No, single disc. UHD is still BD. So one BD and on UHD BD.
[doublepost=1452363060][/doublepost]
They are single disks. 50GB is plenty, but it does show you how massively compressed streaming is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why 4K mattered on ATV4...
- Thread starter Snoopy4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, single disc. UHD is still BD. So one BD and on UHD BD.
[doublepost=1452363060][/doublepost]
They are single disks. 50GB is plenty, but it does show you how massively compressed streaming is.
I admit I have trouble figuring out a 50gig disc as being enough for a typical hour and forty minute movie. If I read correctly, 4k is about 3.8 times as much "data" at minimum compared to a similar 1080p movie. Though H.265 gives better compression, tests show that it is approximately 10-30 percent reduction of size as compared to H.264. To put the 3.8x data on to 50gig disc, the compression would have to be greater than used for H.264 movie on a typical Blue Ray disc.
If anyone has better numbers to work with, please share. This is an open question.
If anyone has better numbers to work with, please share. This is an open question.
So this!
The market has moved to streaming. Physical media is on life support right now.
It will not be enough. It will take a 3rd generation UHD disc that's around 100 GB. to give you a full benefit of 4K.
Does 4K REALLY matter? We're starting to get into resolutions that are going to make no difference unless you're using a TV above a certain size (larger than what most people have) or you sit closer to your TV (which no one does).
You make an interesting point here. Where I see higher resolution having an advantage is in up-scaling on some lower resolution media. Edge adjacency interpolation and dithering might actually improve the look when done properly. However, for me, my frustration comes from the fact that 1080p and for that matter 480i/p has no standardization for quality. In short, they can't even get all 1080p to look decent and now we venture into higher resolution with zero guarantees of level of mastery in the transfers. We wont even know if they simply took 1080p and up-scaled it. Just more hit and miss which is pathetic considering how those bastards forced how playback must be handled (HDMI and all the handshake rules blah blah).
Sorry, off my soap box for the moment...
UHD discs can actually go as high as 100GB. In general, the file size of a BD at 1080p is under 30GB, and usually around 25 so for the vast majority of titles 50GB will be fine, but many will need the 100GB disc and have a file as large as 60GB. No one is going to be swapping discs or turning them over.
[doublepost=1452433898][/doublepost]
It's the color capability of 4K that will be more significant. Most movies are mastered in 2K and will stay in 2K. What UHD will unlock is that color spectrum.
[doublepost=1452434456][/doublepost]
With iTunes (and any streaming product for that matter) 1080p file size around a third of a BD, yes it's clear that there should have been some quality standardization. I've blown up AppleTV on a 120" screen and it's an unmitigated disaster.
Last edited:
With those prices it certainly won't.It will be interesting to see the pricing of UHD Blu-rays when they go on sale in a few months. It seems the industry has learned nothing from Blu-ray, which after all these years still hasn't managed to surpass DVD and probably never will. And it's far from commanding the premium prices the studios were dreaming of; instead they are now often sold for less than $10 a few months after release ...
I think part of that is because they still produce regular DVDs. Many movies still release in combo packs with BD, DVD and (often) a digital copy. If they had stopped producing DVDs once they began releasing blu-ray then people would have had to upgrade quicker. Even now I still see many movies issued on DVD alongside BD. For those who still have regular DVD players they don't feel the need to upgrade if their movie is released on DVD.
This is where UHD is getting it right. No DVD copies. Digital copies are here to stay, and to be honest I think it's great so that I don't have to tote the physical media around and they can be stored in a cool dark place and used in the primary viewing area.. I just wish Apple would kiss and make up with UV so my UV copies could be viewed on my ATV.
I would have been rather annoyed if they stopped DVD production to promote Blue Ray (though I only buy Blue Ray for the most part). Perhaps if the PRICE of Blue Ray wasn't so high to start with, they would have generated a larger market. Blue Ray prices these days, (save for newly released) are now within reason for most people.
I never cared for the digital copy. Never used it. But I agree. Though I did see the upcoming "The Martian" UHD release also include the blu-ray copy.
True given the initial prices so in the beginning it made sense to include the DVD. But not now and within the last couple years. I don't even use the DVD.
