H265 approved, 4k is nearer

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  01 January 2013
H265 approved, 4k is nearer

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/...px#.UQNpZL_F-So


It seems the folks at ITU approved this new standard, meaning even higher quality for mobile, PCs, at lesser bandwidth and making 4K content on TVs something to come around in the near future


more info at http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/25/h265-is-approved/
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_E...cy_Video_Coding
 
  01 January 2013
I watched this 85inch LG 4K screen yesterday for a while, and it truly is one step up -I like it better than the 3D solutions, but it gives you a "you are there" feeling. But I am worried only a large screen can truly bring out the extra sharpness (resolution) and give it meaning.
 
  01 January 2013
h265 specs are crazy though... if you crank all the options up it takes days to encode just a few frames ^^
It will become like rendering 3D, where you need a renderfarm to encode with all the nice whistles and bells.

And i wouldnt be amazed you need quite some beefy hardware to decode it also. Probably much too expensive to sell it to the masses today.

h264 will work fine for 4k. I see no need to dump it, just because of higher resolution and/or framerate.
I hope hardware vendors wont try to push the consumers (again) to buy new h265 capable players... I dont see a need to dump h264 for h265, just to play/encode 4k.

I know not 1 bluray that uses h264 to its fullest. On the contrary, there are so many badly encoded blurays out there, its kind of amazing. Film makers talk about how much they want ppl to 'experience' their movies at the best quality and all that but then when you buy the movie you get a half arsed encode.

Bluray discs (25gb or 50gb with dual layer) + h264 will work perfectly, even for 4k, maybe even 8k... dont have experimented with that yet.

Last edited by ACiD80 : 01 January 2013 at 02:24 PM.
 
  01 January 2013
I remember reading somewhere that, viewed from 6 feet away, you'd need a 65-inch or so tv to be able to notice the difference between 720 and 1080p. I wonder what the 4k equivalent to this will be? 80+ inches? An entire wall?
__________________

 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by Lomax: I remember reading somewhere that, viewed from 6 feet away, you'd need a 65-inch or so tv to be able to notice the difference between 720 and 1080p. I wonder what the 4k equivalent to this will be? 80+ inches? An entire wall?


6 feet.... thats about 180cm, right?

Im pretty sure i can see the difference on even a 20" from that distance.
 
  01 January 2013
I max films aren't even shot 4 k most of the time. They just shoot 2 or 3 k and scale it up.

There's simply no content for this outside of maybe Blizzard cinematics.
__________________
[Invivo Animation Reel]
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: 6 feet.... thats about 180cm, right?

Im pretty sure i can see the difference on even a 20" from that distance.


There is a website with charts on this stuff somewhere, all based on what the human eye is capable of resolving. I don't remember if it was 6' and a 65" screen, but it all makes good sense. The thing is, I'm more interested in the roll out on mobile. I think HD is already a waste on phones.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  01 January 2013
we'll use it and use it greatly

Unless an unseen (the best kind) parallax shift takes place in the display/projection industry, it'll be a little bit before the standard consumer phases out of anything beyond a 2D or Stereoscopic display. We'll use this standard and like many other digital standards it will rise and fall in the consumer eye, in the matter of a few years with several different proprietary variants. I'll love it and it enjoy it, than years later call it outdated.
Glad to see a new and much higher quality deliverable standard is on the way.
__________________
"Your Kung-Fu is No Good!"
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: The thing is, I'm more interested in the roll out on mobile. I think HD is already a waste on phones.


Don't get me started... forget the large screens, I think 5" portable blu-ray players have got to be some of the most hilariously unnecessary things out there, apart from the hi-def phones.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but 4K seems like an artificial step forward - HD took off too slowly for the hardware companies' tastes, 3D is a niche market, so now they're going for bigger & better - higher resolution, bigger screens, higher frame rates, and still trying to sell that extra dimension... the content is a secondary concern for them, at best.
__________________

 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by teruchan: The thing is, I'm more interested in the roll out on mobile. I think HD is already a waste on phones.



For watching on the phone's display, most probably yes.

But with most recent phones you can connect it to your tv set via hdmi, so there it might be usefull.
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR:
And i wouldnt be amazed you need quite some beefy hardware to decode it also. Probably much too expensive to sell it to the masses today.



The first line of blu-ray players were little PC's with Pentium CPU's, because there weren't dedicated chips designed for decoding the MPEG streams at that moment.
As soon as those were available, like with DVD, the prices dropped radically.
If you design a chip to only deal with decoding you can make it damn fast and low on energy consumption. But don't expect it to do anything else than decoding.
That's why you need a beefy CPU to play it because a CPU is capable of nearly everything, but not fast (compared to a GPU which originally could do 1 thing, but ridicously fast, e.g.)

The same will account for 4k content. Since there aren't dedicated chips designed to deal with it you'll need a beefy machine to cope with it for the time being.
Resulting in a high hardware price for early adopters (as usual).

In other words, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
The same story probably applies to encoding the frames.
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: Bluray discs (25gb or 50gb with dual layer) + h264 will work perfectly, even for 4k, maybe even 8k... dont have experimented with that yet.


Nope. 25 - 50 Gigs per disc won't let you view a 4K, let alone 8K, film at full quality.

Remember that 4K is 4 x times the rez of 1080HD, and 8K 16 x times the rez.

You may be able to squeeze a 15-25 min 4K/8K demo video on a Bluray disc.

But a 2+ hour 4K or 8K film will in no way fit on a Bluray disc. The data is much too large for that to work.
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by Tangled-Universe: The first line of blu-ray players were little PC's with Pentium CPU's, because there weren't dedicated chips designed for decoding the MPEG streams at that moment.
As soon as those were available, like with DVD, the prices dropped radically.
If you design a chip to only deal with decoding you can make it damn fast and low on energy consumption. But don't expect it to do anything else than decoding.
That's why you need a beefy CPU to play it because a CPU is capable of nearly everything, but not fast (compared to a GPU which originally could do 1 thing, but ridicously fast, e.g.)

The same will account for 4k content. Since there aren't dedicated chips designed to deal with it you'll need a beefy machine to cope with it for the time being.
Resulting in a high hardware price for early adopters (as usual).

In other words, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
The same story probably applies to encoding the frames.


sure but dedicated chips doesnt automaticly mean its cheap or easy.
h265 still requires some beefy chips, dedicated or not.

off course it all depennds on which compression options will get supported by the designated profiles
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by DePaint: Nope. 25 - 50 Gigs per disc won't let you view a 4K, let alone 8K, film at full quality.

Remember that 4K is 4 x times the rez of 1080HD, and 8K 16 x times the rez.

You may be able to squeeze a 15-25 min 4K/8K demo video on a Bluray disc.

But a 2+ hour 4K or 8K film will in no way fit on a Bluray disc. The data is much too large for that to work.


for starters if they learned to use h264 encoders properly (not apple's crappy h264 encoder for example and use high quality settings), it would fit just fine. I've done it several times for 4k with better quality than some full hd bluray movies.

The h264 profile specs also already include support for 4k, no problem (starting from l5.1) up to 60fps

its not as simple as doing just x4. The detail in motion doesnt scale linear 98% of the time

Last edited by ACiD80 : 01 January 2013 at 06:07 PM.
 
  01 January 2013
Stu on 4K in the home theater:
http://prolost.com/blog/2013/1/22/4k-in-the-home.html

---

As one with serious eye issues, I can use every pixel they can make - a 4K monitor would do wonders.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.