Spatial audio that supports dynamically computed surround sound for arbitrarily many speakers and headphones.

> Movies can practically scale up to retina-equivalent on wall-size equivalent only. Even then not many people will want TVs bigger than they can look at without moving their eyes...

> Pictures could still grow, especially the internal raw representation taken from the light capturing element, but that's likely to be down-scaled when saving to kill noise.

1) High color depth, allowing bright and dim objects to coexist in the same picture without loss of fidelity, and allowing dynamic lighting.

2) Complete depth data, allowing dynamic depth of field changes.

3) Complete geometry and scene-graph data, allowing you to change the camera and perspective.

Still covers only a small arbitrary constant factor of data that is already very small by modern standards.

Note that surround sound data is, IIRC, already not "twice" the size of stereo.

And your video points 1 and 2 are also still at most only small constant factors of increase over what we already have, with 3 potentially being a compression technique.

Video is nearing its apex; sound is pretty much already there.

There's actually a maximum rate at which our senses can convey information to our brains; any use of data beyond that rate is literally impossible and anything carried beyond that is wasted. Even a full sensorium just isn't that much larger than what we already have. We are, after all, talking about technologies that are in the same ballpark as the maximum theoretical data density that human brains can have, and in practice the memristor storage is going to be much higher. It should not be surprising that it's very difficult to truly "use" all that storage.

Even stereo is also not twice the size of mono. (using joint-stereo encoding)

Agree with all the other points too.

> 2) Complete depth data, allowing dynamic depth of field changes.

This does extend the natural sense range, but is also already possible/done.

> 3) Complete geometry and scene-graph data, allowing you to change the camera and perspective.

That should actually take less space than the final scene in many cases...

I guess you are talking about the utility of media at higher and higher fidelity and I am just snagging on how you have phrased it.

Edit: I'd imagine this is due both to a limited amount of storage, a limited number of writes to current sold-state mediums, and energy usage, all of which this technology appears to solve.

1GB/s of streaming data is 10,737,418 channels of 100 point per second 64bit floats.

I guess it is hard to imagine, but let's dream a bit...one ridiculous possibility that I've thought about is consider something like google glass. Imagine recording every moment of your day from your smart phone, and not just when you wake up. Why would you do this? Well, may be there for little things like having a meeting with someone and you want to remember details without writing it down. Why take the time to record it manually when you have the ability to do it in HD, for cheap?

Again, this is hard to imagine wanting to do especially for privacy reasons, but were things like facebook and twitter easy to imagine in the 80s? As things things have changed, so have social norms...I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, I'm just stating an observation.

So, I happen to not have any HD vids on my laptop at the moment, but I have a normal video on my laptop that is 10 minutes long that is 70 MB. For something like recording video for 10 hours say, that's 6 * 70 * 10~4GB. So, yeah that's about 250 days (little less than a year) on your smart phone at 1 TB ignoring all other things (full seasons of vids of shows, as another commenter mentioned, stuff like raw gps data that could be added to the video, other things), so may be it isn't quite reaching the limit but it's a good example for how as we have more space for stuff, it is possible to imagine finding more things to fill your smartphone's new TB of storage with.

Much easier than the example you give, yes. Considering things like Xanadu were already theorized in the '60s, Facebook and Twitter wouldn't be that huge of a stretch. What's more, Usenet and BBSes already existed in the '80s, so there was a text-based glimpse of the future in some way.

Of course, imagining the scale, deep technical details and the heavy use of graphics back then was likely difficult. But the general concept? Hardly. Especially not something as simplistic as Twitter, the idea of it was most certainly not alien back then.

Current holographic displays require a movie-source for every few-point. And to make it convincing for a small POV (e.g. 19" 4:3 holographic monitor) you need at least 8 few-points, for a 360° next-gen holographic display you would many terrabytes of data for one movie (and a high bandwidth to stream the data to the display). Depending on the holographic technology you need additonally a very high resolution in contrast to the visual output. If you use a common HD resolution the current visible pixel range is about 640x480 - at least some expensive research displays I used in 2011.