this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1817 points (98.1% liked)

pics

19543 readers
255 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To store digitally you would need a compression algorithm. Pretty much all video compression algorithms are lossy, which means you automatically lose detail.

Storing an uncompressed video isn’t feasible as each frame could be hundreds of megabytes (or more) in size. This is due to resolution + color info + audio channels.

[–] average650@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many lossless video compression algorithms exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_codecs#Lossless_video_compression

Even uncompressed, they would be large, but not unfeasible. Even assuming about 12 MB per frame (reasonable for lossless 4k) that gives us about 1TB per hour. Using lossless video compression would push that smaller. That's very large for consumers, but not for a film studio. I'm certain a few terrabytes Iof storage are way cheaper than that much film.

[–] Lapistola@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

4K isn’t nearly enough resolution to compare to IMAX. Plus, I assume your calculations are for 8bit color. To hang with film. Would need to be 12bit

[–] average650@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The color was in fact 16 bit.

If you want 18k, multiple 1TB by (18/4)^2 ish

So more like 20TBs. And again, that's lossleslly compressing the individual images, but not the video. The video is still uncompressed. Lossless video compression would significantly reduce that.

It is a huge file, but it's just as tractable as that film.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An uncompressed 4K frame with 16-bit color is about 50 MB. An uncompressed 18K frame with 16-bit color is just over 1 GB.

I don’t disagree with you that lossless 18K video storage is trivially easy—digital storage is shockingly cheap these days—but I’m curious where you’re getting those numbers from. Compressing an hour of 18K video from 87 TB to 20 TB seems like a remarkable feat.

[–] average650@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I was using lossless compressed image sizes becuase they were relatively easy to find. So those 4K 16-bit frames were more like 12 MB instead of 50. That's where the compression comes from. Lossless image compression details were much easier to find than losses video compression details, and I could test them myself easily. The 12 MB will depend on the original image, as some compress much more readily than others, but it's reasonable.