So yesterday I asked a question about 4K.
If 4K is overkill, and if it isn't, and people end up buying into Bluray for 4K.. I thought there would be BDXL to cover 4K for movies. At least for starters and whatever uber format would come later can have whatever new exclusive format that would be practical for a consumer product. It won't be PlayStation 4.
Perhaps I asked a day too early since even Bluray XL might not be enough for 4K. I did gasp.
So.. they need 300gigs+ dics? What the hell for? Versus the 50 gigs of a good BD of a regular feature length film?
I suppose that could lead neatly into a second question or how to ask the first question another way.
A feature length film on BD, lets take the recently released Oblivion BD, is 50 gigs.
But an animated feature length film is much smaller. Wall-E is the usual example I can think up because it is only 8gigs. Comparatively tiny. And so are most animated movies.
Or so could be said are most animated productions being CG or not.
My other question was why don't PC and consoles have a dedicated movie format which allows those systems to render some of these movies so they can be even smaller? Aren't there enough of them out there?
To hear it from Microsoft, they want hundreds of millions of Xbox One units to be sold. Unless the specific quote was a billion dollars worth.
Arguably the machines aren't powerful enough to do Brave or Wall-E in realtime.. fine.. no one is expecting that... but for what they can offer I'd be shitting myself to see a movie with the CG quality of Samaritan.
If 1, the production values are lower, 2 movies could be longer.. and 3 they could be on some small level interactive without being games...
What about, for 4K resolution which is still almost meaningless for most consumers, or in the future brackgrounds etc and composite whatever requires pre-rendering over whatever can be rendered in realtime by something like PlayStation 4? You could end up with interactive cinematic experiences that are smaller on disc than they are now as just pre-rendered movies.
I'm not going to suppose that either Xbox One or PlayStation 4 could run something like Samaritan at 4K at 24-30 frames per second.. I only expect that that is what they were built to do. If they can manage it, great, they are supposed to do 1080p like the blazes 60 frames per second plus. Yayers waving a tiny flag.
It is moot because feature length Hollywood films and their massive size keeps pushing the need for bigger storage. Which Xbox One and PlayStation 4 don't support.
I didn't even bother to ask why, because that's also moot for now until 4K actually becomes a thing.
It ends up that games, television animated films which don't need all that space 300 gigs of huge ass space.. are lumped into the same category of content that can be used to justify that new format.
I can only ask how when 1080p seems to be the I'm not going anywhere I don't care how much fire you bring standard that some people don't even yet enjoy.
http://www.gizmag.com/vector-video-codec/25481/
Could animation studios move to a vector based format that allows them to make a draw-once and it will render perfectly on any screen from mobile to cinema? That inarguably would be a better investment to them than a 300 gig disc they could never practically fill. Another question is if the technique would also lend well to better variable frame rate because the animation is based on continuous motion and not stop motion of the entire frame. If only part of the frame is in motion generally no extra information is necessary to update the entire frame.
It could be argued that game production economics has been strained so much by an unnecessary need to fill a DVD or Bluray, with eye popping visual content to keep games as eye popping as Blockbuster movies.. not that they do.. but they need to not fall too far behind.. Personally I like to think that keeping pre-rendered video, and having high resolution textures and audio which easily fills up a DVD and Bluray, can only help games be better, I can admit they aren't necessary.
We'll have to wait and see where the line falls with the best looking games for Xbox One and PlayStation 4 though. And if it is worth staying on that road versus just offering excellent stories and toy boxes for our monies worth.
And people who already can, are happy to stream their favorite TV shows versus paying for premium service from a cable or satellite company that they won't watch. Not enough consumers are willing to pay for the best that they can get.
Again though personally if everything on Discovery Channel and BBC was broadcast in 4K.. I'd throw my money at the screen. But also if it wasn't stop motion 24-30 'cinematic' frames per second.
I argue this because many action sequences require a higher frame rate which is lacking from most productions due to beginning of time reasons that few movie makers have tried to move beyond. We'll see of HFR movies catch on.. in which case bring on the 300gig movie discs.
So.. why 300 gigs for movies? for 4K, and arguably HFR... if games doesn't need it, TV doesn't need it, and animated movies doesn't need it? Is it overkill? Perhaps it really depends on Hollywood.
It is nice to know that they are working on it, but with the current next generation consoles not being built to support any such giant capacity optical discs.. wouldn't that require an expensive stand alone player?
I couldn't consider a dedicated drive just for movies that Hollywood is having a hard time even producing never mind justifying playing them in theatres..
Forcing Hollywood to stick with Bluray and Bluray XL the for home theatre? And hopefully more robust encoding techniques to put 4K movies on those existing formats which are.. already overkill? Have to see how far they can go on what we already have.. until there's another benchmark like Avatar.
