The Amazing Spiderman 2.5min 4k uncompressed trailer size is 500GB. How come?
- Thread starter manakiin
- Start date
3840x2160 resolution, 16bit colour, 60fps, would give you 447GB for 2.5min of footage.
4096x2160 only bumps that up to 477GB.
But I doubt it has those specs. So did this happen to you? Or did you read it from some website?
Because I'm having a hard time believing it would hit 500GB. A more understandable number would be 89GB or 112GB depending on if it was released with 8bit or 10bit colour, at UHD resolution, and 24fps.
4096x2160 only bumps that up to 477GB.
But I doubt it has those specs. So did this happen to you? Or did you read it from some website?
Because I'm having a hard time believing it would hit 500GB. A more understandable number would be 89GB or 112GB depending on if it was released with 8bit or 10bit colour, at UHD resolution, and 24fps.
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
What's the bitrate?
manakiin
Active member
It's just something that is repeatedly stated across the internet and I have hard time believing.
http://www.insideci.co.uk/articles/interview-why-sony-leads-with-4k-ultra-hd.aspx
Even monstrous 16bit 4k DPX film scans are not quite big enough for 500GB.
http://www.insideci.co.uk/articles/interview-why-sony-leads-with-4k-ultra-hd.aspx
Even monstrous 16bit 4k DPX film scans are not quite big enough for 500GB.
It's untrue.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
You don't want to know.
This is part of my dayjob. We almost got a world class optic fibre network but the people spoke and an election later and we're headed for the digital third world. Apparently 20mbps is more than we need in this country for the next 50 years. Maybe that's the real reason netflix and others geoblock us? I work in the industry and the best service I know of (cable broadband 100mbps, 500GB limit) is over $150/month. The lucky few who got fibre before the change in policy allegedly have access to gigabit now but it is still download limited and you can bet its not cheap. Hell, ADSL still costs $50+ and the state of the copper network means you're lucky to get 10mbps. Most services need to be choked even lower for stability and many people lose their internet when it rains.
Without wanting to move a specific whinge into political territory, the economic future of this country is supposed to be technological development. Ha! :undecided
This is part of my dayjob. We almost got a world class optic fibre network but the people spoke and an election later and we're headed for the digital third world. Apparently 20mbps is more than we need in this country for the next 50 years. Maybe that's the real reason netflix and others geoblock us? I work in the industry and the best service I know of (cable broadband 100mbps, 500GB limit) is over $150/month. The lucky few who got fibre before the change in policy allegedly have access to gigabit now but it is still download limited and you can bet its not cheap. Hell, ADSL still costs $50+ and the state of the copper network means you're lucky to get 10mbps. Most services need to be choked even lower for stability and many people lose their internet when it rains.
Without wanting to move a specific whinge into political territory, the economic future of this country is supposed to be technological development. Ha! :undecided
Last edited:
manakiin
Active member
Well, if it makes you feel better... High end fibre lines like 200/200 unlimited come at whopping 200eur per month. That is just under 300 in your dollars I believe. So it's not exactly something you would have at home for personal use. But on the other side, you could get something like 100/100 unlimited optics for 50€, that is the upper limit of what is perceived as reasonable here.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Yeah, 100mbps is more than enough for now, although only a small percentage of the population have access to that. Even 20 will do pretty much everything your average user needs today. For my own usage I personally get by with a wireless 3G account limited to 20GB. But it won't cut it tomorrow.
It has become a highly politicised issue, and noone is listening to experts. As one of the few people here that understand the issue it is frustrating to deal with the misinformation from all sides. This second rate infrastructure is going to cost so much that it will be decades before we can afford to replace it with what we should have built in the first place. Not to mention my job hangs in the balance. Never had my personal future so directly in the hands of the pollies before. Been a stressful couple of years!
To get back to the OP I doubt that 4K will be streamed anytime soon and 500GB or not, streamed content certainly won't be uncompressed. Even HD on terrestrial broadcast is highly compressed.
It has become a highly politicised issue, and noone is listening to experts. As one of the few people here that understand the issue it is frustrating to deal with the misinformation from all sides. This second rate infrastructure is going to cost so much that it will be decades before we can afford to replace it with what we should have built in the first place. Not to mention my job hangs in the balance. Never had my personal future so directly in the hands of the pollies before. Been a stressful couple of years!
To get back to the OP I doubt that 4K will be streamed anytime soon and 500GB or not, streamed content certainly won't be uncompressed. Even HD on terrestrial broadcast is highly compressed.
Last edited:
Egg Born Son
Veteran
No doubt. It will come down to the demand, although the internet is a special case compared to broadcast though. Streaming doesn't require any standard other than the bandwidth to deliver. Broadcast on the other hand needs agreed upon standards because a lot of expensive equipment lies between the tv stations and the towers (not to mention the consumer end) and a lot of it needs upgrading every time the standards change. The switch from analogue to digital was a lot of work too, I don't think anyone wants to pay for all that labour again anytime soon. Although with an increasing percentage of the population getting content primarily from the internet I wonder how long the broadcast industry will be setting the standards...
EDV
Well-known member
I oppose the megapixel war one way or the other. 2K lead to 4K and we all know 5 or 6K probably will follow. Do we need it to go down that path in such a rush?? I know of several countries who are yet to adopt 720p for TV broadcast. And lots of amazing 360p content is been shown in pristine quality for the first time in decades ( YouTube ). Progress should not be measured in pixels.
Egg Born Son
Veteran
The Japanese are talking 8K as the limit for the target standard of the future. I recall reading they project this as being sufficient for photorealistic screens that take up the entire wall of a residence.