 danky
Male, 18-29, Western US
 559 Posts
|
Friday, December 09, 2011 2:18:22 AM
I don't care |
|
 Sonsglow
Male, 18-29, Western US
175 Posts
|
Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:37:31 PM
This would have been cool minus the EDC or GDF bullpoo. |
|
 ljdp
Male, 13-17, Europe
28 Posts
|
Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:24:41 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. |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 11:26:16 PM
intrigid: I quoted wikipedia for the UHDTV specifications, Look Here if you want more technical details. |
|
 xelous
Male, 18-29, Western US
2535 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:51:36 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 |
|
 lilpyrodrgn
Female, 18-29, Western US
10 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:21:09 PM
random shots of the electric daisy carnival |
|
intrigid
Male, 18-29, Canada
879 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:49:02 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. |
|
Sloppy1
Male, 18-29, Canada
265 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:37:01 PM
Girl having sex at 59 seconds |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:18:48 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. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9554 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:00:53 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. |
|
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 11:15:43 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. |
|
 burbclaver
Male, 50-59, Western US
859 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 11:00:17 AM
In other words, it's just the file size from an average VDSLR before compression. |
|
 LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
10503 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:26:32 AM
Why not just call it 2304p?
Also, isn't Imax at a crazy resolution like this? |
|
Lameworld
Male, 18-29, Western US
51 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 10:07:00 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 |
|
 MrPeabody
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
1450 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:55:09 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. |
|
 tatripp
Male, 18-29, Western US
1182 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:20:42 AM
lake powell, joshua tree, and yosemite ftw |
|
 heavypred
Male, 30-39, Europe
236 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:05:22 AM
I've seen 720HD on vimeo that looks better than this. FU compresion |
|
 jsnider81
Male, 18-29, Western US
9 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:50:25 AM
Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" is being shot in 5K. |
|
 kissmybim
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
440 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:44:03 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? |
|
 gary8162
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
656 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:43:07 AM
That was awesome! |
|
 WorldOfJames
Male, 18-29, Europe
614 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 8:30:31 AM
this isn't 4k. this is a compressed trailer of an unreleased 4k film |
|
 madest
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
6407 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:23:15 AM
Link: TimeScapes 4K [Rate Link] - This awesome video was filmed and edited at 4K (4069x2304) resolution, four times greater than regular 1080p HD. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}