Previous news story    Next news story

NHK working on 8k video sensor capable of 120fps

By Richard Butler on Feb 23, 2012 at 23:30 GMT

Japanese national broadcaster NHK has said it is developing a sensor capable of shooting 8k video at 120fps. It will be able to support the company's Super Hi-Vision standard of 7680x4320 pixels (generically known as UHDTV) which, at 33MP, is 16x higher resolution than current 1080 HD technology. The high-speed chip is being developed with Shizuoka University and was reported at the IEEE Internation Solid-State Circuit Conference currently taking place in San Francisco. (via The Verge)

UHDTV is expected to arrive in homes some time around 2020 (the first screens have been demoed) and a 60fps version will be used to show high-quality footage from the 2012 Olympics on a series of large screens around the UK.

NHK has a history of developing high-resolution broadcast technologies - having started producing HD content as far back as 1982. Previous 60fps 8K cameras developed by NHK have been based around multiple 4k chips from Aptina. Click here for a simplified video about a 60fps test conducted by the UK's BBC using NHK equipment (a test limited by the fact only 4k screens were available at the time).

Comments

Total comments: 101
OlavM
By OlavM (Aug 2, 2012)

Stills photo redefined: Film, then finding the right frame....

1 upvote
pitou250
By pitou250 (Feb 25, 2012)

If a human has a field of view of ~155 degrees horizontally by 105 degrees vertically - and the angular resolution of the eye is approximately 1 arcminute (1/60th of a degree), covering the entire view of a human with maximum distinguishable resolution would require 155x60 = 9300 pixels horizontally by 6300 pixels - or ~58MP.
(sorry if my figures are off - I don't claim accuracy)
Screens do take up less than the entire fov in normal viewing situations though - let's say half for a very big screen, that's 4650x3150pixels or 14,5 MP.
Except for immersive content and displays, I can't see the use of 8k for straight 'human consumption' and by the time it arrives in my living room, my eyesight will not be up to it anyway.

4 upvotes
ajaxstone
By ajaxstone (Feb 25, 2012)

I do wish to add that visual resolution are highest for fovea, 1 deg off centre, and falls off quickly after I think just 5 deg off centre. much few pixels are needed at the peripheral vision to produce a perceptive clarity equal to the one delivered by your 9.3kx6.3k screen.

0 upvotes
pitou250
By pitou250 (Feb 25, 2012)

yes - I left that out since there's limited space in a comment.
Lowering the resolution to the periphery would make sense, especially since the further out you go, the more surface has to be covered.
I hope one day to see a more immersive cinematic image, perhaps an image filling 3/4 of the fov view, with vignetting to the borders - and black outside. And I'm confident it won't need 8k resolution. 5k would be plenty - but framerate, dynamic range and stereoscopy would need to be improved.

1 upvote
mvxray
By mvxray (Feb 26, 2012)

The resolution is about 1.2 arcmin per line pair at the visual center (fovea). So you need 2 pixel lines to display a line pair per 1.2 arcmin. So 8K are actually not enough. Also your eyes constantly moves so whole display needs to have the high res. Technology wise your future TV will allow you to watch a slowmo anytime you want it so 120fps are good but not great. And last but not least imagine the high quality still image that you could get from potentially any frame you like. And there are probably countless more things you can do with that. If I had a camera like that I would ditch my still camera... maybe not but anyway it would be awesome!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

mvxray, the counting is for Foveon-like sensors right? for Bayer sensors which are less efficient as stacked pixels we will need about 1.5 times more pixels.

an NHK test showed we need 60-70 cpd at 75% correct discrimination probability which translates to around 100MP across a 100 degree 16:9 screen.

we need less resolution for motions, NHK thinks 33MP is enough for most people based on their tests. the Hitachi prototype uses 3 sensors. so a Bayer sensor DSLR will need at least 50MP to provide similar quality.

think 30MP will be the minimum for future cameras except small mobile devices and 30-60MP is the standard range at the low end. 100+MP be the middle range and several hundred MPs the high resolution.

portable Super Hi-Vision cameras will kill 1DX and D4 type flagship DSLRs at the 2020 Olympic games with 240fps for smooth video. it is difficult now but we have time to solve it.

