←back to thread

252 points CharlesW | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kelsey98765431 ◴[] No.44457519[source]
happier and happier about leaving behind digital media to return to physical. to me this is literally slop. i want the uncompressed file stop selling me stepped on product
replies(4): >>44457632 #>>44458543 #>>44459074 #>>44461075 #
recursive ◴[] No.44459074[source]
Uncompressed 4k video is ~5Gbps (3840 * 2160 * 3 * 24 * 8). A 2-hour movie clocks in at about 4.3TB. (3840 * 2160 * 3 * 24 * 60 * 60 * 2)

All that is 24fps.

That's without audio, which I assume you also want to be uncompressed.

replies(2): >>44461322 #>>44463364 #
fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44461322[source]
TBF even as bloated as 48/24 FLAC is it's a rounding error at that point.
replies(1): >>44462776 #
1. recursive ◴[] No.44462776[source]
But FLAC is compressed. Don't forget 13 channels. Only the best! Probably 192 khz.
replies(2): >>44463373 #>>44463487 #
2. account42 ◴[] No.44463373[source]
Even though op wrote "uncompressed" you should be able to deduce from context that they meant not lossy compressed.
replies(1): >>44468796 #
3. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44463487[source]
Lossless is lossless. But I shudder to imagine the file size of a 2 hour 13 channel 192/24 flac soundtrack.

However I notice a critical oversight on your part. You have assumed a channel depth of merely 8 bits when the minimum for a decent workflow is 12. Thus rather than 3.9 TiB (ie 4.3 TB) we arrive at 5.9 TiB.

Of course a modern feature length film is likely closer to 2.5 hours (7.3 TiB). Lossless HEVC should get that down closer to 2.5 TiB. At approximately 290 MiB per second that's going to demand dropping an SSD in the mail as the only practical method of distribution and playback.

4. recursive ◴[] No.44468796[source]
If either lossless or uncompressed was reasonable in this instance, I would interpret it as such. Uncompressed video is completely bonkers of course. So is lossless. Shrug.