How long before lossless video?

[luscious]

whether distributed by download, optical media, or some other media.

Rather than seeing greater than 1080p, I'd rather see 1080p lossless.

[JJ]

Lossless video? I.e., as in the, the entire scanned print of the filmreel? Well, wouldn't that depend on the scanned resolution?

You've got a few facts mixed up. 1080p is not lossless video. Not even close.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

Lossless video? I.e., as in the, the entire scanned print of the filmreel? Well, wouldn't that depend on the scanned resolution?

You've got a few facts mixed up. 1080p is not lossless video. Not even close.

I just mean that the blu-ray video codecs are not lossless compression. They are lossy compression. The blu-ray video codecs not only reduce the resolution but also further compress it lossy. So if a studio has a 1080p master, my understanding is that the blu-ray version is not the same quality but is compressed, lossy style with the codec.

There are lossless video compression codecs IIRC.

[JJ]

Ohhh, you mean the codecs themselves, AVC/MPEG, etc. Someone else want to take a shot at this? I'm not well enough informed on the matter.

[Hammie]

This is getting over my head, but 1080p is not what film is scanned to. It may be the resolution if a film was shot with an HD camera. I'm not sure if there are any HD video cameras that shoot at a higher resolution.

However, regarding movies with with a film camera (35mm, 70mm, etc.) Usually it is scanned at a 2K, 4K, or 8K resolution. Typically, most films are scanned at 4K, this will give you roughly a 4100x3100 pixel output. I'm too lazy to look at the exact specs, but the fist number should be 2048 for 2K, 4096 for 4K and 8196 for 8K. Its the second number I can never remember without looking it up for sure.

I think Baraka is the only current film that was scanned at 8K (8196 pixels) or at least I don't remember any other films stating this.

So, I digress. Are you looking at seeing the films at the originally scanned pixel counts or am I missing something.

[Slec]

i think he means having reels being projected out our houses

[luscious]

Originally Posted by louhamilton

Are you looking at seeing the films at the originally scanned pixel counts or am I missing something.

You are missing something.

You can take a VOB file in a DVD and use a lossy compression method like xvid to achieve a lower file size at the same DVD resolution. So the resolution is the same but information is still lost. And the video on the DVD itself is compressed already in lossy fashion.

You are confusing lossy compression with downconversion. What we have with DVD and blu-ray is both downconversion from the film resolution AND lossy compression ON TOP of that.

Analogy: you can take an image file and while keeping the exact same resolution use lossy JPEG compression to achieve a lower file size. Other compresion techniques like PNG are lossless. So, I hope that one day movies will be presented in lossless 1080p.

[Diesel]

i think it will be a long time before we can fit an uncompressed movie file on a disc

i believe Michael Bay stated that Transformers was 15terrabytes of disk space


the new film is supposedly 140terrabytes (), a record amount

[hardcorefrokid]

Originally Posted by Diesel

i think it will be a long time before we can fit an uncompressed movie file on a disc

i believe Michael Bay stated that Transformers was 15terrabytes of disk space


the new film is supposedly 140terrabytes (), a record amount

Damn! Thats a lot of Megan Fox.

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by Diesel

i think it will be a long time before we can fit an uncompressed movie file on a disc

i believe Michael Bay stated that Transformers was 15terrabytes of disk space


the new film is supposedly 140terrabytes (), a record amount

Holy shiznit! Where'd you read this?

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Holy shiznit! Where'd you read this?

Worst Previews

Director Michael Bay revealed to LA Times that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" has set a record for the biggest film in history, in terms of computer memory.

The new movie is taking up 140 terabytes of disk space, while the first "Transformers" took up only 15 terabytes. Usually the file size of a movie depends on how much detail is in each frame, the smooth transition between the frames, and the quality of sound.

This comes as no surprise, since the people at Industrial Light & Magic previously revealed the challenge Bay threw at them. "Michael took the production value up many, many notches," said Industrial's Scott Farrar. "Just the backgrounds alone are huge."

Farrar added that the 60 robot characters that play in these backgrounds will now interact much more with that world. He highlights "the splashes and the hits and the fighting on dirt or moving, banging into trees. Things splinter and break, they spit, they outgas, they sweat, they snort."

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=13584

[DonRSD]

blu-ray will be the last 'leap' in terms of audio/video

whats the % of peoples homes that still do NOT have an hdtv!?

hd to a better hd wont sell besides to junkies like us.
look at how, in %'s, if someone has a 720p hdtv they dont want to jump to 1080p tv

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by luscious

Rather than seeing greater than 1080p, I'd rather see 1080p lossless.

You probably couldn't see the difference between lossless and lossy 4:2:0.

I'd rather see 1080p deep colour 4:4:4 "lossy" than 1080p w/24-bit lossless.

That is, rather than the chroma having 1/4 the resolution of the luma, the colour would be 1080p too. And, it would be 12-bits per primary (36-bits) instead of 8-bits.

Gary

[Chevypower]

Obviously the term "lossless" is meaning a compressed video without noticeable loss in quality. But video is harder to do that than audio. Audio is comparing the lossless compressed version to CD quality. PCM 44,100hz 16 Bit Stereo sound. Lossless is about half the file size, but is supposed to sound exactly the same. There are so many variables with video, it would just be a marketing term more than anything else. Since the home video market does not use Uncompressed AVI or Mov (QuickTime) HD 4:4:4 files, the term "Lossless video" might not be marketable, and if it is, then the term will probably just confuse people.
Don, there will be continual advancements with the home video market. It won't stop at Blu-ray. Expect 2160x3840 resolution in the not too distant future, along with Real-D 3D - of course only for movies that would benefit from this. During this time there will be advancements in the professional and broadcast world that are beyond all these things, and eventually those technologies will get cheap enough to produce for the home user also.

What CODEC will be used to compress it to fit on a 4 or 8 layer Blu-ray disc or HVD that is marketed as "Super High Definition?" Who knows?