Comment edited 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Randomoneh
By Randomoneh (Aug 1, 2012)

That's not how it works. If you calculate it by simply multiplying then center of the display won't match that limit.

0 upvotes
wb2trf
By wb2trf (Feb 25, 2012)

But to get a decent OVF the mirror will have to move 120 times per second. That'll be hard. :-)

0 upvotes
grafli
By grafli (Feb 25, 2012)

OR you can record at 60Fps and use 60Fps as live view.
Why would anyone even film in 120fps, exept slow motion recording?

0 upvotes
pitou250
By pitou250 (Feb 25, 2012)

> Why would anyone even film in 120fps, exept slow motion recording?

because you get less motion blur and stroboscope and a more life-like experience. 120fps is not enough as to be indistinguishable from reality yet, but it is a big leap in the right direction.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Feb 25, 2012)

Its good to see not everyone believes 60fps is good enough.

0 upvotes
pitou250
By pitou250 (Feb 25, 2012)

just depends on what you want to achieve, doesn't it?

ask a gamer and it isn't enough.
for slow motion it is FAR from enough.
for cinema, The Hobbit is supposedly filmed at 48fps (and 5k and 3D) and is likely to be a big leap in movie viewing experience.
For watching commercials it's a waste.
When checking specs for my next stills camera - it's irrelevant.

0 upvotes
Sonnik
By Sonnik (Feb 25, 2012)

Why would you assume a conventional mirror design would still be used for that speed?

0 upvotes
Robert Newman
By Robert Newman (Feb 26, 2012)

You clearly would not have a conventional SLR design for a camera designed to shoot at 120fps. If you look at the high speed film cameras, none of them use a reciprocating motion viewing system as complex as an SLR. Think out of the box before you go off chasing imaginary problems.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

it'll be interesting if Nikon or Canon can come out with a "rotating mirror wheel" design for movies. the current DSLRs can do 120fps if you have 120 cameras electronically fired across a second.

0 upvotes
eyewundr
By eyewundr (Feb 24, 2012)

Context: a 42" TV is roughly twice the size (area) of a 27" TV. 1080p vs 720p seems more noticeable on the larger screen but in most video formats, including NTSC, a 42" screen has about 5 times the visual impact of a 27" screen. 4k, and eventually 8k video formats will multiply the visual impact for larger displays much as HD multiplies the visual impact compared with NTSC.
The absolute resolution is less relevant than the production techniques that can take advantage of it. In particular, 3D presentation without glasses might be both more practical and more affordable.
Future video manipulation software can use additional video detail to render imagery with greater appearance of depth and other appearance of reality cues. I imagine there will be new video processing features innovated to take advantage of the more detailed video stream much like audio engineering has innovated processing methodologies unimagined in analog days.
Does anyone want to go back to black and white NTSC?

0 upvotes
Paul Farace
By Paul Farace (Feb 24, 2012)

Throw out your 60 inch 1080 dpi plasma screen, toss out your Canon 5d MkII (but let know what trash can it's in), your iPhone HD, etc., etc., because the marketing/technology/groove machine keeps chugging along!
Now if only the programming could keep up with the technology.
Seeing Jersey Shore offered in UHD makes me want to vomit!

3 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Feb 24, 2012)

Oh, come on...!

Wouldn't you love to know *exactly* what shade of orange is Snooki's skin?

:)

1 upvote
Pedro Vera
By Pedro Vera (Feb 26, 2012)

It's hard enough watching local news in 1080i.

As for the Jersey Shore, it'll be interesting to see what all that fake tanning does to skin over an 8-year period. And by interesting I mean vomit-inducing as you described.

0 upvotes
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (Feb 24, 2012)

It's nice that NHK is producing a sensor to go with their new high resolution display, but it would be really great if they and the camera manufacturers would be realistic about "resolution" and stop the foolish and misleading use of equating resolution to pixel count. Doing so tends, as the discussion here shows, to confuse people who have only a "marketing" understanding of the term "resolution." Resolution is not defined by pixel count, it is only roughly correlated to pixel count and then only somewhat useful as a metric when comparing like sensors (CFA or Foveon). Increasing pixel count by 16x absolutely does not increase "resolution" by 16x; it increases resolution by 4x and then only in theory because in practice there are intervening variables which serve to reduce the actual optical resolution to below the theoretical limit. "Resolution" is measured by photographing resolution charts then counting the line pairs per millimeter visible viz a viz the printed numeric value.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 24, 2012)

At night, all cats are gray.
At night, all video is sub-standard def.
Old TV can look worse on UDTV.
At comfortable viewing distance, most UDTV will look the same as HDTV or even DVD grade.
UDTV will cost more and be meaningless on a small screen.
But people will still buy UDTV displays to be conspicuous, brag to each other, and avoid shame.

