Fans of science in space now can experience fast-moving footage in even higher definition as NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) deliver the first 8K ultra high definition (UHD) video of astronauts living, working and conducting research from the International Space Station. The same engineers who sent high-definition (HD) cameras, 3D cameras, and a camera capable of recording 4K footage to the space station now have delivered a new camera capable of recording images with four times the resolution than previously offered.
The Helium 8K camera by RED, a digital cinema company, is capable of shooting at resolutions ranging from conventional HDTV up to 8K, specifically 8192 x 4320 pixels. By comparison, the average HD consumer television displays up to 1920 x 1080 pixels of resolution, and digital cinemas typically project in resolutions of 2K to 4K.
"This new footage showcases the story of human spaceflight in more vivid detail than ever before," said Dylan Mathis, communications manager for the International Space Station Program at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "The world of camera technology continues to progress, and seeing our planet in high fidelity is always welcome. We're excited to see what imagery comes down in the future."
takyon: Turksat recently tested 8K resolution satellite broadcasts:
Turksat has tested satellite broadcasts in 8K Ultra-HD, demonstrating the ability to transmit content with 16 times the resolution of HD. The practice broadcast showed scenes from Istanbul, Turkey, using the Türksat 4B satellite at 50 degrees East. Turksat said testing 8K at a time when such broadcasts are uncommon will give Turkish companies a leg up when competing globally in the future. Two Turkish companies, satellite broadcast hardware provider Kızıl Elektronik and TV manufacturer Vestel, partnered with Turksat on the test, along with Japanese chipmaker Socionext.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday November 05 2018, @05:43PM
You can view it on the TV you don't have and don't want... coming soon? [soylentnews.org]
But it's not good enuff for VR [soylentnews.org] :-(
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @05:49PM (15 children)
It's like with video games: At a certain point, it doesn't matter that your polygonal textures are 1 GiB each; it still looks like a video game.
Such higher-resolution video doesn't really look all that more impressive; it's capturing details that DO NOT MATTER.
Depth would be more important at this point, but that development was missed some 20 years ago. We should have gotten stereographic imagery, and we could easily do that now, but all of the time and energy is being poured instead into these over-engineered contraptions with motion sensors and gesture processing; the industry has let the perfect destroy any hope of achieve the good.
Anyway, the best thing that can come from this is a new encoder algorithm, which identifies some part of the video (say, a human) and encodes the video such that said human can be reconstructed with full 8K detail, but much of the environment should be encoded so as to reproduce it at the equivalent 720p or whatevs; that is to say, much of the extra data should be the thrown the fuck out.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday November 05 2018, @06:08PM (7 children)
Interrogating further: if it "looks like a videogame" why? What makes it so? What essential aspect of reality is missing?
We know about lighting and shading. We know about shadows and self darkening. We know about texture and normals. What do you see when you see "looks like a game"?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @06:18PM (1 child)
I guess it's similar to the Uncanny Valley concept; I cannot tell you why it's incomplete, but I can tell you that it's incomplete, and the closer you get to it being complete, the more I find it irritating ("WTF is wrong with you guys? Can't you see how stupid this looks? You put HOW much time and money into this???" said no one ever about Donkey Kong).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 05 2018, @09:37PM
Sounds like the soap opera effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_opera_effect [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 05 2018, @06:22PM (3 children)
Making something look life like is stupendously painstaking. You want life like quality in a game, you're going to be talking about millions of dollars just for the art. Think, block buster movie budget. 99.9999%+ of games have no where near that budget. What's more, is they aren't trying to make a "life like" game, they're trying to make a game, so won't have 100% realism in imagery as a major goal. Unlike CGI in the movies.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday November 05 2018, @06:27PM (2 children)
I mean, I don't disagree with that, but it's still a question I think is important to answer.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 05 2018, @06:44PM (1 child)
All I need is 100 Million Dollars of Federal Grant Money and I'm pretty sure I can give a better answer than 42.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday November 05 2018, @06:48PM
That's like a tenth of a F35, and they don't even work.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Monday November 05 2018, @06:24PM
I guess we will parallel what happened with audio technology. The quest for the perfect reproduction is not pursued anymore, people strike a balance between convenience and quality and let the biiig events push the envelope to an increasingly unfazed audience. Yes you can fool practically anybody with properly modeled synthesized sound, but then, hire a musician it's simpler.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday November 05 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)
Perhaps, but what really makes a difference for resolution is physical display size of the picture. For instance, a 480p picture just won't look good on a 32" TV no matter what. You really see a big difference between 480p and 720p on a 32" screen. There's much less difference between 720p and 1080p on that 32" screen. You start projecting a 720p image on a wall vs a 1080p image and you're going to start seeing a Major difference in quality.
