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
Old 01 January 2013   #16
Originally Posted by Lomax: .......so now they're going for bigger & better - higher resolution, bigger screens,........


Well that's the thing. People always seem to want bigger screens if the price is affordable. You wouldn't believe the amount of teenagers I know who have 42" TV's in small bedrooms.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #17
About time

We're having a movie theater-grade sony 4k stereo projector installed at work in our auditorium and I still have yet to find a video player that will play 4k h.264 files.

1620p in stereo 3D, no problem.

2160p though, and the h.264 file won't even open on any of the current players.....even in mono. It's been a few months since I last did any testing though.

Last edited by sentry66 : 01 January 2013 at 10:19 PM.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #18
Originally Posted by Dillster: Well that's the thing. People always seem to want bigger screens if the price is affordable. You wouldn't believe the amount of teenagers I know who have 42" TV's in small bedrooms.


I don't see how that is an issue?
__________________
Art Station - Tumblr
 
Old 01 January 2013   #19
I must admit after seeing 8k in Japan (panasonic), i think I'll give 4k a miss.

That aside, once there's a critical mass of 4k, I do wonder just how long cinemas will survive.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #20
Originally Posted by sentry66: 2160p though, and the h.264 file won't even open on any of the current players.....even in mono. It's been a few months since I last did any testing though.


Dude,

You could try using the free Lagarith Codec instead of h.264:

http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html

We currently use the Lagarith Codec for everything and anything we do with video, and have been doing so for months.

The file sizes will be large - it is a lossless codec that won't alter a single pixel value over the original - but it could work for displaying your 4K/2160P content. And best of all - you won't loose any of the sharpness of the original with Lagarith, unlike with h.264, MPEG 2/4 and other lossy Codecs that introduce all kinds of visible blur into the encoded video.

Make sure you check the "Multithreading Enabled" option when you encode, and it should, theoretically, be able to give you 4K resolution playback.

If that doesn't work, maybe try the latest DivX codec. I think the DivX people now have a h.265 equivalent Codec. But I haven't tried it yet, so I don't know if and how well it does 4K.

I hope that helps...
 
Old 01 January 2013   #21
I think he means a standalone player (like a bluray player) because i've had no problems running 4k movies in software players.

x264 also supports 4:4:4 and rgb lossless encoding.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #22
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: x264 also supports 4:4:4 and rgb lossless encoding.


I've tried Apple's Quicktime h264 Codec, and it makes our videos significantly blurrier than the original, no matter how many thousand bits-per-second you give the Codec to work with.

So we use Lagarith instead for everything we do with video.

Yes, the file sizes are pretty large. But we get sharp, super-crisp, pixel-perfect video quality from it.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #23
Originally Posted by DePaint: Dude,

You could try using the free Lagarith Codec instead of h.264:

http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html

We currently use the Lagarith Codec for everything and anything we do with video, and have been doing so for months.

The file sizes will be large - it is a lossless codec that won't alter a single pixel value over the original - but it could work for displaying your 4K/2160P content. And best of all - you won't loose any of the sharpness of the original with Lagarith, unlike with h.264, MPEG 2/4 and other lossy Codecs that introduce all kinds of visible blur into the encoded video.

Make sure you check the "Multithreading Enabled" option when you encode, and it should, theoretically, be able to give you 4K resolution playback.

If that doesn't work, maybe try the latest DivX codec. I think the DivX people now have a h.265 equivalent Codec. But I haven't tried it yet, so I don't know if and how well it does 4K.

I hope that helps...



Hey thanks a lot, I'll look into it

The problem though is I also need this to play in stereo 3D which really pretty much means using nvidia stereo player. But if it supports this format, then all is well.



Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: I think he means a standalone player (like a bluray player) because i've had no problems running 4k movies in software players.

x264 also supports 4:4:4 and rgb lossless encoding.



no I meant software video player

Everything I tested so far a few months ago just crashed, didn't play, or locked up the player when trying to play a 4k video.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #24
Originally Posted by CHRiTTeR: 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


I never said it would be easy, but since you do start about it I think it won't be hard.
Blu-ray dedicated decoders are available for quite a while and in the meantime enough development took place to make dedicated decoders on a chip which can deal with the roughly 4-5x larger data-stream.