One could make similar arguments about expensive DSLRs, since most peoples photos will look the same on small screens and few of their viewers will care. But opinion will mandate that people spend to the max.

1 upvote
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 24, 2012)

Why should the definition of resolution for a digital monitor be any different from a digital sensor? They both have PIXELS.... one captures them,one displays them. Let's quit making issues where they don't exist. We all know what it means to have a 4 MP sensor, or a 4 MP monitor.... geeeesh, stop the silly arguments.

0 upvotes
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (Feb 25, 2012)

Apparently we "don't" all know what it means to have a "4 MP sensor" - otherwise there would not be the discussion. It's time for the term "resolution" to be used properly. "Resolution" is not defined as the "number of pixels" produced by a sensor's output, nor by the number of photosites on the sensor. It's clearly defined by the amount of detail possible to "resolve." Read the reviews of cameras here on dPReview. Go to the Resolution tests. Why do we bother "testing" resolution at all if we simply use the number of pixels on the sensor as a metric?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

pixel count counts on the sensor side. besides resolution, smaller pixels could also mean higher image quality: lower noise, wider dynamic range, etc., over larger pixels. the only issue now is at extremely high ISO settings but we are pushing it higher and higher.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Feb 24, 2012)

for home use, resolution does not need be super high vision unless you want wall sized screens.

That said the BBC has shown some excellent work on high framerate TV. 300fps overtakes the visual system and looks indistinguishable from looking through a window. There's a subtle change in the look that takes place at around 240 fps, motion blur and other artifacts we assumed we are stuck with, just vanish.

I'd vote for a unified 300 fps standard ahead of yet another bigger format at slower framerates.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Feb 24, 2012)

sounds good to me

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 24, 2012)

I'm with you 100%. The next great video revolution will be high frame rates. Watching a TV screen should be as soothing as looking out the window. Higher resolutions can catch up later.

0 upvotes
KitHB
By KitHB (Feb 24, 2012)

300 is the sweet spot for another reason. It's 5 x 60 and 6 x50 and 12 x 25 and 10 x 30 so the legacy formats can upscale much more easily. The mutant 29.97 timebase will just have to burn in hell, where it belongs.

7 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (Feb 25, 2012)

You forgot 24x12.5 so lets skip 300 and go straight to 600.
Even at 600fps there will still be some noticeable blurring on fast pans on a large 4k display.

0 upvotes
Delacosta
By Delacosta (Feb 27, 2012)

I vote 1000000fps. ZZZzzzzzz......

0 upvotes
Fearless_Photog
By Fearless_Photog (Feb 24, 2012)

Some day cellphones will be shooting 8K at 120fps.

0 upvotes
pitou250
By pitou250 (Feb 25, 2012)

now they wont, because by then the cellphone will be obsolete.
we'll have telecommunication built into our jawbone or so.

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 24, 2012)

"video at 120fps"! Now this is what I've been waiting for! Its about time we get rid of the archaic, flickering, eye-strain inducing 24,30 and 60 fps standards. I can't believe big movie theaters still use 24 fps...so pathetic and embarrassing. And did I mention that even 60 fps on an led monitor gives me eye strain every time?

0 upvotes
StephenSPhotog
By StephenSPhotog (Feb 24, 2012)

No you hadn't mentioned that. But I'm so glad you did...

0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Feb 24, 2012)

I don't watch TV for many years now and am healthier for it in more ways than one. Over here I can easily skip over some notorious posters (it's a she) but I could not do it with the talking TV heads.

But there are still the laptops and the WiFi that I want to support 300 fps.

