dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3386
share rss forum feed


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

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

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



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

Yeah, but then if you're like me you get terribly distracted by the slightest black gap between images :P
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2

Put on a sporting event, and watch how quickly people ignore the black lines. Happens every time when TSN/RDS is playing on the Place Ville-Marie video wall, especially during a NHL or FIFA event.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live



frodosh

@voxility.net

"Bread and Circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses)


Eug

join:2007-04-14
Canada
reply to singerie3

4K - different market

Interestingly, the few people here who seem to want 4K are talking about conventions and malls and stuff. That isn't the mainstream consumer market. That is the pro market.
--
Everything Apple



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

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

Well, it started out with me pointing out that 4K would provide a positive benefit to my home theater, which is a 100" screen viewed from 6 to 8 feet. Every chart and rule-of-thumb I've seen indicates that the maximum perceptible resolution for my setup would be well over 1080p. Personally, I think the max benefit for my setup would be somewhere around 3K.

My computer monitor would also benefit much more so. If your screen is high enough resolution (as in, you can't discern individual pixels), then you should see no visible difference when you enable anti-aliasing. But having been playing through System Shock 2 recently, I can tell you that a 1440p 27" monitor is nowhere near "retina" levels. The jaggies were strong with this one.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by Guspaz:

I can tell you that a 1440p 27" monitor is nowhere near "retina" levels. The jaggies were strong with this one.

Retina resolution is defined as the number of pixels per arcsecond across your field of view. A 10" iPad at 1' from your eyes has the same angular resolution as a 30" 1600p display at 3' which makes them technically indistinguishable assuming similar panel quality and that you aren't near/far-sighted which would naturally give an unfair bias toward one situation over the other.

Also, aliasing is not so much about the eyes' resolution as it is about the brain being wired to detect unnatural/unexpected irregularities. I cannot really see individual pixels along polygon edges at my normal sitting distance but I do notice the distracting shimmering from unblended edges - and these would remain noticeable well beyond Apple's retina resolution on slow moving edges.


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

I realize all that, that's my point. I've got a 27" computer monitor, and for some content at least, 4K would look visibly better. Particularly because I sit closer when gaming than when watching movies/tv on it.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org