The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 30    Average: 3.8/5]
22 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9874
Rating: 3.8
Category: Entertainment
Date: 12/07/11 08:20 AM

22 Responses to TimeScapes 4K

  1. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7378 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 6:23 am
    Link: TimeScapes 4K - This awesome video was filmed and edited at 4K (4069x2304) resolution, four times greater than regular 1080p HD.
  2. Profile photo of WorldOfJames
    WorldOfJames Male 18-29
    978 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 8:30 am
    this isn`t 4k. this is a compressed trailer of an unreleased 4k film
  3. Profile photo of gary8162
    gary8162 Male 40-49
    939 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 8:43 am
    That was awesome!
  4. Profile photo of kissmybim
    kissmybim Male 40-49
    439 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 8:44 am
    great. just as I was starting to figure out how to hook up my 1080p now I have to figure out 4069. do they even make TVs with this kind of res?
  5. Profile photo of jsnider81
    jsnider81 Male 18-29
    9 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 8:50 am
    Peter Jackson`s "The Hobbit" is being shot in 5K.
  6. Profile photo of heavypred
    heavypred Male 30-39
    249 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 9:05 am
    I`ve seen 720HD on vimeo that looks better than this. FU compresion
  7. Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 9:20 am
    lake powell, joshua tree, and yosemite ftw
  8. Profile photo of MrPeabody
    MrPeabody Male 30-39
    1920 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 9:55 am
    Sucks compared to my 5.5 Terapixel Hasselhoff VideoCam. You could theoretically make a video the size of the moon and not loose detail.
  9. Profile photo of Lameworld
    Lameworld Male 18-29
    51 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 10:07 am
    @heaveypred

    While it was filmed in 4k, there is nothing out there that lets you upload videos that with that big of res, its probably playing at 720
  10. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 10:26 am
    Why not just call it 2304p?

    Also, isn`t Imax at a crazy resolution like this?
  11. Profile photo of burbclaver
    burbclaver Male 50-59
    878 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 11:00 am
    In other words, it`s just the file size from an average VDSLR before compression.
  12. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 11:15 am
    LazyMe: Imax is at 7680 x 4320, which is the same as the proposed Ultra High Definition Television or UHDTV. That`s 16 times the number of pixels of HDTV.

    The main problem with videos at these resolutions is storage, 20 minutes of UHDTV video would require 4 Terabytes of storage space.
  13. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    do they even make TVs with this kind of res?

    Yes. They`ll cost you ~US$15,000 and a TV five feet wide is probably too large for your home, but they do make them. Although someone who can afford that much for a TV probably has a big enough house for it to fit.
  14. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    The main problem with videos at these resolutions is storage, 20 minutes of UHDTV video would require 4 Terabytes of storage space.

    Hmm...by my quick calculations, that`s 16bpp uncompressed. Or are you going on 32bpp with a 50% compression? Or maybe 24bpp with a 33% compression?

    There are free lossless codecs that achieve >50% compression.

    Maybe it`s a processing power issue. Decompressing 7680x4320 at 60fps would take a lot of processing power for a TV.

    Data transfer rate would also be an issue. 7680*4320*60*2 (res*framerate*bytes per pixel) means you`re looking at ~4GBps and that`s too much. What could you transfer it off for home use? It would have to be solid state and that would make it hideously expensive.
  15. Profile photo of Sloppy1
    Sloppy1 Male 18-29
    267 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Girl having sex at 59 seconds
  16. Profile photo of intrigid
    intrigid Male 18-29
    914 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    "
    LazyMe: Imax is at 7680 x 4320, which is the same as the proposed Ultra High Definition Television or UHDTV. That`s 16 times the number of pixels of HDTV.

    The main problem with videos at these resolutions is storage, 20 minutes of UHDTV video would require 4 Terabytes of storage space."

    I assume you`re talking about storage for editing, not for home viewing.

    I believe that a 2 hour Blu-ray movie fits on 25 gigs. I might be a little bit off in either direction but it`s pretty close to that. Multiply that by 16 times, and that means that a 2 hour 7680x4320 would fit on 400 gigs.
  17. Profile photo of lilpyrodrgn
    lilpyrodrgn Female 18-29
    10 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 9:21 pm
    random shots of the electric daisy carnival
  18. Profile photo of xelous
    xelous Male 18-29
    2513 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 10:51 pm
    If it`s all made in 4k resolution why is the maximum resolution available 1440 as an HD download.

    Doesn`t make sense, why would a wookie live on endor
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    December 7, 2011 at 11:26 pm
    intrigid: I quoted wikipedia for the UHDTV specifications, Look Here if you want more technical details.
  20. Profile photo of ljdp
    ljdp Male 13-17
    28 posts
    December 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm
    Most digital films, commercials and TV drama`s are shot at 4K.
    You`re only going to get the best out of it on a cinema screen, however 4K footage downsampled to HD looks better than footage shot at HD. It`s the same effect as downsampling audio.
  21. Profile photo of Sonsglow
    Sonsglow Male 18-29
    201 posts
    December 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    This would have been cool minus the EDC or GDF bullpoo.
  22. Profile photo of danky
    danky Male 18-29
    559 posts
    December 9, 2011 at 2:18 am
    I don`t care

Leave a Reply