dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3512
share rss forum feed


Dones

join:2008-02-14
Toronto, ON

4K movies will be over 100 GB each!

»www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/40409···ownloads

I guess that means one movie a month for some people

morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Yikes currently the only Way for me to stream those from sony would be on 150/10 and No Indies offer it! ZOMG!
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.

kovy7

join:2009-03-26
kudos:8
reply to Dones
said by Dones:

»www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/40409···ownloads

I guess that means one movie a month for some people

Does anybody stream 1080p uncompressed ?

Phorkster
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Windsor, ON
kudos:1
So instead of 1.5G containers, we are looking at 3G containers. If you even care for that level anyways.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to Dones
Oh, please! 100 GB? A properly encoded 1080p H.264 movie can be stored in a file between 5 and 10 GB in size. 4K is about 4 times 1080p. That means a MAXIMUM file size of between 20 and 40 GB for a 4K resolution movie.

And that without considering the compression abilities of the upcoming H.265 standard, and the fact you can get away with applying more compression on higher resolution material!
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Dones
said by Dones:

»www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/40409···ownloads

I guess that means one movie a month for some people

Or a return to swap meets & sneakernet.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL
kudos:1
reply to Dones
That is without compression. You can compress a blue-ray 25GB to 3GB with x 264

eeeaddict

join:2010-02-14
very true, though to be honest if someone is so overkill that they want 4k right now or within the next 2 years they probably will want a bigger file since whats the point of spending like $20,000 on a tv soon and then compressing the video?


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to brianiscool
said by brianiscool:

That is without compression. You can compress a blue-ray 25GB to 3GB with x 264

You can compress a blu-ray to 50MB, but it'd look horrible. So would it too at 3GB, which is not even enough for decent quality 720p.

Decent looking 1080p would require somewhere between 7 and 15 gigabytes for offline fully VBR video, depending on the content.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Dones
said by Dones:

»www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/40409···ownloads

I guess that means one movie a month for some people

I posted about this in another thread, but the guy is basically talking out of his ass. 100GB is incredible overkill for streaming 4K... that bitrate is excessive even for an optical format. I suspect that when we eventually see a 4K variant of BluRay, which current holds u to 128GB on currently shipping discs, it'll use a lower bitrate than what this guy is proposing. Not that much less, I'd expect 4K bluray to use about three quarters of the bitrate that this Sony guy is talking about, assuming his 100GB is for two hours of video.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to Dones
All this talk about 4K streaming and everyone is forgetting we live in Canada and will never be able to do this because our ISPs would bitch and complain


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Dones
4K streaming at reasonable (for streaming) quality should easily be possible with existing connections. I'd expect you could do decent 4K video with a 15 Mbps video, well within the capabilities of today's 25 meg DSL and 30 meg cable connections. For people on 10 meg internet, a service like Netflix could have a lower bitrate 4K or almost-4K option that would probably still look OK, and it would seamlessly scale back (much like how there are a whole bunch of "HD" bitates for Netflix other than just 3600 and 5800).
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


vitesse

join:2002-12-17
Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, QC
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
·voip.ms
·Bell Sympatico
·Videotron
reply to Dones
Yes we can do it, you can test by yourself with youtube.

»www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL···CEC8F88F

My old Xeon processor is not fast enough and have an hard time to decode it, but the streaming itself is perfect.
--
Connection: ElectronicBox 60mbps / 3mbps
Bilingual DSLR ElectronicBox Forum: »ELECTRONICBOX


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Dones
4K video should be well within the capabilities of a good multithreaded decoder on a decent CPU made in the last few years; I doubt the Flash decoder is either (good or multithreaded). Some new videocards have 4K accelerated video decode onboard that Flash could leverage, but support seems scarce.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


noneed

@ecatel.net
reply to Dones
Next to no movies are shot at 4k, vast majority will be upscaled file size bloated bs. This all assumes one has went out and bought a 4k tv, which will be say 50" or so, still not large enough to take advantage of native shot 4k content. My advice for consumers and 4k media is not to fall into this pointless upgrade money trap.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
said by noneed :

Next to no movies are shot at 4k, vast majority will be upscaled file size bloated bs. This all assumes one has went out and bought a 4k tv, which will be say 50" or so, still not large enough to take advantage of native shot 4k content. My advice for consumers and 4k media is not to fall into this pointless upgrade money trap.