0 upvotes
kolobos
By kolobos (Feb 27, 2012)

LED monitor gives you eye strain for totally different reason: PWM, which is the cause of flickering (that TFT panel itself doesn't have): http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htm
It can also be a crappy TN panel with bad contrast.
None of that will be solved by 120fps video.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

we'll sure go 240fps.
33MP at 240p sounds the terminal station for most 2D applications, double the spec (66MP and 480p) for 3D.

highend displays will go over 100MP.
not sure about 1GP though. maybe but never say never.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Feb 24, 2012)

something TokyoHot production team will be very much interested in....man~~~ they try everything to entertain men in japan. good stuff

0 upvotes
CrunchyLens
By CrunchyLens (Feb 24, 2012)

"You don't need that"

Claiming this is too much or a waste is akin to saying a photographer who shoots stuff to put on the web should just as well use a 2Mp stills camera. After all, what website would use images over 2MP? But that's missing the point entirely.

Why anyone would poo-poo progress is beyond me.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 24, 2012)

But is a 32mp sensor "progress" relative to a 16mp sensor? Was the Concorde a more efficient way to cross the Atlantic than a sub-sonic jet?

I'll concur that 4k or 8k video might be great for large theater screens, or to let one crop wide shots the way one can do with still photos. However, it will be years before there is an affordable 16-core PC or poor-man's editing tool that can process the stuff, and the typical future viewer's screen is more apt to be 7" or smaller, rather than an 8k wall screen fit for a royal manor great hall.

AAMOF, I seldom take shots any larger than 3MP, and shoot plenty at only 1920x1080 if it is to be part of a video work.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (Feb 24, 2012)

Seldom larger than 3MP? That's sad. :(

1 upvote
chrisnfolsom
By chrisnfolsom (Feb 24, 2012)

I second others about dynamic range issues - I like the speed increase as 30fps and even 60fps is slow with dynamic scenes or panning - and with good compression the bandwidth hit can be kept to a miniumum.

I am amazed that they are at such a high resolution with "production" chips AND the processors to handle such data - truely amazing and beyond any forseen consumer use - 4K will be great at home, but 8K???

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 24, 2012)

When the Goldman or Morgan Stanley junior managing director starts bragging about his 8k screen, you can bet that his boss will ditch his 4k screen and start looking for a 16k one. But it's also possible he'll do something more sumptuous and by a jet or copter to fly to places and events others see only on screen.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Feb 24, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_resolution

the resolution is 4x times that of HDTV... who ever made that 16x should get some basic math education or stop lying.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Feb 24, 2012)

A 1 X 1 square, extended out to 4 X 4 = 16
There are exactly 16 of those 1 X 1 square pieces contained within the 4 X 4 structure. Therefore it's 16 times greater.

You can't just factor in one dimension and call it a day.
Have to take both horizontal and vertical into account.

Simple geometry.

0 upvotes
DrSid
By DrSid (Feb 24, 2012)

Imho if you double resolution, you quadruple pixel count. That's how I understand the term.

0 upvotes
herosi
By herosi (Feb 24, 2012)

fmain: My Grandson hates Geometry and keeps tellling me what's the practical use of it in every day life. I emailed your reply. Thanks

0 upvotes
cluening
By cluening (Feb 24, 2012)

Resolution is NOT the area. That is correct, wiki is our friend.
He refers to the fact that the area tells you nothing about the actual possibility of an array to capture data points.
Resolution is therefore defined for each axis only.
x resolution and y resolution.
I you had a sensor with 1 pixel width resolution and 4kilopixel resolution height the area was still 4kP. If width is extended to 4kP the area will be 16MP but the resolution in height will be kept constant.

0 upvotes
Lin Evans
By Lin Evans (Feb 24, 2012)

Absolutely - this is very misleading. The "actual" optical resolution is less than 4x that of HDTV. 4X would represent a "perfect" linear relationship between pixel count and "optical resolution" increase which, of course, never exists in the real world because of CFA and AA filtering losses. I suppose they are simply trying to maximize the shock effect on the public - but like big screen display manufacturers, tend to push the envelope with misleading advertising.

0 upvotes
maxnimo
By maxnimo (Feb 24, 2012)

Screen resolution is usually measured as the total pixel count... just like the resolution of a camera sensor. But it can also be specified as pixels per inch, which is only meaningful if you know the screen size. Resolution of a photo print is usually measured as dots per inch, which can be confusing when dealing with color prints.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gapato
By Gapato (Feb 24, 2012)

So... this thing is going to feed you with a 12GBs (raw) bitstream... Better get a big USB cable.

