SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - To 4K, or not to 4K, that is no longer the question

Skybird · 12-22-18, 07:32 AM

That is hard to believe, Reece. When I record in 4K at 30 frames, my 64 GB cards are eaten up after two hours. And that already is with codecs in use that compress the data by several factors. The guy in the video says something the last third of the film as well, mentioning that a BluRay disc holds 125 GB (three- layered discs, I looked it up, single layer Blurays even hold only 25 and double layered hold 50 GB). But a 4K movie of 90 minutes is around 477 GB .

Are you sure you have true 4K show on your display, no lower resolution material that gets scaled up to meet the the demands of your 4K screen? I mean codecs and compression can get you only so far, and from 477 GB down to 1.5 GB - that is hardly believable without the results suffering in visual quality. Thats why the first movie in 4K was not shot before 2016.

12-22-18, 07:32 AM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,767 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	That is hard to believe, Reece. When I record in 4K at 30 frames, my 64 GB cards are eaten up after two hours. And that already is with codecs in use that compress the data by several factors. The guy in the video says something the last third of the film as well, mentioning that a BluRay disc holds 125 GB (three- layered discs, I looked it up, single layer Blurays even hold only 25 and double layered hold 50 GB). But a 4K movie of 90 minutes is around 477 GB . Are you sure you have true 4K show on your display, no lower resolution material that gets scaled up to meet the the demands of your 4K screen? I mean codecs and compression can get you only so far, and from 477 GB down to 1.5 GB - that is hardly believable without the results suffering in visual quality. Thats why the first movie in 4K was not shot before 2016. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.