Almost all movies are shot at 4k or shot on 35mm and scanned in 4k. Only low-budget stuff or during the early phase of the digital transition (like star wars episode 1) would be shot at 2k (1080p).

My screen is 100 inches, and could definitely use some 4K lovin', but it will be a very long time before 4K projectors are even remotely affordable.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to kovy7
said by kovy7:

Does anybody stream 1080p uncompressed ?

100GB is already considerably compressed:

3840 x 2160 x 24fps x 3bytes/pixel x 7200 seconds = 4TB

So 100GB is already 40:1 compression and that does not even include the soundtrack... so make it 45:1 to leave some room for that, menus, subtitles, etc.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Dones
Acceptable compression ratios do not remain unchanged as resolution increases. The higher the resolution, the higher the acceptable compression ratio, for both perceptual and camera optics reasons.

BluRay allowed a minimum ratio of ~30:1 compression (although in practice it varies and is often closer to 60:1). So a 40:1 ratio for 4K is incredible overkill. The bitrate at 100GB is roughly double what it needs to be for a 4K bluray.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


MadCow

@electronicbox.net
reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

So 100GB is already 40:1 compression and that does not even include the soundtrack... so make it 45:1 to leave some room for that, menus, subtitles, etc.

You're over accounting for the audio. Uncompressed 8 channel 32 bit @ 48KHz would take 10Gb for 2 Hours, that's 0.25% compared to the uncompressed video. Sure if you were to carry it uncompressed you'd get 10GB of the final 100GB so that's 10% of the file contents leaving 90GB video for a compression of 44.4:1, but I assume that sony would use at the very least loss less compression to such an exaggerated audio spec.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by MadCow :

You're over accounting for the audio.

You are under-accounting for everything else I said the extra space may be needed for.

Most movies come with multiple audio tracks, multiple subtitle tracks, animated menus, extras, commentary tracks, etc.

Also, you need to add the MPEG framing overhead.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
said by InvalidError:

said by MadCow :

You're over accounting for the audio.

You are under-accounting for everything else I said the extra space may be needed for.

Most movies come with multiple audio tracks, multiple subtitle tracks, animated menus, extras, commentary tracks, etc.

Also, you need to add the MPEG framing overhead.

But most or all of those things are going to be constant. There isn't any difference in audio size between a 1080p and 4K disc, the overhead for framing is minimal, the difference in menu size is inconsequential...

If we accept that 4K content should require roughly double the bitrate (some argue less than that is required, I say 2x to keep it simple), and then consider that most blurays are single-layer (25GB) discs, 100GB for a 4K video becomes incredibly excessive, to the point where there's a danger that a longer 4K film (like three hours) would not fit on the biggest currently available quad-layer (128GB) bluray discs.

EDIT: Of course, if they try to throw in Dolby Atmos (64.1), that's another story entirely. Atmos should have significant bandwidth requirements, but when you've got that many audio channels for a single video, there are likely some pretty crazy compression tricks you can pull. If you're trying to pan a helicopter over the ceiling grid, for example, you've probably got more or less the same sound in all of them, just at different intensities.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


RobinK

join:2004-04-16
Canada

1 edit
reply to Dones
I highly doubt optical disc will be the primary consumption medium for movies by time 4K becomes mainstream. So no point in making comparisons to BD discs capacity for the most part.

I would say, based on my amateur experience, that doubling in resolution requires about 50% more bitrate to maintain similar quality for most types of content (digital anime being a huge outlier here). So twice the delivery size of a BD video is what I would assume if all else is equal (that's for the video only).

But I would go on to predict that the bitrates and compression methods for 4K video will in fact suck and present shitty quality video during its introduction phase. The same way BD/HDDVD did. I assume this will be done to appease the shitty bandwidth limits of NA in the digital delivery market.