VR is trying to make an image look like it's a giant projection on a wall. So, much higher resolution will definitely make a difference, to a certain point. Maybe 8k is that point, but as takyon pointed out elsewhere, closer to 16k per eye is more likely.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Monday November 05 2018, @06:35PM
I remember the first time i played a videogame on a projector. I said "cool" for the first 10 seconds, then realized the scenery was too spread for the eye to catch everything fast. Of course the nature of the game matters a lot, a driving sim or a flying sim should be gorgeous.
Worthy the investment? maybe in 10 years. Make it 20.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)
I'll leave this here. [edmundoptics.eu] Oversampling video does "matter" but there's no reason for an 8k screen unless your living room is the local fucking IMAX!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 05 2018, @08:04PM
That was more or less what I was going to add, except on the capture side. I hope they have a lens that has an MTF that can handle the field of view for the 8k or it is largely wasting the effort (like "hi def" over cable where they compress it).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 05 2018, @08:26PM (1 child)
I really don't think that these folk are interested in asthetics, so much as, seeing any details that might be missed as a lesser resolution. I'm trying to find some spy satellite photos to compare higher resolution to lower.
Try this out - https://corona.cast.uark.edu/atlas#zoom=6¢er=4412774,3150894 [uark.edu]
Pick any spot that interests you, and see how it looks. You may use the tools on the site as you wish, you can zoom in and out, to any scale you like. I'm looking at the Suez Canal, Port Said, and Great Bitter Lake. Detail pretty much sucks.
Now, go to Google Earth, and check out the Suez Canal - or whichever area you chose to explore. Keep in mind that when the Corona program was in operation, the spooks were using the best of the best, cutting edge photographic technology. Top secret stuff, that civilians weren't even supposed to know about. Google Earth, today, uses publicly available equipment - there really isn't a lot that is secret about it.
Another ship, a container ship, I can see separate containers. Can't see them nearly well enough to identify an individual container, but the stacked containers aren't just a huge blob, either.
With Google Earth, I can zoom in on a ship, so that I can identify the helicopter landing pad, the life boats, the bridge, cranes - well, I'll stop there. I can see the bollards and the bullnose, but I couldn't identify them as such, if I didn't already know what they are. Not enough detail to pick out scuppers or lifelines. But, the detail is amazing. And, you couldn't do that with Cold War era photography.
Although Google Earth is far more asthetically pleasing than Corona, that wasn't the goal. The goal was to see details that cannot be seen with Corona.
Same here.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday November 05 2018, @08:49PM
I have to walk my post back, at least a little. I'm looking at an image from the Corona archive that has just about as much detail as I described with Google Earth. Bridge, crane, smokestack, a bunch of equipment on deck that I can't identify - it could be a compressed gas tanker, but I can't quite tell. The image is only slightly less clear than Google Earth. Another ship in the canal has a helo pad. That pad is slightly less distinctive than on Google Earth.
These archives take a little patience - the images load so very slowly. Google Earth loads much faster. In the end though, Google does a superior job with modern tech that wasn't available back then.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday November 06 2018, @06:24PM
I have a 55 inch 4k TV, and the difference between 1080 and 4K is tiny. I don;t think 8K on that size screen would look any better. Maybe with a theater sized screen, but not a normal sized TV.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org