0 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Feb 24, 2012)

Where do I need this kind of resolution if I don't have video projector putting out 109" picture or more?
/Life starts at screen./

0 upvotes
Lofi
By Lofi (Feb 24, 2012)

Do want! And finally CSI's "enhance this or that in the video" would become plausible.

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 24, 2012)

Kid stuff. Superman was already doing it in the 1930s. It was so elementary, that he could do it in mere comic books. Every layperson "knows" it can be done by security cams or drones hovering in the stratosphere. They've seen it on TV.

0 upvotes
jambalawa
By jambalawa (Feb 24, 2012)

Can I use my 4GB Sandisk clone CF card with this?

1 upvote
SaulTh
By SaulTh (Feb 24, 2012)

That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.

3 upvotes
RedValley
By RedValley (Feb 24, 2012)

Yes it is 16x

3 upvotes
SaulTh
By SaulTh (Feb 24, 2012)

4320 / 1080 = 4
7680 / 1920 = 4

1 upvote
BBViet
By BBViet (Feb 24, 2012)

"Resolution" is frequently used to refer to pixel count. A 16MP camera has double the resolution of an 8MP camera, etc....

2 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Feb 24, 2012)

(7680x4320) / (1920x1080) = 16
That's the way marketing department want to but it. ;)

2 upvotes
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Feb 24, 2012)

"4320 / 1080 = 4
7680 / 1920 = 4"

4x4 = 16

3 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Feb 24, 2012)

I am just amazed how many mathematically talented members we have around here :D

0 upvotes
cluening
By cluening (Feb 24, 2012)

Just a matter of terms. Most people use resolution for the area, but this is not correct. Resolution is measured for each axis separately.
Wiki: In effect, spatial resolution refers to the number of pixel values per unit length.
AND:
But when the pixel counts are referred to as resolution, the convention is to describe the pixel resolution with the set of two positive integer numbers, where the first number is the number of pixel columns (width) and the second is the number of pixel rows (height), for example as 640 by 480.

0 upvotes
HonourableTyr
By HonourableTyr (Feb 24, 2012)

16MP is not double the resolution og 8MP it is a 3rd more. To double resolution you need to quadruple pixel count or double line width per pixel count in each direction.

The same way this new sensor is only 4x the resolution of 1080p which is 2MP.

Doubling resolution goes something like this:
2MP, 8MP, 32MP, 128MP, 512MP, etc.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
SaulTh
By SaulTh (Feb 25, 2012)

Kirppu: exactly, just marketing speak, which going by the replies many people prefer ;) One is good for making you buy things you don't really need, the other has a useful, physical meaning which would be good for photographers to understand. Oh well, can't teach those that are sure they already know.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 24, 2012)

I'll wait until 2025 to get an UHDTV after price came down a bit.

4 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 24, 2012)

...this will be popular with Hollywood, who will continue struggiling to come up with a high tech medium to keep their content relevant. Sadly, they could just spend it on the content itself and get better results. They don't "get it" now and they won't get it in the future.

1 upvote
technic
By technic (Feb 24, 2012)

guess they have to start working on genetically manipulated actors with extra-smooth skin, are upgrade the make-up and postprocessing departments. Such super high resolution can destroy some illusions ;-(

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 24, 2012)

Animation or special effects block-busters look worse as one revs up the resolution to extremes. Lots of work with live actors already employs soft lens or blur effects to flatter aging or dermitologically-disadvantaged actors.

0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 24, 2012)

Nice, but 120 fps is peanuts. I am still waiting for a HD camera doing 4000 fps (or even just 1000 fps, or even just 640x480) for under €2000.

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 24, 2012)

It's called a Phantom HD and it runs 1080p. I believe Sony makes something similar too, but can't remember the model name. There are at least two on the market now. Go ahead buy/rent one. Don't wait any longer.

0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 24, 2012)

I am aware of the Phantoms. The Phantom v7.3 I use at work was $100,000 and the Miro 3 €15,000. It's time consumers get an affordable option. Nikon V1 and Casio do 1200 fps but at postage stamp image size. Except for human/animal motion such speed is still too slow for other things.

