Jump to content


Photo

Ultra HD


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 04 March 2008 - 01:26 PM

Ok now it's time for Ultra HD:

http://www.stockfoot...ews.cfm/ID/1521

What happens now if I have a "regular" HD camera?

Good grief another HD format, will there be any more?

R,
  • 0

#2 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 March 2008 - 04:06 PM

It'll be like what happened with computer monitors. Remember when it was a big deal to go from CGA to EGA to VGA? Now there's a menu of a dozen or more different pixel grids, and everything adapts and converts, no big deal.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#3 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2008 - 04:32 PM

Nothing new. NHK has been showing this camera at NAB for the past couple of years. It's a monster. Lots of issues, but it is insanely sharp. I like the 22-channel surround system. Can anyone here actually tell the difference between say, 20 channel and 22 channel? The whole thing is insane overkill, but it is fun.
  • 0

#4 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 04 March 2008 - 05:36 PM

Nothing new. NHK has been showing this camera at NAB for the past couple of years. It's a monster. Lots of issues, but it is insanely sharp. I like the 22-channel surround system. Can anyone here actually tell the difference between say, 20 channel and 22 channel? The whole thing is insane overkill, but it is fun.



Sounds like a ploy by speaker makers. Yeah, your gonna have to go out and buy 22 bose sattelites at 300 each. sounds like I need to get into a new industry. And its 22.2 surround. thats 22 speakers and 2 subs.

I wonder what camera they will get to produce for this new format (if it ever materializes). Red and Dalsa are the only ones that even come close, but neither covers the format without some up-res. Films would have to undergo a 4K scan just to fit the format. Lastly I think with all those pixels, they will still try and do some long-GOP 4:2:0 25 or 50 mb/sec stream, making it mostly useless. I would rather see less compressed HD rather than more pixels ultra-HD. But I guess compression ratios isn't really a marketing technique for the masses yet.
  • 0

#5 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 04 March 2008 - 06:15 PM

2 subs? Bah... Try 16

http://blog.audiovid...s.com/208great/
  • 0

#6 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2008 - 09:53 PM

Look at the bright side! If you start saving ten bucks a week now, by 2020 you will have enough to buy one of these Ultra HD cams, maybe. Just don't forget to budget for the anti-depressants you will also need as you read about these developing technologies.

This is how I look on Prozac knowing I will never catch up: :rolleyes:
  • 0

#7 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 March 2008 - 10:10 PM

Can anyone here actually tell the difference between say, 20 channel and 22 channel?


This goes to 22

-Nigel
  • 0

#8 Lester Dunton

Lester Dunton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 March 2008 - 11:06 AM

The camera exists, 4 chip (with 2 green sensors ) , and Fuji zoom fixed to the chip block. Its made by Ikegami.

Attached Images

  • 0528_nhk_shv_01.jpg
  • 0528_nhk_shv_04.jpg

  • 0

#9 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:24 PM

The camera exists, 4 chip (with 2 green sensors ) , and Fuji zoom fixed to the chip block. Its made by Ikegami.


Wow it looks like some thing out of the Soviet Union in 1983.

R,
  • 0

#10 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:19 PM

My thoughts exactly.
  • 0

#11 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 09 March 2008 - 05:01 PM

I think that the future of Ultra High Definition should include better temporal resolution. Already we have 1080p televisions that run at 120 frames per second yet this 7k NHK system only shoots at 60 frames per second.
  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 10 March 2008 - 08:30 AM

Personally, I would kill for an electronic product I don't have to upgrade every few years. . . or one standard to come along and be "the standard." My head's starting to hurt from all these numbers. . .
  • 0

#13 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 10 March 2008 - 01:32 PM

Actually even these 32 megapixel displays will be obsolete within our lifetime. The ultimate technology will be the holographic displays that will be a sandwich of 24 flat panels with 32 megapixels each for a total number of one billion pixels that will be displayed. Since each pixel will be part of a three dimensional display these will instead be called voxels.
  • 0

#14 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 March 2008 - 02:28 PM

Soon we will train squirrels to draw every frame in front of us a 1,000,000 fps. There will be a rodent for red & blue and two for green. We'll call it "NutVision."
  • 0

#15 Jon Myers

Jon Myers
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 10 March 2008 - 02:41 PM

That's why I LOVE film cameras. They can upgrade the film all they want and you can still use the same camera. I can take a camera 50 years old and put new film in it and shoot a movie and nobody would know. I say just stay with film and then you won't have all of these problems. What about archiving HD.....how long will it last? Check and see how much it cost to put all the footage fromt a movie in storage. I don't know if it's true or not but I'm sure that someone does but I heard that it's about 4 times as exspensive as film. If anyone knows for sure please update me.

Jon

P.S. I like what Allen Daviau said when someone asked him how he liked shooting HD now, he said "I've been shooting HD for 30 years it's called film".

Edited by Jon Myers, 10 March 2008 - 02:41 PM.

  • 0

#16 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 10 March 2008 - 02:41 PM

Soon we will train squirrels to draw every frame in front of us a 1,000,000 fps. There will be a rodent for red & blue and two for green. We'll call it "NutVision."


I can't wait. It would be like win loose or draw on crack. But I fear that will drive up the cost of health care. Can you imagine how much it would cost to repair a squirrel with carpel-tunnel syndrome? and paying into a 401k (in accorns) would be a pain every time you wanted to watch a movie. Its not worth it unless the squirrels also crack flinstones-style jokes when they are off. 'its a living'
  • 0


CineTape

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Opal

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Technodolly