OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio - demonstrationsavailable

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Taylor, Aug 8, 2012.

  1. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-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, Aug 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    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/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-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, Aug 8, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    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
     
    David Taylor, Aug 8, 2012
    #3
  4. David Taylor

    Me Guest

    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/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-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, Aug 8, 2012
    #4
  5. David Taylor

    Me Guest

    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/2012/0...apan-images-bring-olympics-in-high-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, Aug 8, 2012
    #5
  6. David Taylor

    Me Guest

    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.
     
    Me, Aug 8, 2012
    #6
  7. David Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    On Aug 8, 1:47 am, David Taylor <david-
    > wrote:
    > I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.
    >
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/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.
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2012
    #7
  8. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    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, Aug 9, 2012
    #8
  9. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    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/2012/0...apan-images-bring-olympics-in-high-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, Aug 9, 2012
    #9
  10. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    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_High_Definition_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
     
    David Taylor, Aug 10, 2012
    #10
  11. David Taylor

    RichA Guest

    Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    On Aug 10, 2:09 am, David Taylor <david-
    > wrote:
    > 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 upto
    > > 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_High_Definition_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


    Oh, they're possible, as long as you LOVE horrible compression of the
    image and sound.
     
    RichA, Aug 10, 2012
    #11
  12. David Taylor

    David Taylor Guest

    Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    On 10/08/2012 08:38, RichA wrote:
    []
    > Oh, they're possible, as long as you LOVE horrible compression of the
    > image and sound.


    [1920 x 1080 HD]

    It sounds as if the broadcasters in your part of the world are using too
    much compression - more channels of poorer quality. The BBC broadcasts
    over the air here (Freeview) are of excellent quality on both sound and
    vision (although they use the 1440 horizontal pixels to save a little
    bandwidth), and I have no complaints about the one HD satellite channel
    I watch via Sky (subscription satellite service).
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
     
    David Taylor, Aug 10, 2012
    #12
  13. Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012-08-08 01:47 , David Taylor wrote:
    >> I saw a demonstration of Super Hi-Vision yesterday.


    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2012/08/the-olympics-in-super-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,


    > 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.


    Put a subwoofer close to your right side (e.g. on your desk) and
    turn your head. Have fun.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 10, 2012
    #13
  14. Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > 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


    .... in the centre of the setup. Get closer to one side (or
    front or rear) and you can soon tell.

    > The human eye only sees high res where it is looking. Immediately to
    > the sides the resolution rolls off dramatically.


    But where you look and where the camera focusses is not
    necessarily the same.

    > 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.


    Well, we *do* have D800E's and even higher resolution larger
    cameras ... and we have gigapixel panoramas.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 10, 2012
    #14
  15. Re: OT: Super Hi-Vision: 33 MPix video and 22.2. channel audio -demonstrations available

    Me <> wrote:
    > On 9/08/2012 5:41 a.m., David Taylor wrote:


    >> 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.


    The sound reflexions from your concha do have slightly different
    pathlengths to ear hole depending on the height of the source.
    Which means differences in phase ...

    The only way 2 channels will convey everything correctly is
    recording them from inside the ear, either an artifical head
    (with average concha) or with your own ears.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 10, 2012
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. No Spam
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    10,453
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    536
    kaydigi
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. Woody
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    334
  4. leo

    Mpix.com and other printers

    leo, Dec 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    279
  5. GOOD LUCK GROUP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    711
    GOOD LUCK GROUP
    Apr 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page