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 24, 2012)

Yes, casio exilim HS is 224x64 at 1000fps, 120fps at 640x480 or 512x384 at 240fps. I wonder why no other manufacturer make such models, maybe it's more hype to cram more and more pixel or put fancy art filter.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Feb 24, 2012)

Interesting that they had to custom build a lens that was sharp enough to get all the 33mp detail.
Now wondering how the D800, and especially D800E will perform with existing lenses.

0 upvotes
divewizard
By divewizard (Feb 24, 2012)

Most Nikon lenses will not be sharp enough to take full advantage of the D800.

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 24, 2012)

@fmian & divewizard
The video camera's sensor is only 21.5mm by 12.1mm as mentioned by questionlp. That's only 30% the size of a FF sensor. Most Nikon lenses will do fine on D800/E

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 24, 2012)

Exactly! Many lenses will do just fine on the D800.

This sensor, if ever implemented, will be more taxing because of it's greater pixel density, but in the end, it won't make a heck of a lot of difference for video.

0 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Feb 24, 2012)

8K resolution is great. But I would be happy to see more Dynamic range, at least 5-6 stops at highlights. Displays must have more DR too.

2 upvotes
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Feb 24, 2012)

It's not a waste, it gives you the ability to pan, scan, and zoom in your video in post rather than having to do this while taking the video (ie. if you want to follow a single dancer on a stage without having to move the camera). Or even make multiple videos from the same source. Being able to do these things in post opens up a lot more possibilities, and it's also essentially a 120fps sports mode so you'll never miss another instant shot.

3 upvotes
Dan Tong
By Dan Tong (Feb 24, 2012)

It's nice to hear from someone who not only reads the information but also has some brains. Most of the commentary following news releases and other articles is incredibly negative and dumb.

Thanks,

Dan

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Feb 24, 2012)

... mmm
this is not something "real" yet and by that I mean physically available in your very special tech dealer... not even going into im/possible price tag.
I AM FORWARD TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR EXPRESSION.
I can understand (not that I could ever possibly invest in one of these super-duper-eyes or their CASINGs) benefits of exploiting 8k, particularly in generous budget productions.
as someone has already pointed out, i'll rather go for better DR (like the red) and improved SNR… i'd love to shoot, photos and specially video, in a room with natural light, say at iso 12.800 without visual bug infestation, X)
I also prefer to choose what i want to frame… maybe it is foolish, naive or obsolete but I like this feeling of something happening outside the frame/picture; I like to work in an exclusive kind of way (not with other things or not including other things).

gashô

0 upvotes
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Feb 24, 2012)

Great. I'm hoping that lowly 4K displays (first for Computers and then flat screen TVs) become available & affordable by next year Christmas given that the 9.7 inch IPad 3 is rumored to have a greater than HD display.

4K displays will really change how I enjoy my usually non-printed photographs.

3 upvotes
spidercrown
By spidercrown (Feb 24, 2012)

Camera maker has to keep up their MP race again, now to catch the video demand. But it's good thing. Technology advancement is always welcome :).
Someday when you look back, 1080p is just not clear enough, just like you view 720p now...

3 upvotes
ianz28
By ianz28 (Feb 24, 2012)

NHK is the major Japanese broadcast company. They are not technically a technology company.

I have two Panasonic plasma tv's: one is 720p and the other 1080p. Being perfectly honest I can barely tell the difference between the two.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Feb 24, 2012)

@ianz28
Go to Youtube and check out the same video at 720p and 1080p. If your monitor supports 1080p or bigger, there is a big difference.

1 upvote
DaveMarx
By DaveMarx (Feb 24, 2012)

ianz28, NHK is most definitely a technology "company." Yes, they are first and foremost a national broadcaster on the same model as BBC, but they've been at the cutting edge of technical development in the broadcasting field for a very long time. They began development of HDTV in 1966, they were the first to produce and broadcast HDTV

NHK runs an extensive R&D operation. http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/index.html Rather than take whatever electronics manufacturers dish out, they take the lead in finding solutions for their needs. They collect a fair amount of patent licensing revenue from the manufacturing sector.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
spidercrown
By spidercrown (Feb 24, 2012)

@ianz28, lets assume they are only doing broadcasting business. No matter what they do, they come out with something new, cutting edge technology, that's called technology advancement.
As for the difference between 720 vs 1080, is your tv larger than 40 inch? In fact, it's noticeable even on 32 inch tv if you put them side by side.. oh by the way, i suspect you are not playing blueray?

