3 ms·
The theater versions are also compressed at a much higher bitrate (although I believe using a not-as-good codec as h265). I've heard 500GGB+ for a 2HR film.
by TylerE 3y ago
The theater versions are also compressed at a much higher bitrate (although I believe using a not-as-good codec as h265). I've heard 500GGB+ for a 2HR film.
- ianlevesque 3y agoYeah it’s individual JPEG2000 images, which is definitely...a way to do it.
- shiftpgdn 3y agoMy prosumer cinema camera (sigma fp) records video with individual dng files and a wav for audio. I think it’s not that unusual.
- TylerE 3y agoI would imagine a big advantage for the production team is being able to screen it and pause on any single frame and have it be perfect - consumer codecs all seem to use keyframes, which certainly save a lot of space, but if you start on a non-keyframe you either get no output or pixel puke until the next one.
- monocasa 3y agoThey mark which frames they're referring to, so you at most just get a little stutter to decode those other frames if you're optimizing for the scrubber use case.
- ta1243 3y agoNot sure how much benefit there is in h265 over h264 or something like j2k at high bitrates, at low rates h265 certainly is beneficial. Either way 500GB for 2 hours is still significantly compressed - over 90%. Standard UHD 10 bit 30 bits a pixel, even at just 24fps is 384021603024 = 6gbit/sec just for the video alone without audio, ancillary information, and container overhead. I suspect movies work in 12 bit too, and work at 4k, so that's 409621603624 = 7.7gbit/second, or about 7TB for a 2 hour movie.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoWere movies ever displayed at this bitrate in regular theaters?