5 ms·
Agree. Also, even watching videos for 24 hours it seems unlikely that you'd go through 34GB worth. Maybe the size of video files has gone way up since I was a m
by ebullientocelot 8y ago
Agree. Also, even watching videos for 24 hours it seems unlikely that you'd go through 34GB worth. Maybe the size of video files has gone way up since I was a movie downloader, but 12 2 hour movies is probably < 34GB..
- larkeith 8y agoAt 1080p60 it's probably doable (heck, I wouldn't be surprised if I've beaten 34GB when sick), but it's still a rather absurd figure. Are they counting each site visited, including javascript and CSS, without caching, and every video loaded on Facebook, even if unwatched? I doubt even such a measurement would approach 34GB on average.
- ThePadawan 8y agoAs a point of interest, there are audio- and cinephiles who prefer 10bit color depth, 5.1 FLAC audio. I'm not one of them, but I stumble across their files sometimes, and I have seen stuff like Blade Runner (~2h run time) to the tune of 20-30GB (IIRC).
- leetcrew 8y agoa blu-ray rip with no reencode can easily be 20-30GB. even the higher bitrate 1080p encodes found on public trackers can be 8-12GB. pretty easy to go through 34GB of high quality 1080p movies on a domestic plane flight (if you have the storage).
- Bedon292 8y agoIt really depends on where you measure it. A 4k BluRay is somewhere around 60-80GB for a single movie. But then when that is uncompressed and sent to the actual screens you are talking multiple gigabits a second. With 4k60 being somewhere in the 12 to 18 gbit range at the peaks. If it were at 16gbit for 2 hours, that would be ~14TB of information transferred. If you are talking streaming bandwidth, Netflix says 25mbit is required for 4k video streaming. If it were to use all of that for 2 hours that is 22GB for a movie. Though its likely only using half that. I haven't actually measured it. And then there is the same inflation to what is sent to screen.