Dedicated chips does mean it will be cheaper. Otherwise there wouldn't be dedicated chips? I don't understand yet why you disagree that a dedicated decoder chip wouldn't be cheaper than a similar paced (in terms of decoding) workhorse which can do everything, like a CPU. That's vastly more complex and expensive to develop.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #25
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.

and if the stupid 48fps format catches on you will be able to fit about 8 minutes on to one disk.
__________________
[Invivo Animation Reel]
 
Old 01 January 2013   #26
Originally Posted by DePaint: I've tried Apple's Quicktime h264 Codec, and it makes our videos significantly blurrier than the original, no matter how many thousand bits-per-second you give the Codec to work with.

So we use Lagarith instead for everything we do with video.

Yes, the file sizes are pretty large. But we get sharp, super-crisp, pixel-perfect video quality from it.


Yes, like i said. Apples h264 encoder is utter crap. Its probably the worst h264 encoder out there. I think divx/xvid's h263 would deliver even better quality.
I recommend (the free opensource) x264 encoder. Its the best h264 encoder out there and its free! It will look much much better than crappy quicktime h264 encodes.

But depending on what you encode for, lossless might be overkill. But if you're happy with theres no reason to change, right.

Originally Posted by Tangled-Universe: I never said it would be easy, but since you do start about it I think it won't be hard.
Blu-ray dedicated decoders are available for quite a while and in the meantime enough development took place to make dedicated decoders on a chip which can deal with the roughly 4-5x larger data-stream.

Dedicated chips does mean it will be cheaper. Otherwise there wouldn't be dedicated chips? I don't understand yet why you disagree that a dedicated decoder chip wouldn't be cheaper than a similar paced (in terms of decoding) workhorse which can do everything, like a CPU. That's vastly more complex and expensive to develop.


I dont disagree. Im just saying it will (most probably) be to expensive to sell right now.

Keep in mind that current bluray players are also quite restricted to which h264 settings they can decode. Not all h264 encodes work on them.
Thats partly why profiles exist.

Even gpu enable codecs are not as good as they try to make you believe. Quite restricted also.

Last edited by CHRiTTeR : 01 January 2013 at 06:45 PM.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #27
Ok I see what you mean. So in the end it's probably about the profile they will introduce for 4k content, as you (I think?) pointed out before.

Cheers
 
Old 01 January 2013   #28
Originally Posted by Geta-Ve: I don't see how that is an issue?


Agreed.

I also don't understand why HD on a phone is bad. Maybe I'm in the tiny minority that brings the phone closer to my face if I want to see more detail.
__________________
Maestro 2 is out!
 
Old 01 January 2013   #29
Originally Posted by paintbox: 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.


Yeah I was looking at one of them earlier today. Of course, being LG, it does 3D in addition to the Ultra HD.

The giant glowing crispness of it all, it took me back to my first impressions of Imax.

Of course 26 grand for a TV with no content, and I can wait.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #30
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.

You most likely wouldn't. You would more likely notice the difference between sets and other things, but the actual dot size you couldn't physically discern.

I'm abnormally hyper focal (21.75/20 one eye and 21/20 the other, I wear resting glasses that literally refocus away on short distances to avoid eye strain), and I have done tests, and objectively speaking two meters away on a small set the difference between 1080p and a 1440(H), the monitors they used to test focus and letter punching, was practically nil. I started picking it up at 1.6 and the doctor said there might be a conditioning factor to having noticed it already that far away.

Here's something interesting and, numbers wise, factual regarding resolutions and perception. more than worth a read
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/...4K_WP_Final.pdf

You DO need a sizable set to truly appreciate 4k at a comfortable distance.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles

Last edited by ThE_JacO : 01 January 2013 at 12:36 AM.
 
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 10:58 AM.


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