing heavily in broadband and satellite capacity over an extended period to make this work."

By Dave West, Media Correspondent

Bloody hell only just got me HD tv,dont say its out of date already lol
 

digicol

Inactive User
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
41
Location
North East England, but nowhere near Dutcho!!! Ba
Is this not pointless?

Surely the human eye can only see and register a certain amount of pixels?

I think they should be looking at spending OUR money at developing newer technologies, not advancing in an insane manner where the technology really can't advance any more!!!
 

digidude

Sheep worrier.
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
24,677
Reaction score
3,487
Location
The edge.
the human eye can see limitless colours and depths, as it sees analogue reality, this is where everyone has been conned with digital tv without even noticing, then theyre paying extra to have something given back thats still not as good in the form of HD

one of the big selling points of digital tv apart from the channels was '16.8 million colours' yet your tv with an analogue aerial is capable of an uncountable amount of coulors as its analogue, the 16.8 million figure is reached by taking one byte for red, one for green and one for blue, each colour can only have 256 (if you include off) shades, so they multiplied 256 shades of red by 256 shades of blue by 256 shades of green, (256x256x256) its 16.777 million

people started complaining that it wasnt as good looking as the old analogue picture, because it isnt, its limited to how many colours it can use, which also affects the depth. so to give you some of what you lost from going from analogue to digital, you can pay for HD lol, which still 'only' has 16.8 million colours, but on twice as many lines

they need to move backwards not forwards to make the pictures better, analogue with the extra lines
 

digicol

Inactive User
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
41
Location
North East England, but nowhere near Dutcho!!! Ba
the human eye can see limitless colours and depths, as it sees analogue reality, this is where everyone has been conned with digital tv without even noticing, then theyre paying extra to have something given back thats still not as good in the form of HD

one of the big selling points of digital tv apart from the channels was '16.8 million colours' yet your tv with an analogue aerial is capable of an uncountable amount of coulors as its analogue, the 16.8 million figure is reached by taking one byte for red, one for green and one for blue, each colour can only have 256 (if you include off) shades, so they multiplied 256 shades of red by 256 shades of blue by 256 shades of green, (256x256x256) its 16.777 million

people started complaining that it wasnt as good looking as the old analogue picture, because it isnt, its limited to how many colours it can use, which also affects the depth. so to give you some of what you lost from going from analogue to digital, you can pay for HD lol, which still 'only' has 16.8 million colours, but on twice as many lines

they need to move backwards not forwards to make the pictures better, analogue with the extra lines

Why then do people state that 1080p below 40" (most say more) is pointless unless your sitting almost in front of it?

I think it is about time holograph tv was the norm, they have the technology they have the HANSA!!! Hmm, HANSA I need a beer, lol.
 

Munkey

DW Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
179
Why then do people state that 1080p below 40" (most say more) is pointless unless your sitting almost in front of it?

I think it is about time holograph tv was the norm, they have the technology they have the HANSA!!! Hmm, HANSA I need a beer, lol.

1080p at more than 1.5 screen widths is a waste of money.

There is already talk of a Sony 4k projector at Cedia this year, although there is not much interest in it, TI have stated no interest in developing resolution at this moment in time as they feel the R&D costs do not justify the increase in pictur performance. All this Super Hi Vision 8k malarky seems like fantasy to me. Just imagine the bandwidth and cpu power it would take to process this type of content. We mustn't also forget that our front rooms are only capable of accommodating a certain size TV. Most people will max out at 70" so we really dont need super high resolutions as the screen size is a huge limiting factor.

There is much more we can work on like high contrast ratios (CRT's are capable of well over 100k-1 whilst my PJ barely manages a few thousand. Nothing can still match the levels of a CRT as newer technology simply cant turn a pixel on and off.

I think most commercial theatres are 2k with the odd one being 4k which is close to 70mm film IIRC. Why broadcast at a higher resolution than the source material?

I am all for having an excellent broadcast signal but surely BBC's new SuperDuperHiRes is a white elephant and a huge waste of our taxpayers money.
 
TEST
Top