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.
SHV won’t show up in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.
Found by Cinàedh.
I think the TV makers have jumped the shark. Just another gadget to spend money on.
It only took us 10 years or so to make the transition to Digital and HD, so another 10, 15 or 20 years will go by in a flash.
I’m still waiting for virtual reality. Seems to me everything is sitting on the shelf just waiting for assembly.
Where’s my Holodeck????????
Nice. I don’t see how the bandwidth needed can be supported but, I’m in!
Maybe we’ll see this in Hillary’s second term. I hope so.
So does this mean watching one episode of The Daily Show, on my HTPC, will put me over my Comcast cap?
Have they stopped collecting taxes for the BBC to be paid by everyone who owns a TV?
Maybe that should be the RIAA & MPAA solution here.
Another reason to soak us with more radiation.
#6 MikeN Yes, I believe they still have to pay $225 (US) a year if they own at least one TV.
Will never happen for regular TV. 1080P on a 65″ screen at ‘normal’ viewing distance exceeds the capacity of most population’s eyesight already, and screens larger than 65″ are impractical for most homes.
Those ultra-high resolutions may show up in highly specialized applications, but not for TV.
But, you can use that screen resolution for other things, such as 3D with selectable point of view or simultaneous alternate programming. You would end up with a resolution of 720P, but you would be shown only pixels that fit the angle of view or show that you are requesting.
We’re luck to even have push button phones, let alone SHV!
Besides the cable co’s would charge $1000/month for anything even close to 7680 x 4320 resolution… besides you would need four cable feeds in parallel to get that kind of bandwidth..
Oh wait! my DSL could handle that with ease!!!
NOT!
Y’know, I was just saying to the missiz, “Honey, doesn’t that giant HDTV you insisted I buy look sadly remiss in the detail department?” and the missez burns a hole through me with here glare and retorts, “The one I insisted on?” and proceeds to whack me about the head and shoulders with a frying pan.
As I was recuperating in the local intensive care unit, I started thinking. If I insure her for a few hundred grand, just about the time that Ultra Uber Super Massive Vision comes out with its 12,800p120 system, I’ll be able to off the old lady and afford it.
It’s a plan.
her.
We already are at the limits of what humans can visually perceive. Not sure what the point of this is.
Can’t wait…
@ #3 You just need six of those screens in a giant cube
@ #5 No, just the commercials will put you over :p
@ #9 My 435 sq. ft. apartment had enough space for a 110″ projected image on the wall. Over 65″ being too big?! Please…
@ #10 Well, you could keep your 1950’s 13″ tube black and white TV…
@ #11 But the cable co. loves you! Really!!!
How about a billion pixels? A trillion?
The concept is called diminished returns.
And the returns drop very sharply after 1080 unless you have a wall-sized TV that you sit next to all the time.
How about we just get ALL of our HDTV bits and stop the uber-compression that the cable guys inflict upon us. Comcast looks like a cartoon on half the HD channels.
@ #17 If you think the HD channels are bad, you should try an SD channel with a letterheaded 16:9 program (i.e. Top Gear on BBC America). It is literally unwatchable.
What’s the point? So we can see the composition of the pus in the anchorman’s pimples? So we can count the cavities in any screaming actress? Measure the coffee stains on Leonard’s uniform? I’ve got a 720p 50 inch and I think it’s all I’ll ever need.
I’ve seen this this demonstrated at the National Association of Broadcasters convention, and it is very impressive.
They projected the image on a (small) movie theater size screen (much larger than a home theater), but the picture was far clearer than a movie.
There were no closeups of pimples; there is no point in closeups of anything. In shots at sporting events you can make out each face in the crowd and on the field clearly. In a big wide shot of Las Vegas you could clearly examine any building. I think for sports this would be way better than being there.
TV is dead. Nobody is making decent content for it anymore. If you want information and entertainment, books and radio is the future.
#21,
iNTER..
Content IS being made.
But,
Figure that 4-6 corps own 100% of all of the broadcasters.
IF’ a private company MAKEs something, they submit it to the CORP or BUY TIME to show it.
YOU PAY BIG MONEY, or the corp BUYS it from you.
Its SHOWN only on the channels THEY WISH..
If its worth MONEY, they show it on SAT/CABLE..NOT broadcast TV.
NOW,
If you are a programmer, and have some ambition…MAKE a program for the net that works LIKE a radio.. 1 BROADCAST over a large area and Anyone can see it..
Insted of the Current Internet, where 1000 people have to LOG to a site, and watch 1 server FIGHT to keep up, while you watch TV.
Or, lets FAIL this..
Insted, lets make a WIRELESS broadcast, 1 way. IF it glitches on your side..NOT MY PROBLEM..Just like REAL TV.
#22 ECA,
I like the way you are thinking, but getting the current internet to act like a broadcast network is a tough one. At multiple levels it’s been designed as a point-to-point network – from the physical links between routers to IP and the streaming mechanisms sitting on top.
Multicast capable networks do exist, but I’ve never seen anything that wasn’t either experimental or contained within a private corporation’s network.
My networking is very rusty though and you got me wondering.
Personally I like the idea of wireless ‘broadcast’ network – we do have wifi but this is very limited in terms of bandwidth and power. Like water and air, the electromagnetic spectrum is owned by fat corporations and malignant governments. The few crumbs they give us is not enough to transmit over long distances.
Anyway, sorry for my rambling and thanks for your post.
#23…
WOW..
someone gets it.
SHV won’t show up in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.
Or any other 3rd world country.
(Do I always have to add the obligatory political snark here? 🙂
I’m guessing the TVs that could view this use lots of power. They should be banned, along with HDTVs above a certain size.
Since it hasn’t been mentioned, I will: This super-hi-def stuff is a way to differentiate movie theaters from home hi-def setups and could keep them financially viable for many years.
#27
So would adapting Laser projection..and 3 color Laser would be CHEAPER.
Households would never have this… we might go 4K, but that’ll be it. As it’s been said here in comments, HD is just about enough, and the bandwidth needed to stream it will be obscene (not to mention the power requirements to light up all those pixels).
BUT there are applications for something that high resolution, digital cinema, digital IMAX, film production definitely, you always want to work in higher resolution than it’s being shown in for quality’s sake.