← Back to context

Comment by mghackerlady

1 day ago

Most people really don't care, which is a shame. The sheer quality difference between a 4k digital movie and a 4k bluray is astounding. Hell, oftentimes a standard bluray looks better despite the lower resolution since it isn't being compressed

A 4K movie uncompressed would be something like two or three terabytes depending on the format. I think Arri are the only cinema cameras that can even shoot uncompressed or losslessly compressed, the rest shoot lossy compressed video in their native raw formats.

  • I highly suspect they mean not compressed beyond bluray quality rather than literal uncompressed video which obviously is impossible to stream.

> since it isn't being compressed

Isn't being compressed as much. All Blurays are compressed either with MPEG2, VC1, H.264, or H.265 if it's an UHD Bluray.

  • Huh, I always thought they were uncompressed. That's why people preferred it over hd-dvd

    • Uncompressed 24-bit 1080p running at 24 FPS requires 1.192 Gbit/s, or 0.149 GByte/s. So a 25 GB (single-layer) blu-ray has enough space for a whopping 167.8 seconds of uncompressed 1080p video running at 24 FPS. You can double that with a dual-layer blu-ray, and there are more corners you can cut, but I don't think you'll fit your movie in there.

      Video is really big. Compression was needed to make it even vaguely possible unless your quality was in the toilet.

      HD-DVDs were smaller, so they were more compressed.

      4 replies →

Theres no technical reason one should look better than the other.

Both should use multipass ahead of time compression with a rate control algorithm, and both should have enough slack streaming bandwidth to handle complex scenes with buffering