AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm wondering if there will be a market need for full length uncompressed films. I would think that in order to enjoy the added detail you would need a rather large size screen. Not to mention that no current Optical Media format comes close to the the storage or transfer speeds needed for a uncompressed 1920x1080 movie (although HDMI 1.3 could handle the transfer speed). Perhaps the HDV (holographic versatile disc) that are on the horizon can bring this to us. What do you guys think?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffY /forum/post/0


A complete waste of space. I'd much rather we looked at things like 4:4:4 and greater than 8bit colour depth.

Basically.


Compression is a wonderful tool that allows us to do very great things.


The desire for having everything "uncompressed" is an irrational and unproductive desire. What we really want is higher quality, and compression is a critically important tool in achieving the best possible quality given space and bandwidth limitations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles /forum/post/0


Basically.


Compression is a wonderful tool that allows us to do very great things.


The desire for having everything "uncompressed" is an irrational and unproductive desire. What we really want is higher quality, and compression is a critically important tool in achieving the best possible quality given space and bandwidth limitations.

nice way to contradict yourself
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,234 Posts
I've always thought asking for greater compression + higher bit-depth/colorspace is a bit ridiculous. The irony in this expectation is that the more compression you heap onto the material, that is completely at odds with maintaining the fancy 10-bit performance (or even 8-bit, for that matter) and chromance detail. Those 2 areas are prime areas where information/detail is thrown out, when it comes to hyper-compression exercises.


If one is to really value bit-depth and colorspace performance, I believe the ticket is less aggressive compression rates. Keep things lightly compressed, and you achieve the best space economy while maintaining the performance of the raw, uncompressed original content.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
There is 0 interest and 0 value in going uncompressed.

An uncompressed 3 hour film would take about 1.6TB of storage.


1920 height x 1080 width x 24 bits / pixel x 24 fps = 150MB / sec.

180 minutes x 60 sec x 150MB /sec = 1.6B.


Figure some space for overhead and audio lets say a 2TB disc with 1.5Gb/sec transfer rate.

Holographic may be able to do this within a few years but why?


Higher res screens are coming to market. 4K x 2K = 8.3MP displays (4x the resolution of 1080P). Higher bit color is coming, etc.


Figure VC1 gets about a 60:1 compression ratio with near perfect quality.

A 4K x 2K image with 48bit deep color would be around 13TB. Using less compression than used on the very best HD DVD you could get that down to about 300GB.


So:

Uncompressed 1080P with normal color = 1.6TB and 1.6Gb transfer rate

Compressed 8MP (quad HD) with 48bit deep color = 300GB and 300Mb transfer rate.


The compressed quad HD format would be much higher level of detail and require less advanced technology. Not that we will see either anytime soon but if you had a choice for a new format in say 2015 which would you want?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky /forum/post/0


I've always thought asking for greater compression + higher bit-depth/colorspace is a bit ridiculous. The irony in this expectation is that the more compression you heap onto the material, that is completely at odds with maintaining the fancy 10-bit performance (or even 8-bit, for that matter) and chromance detail. Those 2 areas are prime areas where information/detail is thrown out, when it comes to hyper-compression exercises.


If one is to really value bit-depth and colorspace performance, I believe the ticket is less aggressive compression rates. Keep things lightly compressed, and you achieve the best space economy while maintaining the performance of the raw, uncompressed original content.

Nonsense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
High compression schemes are being outpaced by processing power. Processors are powerful enough to do real-time decompression. So lossless compression really should be the point of interest. The encoding/compression time of the source material doesn't really affect the end-user.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/0


There is 0 interest and 0 value in going uncompressed.

An uncompressed 3 hour film would take about 1.6TB of storage.


1920 height x 1080 width x 24 bits / pixel x 24 fps = 150MB / sec.

180 minutes x 60 sec x 150MB /sec = 1.6B.


Figure some space for overhead and audio lets say a 2TB disc with 1.5Gb/sec transfer rate.

Holographic may be able to do this within a few years but why?


Higher res screens are coming to market. 4K x 2K = 8.3MP displays (4x the resolution of 1080P). Higher bit color is coming, etc.


Figure VC1 gets about a 60:1 compression ratio with near perfect quality.

A 4K x 2K image with 48bit deep color would be around 13TB. Using less compression than used on the very best HD DVD you could get that down to about 300GB.


So:

Uncompressed 1080P with normal color = 1.6TB and 1.6Gb transfer rate

Compressed 8MP (quad HD) with 48bit deep color = 300GB and 300Mb transfer rate.