However, if I bought a 4K movie on optical disc, I would very much expect more than 50GB of capacity to be used. Anything less and I would be disappointed. Why buy into a new, higher quality, more expensive standard, for compromised bitrates and subpar image? Use the entire capacity of the disc (and push for more if needed). Fuck if anyone thinks it is unnecessary or if h.265 can encode miracles and compress video with 100000000:1 ratio with acceptable quality. If I pay for it on a permanent medium like disc, I expect the highest possible quality. Lossless if possible (video and audio).

Also, you cannot assume audio is constant at the current standard. It was not constant when moving from DVD to BD (6ch 48khz lossy or 2ch 16/48 -> 8ch 16/48 lossless being most popular for new movies). You need to consider the possibility of 24bit/96kHz becoming the standard audio rate to match with 4K video. And who knows how many channels they will start pushing. Then maybe a few movies in between trying to up sell themselves with 32/192.
--
Argue opinions using facts. Not facts using opinions.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Dones
We already know the bluray association is studying delivery of 4K, and all the building blocks are in place today to deliver that (128GB discs, mature h.264 decoders, early h.265 decoders).
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

Eug

join:2007-04-14
Canada
reply to Guspaz

Frame perfect vs. compressed garbage

Well, some argue it can take more than 2X 1080p bitrates for highest quality encodes since 4K is 4X the resolution. His numbers could make some sense if he is talking about long movies encoded with H.264. H.265 is a different story though.

Furthermore, even if they somehow managed to get it down to 25 GB per movie (which is possible depending on the quality desired), there are very few people out there who really want to stream that.

Overall, personally I think 4K will pretty be much irrelevant for the mainstream for the foreseeable future, with that foreseeable time frame being the next five years. Those of us with huge image sizes from projectors (90" in my case) represent the 0.01%, and those with 4K projectors are the 0.000000001%. For most seating distances with regular sized TVs (ie. less than 70" or whatever), 1080p is sufficient.
--
Everything Apple


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to Guspaz

Re: 4K movies will be over 100 GB each!

said by Guspaz:

My screen is 100 inches, and could definitely use some 4K lovin', but it will be a very long time before 4K projectors are even remotely affordable.

So get four 1080p projectors, and align them just right.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

singerie3

join:2008-10-12
Saint-Constant, QC
reply to Eug

Re: Frame perfect vs. compressed garbage

and we all know 1 mbps connection is sufficient for our everyday life.

main keyword in your text : personally.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..
reply to InvalidError

Re: 4K movies will be over 100 GB each!

it seems silly to try and do 4K streaming with h264. sure it's doable but it's a large strain on the networks. h265 seems really designed to handle 4k and and 1080p streaming too.

as for those saying BluRay isn't compressed? yes it very much is, just not as much as 'web' video or pirate releases with a lower bitrate. Blurays mostly use h264 or other similar codecs.


ontarian

@amd.co.at
reply to Dones
I already see an image: BS Voltage title in glorious 1080p 100GB and asking myself: does picture quality actually increases a real value of the movie material? If movie is BS (stupid fantasy, falsified history, propaganda or otherwise) no amount of HD will make it better. It is still a BS to start with


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to milnoc
said by milnoc:

So get four 1080p projectors, and align them just right.

Well, we actually did try to overlay two projectors to double the light output. They both had lens shift, but getting them close enough to look like a single image is a nightmare. Side by side wasn't good enough, so we had to stack them on top of eachother, but then it wasn't quite right even with lens shift so we had to fold up paper and shimmy it between the things in the right places...

Needless to say, we decided not to do this for the convention.

Combining multiple projectors for a bigger (or higher-res) image is a bit easier, but you need a vision mixer that supports it, and you lose a bit of resolution at the blend point. Basically the mixer has each projector fade to black along the joined edge, so you overlap them in that part, and because they fade from one to the other you don't have to be as precise because it's hard to see the seam even if they're not perfectly aligned. That's mainly intended for doing multiple images side-by-side, though, not 2x2.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
Here's a cheat you might want to try out at conventions. Add a thin black felt cross to your screen, and align each projector inside its own rectangle. The extra black border will fool people into not paying close attention to the misalignment, just like those multiple panel displays you often see in shopping malls.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live