Yes, compression makes thing smaller. But I find it strange that broadcast video and DVD both opt for a higher bit depth than CD Audio if there's no benefit.
AVC is MPEG-4. Not sure if you were trying to say it wasn't.
It's true - HEVC is a lot better than I thought. 100GB discs would do it for me. But that's 4 times the size of the 25GB that started the argument. And that 25GB is probably in AVC.
$4/mo. isn't insane, but it's way too much for me. On the other hand, I'm tired of having so many cards. Is it worth $4/mo. to not have to carry them all? No. $1/mo., maybe.
100GB Blu-Ray discs would be a start. But I own plenty of discs that are 1080p and have AVC @ 30MBps+ and use up most of the disc space. A lot of movies have several audio tracks because audio is small, but any 3 hour movies I own are on two discs. Ben-Hur is one example that used two Blu-Rays to avoid compression artifacts: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray/756/
There's no reason to throw away the picture quality we've achieved now to call something at the same bitrate "4K."
At 4x the resolution, you want close to 4x the disc space. That means getting Blu-Ray up to 200GB, or a little less since audio is more or less perfect and doesn't need any extra space.
While the grain is large enough to be noticeable on 35mm film, the resolution is still very high. Dozens of megapixels.
By the time many movies were being shot digitally, the major films were being shot in 4K. Look at the RED camera. There are a few films shot in SD and upconverted to 2K, but they're the exception. We only left film behind for movies in the last decade. Digital production was only good enough for TV before that.
It's true that CGI was sometimes only as good as 2K for a couple decades. But most of a movie isn't effects shots. And so before that time, an entire movie would be at least up to 4K quality. And then you have films shot on 70mm Todd-AO film back in the 50's and 60's, like The Sound of Music. 70mm film is just a whole different level. Even as the prints have degraded, they can have dramatic restorations.
Most of the 4K demo TV's I've seen in stores show video that's so compressed, the artifacts would be large even for 1080p. So it's quite possible that it's hard to tell the difference when the content is that bad.
I'm not talking about leaps and bounds further. I think Blu-Ray's HD audio standards come pretty close to the physical limits. Just generous padding, not outrageous sizes.
There's also the higher dynamic range of going beyond 16-bit, which is not just a limiting factor in movies, but also orchestral recordings.
Nobody needs a smaller 4K TV, but nobody wants their computer monitor stuck at 1080p forever. This will hopefully trickle back down to computer monitors.
3D is something that's been successful in theaters and even if it's not something everyone wants, that market is no longer going away like it did for the red/blue glasses. And it just so happens, I watched a film in 3D (Hugo) that I liked so much that I bought the 3D Blu-Ray. This despite not yet owning a 3D TV or 3D Blu-Ray player. There was a time when everyone was criticizing sound in movies - silent movies were just fine. And the same happened for color. Now, 3D isn't necessary or even appropriate for every film, but as an artistic storytelling or immersion tool, it's not a bad thing. Neither is HFR, but that hasn't stopped Peter Jackson from experimenting with it on The Hobbit series - which did help with sweeping panoramic shots, but still sort of fails elsewhere due to the loss of "natural" motion blur.
requires you to download each ~25GB movie in advance. I would imagine that other content providers will adopt a similar delivery method long before a new optical medium is adopted.
At a bitrate that's only half of a two-layer Blu-Ray, it's just not worth doing. You wouldn't even need new optical media for that, just an updated standard. But again, pointless - the quality difference just wouldn't be there at that size.
do you really think that 100 years from now we're still going to be watching 1080p video with 16-bit 44.1kHz audio?
Broadcast TV ATSC standard is 48KHz already. What I don't understand is why music is mastered in 96KHz or 192KHz and we're not even getting 48KHz digital distribution yet. Even if that's not a big jump from 44.1, it's at least an even divisor. This is why I still buy all my music on CD. I lose nothing and I gain a tiny physical backup once I dispose of the case.
And if they were smart, even paying for public transportation or hiring someone to drive you to a better grocery store is cheaper than shopping convenience stores and eating fast food.
The spelling "Solomon" has nothing to do with the other words AC tried to associate it with. The original hebrew was three letters - shin lamed mem. Hebrew doesn't even have vowels. Crazy AC thinks the English spelling has some special connection to other English-spelled words, entirely ignoring all of the facts of history.
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't piped footage. This was a standalone display. I don't know what brand this one was, but it was showing panning shots of landscapes.
I can't seem to fit my phone into the slot to swipe it.
The volume knob was referring to bit depth, not sample rate.
Yes, compression makes thing smaller. But I find it strange that broadcast video and DVD both opt for a higher bit depth than CD Audio if there's no benefit.
AVC is MPEG-4. Not sure if you were trying to say it wasn't.
It's true - HEVC is a lot better than I thought. 100GB discs would do it for me. But that's 4 times the size of the 25GB that started the argument. And that 25GB is probably in AVC.
