Excellent, so they can still be recognised (not that surprising I guess, given the use of existing 33GB layer tech) but not played. One step at a time...
What did you use to estimate the bitrate? If you've got the audio info for the regular Blu (assuming those tracks been cloned across to the UHD encode in this case) then that's pretty much all you'd need, right?
If that figure of 34 Mb/s average for video is correct, then that just goes back to what I've said many times before whenever people blindly start throwing "it'll be better because it's got a much higher bitrate!" around: the new codec levels that playing field completely.
Still, given what I said about Lawrence and 66GB on the previous page, if for arguments' sake that also had a 34 Mb/s average video bitrate then it would fit onto a 66GB with plenty of room to spare for the audio (provided it isn't some bitrate hungry DTS-HD 7.1 or Dolby Atmos track).
Yeah, but 34 mbps is pretty low compared to equivalent BD bit rates. If the bit rate in the same codec needs to be about 2.5 higher and HEVC is around 1.6x more efficient, then the equivalent bit rate would be 1.56x more (2.5/1.6). And that doesn't include HDR. Martian BD is 27 mbps, which would be 42 mbps equivalent UHD without HDR. How much should HDR add to the bitrate?
Lawrence of Arabia BD is only 22 mbps so the equivalent would be around 34 mbps by coincidence.
They may have lowballed it, true enough, but if XDTV is correct then that m2ts file size for Martian UHD is what it is, inclusive of 10-bit, HDR, audio etc. And maybe that 2.5x figure for UHD vs HD that I've referenced before doesn't hold true with the latest generation of HEVC encoders? Using your math above the UHD version of Martian is equivalent to 2x the size of the BD version with the 1.6x efficiency of HEVC taken into account, so 2x is still nothing to be sniffed at!
[edit] It's more likely that it really does depend on the content as to how much bigger the equivalent compressed UHD file size would be vs regular HD. And Martian is quite a static film in some respects with a very crisp image capture, it's not some super-grainy quick-cut action flick that's an encoder's worst nightmare so maybe that also helped to maximise the efficiency of HEVC in this case. (Which again bodes well for the lingering vistas of Lawrence.)
And they had the display of the 4K titles in full swing, right next to the 3D movies. Glad to see these are finally going up as the store closer to me didn't have the display up yet.
^ If we took the 22 Mb/s for the one-disc edition of Lawrence to hold true to the x*[2/1.6] calculation then that would come to a miserly 27.5 Mb/s for UHD Blu, so that would give you a 45GB video encode or thereabouts. But if we take the meatier 34 Mb/s bitrate of the JPN Mi4K and apply the same then that comes to 42.5 Mb/s which is about 70GB for 227 minutes of video, not including audio etc.
But hey, all movies are different, I'm just spitballing here.
Excellent, so they can still be recognised (not that surprising I guess, given the use of existing 33GB layer tech) but not played. One step at a time...
What did you use to estimate the bitrate? If you've got the audio info for the regular Blu (assuming those tracks been cloned across to the UHD encode in this case) then that's pretty much all you'd need, right?
If that figure of 34 Mb/s average for video is correct, then that just goes back to what I've said many times before whenever people blindly start throwing "it'll be better because it's got a much higher bitrate!" around: the new codec levels that playing field completely.
Yes the audio tracks on the BD and UHD-BD files are comparable so I simply calculated that the UHD-BD M2TS is 26% bigger than the 2D M2TS BD....
So the Bitrate must be 26% higher
BD Bitrate= 27 mbps average
UHD Bitrate= 34 mbps average
Any calculation error should be small so it might be 35 mbps MAX.....
Last edited by MisterXDTV; 02-22-2016 at 04:55 PM.
^ If we took the 22 Mb/s for the one-disc edition of Lawrence to hold true to the x*[2/1.6] calculation then that would come to a miserly 27.5 Mb/s for UHD Blu, so that would give you a 45GB video encode or thereabouts. But if we take the meatier 34 Mb/s bitrate of the JPN Mi4K and apply the same then that comes to 42.5 Mb/s which is about 70GB for 227 minutes of video, not including audio etc.
