Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Olympics to Be Broadcast in Super Hi-Vision in Some Cities

By - Source: Engadget | B 22 comments

The ultimate viewing party?

It feels like just yesterday that we were caught up in all the excitement of the Winter Olympics, but almost two years has passed since the 2010 winter games, which means it's nearly time for the Summer Olympics to take the stage. Set to take place in next year, the venue for 2012 is London. However, for those of us that can't make it to London to watch the games live, there's going to be plenty of options for taking in the action. One of which is super hi-vision public screenings for select cities in the U.S., Japan and the United Kingdom.

For those unaware, Super Hi-Vision is an ultra high definition format that, according to Engadget, won't hit homes for another few years. That said, the Olympics is a rather special occasion. Engadget reports that the NHK and BBC have confirmed that there will be some SHV public screenings select UK, Japanese and US cities. At the moment, it looks like there will be four locations in the UK and three in Japan but just one in the U.S., in Washington D.C.

It's a pity we're not going to be getting more than one screening. Then again, we're willing to bet people will travel from out-of-state to see their favorite sports in 33-megapixel video and 22.2 channel surround sound. Roll on, 2012.

Discuss
Display all 22 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , November 15, 2011 9:50 AM
    I remember.. something like this already happened in china / japan couple of years ago.
  • 2 Hide
    assasin32 , November 15, 2011 10:02 AM
    Hmm time flies I remember watching the winter olympics like it was yesterday. And the summer olympics hoping that Phelps would bring home another gold. We're already talking bout 2012 olympics now, speaking of which I think I need a new calender mine still says November...2009.
  • 3 Hide
    alidan , November 15, 2011 10:57 AM
    higher than 1080p wont be hitting home market for 10 ish years (aside from computers) just wondering, if you are to view the tv this will be brodcasted on, would it realistically be any better than 1080p? because im guessing you will be 30-40 feet away at best.
  • 3 Hide
    icepick314 , November 15, 2011 11:17 AM
    how about getting webcast easy FIRST then worry about super duper HD broadcasting?

    not EVERYONE will be glued on front of a TV...it would be awesome to watch the games while at work, coffee shops, or even local library's wifi?
  • 0 Hide
    dreamer77dd , November 15, 2011 11:42 AM
    It sounds like a beta test. I rather super high def TV then 3D. It like looking threw a window when you see 8k definition. You can be up close and not think it is a TV. Video games would be amazing. I want the resolution to pass my PC monitor so I have the same resolution in my living room and play my pc games with amazing graphics, and just grin with joy.
  • 7 Hide
    torque79 , November 15, 2011 11:48 AM
    How about we eliminate 3/4 of the 1000 TV channels on a typical provider so there's enough bandwidth for them all to broadcast HD exclusively? I'm so tired of HD being a "premium service" when it's just the new standard, like colour vs black and white. Even "HD" channels in Canada still broadcast lots of SD material, it's maddening.

    The Olympics are really the perfect broadcast to show off HD. I was so impressed by the quality of the broadcasting in 2010. Hopefully it helps further adoption.
  • 2 Hide
    back_by_demand , November 15, 2011 11:56 AM
    alidanhigher than 1080p wont be hitting home market for 10 ish years (aside from computers) just wondering, if you are to view the tv this will be brodcasted on, would it realistically be any better than 1080p? because im guessing you will be 30-40 feet away at best.

    Public screening tend to be on mahoosive screen anyway, so it will be the same as watching 4K cinema
  • 0 Hide
    clonazepam , November 15, 2011 2:23 PM
    Ultra High Definition huh? So first pony up the $1k to $5k for the LASIK procedure, then invest in the hardware... hehe... Maybe this tech will make LASIK more popular and more affordable. It's worth every penny. I was blind as a bat before having custom Lasik, and rose up off the table with 20/15 in less than 3 minutes procedure.
  • 0 Hide
    mcd023 , November 15, 2011 3:34 PM
    22megapixel. ooooooo. isn't 1080p 2.2MP? sounds great!! wish I could go see that
  • 0 Hide
    Catsrules , November 15, 2011 4:04 PM
    33megapixel? what resolution is that compared to 1080p? Like around 7680x4320 resolution?

    So I would just need to get 4 30" 1080p monitors to make up my 60" tv, at 7680x4320 then just use a computer with some nice video cards to watch the Olympus.
    22.2 surround sound, crap I don't think I could even fit 24 speakers in my tv room. :) 
  • 1 Hide
    torque79 , November 15, 2011 4:25 PM
    22.2 channels is also a bit imbalanced for the surround channels. If you've got that many side/high channels I'd think it would be ideally 22.4 channels (a sub on each "wall" of the listening area).
  • 0 Hide
    ko888 , November 15, 2011 5:20 PM
    Catsrules33megapixel? what resolution is that compared to 1080p? Like around 7680x4320 resolution?So I would just need to get 4 30" 1080p monitors to make up my 60" tv, at 7680x4320 then just use a computer with some nice video cards to watch the Olympus.22.2 surround sound, crap I don't think I could even fit 24 speakers in my tv room.

    You would need sixteen 1080p displays in a 4x4 array to equal the resolution of Super Hi-Vision.
  • 1 Hide
    vic20 , November 15, 2011 7:18 PM
    Super HiV..... dunno if I want that ;) 
  • 0 Hide
    Catsrules , November 15, 2011 7:51 PM
    ko888You would need sixteen 1080p displays in a 4x4 array to equal the resolution of Super Hi-Vision.


    O thanks, goofed on my math there at the end. :) 
  • 0 Hide
    eddieroolz , November 16, 2011 12:38 AM
    I wish I was able to watch the Vancouver Olympics in HD. Oh well, I got to go to the venues anyway! :D 
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , November 16, 2011 1:56 AM
    clonazepamUltra High Definition huh? So first pony up the $1k to $5k for the LASIK procedure, then invest in the hardware... hehe... Maybe this tech will make LASIK more popular and more affordable. It's worth every penny. I was blind as a bat before having custom Lasik, and rose up off the table with 20/15 in less than 3 minutes procedure.


    if you could guarenttee better than 20/20, and no loss of how good you can see at night, and little to no degradation over time, i would so get that. but the fact they still don't guarente, and they still make you sign the right to sue if they royally screw up, that makes me hesitant.
  • 0 Hide
    techtre2003 , November 16, 2011 2:10 PM
    alidanhigher than 1080p wont be hitting home market for 10 ish years (aside from computers) just wondering, if you are to view the tv this will be brodcasted on, would it realistically be any better than 1080p? because im guessing you will be 30-40 feet away at best.


    They are already shipping consumer 4k TVs and projectors. Also, Sharp will be shipping a 8K/4k unit next year.
  • 0 Hide
    aglarond , November 16, 2011 2:35 PM
    yeah ! hurray ! cool ! finally someone scraped 24 or 30 pictures per second ! anyone who is playing real games know that it needs to be at least 60 pictures per second to be really smooth .. and this is supposed to be 120 pictures per second (according to wikipedia)
  • 0 Hide
    belardo , November 17, 2011 1:29 AM
    4k video has been out for a while. There is no infrastructure to handle it today for the masses. Go to YouTube and search "4k" . They look amazing... But you can't see the true quality on a 1920x1200 screen.

    But 4k means pixels across. So 4096x2304. Which is still 4x that of 1920x1080.

    Internet can't handle that. A 200gb disc would be needed per movie. Or flash card anyway by then.
  • 0 Hide
    tommychan , November 17, 2011 3:26 PM
    Did i just read super "HIV" ?
Display more comments