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
1 upvote
ianz28
By ianz28 (Mar 3, 2012)

@ DaveMarx

Thank you, I didn't know NHK was in the R&D field of broadcasting (mediums/technology).

@ Spidercrown

Most definitely have (2x) blue ray players and the sound system to accompany the one for the living room.

For the longest time it was a high(er) end 42" Panasonic Plasma 1080p that was our living room TV.

After that TV died twice (and repaired by panasonic - hence delegated to light duty in the bedroom) we bought a 50" 720P Plasma for half the cost of the 42" and while yes, there is a slight visible difference in black levels and a slight nod towards resolution when closely scrutinized..... But, when sitting at normal viewing distances ~ 3-4 meters I'm hard pressed to truly see a difference.

Yes, I'm sure if I set the TV's side by side I would be able to see that the older higher end 1080P actually has a better picture.

But, thats the thing. You have to put the two TV's side by side to "truly" see the difference.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ianz28
By ianz28 (Mar 3, 2012)

@ Peiasdf

I have a 24" ASUS ProArt computer monitor. Forget the youtube stuff. Watching video's from less than a meter away on Vimeo there is definitely a difference in quality between 720/1080.

From regular viewing distances for blue ray movies on a TV from the couch I can barely tell a difference between my two Panasonic Plasma's.

0 upvotes
bikinchris
By bikinchris (Feb 24, 2012)

The 160-by-72-foot screen in Dallas Cowboys stadium is only 1920 by 1080 pixels of information and it does just fine. it is much larger than any movie screen except some of the old drive in movies. I don't see a real reason for this other than a design study.

0 upvotes
Peter Rongsted
By Peter Rongsted (Feb 24, 2012)

Well the largest screen in a movie theater here in Copenhagen is 25m wide. With a 2k projector each pixel is about 12mm wide (half an inch). So don't get too close to the screen. So higher resolution is not without reason.

3 upvotes
Marco 2k7
By Marco 2k7 (Feb 23, 2012)

No seriously WTF? 1080p on a 46" screen already is at its best. I guess 8k will be an improvement for movie theater's projections or crazy people with 80" 21:9 TVs.

but still...madness

0 upvotes
oysso
By oysso (Feb 26, 2012)

80 is not very large for projector image.
I have 77 . and that is small.

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Feb 23, 2012)

cool. you have 4 inch cellphones now with 720p (1mp) displays.. so, 33mp isnt really that far off.

1 upvote
chimphappyhour
By chimphappyhour (Feb 23, 2012)

Hi! Is this tech support? Yeah, my computer blew up, threw up and melted. I tried to process some video I took with my new 33mp 120fps camera.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Feb 23, 2012)

33 megapixel video at 120fps? Impressive!

What am I going to watch the video on?

2 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 23, 2012)

Sounds like a D800 that can shoot at 120Fps. WOW

0 upvotes
questionlp
By questionlp (Feb 23, 2012)

Except that the sensor is 21.5mm by 12.1mm versus the ~36mm by ~24mm FX sensor size in the D800/D800E.

2 upvotes
Jarkko Haarla Jr
By Jarkko Haarla Jr (Feb 24, 2012)

I would really like to see them delivering the 8K 120FPS video to the Japanese homes... I mean like pumping that volume of data in high-quality lossless compression format all the way to 40 millions homes or will be interesting to hear about....

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

or for easy understanding, the sensor area is somewhere between 4/3 and Sigma SD cameras.

a small sensor like 4/3 will enable easy-to-handle super zooms (20x is the standard for videos). these lenses will be really huge for 35mm format.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Cleber rodrigues de souza
By Cleber rodrigues de souza (Feb 28, 2012)

By Cleber Rodrigues
Particularly, I think at least nowadays an obsolete technology. At least in Brazil are still with deployments of emerging new HD and just resolutions to which a person uses it at home will not be viable.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 101