But hey, all movies are different, I'm just spitballing here.
I've never understood why they often leave a ton of free disc space.
Why not apply less compression and have a higher bitrate?
There has been some anecdotal evidence that there are sometimes mandates at the home video departments to dumb down consumer media, so it doesn't look nearly as good as the commercial masters.
There has been some anecdotal evidence that there are sometimes mandates at the home video departments to dumb down consumer media, so it doesn't look nearly as good as the commercial masters.
There has been some anecdotal evidence that there are sometimes mandates at the home video departments to dumb down consumer media, so it doesn't look nearly as good as the commercial masters.
There's another reason: when the same disc comes to Europe they have to add all the foreign audio dubs so they need to save some space in the american version.
In this case they have like 13 GB of space left....
There has been some anecdotal evidence that there are sometimes mandates at the home video departments to dumb down consumer media, so it doesn't look nearly as good as the commercial masters.
I know of someone who's been working in post production for years, he says that uncompressed 'pro' 1K looks better to him than the end product of compressed consumer 2K. TBH I still think some of it comes from the scaling that's needed to turn 2K into HD, it's filtered far too much to avoid any aliasing and whatnot. Sometimes we get a crop rather than a scale-down but I get the feeling the latter is still more prevalent. That's just a shot in the dark though, I don't know for sure.
Netflix is going all in on HDR and more original content
After revealing an ambitious plan for global expansion earlier this year, Netflix is now looking to focus on what's arguably the most important part of its business: content. In a recent meeting at Mobile World Congress 2016, the video giant shared more details about what subscribers should expect next. And that mostly revolves around making a bigger push for original shows, improving the Netflix mobile apps on iOS and Android, and bringing support for high dynamic range (HDR) programming.
The company hasn't been shy to divulge its appreciation for HDR, but it's going all out on the technology in 2016. "We started exploring HDR content about one year ago," says Chris Jaffe, vice president of user interface innovation at Netflix. "It is the [obvious] next-level resolution in the playback experience." Over the coming months, there will be many HDR shows available on the platform, including Marco Polo season one and the highly anticipated second season of Daredevil.
But Jaffe knows it won't be easy, particularly given the amount of internet bandwidth required by this type of content. As such, he says, Netflix has already worked out various compression algorithms, which adjust the quality of the video based on its complexity and still serve it up at a high resolution. So long as you have a 16–20–Mbps connection, the experience should suffer from a minimum of buffering woes. Of course, Ultra HD content plays a major role in Netflix's strategy, too, and there are more than 300 hours of 4K programming expected to hit the streaming service in 2016.
Additionally, Jaffe says Netflix is launching 30 shows this year, including new seasons for existing series like House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, plus 10 original movies and a number of documentaries and exclusive content for kids. "[We have] 75 million members around the world; essentially that means 75 million different experiences," he says about the challenge Netflix faces to have something for everyone, from movies and TV shows to the algorithm used to recommend what you should watch.
On the mobile side, Netflix is expected to roll out a revamped iOS app tomorrow, featuring support for Arabic and auto-play episodes. Later this year, both the iOS and Android applications will also let you manage your data usage, in case you have a cap on your smartphone or tablet plan and want to limit streams to a certain quality.
Meanwhile, if you have a Chromecast, you can expect a second-screen experience to arrive "shortly," which is going to give you access to IMDb-like metadata from your iOS or Android device. It'll come in handy during those times when you don't know who an actor is, or want to know what other movies he or she is in -- the benefit here is that you're able to do it directly from the app.
You have to give it to Netflix for its appetite to keep growing across the board, but you also have to ask yourself if it's trying to do too much all at once. As always, however, only time will tell. For now, if you're a Netflix buff, there's no reason you shouldn't be excited about the company's plans for the near future.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
