View Full Version : 7.6k Camera - Cause 4k doesn't cut it anymore!
Mark K.
05-30-2007, 10:52 PM
Holy Christ child! Check this out guys:
http://www.dailytech.com/NHK+Demonstrates+Ultra+HD+Signal+16+Times+Better+T han+HDTV/article7466.htm
Ultra HD, 16x better than HDTV apparently....
194Gb per minute of footage?! That's like 11.6 Terabytes for 1 hour of footage. What's the data rate gonna be on that sucker?
Oh well, I guess Red's going to have to step up to the challenge - I'm envisioning a gattling-gun style array of Red Ones that shoots 8k footage by manual rotation via a crankshaft!
Tom Lowe
05-30-2007, 10:57 PM
haha, NICE! I think 4K will probably be the next standard, though. That kind of resolution they are talking about is not practical at this point. How the hell would you even display it?
Mark K.
05-30-2007, 10:59 PM
:alien: My guess is with UFOs, projecting from those shiny light things they have on the bottom of them... from a kilometer above the ground. :alien:
casey warren
05-30-2007, 11:50 PM
I read somewhere that the footage they showed at NAB clipped a fair amount in the highlights.....
I'd personally like to have more dynamic range over resolution. I think the combination of 4K and some pretty nice dynamic range make RED a good choice. I do, however, hope that someday sensors come out that have like 3 times more dynamic range than film. That would be cool :)
Häakon
05-31-2007, 12:12 AM
Forget 7.6K - what's ultra cool is the camera's 4000 fps ability!
Desert Rune
05-31-2007, 01:37 AM
If history is a guide, we won't see widespread adoption of super hi-vision becoming a reality for at least another 20 years. I'll be at the ripe old age of 39 by then! :sad:
Jeremy Hughes
05-31-2007, 06:22 AM
No... Aren't they broadcasting the 2015 Olympics in Ultra High Definition?
And it's 7.5k. 1024 x 7.5 = 7680. And it's also called 4320p. Is the sensor 7680 x 4320 now? That's way better than the 3840 × 2048 they had before.
I'd like to see a TV capable of 4320p4000! Of course I'd want at least 103".
Kenn Christenson
05-31-2007, 08:39 AM
7.5K? Time to get out of the computer animation business!:bye2:
Michael Schrengohst
05-31-2007, 09:26 AM
I saw that demo at NAB, it was hard to look at. Loads of shimmering artifacts. The latitude was crap. Most of demo I saw looked overexposed.
Jeff Deveraux
05-31-2007, 01:57 PM
As far as entertainment goes, I don't see much use for such technology for a while. Like Desert Rune said it will probably be at least 20 years before typical people have 4k TV sets in their living room, let alone 7.6K TV's. And let's face it even 4K TV's (say around 32") will be like looking out a window. Anything after that is overkill, I would suspect. In the theater it may replace IMAX with about the same size market. Again... it will be a while.
However there are clear uses for astronomy, medical, and surveillance.
I'm with Haakon and Casey... More latitude and higher frame rates. Pleease!
jamesbridges
05-31-2007, 06:55 PM
I think NHK said this wouldn't happen until 2020. There is plenty of time, anyway...they will have "super-duper HD by then!
Jeremy Hughes
05-31-2007, 08:08 PM
When will we reach Ultimate High Definition?
J. Bernard Vallon
05-31-2007, 08:29 PM
When will we reach Ultimate High Definition?
Ultimate Def will be purely fractal-based images. The imager sees the world, and translates things like lines and gradations and color into fractals multiplied by vectors. Resolution wouldn't really be the word to describe it...
J. Bernard Vallon
05-31-2007, 08:31 PM
furthermore, i'd rather shoot with a 4k camera with 15 stops DR than a 7k camera with 13 stops DR. Its very important. Seriously.
GlennChan
05-31-2007, 08:49 PM
Ultimate Def will be purely fractal-based images. The imager sees the world, and translates things like lines and gradations and color into fractals multiplied by vectors. Resolution wouldn't really be the word to describe it...
Fractal compression doesn't really work that well in practice. For more detailed info on fractal compression, see
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part2/section-8.html
It looks like more compression schemes will start heading towards wavelets (e.g. JPEG2000, DCI, Red).
There's fractal-based upscaling like Genuine Fractals... it gives an interesting surreal look. Genuine Fractals is still making up information, so all the additional information is 'fake' in a sense. It also may not work as well as other techniques(?).
2- But compression isn't really the issue here... it's the display devices that are limiting us right now. For (practical) digital projection, 4K is the max... though the 2k projectors arguably look better.
Zack Birlew
05-31-2007, 09:19 PM
The footage at NAB was nice, I could see how it would help theatres because you could sit close to it and, unlike film projections today, everything would be in focus. Of course, the best seats are in the back, like usual. As far as filmmaking goes, I really don't think it will make much of a difference than 4K will, just another bump. Heck, we've barely gotten to native 1080P, now we've got 4K coming in a few months and now this.
In my opinion, just because we can get 8K resolution, doesn't mean we need 8K resolution. As I've said before about this same subject, there were 4K displays outside the 8K theatre at NAB too and they were right next to some new 1080P displays from, I think, Sharp. Really, I couldn't see any difference from a normal living room seating distance, the only advantage was that 4K was crystal clear all the way up to practically my nose touching the screen, the 1080P display got fuzzy at nose touching distance. Seriously, they should consider 4K+ cameras for security cameras because you could almost look "in" and find little details. So, in all practical home entertainment purposes, 1080P is fine. With everything related to acquisition, 4K will be cool but 8K may be excessive.
David Wyatt
06-01-2007, 05:10 AM
Seeing as NHK developed HDTV waaaaay back in 1969 and most people still don't have HiDef screens, blu-ray players & HiDef satellite/cable boxes, I think it's safe to say 7.5K will take "some time" to catch on.
Jeremy Hughes
06-01-2007, 05:34 AM
Ultimate Def will be purely fractal-based images. The imager sees the world, and translates things like lines and gradations and color into fractals multiplied by vectors. Resolution wouldn't really be the word to describe it...
The imager would have to stop picking up more detail once you get down to the molecules though. And would it be no framerate and just real direct motion?
I can really see them moving past this though.
Kenn Christenson
06-01-2007, 10:55 AM
Plastic surgeons are going to love 7K!
Greg Voevodsky
06-01-2007, 11:04 AM
I saw the demo at NAB - very very contrasty - no latitude and it was shot in the daylight! The shadows were black. I would assume very bad low light ability too. RED looked far better. Also their projector was off as the white snow shots were yellowish in one corner, blue in another - a real mess.
Lastly, the camera is huge and the lenses are huge and slow - like IMAX. No way, you are going to steadycam this baby unless you hire Big Foot or a Wookie.
Oh and the surround sound... had a ridiculous amount of microphones in a crazy porcupine array.