If 4K is overkill, and if it isn't, and people end up buying into Bluray for 4K.. I thought there would be BDXL to cover 4K for movies. At least for starters and whatever uber format would come later can have whatever new exclusive format that would be practical for a consumer product. It won't be PlayStation 4.
Perhaps I asked a day too early since even Bluray XL might not be enough for 4K. I did gasp.
So.. they need 300gigs+ dics? What the hell for? Versus the 50 gigs of a good BD of a regular feature length film?
I suppose that could lead neatly into a second question or how to ask the first question another way.
A feature length film on BD, lets take the recently released Oblivion BD, is 50 gigs.
But an animated feature length film is much smaller. Wall-E is the usual example I can think up because it is only 8gigs. Comparatively tiny. And so are most animated movies.
Or so could be said are most animated productions being CG or not.
My other question was why don't PC and consoles have a dedicated movie format which allows those systems to render some of these movies so they can be even smaller? Aren't there enough of them out there?
To hear it from Microsoft, they want hundreds of millions of Xbox One units to be sold. Unless the specific quote was a billion dollars worth.
Arguably the machines aren't powerful enough to do Brave or Wall-E in realtime.. fine.. no one is expecting that... but for what they can offer I'd be shitting myself to see a movie with the CG quality of Samaritan.
If 1, the production values are lower, 2 movies could be longer.. and 3 they could be on some small level interactive without being games...
What about, for 4K resolution which is still almost meaningless for most consumers, or in the future brackgrounds etc and composite whatever requires pre-rendering over whatever can be rendered in realtime by something like PlayStation 4? You could end up with interactive cinematic experiences that are smaller on disc than they are now as just pre-rendered movies.
I'm not going to suppose that either Xbox One or PlayStation 4 could run something like Samaritan at 4K at 24-30 frames per second.. I only expect that that is what they were built to do. If they can manage it, great, they are supposed to do 1080p like the blazes 60 frames per second plus. Yayers waving a tiny flag.
It is moot because feature length Hollywood films and their massive size keeps pushing the need for bigger storage. Which Xbox One and PlayStation 4 don't support.
I didn't even bother to ask why, because that's also moot for now until 4K actually becomes a thing.
It ends up that games, television animated films which don't need all that space 300 gigs of huge ass space.. are lumped into the same category of content that can be used to justify that new format.
I can only ask how when 1080p seems to be the I'm not going anywhere I don't care how much fire you bring standard that some people don't even yet enjoy.
http://www.gizmag.com/vector-video-codec/25481/
Could animation studios move to a vector based format that allows them to make a draw-once and it will render perfectly on any screen from mobile to cinema? That inarguably would be a better investment to them than a 300 gig disc they could never practically fill. Another question is if the technique would also lend well to better variable frame rate because the animation is based on continuous motion and not stop motion of the entire frame. If only part of the frame is in motion generally no extra information is necessary to update the entire frame.
It could be argued that game production economics has been strained so much by an unnecessary need to fill a DVD or Bluray, with eye popping visual content to keep games as eye popping as Blockbuster movies.. not that they do.. but they need to not fall too far behind.. Personally I like to think that keeping pre-rendered video, and having high resolution textures and audio which easily fills up a DVD and Bluray, can only help games be better, I can admit they aren't necessary.
We'll have to wait and see where the line falls with the best looking games for Xbox One and PlayStation 4 though. And if it is worth staying on that road versus just offering excellent stories and toy boxes for our monies worth.
And people who already can, are happy to stream their favorite TV shows versus paying for premium service from a cable or satellite company that they won't watch. Not enough consumers are willing to pay for the best that they can get.
Again though personally if everything on Discovery Channel and BBC was broadcast in 4K.. I'd throw my money at the screen. But also if it wasn't stop motion 24-30 'cinematic' frames per second.
I argue this because many action sequences require a higher frame rate which is lacking from most productions due to beginning of time reasons that few movie makers have tried to move beyond. We'll see of HFR movies catch on.. in which case bring on the 300gig movie discs.
So.. why 300 gigs for movies? for 4K, and arguably HFR... if games doesn't need it, TV doesn't need it, and animated movies doesn't need it? Is it overkill? Perhaps it really depends on Hollywood.
It is nice to know that they are working on it, but with the current next generation consoles not being built to support any such giant capacity optical discs.. wouldn't that require an expensive stand alone player?
I couldn't consider a dedicated drive just for movies that Hollywood is having a hard time even producing never mind justifying playing them in theatres..
Forcing Hollywood to stick with Bluray and Bluray XL the for home theatre? And hopefully more robust encoding techniques to put 4K movies on those existing formats which are.. already overkill? Have to see how far they can go on what we already have.. until there's another benchmark like Avatar.