Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio - demonstrationsavailable (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t949243-ot-super-hi-vision-33-mpix-video-and-22-2-channel-audio-demonstrationsavailable.html)

David Taylor 08-08-2012 05:47 AM

OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio - demonstrationsavailable
 
I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...hi-visio.shtml

(Hope the URL doesn't wrap; first URL posted through Thunderbird)

With 33 MPix video and 22.2 channel audio it's very impressive, although
I'm not sure that it will really work in the domestic environment.
WHere will I put a 100-inch screen? I agree with the few comments in
the blog. Do get along if you can....
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor 08-08-2012 05:41 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 08/08/2012 16:53, Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Taylor writes:
>
>> I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...hi-visio.shtml
>>
>> (Hope the URL doesn't wrap; first URL posted through Thunderbird)
>>
>> With 33 MPix video and 22.2 channel audio it's very impressive, although
>> I'm not sure that it will really work in the domestic environment.
>> WHere will I put a 100-inch screen? I agree with the few comments in
>> the blog. Do get along if you can....

>
> Thirty-three megapixels sounds very nice, but I can't see a use for
> 22.2-channel audio, since I only have two ears.


It did sound better than 5.1 audio (which was demonstrated for
comparison). Your ears and brain can sense more than two channels can
convey.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor 08-08-2012 07:28 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 08/08/2012 19:06, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> The .2 would be about useless. It doesn't matter where you put the
> sub-woofer in a room, you can't really determine where the sound is
> coming from.
>
> As to the 22, it would seem to be overkill resolution. I doubt there's
> a real difference from about 6 loudspeakers evenly spaced about the
> listener and properly processed signals are provided.


I think that one of the .2 is the woofer, the second may have referred
to an overhead speaker. There were three levels of speakers, floor,
mid-level and ceiling level. Yes, there /was/ a noticeable difference
from 5.1, and I hope that you get to hear it for yourself one day. I do
agree, though, that perhaps 22 speakers may exceed the requirement.

How do you like the idea of 33 Mpix video? Quite a challenge (as it
would be in still photography) for lenses and for setting focus. To
justify that resolution, everything must be sharp (so that you can
concentrate on the part of the image which interests you), so a large
depth of field could be required.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Me 08-08-2012 08:31 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 9/08/2012 5:41 a.m., David Taylor wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 16:53, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> David Taylor writes:
>>
>>> I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...hi-visio.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>> (Hope the URL doesn't wrap; first URL posted through Thunderbird)
>>>
>>> With 33 MPix video and 22.2 channel audio it's very impressive, although
>>> I'm not sure that it will really work in the domestic environment.
>>> WHere will I put a 100-inch screen? I agree with the few comments in
>>> the blog. Do get along if you can....

>>
>> Thirty-three megapixels sounds very nice, but I can't see a use for
>> 22.2-channel audio, since I only have two ears.

>
> It did sound better than 5.1 audio (which was demonstrated for
> comparison). Your ears and brain can sense more than two channels can
> convey.

If you move your head.

Me 08-08-2012 09:05 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 9/08/2012 7:28 a.m., David Taylor wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 19:06, Alan Browne wrote:
> []
>> The .2 would be about useless. It doesn't matter where you put the
>> sub-woofer in a room, you can't really determine where the sound is
>> coming from.
>>
>> As to the 22, it would seem to be overkill resolution. I doubt there's
>> a real difference from about 6 loudspeakers evenly spaced about the
>> listener and properly processed signals are provided.

>
> I think that one of the .2 is the woofer, the second may have referred
> to an overhead speaker. There were three levels of speakers, floor,
> mid-level and ceiling level. Yes, there /was/ a noticeable difference
> from 5.1, and I hope that you get to hear it for yourself one day. I do
> agree, though, that perhaps 22 speakers may exceed the requirement.
>
> How do you like the idea of 33 Mpix video? Quite a challenge (as it
> would be in still photography) for lenses and for setting focus. To
> justify that resolution, everything must be sharp (so that you can
> concentrate on the part of the image which interests you), so a large
> depth of field could be required.
>

A different link was posted here a few days ago by RichA
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08...igh-resolution

They're talking about 500Mb/s in one article, 700Mb/s (350x2)in another.
A feature movie distributed on a stack of bluray disks, requiring a
change of disk every few minutes, a few TB required to store one movie
on a hard drive, or at present data costs watching the occasional
streaming 8k movie at home, I wouldn't be able to afford the popcorn.




