Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 3-970-80.jpg (30KB, 970x545px) Image search:
[Google]
30KB, 970x545px
I'm concerned, /g/.
Current blu-rays usually have the capacity of up to 50gb, which is plenty of space for a full hd movie of high quality compression. But the new standard worries me. 4k will not only quadruple the filesize by itself, which should just about fill up the 100gb (which is the maximum specification, there are lesser variants) provided by the UHD Blu-ray. But then what? They have implemented support for an expanded color gamut and hdr, but where is the space for that? Are you telling me they're going to compress muh videos more than blu-rays did? Are we to start seeing artifacts?
A proper 4k hdr film should take up between 100-200gb of space. But there's no place for that now. All we're left with is some fucking compromised version.
>>
>>52241388
more layers for the disks
also disks are dead technology
>>
Best quality will ironically come from streaming I bet. Google Fiber is expanding, etc
>>
>>52241444
won't be implemented in wide film releases. The standard supports up to 100gb.
Also, what's a better alternative? streaming? The avg. broadband speed in the us is 20mbps
>>
>>52241486
>The avg. broadband speed in the us is 20mbps
That's just middle america (who cares) bringing the average down. It's higher than that where it matters.
>>
>>52241513
True, but google fiber customers are just too small of a market for 4k streaming.
Proper movies should come on discs/downloads. Except no one has that much space, so just discs left. And they fucked that.
>>
>>52241486
Who cares about averages when the people who buy 100GB blurays are rich and if they want more quality they can afford to buy better internet.
>>
4k is not four times 1080p
>>
>>52241602
uhhh actually it is
>>
>>52241564
Will rich people be enough to stimulate a new high-quality distribution platform? Oh wait, I guess there's already that thingy for private screenings that you can buy. You know, the one that sends you dcp's over the internet. I guess that could handle proper 4k. But those who can't afford that are fucked.
>>
>what are advance codecs
They are not going to be putting raw video files on there.
> It stores data in a different way, though, moving from the H.264/AVC (Advanced Video Coding) compression technology to the newer H.265/HEVC (High Efficiency Video Coding) successor. HEVC takes more processing to use when encoding videos but compresses them more compactly -- or alternatively viewed, lets more pixels be sent across a given amount of data-transfer capacity.
when compared to H264 ..
>The average bit rate reduction for HEVC was 52% for 480p, 56% for 720p, 62% for 1080p, and 64% for 4K UHD
Everything will be fine, but people will need to buy new bluray players that work with this new ultra HD standard
>>
>>52241640
damn, 64%
I guess that settles it then. As long as HEVC doesn't fuck up the image too much
>>
>>52241388
4k Blu-ray uses H.265 and I suspect that file size scales sub-linearly after a high enough resolution for most video.
>>
>>52241513
Living in a shifty coastal state.
You poor little plebe.
>>
>>52241388
100 GB will be MOAR than enough. H.265 (HEVC) is pretty damn good for size.
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1