Talk:Ultra High Definition Video

message: Ugh. Why should we use 24 speakers? I think that 5 speakers is more than enough to produce 3D audio. Henri Tapani Heinonen 11:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends how you define 3-D.  5.1 speakers only gives you horizontal.  There are easier ways of getting full-sphere than 22.2 (see Ambisonics), but five speakers in a ring wont do it.  Martin.leese 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 speakers? 

message: --24.2.82.167 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio Sampling Rate 

message: The article states:
"If 1920×1080p60 high definition video has a bitrate of 60 Mbit/s using current MPEG-2 compression technologies, then 4 times the width and 4 times the height will roughly require 16 times the bitrate, which translates to 100 GB for 18 minutes of UHDV, or 6 GB per minute if MPEG-2 video compression was used."
This, however, is incorrect.  Compressed data rates do not scale linearly with resolution.  Most of what we look at in a recorded film or video image is repeating or monotonous, and at some point all patterns break down and become large patches of color.  Unless the marketing folks were to demand that all UHDV shots be of nauseatingly high-detail scenes (like large event stadiums where thousands of spectators are at an equal distance from the camera, and thus all in focus), much of the information in each frame would be highly related to the previous frame, as well as including large areas of nearly-solid colors which can easily be compressed to the MPEG equivalent of "draw a big huge blue square and add a smooth gradient of white tapering off at the top left corner" rather than the uncompressed equivalent of "draw five thousand pixels of varying shades of blue and white at these five thousand locations."  Either one represents a portion of a sky image.  One could go further in designing a UHDV codec by experimenting with larger macroblocks and longer motion vectors, though this would increase processing power requirements even more.
To sum up, even MPEG-2 would make short work of UHDV video.
So I'll let someone else edit this. I am nitrogen 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added this note to the "Capacity" section:  "(These numbers assume compressed data rates scale linearly with resolution. They do not, so actual compression numbers would be much better.)"  I don't really understand why this section is there at all.  The system is for theatres, not the home, so a discussion of non-existant disc technologies is pretty irrelevant.  Martin.leese 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MPEG-2 Compression vs. Resolution 

message: There was a section on the size of UHDV and PCD (Protein Coated Disc) in the main article, which was repeatedly deleted.  Apparently I quoted and linked to the main article as an evidence that Blu-ray is not future proof as Sony has claimed -- because even Blu-ray is not big enough to contain tens or hundreds of terabytes of data as required by UHDV.  Only PCD has huge enough size to contain that kind of data, so PCD will replace Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) in the future as UHDV is adopted.  Some fanatical Blu-ray/Sony/PlayStation 3 supporters got upset and are attempting to suppress all information regarding to UHDV. ktchong
:If you're referring to the "Capacity" and "Storage Issues" sections that were removed, the problem was that they had zero references and were original research. If you can find a published source that discusses these topics, some information could be included. Chaz Beckett 11:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears as though ktchong is no longer around, because the link to his/her name is now red. I don't know what to do, and I don't know/don't have the ambition to fix this at this point. Could someone with experience and a strong will fulfill ktchong's request?98.202.38.225 (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalization by Fanatical Supporters of Blu-ray and PS3

message: I moved the following section here since it's completely unsourced and full of original research and speculation. Chaz Beckett 12:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please source this section 

message: I've redirected that article to this article.  Since that article did seem to contain some non-duplicated (and unsourced) info, I've copied the article to here. --Farry (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved here from wiki article: Super_Hi-Vision_television

message: According to official site actual image is obsolete. --User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camera image