The compressed quad HD format would be much higher level of detail and require less advanced technology. Not that we will see either anytime soon but if you had a choice for a new format in say 2015 which would you want?

Good discussion guys. I just wanted to throw this out there and see what kind of conversation it sparked.


Good point here. I would rather have the encoded 4k x 2k content over the uncompressed 1080p content. Although the screen would have to be VERY large to get any real use out of that resolution. I saw Sharp's 65" prototype 4k x 2k LCD and it didn't blow me away.


PS: Is VC-1 really achieving a 60:1 compression ratio?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/0


The compressed quad HD format would be much higher level of detail and require less advanced technology. Not that we will see either anytime soon but if you had a choice for a new format in say 2015 which would you want?

Uncompressed Quad!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnarok /forum/post/0


Good discussion guys. I just wanted to throw this out there and see what kind of conversation it sparked.


Good point here. I would rather have the encoded 4k x 2k content over the uncompressed 1080p content. Although the screen would have to be VERY large to get any real use out of that resolution. I saw Sharp's 65" prototype 4k x 2k LCD and it didn't blow me away.

I haven't seen the Sharp but I guess the amount of "amazing" would depend on both the quality of the display and the content being displayed. I have seen some 1080P monitors that look worse than a high quality 768P.

Quote:
PS: Is VC-1 really achieving a 60:1 compression ratio?

Well uncompressed 1920x1080 @ 24fps and 24bit color is 1200mbps. Most VC-1 titles are less than 20mbps. Thats at least a 60:1 compression. Even mpeg2 offers about a 20x - 30x compression ratio.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
740 Posts
I would like to see 4K movie at 120fps in 3D with full 10 bit colorspace, i think you will see it faster then you think.


if you check out best buy you will see almost no non HD TVs for sale. you will see very few non flat screens, and you will see the new 50-57 inch LCDs selling as fast as they come in.


margins on the largest size screens are very good, but the cheap ones made in china are getting bigger and better every year. the top tier LCD makers have to keep making bigger sets to sell for the 2000-3000 price that they make money on. at some point they will run out of size, there is only so big you can go. after that they have to add something that will set them apart from the chinese sets. the only option they have is to go higher contrast ratio, higher frame rate, more color space and last higher resolution.

sets are already announced that do 50k to one contrast and some may do 120fps. color space was upped for HDMI 1.3 set could start showing up to use it. projectors that have 4K res are already planed and LCD flat panel makers will be showing them for 2009 or 2010 time frame.


this is why i think we will see the holographic disks at some point, around 2010 they should start showing them with a roll out in 2012. they may show up faster if the current HD disks fail or the CP is truly broken.


i do 3D computer art, i have a Dell 3007WFP that is 30 inch LCD with 2560x1600 with a custom polarization screen it is fully stereoptic. so i can do 720p HD stereo now. 3D lcd will evolve from the two view LCDs being shown now, these are the ones that let two people watch diff shows from the left and right.


this is the progression that i think LCDs will take
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,067 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by UxiSXRD /forum/post/0


All we need are those holographic versatile discs that hold something like 3 terabytes...

And a way to replicate. Duplication might not be viable.


Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,067 Posts
Is there such a thing as lossless video compression? What are the results?


Gary
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
20,735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by namechamps /forum/post/0


There is 0 interest and 0 value in going uncompressed.

An uncompressed 3 hour film would take about 1.6TB of storage.


1920 height x 1080 width x 24 bits / pixel x 24 fps = 150MB / sec.

180 minutes x 60 sec x 150MB /sec = 1.6B.


Figure some space for overhead and audio lets say a 2TB disc with 1.5Gb/sec transfer rate.

Holographic may be able to do this within a few years but why?


Higher res screens are coming to market. 4K x 2K = 8.3MP displays (4x the resolution of 1080P). Higher bit color is coming, etc.


Figure VC1 gets about a 60:1 compression ratio with near perfect quality.

A 4K x 2K image with 48bit deep color would be around 13TB. Using less compression than used on the very best HD DVD you could get that down to about 300GB.


So:

Uncompressed 1080P with normal color = 1.6TB and 1.6Gb transfer rate

Compressed 8MP (quad HD) with 48bit deep color = 300GB and 300Mb transfer rate.


The compressed quad HD format would be much higher level of detail and require less advanced technology. Not that we will see either anytime soon but if you had a choice for a new format in say 2015 which would you want?

I irrationally cling to the idea of "uncompressed" even though it will give me much poorer quality video.



"I want uncompressed video" basically means "I want crappy, low-definition content."
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top