Me 08-08-2012 09:39 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 9/08/2012 9:24 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-08-08 15:28 , David Taylor wrote:
>> On 08/08/2012 19:06, Alan Browne wrote:
>> []
>>> The .2 would be about useless. It doesn't matter where you put the
>>> sub-woofer in a room, you can't really determine where the sound is
>>> coming from.
>>>
>>> As to the 22, it would seem to be overkill resolution. I doubt there's
>>> a real difference from about 6 loudspeakers evenly spaced about the
>>> listener and properly processed signals are provided.

>>
>> I think that one of the .2 is the woofer, the second may have referred
>> to an overhead speaker. There were three levels of speakers, floor,
>> mid-level and ceiling level. Yes, there /was/ a noticeable difference
>> from 5.1, and I hope that you get to hear it for yourself one day. I do
>> agree, though, that perhaps 22 speakers may exceed the requirement.

>
> What you heard as a difference is that 5.1 was set up for "5.1" (which
> is not a 360 sound experience, it is "stereo" + "voice" (center) +
> "rear left" and "rear right" + subwoofer).
>
> But considering that 5.1 is for those sources of sound where this 22
> speaker rig is a 360 sound setup I maintain that 6 speakers, properly
> processed, would be indistinguishable from it for most listeners
> (including those under the illusion that they can tell the difference).
>
> The ceiling speaker may indeed improve the experience.
>
> It's the processing that will result in the required sound at the
> listener's ear and 6 speakers with properly processed signals will get
> you there.
>
>> How do you like the idea of 33 Mpix video? Quite a challenge (as it
>> would be in still photography) for lenses and for setting focus. To
>> justify that resolution, everything must be sharp (so that you can
>> concentrate on the part of the image which interests you), so a large
>> depth of field could be required.

>
> There is no requirement that a high res image be high DOF or perfectly
> in focus everywhere.
>
> The human eye only sees high res where it is looking. Immediately to
> the sides the resolution rolls off dramatically.
>
> To see detail in a 33 Mpix image one would have to be very close - and
> when close you can only see fine detail in a small part of the scene
> presented. That would normally be where the 'action' is.
>

There is a "problem" though - if the goal is an "immersive" experience.
It's not solved with high resolution and 3d. Your eyes don't stay fixed
on "the subject". As with audio, depth perception isn't simply parallax
stereo - stereo projection can never replicate 3d.

RichA 08-08-2012 10:52 PM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On Aug 8, 1:47*am, David Taylor <david-
tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researcha...08/the-olympic...
>
> (Hope the URL doesn't wrap; *first URL posted through Thunderbird)
>
> With 33 MPix video and 22.2 channel audio it's very impressive, although
> I'm not sure that it will really work in the domestic environment.
> WHere will I put a 100-inch screen? *I agree with the few comments in
> the blog. *Do get along if you can....
> --
> Cheers,
> David
> Web:http://www.satsignal.eu


Most losers who go to theatres sit at the back. In their homes,
they'll have 50" HDTV screens but they'll sit so far away they haven't
a hope in HELL of resolving that kind of detail with their eyes. You
want a 100" screen to offer a truly immersive experience? You can't
sit more than 150 inches away.

David Taylor 08-09-2012 07:09 AM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 08/08/2012 22:24, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-08-08 15:28 , David Taylor wrote:
>> On 08/08/2012 19:06, Alan Browne wrote:
>> []
>>> The .2 would be about useless. It doesn't matter where you put the
>>> sub-woofer in a room, you can't really determine where the sound is
>>> coming from.
>>>
>>> As to the 22, it would seem to be overkill resolution. I doubt there's
>>> a real difference from about 6 loudspeakers evenly spaced about the
>>> listener and properly processed signals are provided.

