A complete waste of space. I'd much rather we looked at things like 4:4:4 and greater than 8bit colour depth.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkrispy /forum/post/0
nice way to contradict yourself
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.
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?
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?
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.
Quote:
PS: Is VC-1 really achieving a 60:1 compression ratio?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UxiSXRD /forum/post/0
All we need are those holographic versatile discs that hold something like 3 terabytes...
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?