my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » 'UNBROKEN' 4K file size... (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 'UNBROKEN' 4K file size... John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-11-2015 10:24 PM                     Anyone in the States playing a 4K version of UNBROKEN...what is the size of the file? Our 4K is 137 minutes for a piddly 93GB. Why did they bother?  |  IP: Logged Adam Martin I'm not even gonna point out the irony. Posts: 3686 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Nov 2000 posted 01-11-2015 11:53 PM                     Yup. Same here.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-12-2015 02:06 PM                     Thanks Adam. How very odd. Haven't had one this compressed since one of the Harry Potters came in around 78GB for 148mins...but it was only 2K.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-12-2015 02:36 PM                     I would figure that kind of severe compression level would be business as usual for Warner Bros., except that WB didn't release this movie. Universal did. JPEG 2000 isn't very file size efficient when it comes to encoding and compressing imagery meant to view as video. If decision makers are going to put more emphasis on shrinking file sizes instead of preserving image quality then they might as well just dump JPEG 2000 for d-cinema use and adopt HEVC H.265 instead. That video codec would likely preserve a hell of a lot more detail of a two hour 4K movie inside a 93GB file size than JPEG 2000. I don't even know why some studios have to crank up the compression levels on some of these DCPs when an external hard disc is giving them more than enough space to go in the opposite direction (bigger file sizes, less compression). Do they think they're getting a head start on some of the encode work for various home video/streaming formats by making DCP video sizes absurdly small?  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 01-12-2015 02:53 PM                     This explains why the ingest from the DCDC to the library server was quick...  |  IP: Logged Frederick Lanoy Film Handler Posts: 88 From: North of France Registered: Aug 2009 posted 01-12-2015 03:33 PM                     Same size for the DCP in France. Yet, i though the image looks very good on screen. Did not see any issues that suggest it was severely compressed.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-12-2015 04:04 PM                     Imagine what it could have looked like at around 250 - 280GB though...  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-12-2015 04:39 PM                        quote: Bobby Henderson JPEG 2000 isn't very file size efficient when it comes to encoding and compressing imagery meant to view as video. Video or still, it doesn't matter as JPEG2000 is just a bunch of stills anyway since it's an intraframe codec but I understand the point you're making. I don't know why the studios would put any emphasis at all on smaller file sizes. Can someone clue me in to how this could possibly be advantageous for a studio? Because I sure as hell can't figure it out. Maybe they think the hard drives will be lighter if they have less data on them? Or maybe they don't want to spend a long time transmitting via satellite? Trying to save on bandwidth costs perhaps? Don't wanna spend that extra $20 per month for higher bandwidth? quote: Bobby Henderson If decision makers are going to put more emphasis on shrinking file sizes instead of preserving image quality then they might as well just dump JPEG 2000 for d-cinema use and adopt HEVC H.265 instead. Agreed. But that's an interframe codec and I dunno... to me that just doesn't seem like something that should be used in a professional application like a movie theater. But it would definitely keep those file sizes down and reduce the cost to ship the hard drives!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-12-2015 07:50 PM                     With file sizes squeezed smaller than they should be H.265 might deliver a more professional looking end result than JPEG 2000 even if JPEG 2000 seems more professional by avoiding interframe compression methods. It certainly would make sense to data compress a movie more severely to make more efficient use of satellite bandwidth, but it doesn't make any sense if the movie is just being shipped on hard discs. I also wonder if the increased severity of data compression is meant to draw greater separation between the studio masters and DCPs, perhaps as a security measure to protect their intellectual property. That's probably a reach, but I'm just trying to make sense of it. One thing is certain, a DCP weighing in at under 100GB is a hell of a lot closer to a Blu-ray disc in terms of image quality than its uncompressed studio master.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-12-2015 08:46 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson It certainly would make sense to data compress a movie more severely to make more efficient use of satellite bandwidth, but it doesn't make any sense if the movie is just being shipped on hard discs. It is entirely possible the hard drive duplication costs are in various brackets based upon the amount of GB put onto them. After all 500GB of data on a hard drive only takes half the time of putting 1000GB of data on that drive to duplicate.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 01-13-2015 09:23 AM                     Well, first of all, it is in CS AR, that means, less pixel to beginn with. Second, compression ratio of real material depends on the spatial resolution and high-frequency signal components of the source footage. An exceptional soft, monochromatic, dark, etc. movie will 'naturally' compress to smaller file sizes without anyone pulling the strings especially towards that direction. That said - 93GBytes certainly still seems a bit on the low side. I would think that normally the only valid decision towards filesize would be made based on the aspect of harddisc single inventory. That is, a typical multi-format package with 2D, language versions, different 3D grades, etc. should fit on the commonly found distribution disks. But with a feature like 'unbroken', this could hardly play a role (first of all, no 3D). Unfortunately, hard-disk distribution can no longer be considered the norm. As the DCDC takes up pace, I would think that satellite or broadband distribution cost will play a larger role for future features. It is possible that in this case, this was the decision factor. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-13-2015 02:41 PM                        Even with no compression at all, hard drive duplication costs would be MUCH more cost efficient than than striking a bunch of prints, right? So why are they pinching pennies?  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-13-2015 03:32 PM                     As a comparison, our 2K version of AMERICAN SNIPER which runs a comparable 132mins is 235GB. Go figure...  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 01-15-2015 06:13 PM                     And, you get the count up to 126Gb if you're doing ATMOS 7.1 for the same 4K resolution.  |  IP: Logged Owen Morgan Film Handler Posts: 41 From: Gosport Hampshire UK Registered: Sep 2013 posted 01-17-2015 09:35 PM                     This topic has me intrigued.... I am in a position to actually ask the people who actually mastered the DCP (UK/EU/Other releases) questions, and I wonder why it is soo small.. I see no real reason other than to save duplication time, digital delivery time (both IP and Satellite based)... I have a suspicion that the guys who worked on this were simply working with the source materials they had (which may have been source DCP or .j2c files from universal, or uncompressed .tif...) and that decisions based on how much compression to use etc would have been already down the line. I can but ask..  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.