>>
>> I think that one of the .2 is the woofer, the second may have referred
>> to an overhead speaker. There were three levels of speakers, floor,
>> mid-level and ceiling level. Yes, there /was/ a noticeable difference
>> from 5.1, and I hope that you get to hear it for yourself one day. I do
>> agree, though, that perhaps 22 speakers may exceed the requirement.

>
> What you heard as a difference is that 5.1 was set up for "5.1" (which
> is not a 360 sound experience, it is "stereo" + "voice" (center) +
> "rear left" and "rear right" + subwoofer).
>
> But considering that 5.1 is for those sources of sound where this 22
> speaker rig is a 360 sound setup I maintain that 6 speakers, properly
> processed, would be indistinguishable from it for most listeners
> (including those under the illusion that they can tell the difference).
>
> The ceiling speaker may indeed improve the experience.
>
> It's the processing that will result in the required sound at the
> listener's ear and 6 speakers with properly processed signals will get
> you there.
>
>> How do you like the idea of 33 Mpix video? Quite a challenge (as it
>> would be in still photography) for lenses and for setting focus. To
>> justify that resolution, everything must be sharp (so that you can
>> concentrate on the part of the image which interests you), so a large
>> depth of field could be required.

>
> There is no requirement that a high res image be high DOF or perfectly
> in focus everywhere.
>
> The human eye only sees high res where it is looking. Immediately to
> the sides the resolution rolls off dramatically.
>
> To see detail in a 33 Mpix image one would have to be very close - and
> when close you can only see fine detail in a small part of the scene
> presented. That would normally be where the 'action' is.


Thanks for your comments, Alan. I expect that for a domestic listening
environment, 22 speakers would be excessive, but compared to 5.1 this
system does have speakers at different heights, and overhead, so perhaps
slightly more than 5.1 would still make an audible improvement.

For a still 33 MP image, all does indeed not have to be in focus, but
for this immersive experience if the part of the image which interests
/you/ isn't in focus, tough! If you are going to switch camera views
(as with normal TV), then you don't need the high resolution. That's
part of the reason why I'm unsure about this system for the domestic
environment (the large screen size being another).
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor 08-09-2012 07:13 AM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 08/08/2012 22:05, Me wrote:
[]
> A different link was posted here a few days ago by RichA
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08...igh-resolution
>
>
> They're talking about 500Mb/s in one article, 700Mb/s (350x2)in another.
> A feature movie distributed on a stack of bluray disks, requiring a
> change of disk every few minutes, a few TB required to store one movie
> on a hard drive, or at present data costs watching the occasional
> streaming 8k movie at home, I wouldn't be able to afford the popcorn.


The stream I was watching was 350 Mb/s. From the blog: "The coded
signals are transported on a pair of Transport Streams (TS) to a pair of
TS/IP converters to produce a pair of IP (Internet Protocol) data
streams for each theatre at about 350 Mbit/s in total. Two data streams
are produced because the total bit rate is too high to be carried on one
Transport Stream."

My current ISP has a maximum data rate of 120 Mb/s, and this system aims
at a few years ahead, perhaps ten years, so by then such data rates at
home may not look so unobtainable!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor 08-10-2012 06:09 AM

Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available
 
On 09/08/2012 20:56, Alan Browne wrote:
[]
> Actually I'm wrong about that. I just (for unrelated reasons) stumbled
> on this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound
>
> Which shows 22.2 as a blown up 5.1/7.2 scheme.
>
> Assuming the content is recorded for that output format it would
> certainly sound much richer. I'd guess that it could be processed up to
> that format from about half the number of inputs, however.
>
> It is related to the resolution you cite (8K) here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...ion_Television
>
> Other than theatre presentation, however, ...


That's my thought as well, but it seems that the system is being
progressed for a domestic environment. Can't visualise that myself, but
who knows for ten or twenty years ahead? It's not that long ago when
50-inch screens with 1920 x 1080 pixel images broadcast over the air
would have been thought impossible....
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.