That may never happen now, Apple feels no pressure to do so. When the D.E.C.E voted in Ultraviolet, Apple fans should have yelled join Apple join....but instead all screamed die UV die, backing Apples decision.
New tech always has an initial premium. I've not paid more than $20 for a single BD. It cost me more to see the movie in the first place by the time we purchased enough tickets and popcorn for everyone. If I liked it, I bought it when it came out. If not, no sale. The expense has been the back catalog converting from DVD to BD. That was expensive, but worth it. DVD just doesn't come close.
That may never happen now, Apple feels no pressure to do so. When the D.E.C.E voted in Ultraviolet, Apple fans should have yelled join Apple join....but instead all screamed die UV die, backing Apples decision.
Only if quality is dead, and it's not.
Streaming also has a bandwidth problem, a gigantic one. It's pure fantasyland to think the market has moved to streaming.
Regular consumers are not like us. They don't care about "high quality". They just want entertainment when they want it. Most movies and shows are now consumed on mobile devices. You really think they are getting high quality on those little screens?
Cool! Looks like UHD-BR will retail $30 for new releases!
So, you paid $30 to UPGRADE a current purchase not to mention what you got was a DRM'd softcopy.
Sounds like a rip-off to me...
Low-quality can kill an existing technology, but high quality will not save it. I have nothing against Blu-ray. To the contrary, I own a Blu-ray player. Whenever I buy a new disc, I buy Blu-ray if it is available. However, you have to live in a fantasy land to believe that Blu-ray has a future.
Take just one streaming service--Amazon Prime. Amazon Prime costs $99 for year. It includes a plethora of video content--much of it in 4K--at no extra charge. However, Amazon Prime is so much more than just streaming video. For what you pay for Amazon Prime, you get fewer than one Blu-ray per month, none of them in 4K. With your Blu-rays, you also get none of Amazon Prime's other amenities.
Look at other video streaming services. If you are in the practice of RIPping Blu-ray to sell or share, then shiny plastic may be for you. If you just want to enjoy the highest quality content that you have ever seen at home, then NetFlix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Hulu, and the rest blow Blu-ray out of the water for much less money.
1) Some people prefer to own their own copy of a movie and don't intend to rip it for selling or sharing. You might have considered it and simply doing some transference here.
2) Referring to any streaming service over direct access to files (discs etc.) as being the highest quality might put one in the category of ... well I'll just say someone needs an education or at least some time to go review before making such claims. None of the services you mention can produce 1080p content as well as a blue ray played on a proper playing blue ray player. This is not subjective but fact whether it is HD audio streams (DTS-Master etc.) to the less compressed video of the disc.
3) None of the streaming service mentioned offer a full library of movies that one can purchase either via DVD or Blue Ray. In fact, several articles have been written on how the catalogues by both Netflix and Amazon are rather lackluster.
When it comes to 4k, similar will be said for "in hand" media vs streaming. Non of the streaming providers will match the quality for "best" presentation when compared to using a proper home player. The only question remains is whether one can tell the difference. I can, can you?
My movie access - Blue Ray player plus purchased discs, archived media files, Netflix streaming and disc rental, Amazon Prime video, Vudu. Sources for discs: Best Buy and on line from Amazon.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think you are assuming a 1080p blu ray is "filled" with the movie. It's not. Often only a fraction of the blu ray contains the movie. If you look around, you can find blu ray bundles that fit 2 or even 3 full movies on a single disc... which is NOT necessarily done by over-compressing them but by the fact that many (maybe most?) movies don't even dominate the total available space on the disc.
Think about many kinds of audio tracks associated with the movie (Dolby & DTS, often in many variants), many language tracks too, etc. Then think about non-movie stuff: trailers, bonus features, director narration, cut scenes, director's cut extras, etc, all eating up space too. Some movies will have scenes that have some visual variance for different languages.
More specifically, I took a quick look at my own collection of moves much longer than 1 hour and 40 minutes... stuff like Titanic 3 hours 14 minutes weighs in at about 41GB and Godfather 2 at 3 hours 22 minutes (about 41GB too). If I go down to a more typical 1 hour, 40 minute movie like Running Man (about 23GB) or X men 3 (about 20GB) it's easy to see that most of the space on even a 50GB BD disc is not filled with the movie itself.