$4/mo. isn't insane, but it's way too much for me. On the other hand, I'm tired of having so many cards. Is it worth $4/mo. to not have to carry them all? No. $1/mo., maybe.
Maybe the second generation will be under $20.
You speak of the noise floor as if my sound system doesn't have a volume knob.
Not entirely true. If you're resampling from 96KHz to 48KHz, that's an even ratio. You'll get fewer dithering artifacts at every frequency.
But more importantly, bumping from 16-bit to 24-bit. That's not a question of what frequencies are reproduced, either.
100GB Blu-Ray discs would be a start. But I own plenty of discs that are 1080p and have AVC @ 30MBps+ and use up most of the disc space. A lot of movies have several audio tracks because audio is small, but any 3 hour movies I own are on two discs. Ben-Hur is one example that used two Blu-Rays to avoid compression artifacts:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray/756/
There's no reason to throw away the picture quality we've achieved now to call something at the same bitrate "4K."
At 4x the resolution, you want close to 4x the disc space. That means getting Blu-Ray up to 200GB, or a little less since audio is more or less perfect and doesn't need any extra space.
If you choose to ignore context, I'll revise my post for you.
35mm film is greater than 4K. What we don't have is digital playback media that will display on a 4K TV
Good enough?
We're not getting 48KHz for music yet. It's still all 44.1, which is an uneven downsampling from most mastering setups.
While the grain is large enough to be noticeable on 35mm film, the resolution is still very high. Dozens of megapixels.
By the time many movies were being shot digitally, the major films were being shot in 4K. Look at the RED camera. There are a few films shot in SD and upconverted to 2K, but they're the exception. We only left film behind for movies in the last decade. Digital production was only good enough for TV before that.
It's true that CGI was sometimes only as good as 2K for a couple decades. But most of a movie isn't effects shots. And so before that time, an entire movie would be at least up to 4K quality. And then you have films shot on 70mm Todd-AO film back in the 50's and 60's, like The Sound of Music. 70mm film is just a whole different level. Even as the prints have degraded, they can have dramatic restorations.
I get it. You didn't realize that 4K is a theater standard and those refer to horizontal resolution. Perfectly understandable if so.
Most of the 4K demo TV's I've seen in stores show video that's so compressed, the artifacts would be large even for 1080p. So it's quite possible that it's hard to tell the difference when the content is that bad.
I'm not talking about leaps and bounds further. I think Blu-Ray's HD audio standards come pretty close to the physical limits. Just generous padding, not outrageous sizes.
There's also the higher dynamic range of going beyond 16-bit, which is not just a limiting factor in movies, but also orchestral recordings.
35mm film is greater than 4K. What we don't have is playback media.
Nobody needs a smaller 4K TV, but nobody wants their computer monitor stuck at 1080p forever. This will hopefully trickle back down to computer monitors.
3D is something that's been successful in theaters and even if it's not something everyone wants, that market is no longer going away like it did for the red/blue glasses. And it just so happens, I watched a film in 3D (Hugo) that I liked so much that I bought the 3D Blu-Ray. This despite not yet owning a 3D TV or 3D Blu-Ray player. There was a time when everyone was criticizing sound in movies - silent movies were just fine. And the same happened for color. Now, 3D isn't necessary or even appropriate for every film, but as an artistic storytelling or immersion tool, it's not a bad thing. Neither is HFR, but that hasn't stopped Peter Jackson from experimenting with it on The Hobbit series - which did help with sweeping panoramic shots, but still sort of fails elsewhere due to the loss of "natural" motion blur.
Not all are senseless pirates.
You don't think 3456x2304 (8MP) comes close to 4K (3840x2160 for televisions)?
requires you to download each ~25GB movie in advance. I would imagine that other content providers will adopt a similar delivery method long before a new optical medium is adopted.
At a bitrate that's only half of a two-layer Blu-Ray, it's just not worth doing. You wouldn't even need new optical media for that, just an updated standard. But again, pointless - the quality difference just wouldn't be there at that size.
do you really think that 100 years from now we're still going to be watching 1080p video with 16-bit 44.1kHz audio?
Broadcast TV ATSC standard is 48KHz already. What I don't understand is why music is mastered in 96KHz or 192KHz and we're not even getting 48KHz digital distribution yet. Even if that's not a big jump from 44.1, it's at least an even divisor. This is why I still buy all my music on CD. I lose nothing and I gain a tiny physical backup once I dispose of the case.
And if they were smart, even paying for public transportation or hiring someone to drive you to a better grocery store is cheaper than shopping convenience stores and eating fast food.
Yeah..I don't get the poor eating fast food thing...it is notcheap to eat fast food!!??
That's part of why they're poor.
The spelling "Solomon" has nothing to do with the other words AC tried to associate it with. The original hebrew was three letters - shin lamed mem. Hebrew doesn't even have vowels. Crazy AC thinks the English spelling has some special connection to other English-spelled words, entirely ignoring all of the facts of history.
And I've seen some amazing crayon drawings. That doesn't mean they're the best tool.