4K discs are supposed to double the storage (to 100GB) and use H265, so most movies should easily fit into so much more space with the added crunch of H265... even titles much longer than 1 hour, 40 minutes.
Last edited:
You can take a movie and only include say - video stream, highest level audio and perhaps one subtitle and it would usually vary from 17-23 gigs. lets take the 17 gig "movie only" x 3.8 for 4k and it is over 68 gigs if all things were equal with H.264. Lets figure that a real compression difference is maxed at 30 percent for H.265. This gives us just over 45 gigs for a 17gig blue ray counterpart (again for movie only and just one audio and one sub). When you start getting into movies over 20 gigs blue ray level and then go to 4k, it isn't a good fit. Let's also consider (though I am not one of them) that people do want the extras, the multiple subs, the different audio streams etc. This would simply make a 50 gig disc a non-choice unless further compression is used which means all that goodness of H.265 is lost with over use/compression.
I know I used rather generic number values but the point remains that 50 gigs may not be enough or just barely enough and that means once again (if they go that route), a compromise is made that didn't need to be made other than someone making a fast buck off unassuming customers.
Hmm.. Did you rip your disc regularly? 'cause its usually in the 30+ GB zone for me. Sometimes it's in 40+ zone if the movie is longer than usual (2 hours). That means it's bigger than the 1-layer Blu-Ray disc originally came out which is only 25 GB.
This compares to less than 10 GB. file for streaming.
And don't forget that 4K disc will contain extra too, and people with 4K TV most likely will want, and ask for, extra in 4K in the future.
I see people say stuff like this but I haven't seen a resolution yet where I couldn't discern the difference. Granted I'm somewhat of a videophile and care more about picture quality than most. I could get behind the Japanese plan to go to 8k.
https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/...aky-launch-japan-aggressively-pushes-8k-video
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, the 4K BD discs are doubling to 100GB (there's also a 66GB variant). I'm not sure why you keep trying to "fit" them into a 50GB BD disc. Maybe I'm not understanding something? But if I am understanding you correctly, yes, 50GB is a non-choice because they are going to be using 66GB or 100GB versions of BD discs (I believe there's also a 200GB version working). So that yields more space to pair with a more efficient compression codec of H265. I'm not sure I'm understanding the issue.
Yes, if they try to jam 4K into a 50GB BD disc using only H264, that is going to be a problem for some movies without over-compression. But that's not what they plan to do.
Over-compression will likely come with the streaming services trying to serve up 4K. Unlike discs, streaming involves quality tradeoffs for file sizes. At 4K resolutions, it seems likely there will be a good amount of compression to try to strike a balance (same as now in a 1080p streamed movie might be 3GB while it's BD version might be 25GB- obviously the bit pinch is on there). If one were to buy the streamed file and then burn it to a disc, I would think that ALL 4K movies formatted for streaming would easily fit into the 25GB of the original BD standard... probably with extras.
[doublepost=1452570796][/doublepost]
Right, I'm just showing extreme examples. Some 1080p movies will be >40GB. I even listed a few of those. Others are >30GB and still others are <30GB and <20GB.
And I'm not saying they have to jettison the extras. The new 4K standard is 66GB or 100GB (and I think there's a 200GB variant too). There's plenty of room for the 4K movie and extras. The math being slung around is not universal. For example, the "3.8 larger" is not always the case. Imagine a 5 hour movie that is nothing but a black screen. Even H264 could compress that into almost no space, whether 1080p, 4K, 8K or even 16K. A number like 3.8 is just a very general thing like 20% to 50% greater compression in H265. There's lots of variables involved in every single movie. There's likely some short, complex films that would have a multiple much greater than 3.8. You could probably make one of these yourself with a 4K camcorder aimed out the window of a car as you drive down the highway. Every pixel would be changing in every frame. That would yield a very large H264 file if you drove for even 30 minutes.
The reality is that 100GB 4K BD discs are going to hold longer-than-average movies and extras without a problem. Compression to squeeze a very long movie into a single disc won't be noticeable. If there is some special film that needs to be as pristine as possible, they'll do the LOTR Return of the King Extended trick and spread the film over TWO 100GB BD discs, with extras on another disc or two. Or get the 200GB version going. No problem.
Last edited: