Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, Steel
just brew it! wrote:In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate
End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate
High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).
Vhalidictes wrote:End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate
High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).
What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?
End User wrote:What may appear to be overkill today is probably good to have for tomorrow. I may not have a large enough TV to make use of 4K today but I sure as hell want one in a year or two.
Vhalidictes wrote:End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate
High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).
What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?
Vhalidictes wrote:End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate
High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).
What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?
just brew it! wrote:And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.
End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.
Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?
Waco wrote:End User wrote:just brew it! wrote:And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.
Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?
Very compressed. Raw would be...nearly 500 MB/s for 24 FPS.
EDIT: For 60 FPS:
Raw bitrate
Megapixels: 8.3 MP (8,294,400 pixels)
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1 (HD 16:9)
1 frame of RGB 3x8bit: 24.9 MB (8.3 MP x 24 bits)
60 fps x 24.9 MB = 11.9 Gbps = 1.49 GB/s
Longer durations: 89.6 GB/min = 5.37 TB/hr
Glorious wrote:derFunkstein wrote:Side note, the death of optical discs for PC software is directly related to DRM, but not because people are rejecting DRM.
I don't think so.
Once everything is interconnected enough, which happened years and years ago, it was inevitable.
DRM, ultimately, had nothing do with it. It was going to happen with or without it.
just brew it! wrote:Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)
Krogoth wrote:just brew it! wrote:Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)
Not for archival storage purposes though. Optical is far superior to spinners mainly because HDD quality has dropped over recent years and the physical bits are becoming too small for emergency recovery. Optical media can last decades if cared for. The bigger problem is the players/readers not the media itself.
just brew it! wrote:Krogoth wrote:just brew it! wrote:Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)
Not for archival storage purposes though. Optical is far superior to spinners mainly because HDD quality has dropped over recent years and the physical bits are becoming too small for emergency recovery. Optical media can last decades if cared for. The bigger problem is the players/readers not the media itself.
I think most people will just archive to a Cloud backup service. Don't need to worry about the reader still being functional, and dealing with hardware failures is someone else's problem.
Krogoth wrote:That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.
just brew it! wrote:Well, I've had my own feelings about that (which I've discussed on these forums before), ever since Cloud started to become "a thing". Somewhat ironic now that I work in the industry.
But for the "average Joe", the Cloud is probably at least as secure as whatever they're (not) doing now.
just brew it! wrote:But for the "average Joe", the Cloud is probably at least as secure as whatever they're (not) doing now.
Captain Ned wrote:As much as we financial regulators tried to stand athwart the Cloud several years ago (your data MUST be where I can touch it), the industry outpaced us and we have been forced to make peace with it.
Waco wrote:Secure against the data being lost (since they probably don't have backups)? Sure.
Secure against people being able to read YOUR data in 10-15 years? Nah.
just brew it! wrote:Waco wrote:End User wrote:Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?
Very compressed. Raw would be...nearly 500 MB/s for 24 FPS.
EDIT: For 60 FPS:
Raw bitrate
Megapixels: 8.3 MP (8,294,400 pixels)
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1 (HD 16:9)
1 frame of RGB 3x8bit: 24.9 MB (8.3 MP x 24 bits)
60 fps x 24.9 MB = 11.9 Gbps = 1.49 GB/s
Longer durations: 89.6 GB/min = 5.37 TB/hr
...and a triple-layer HD Blu-ray has a capacity of 100GB. So if we assume a maximum 2 hour playing time (just a guess, I'm not sure what the actual max capacity is in minutes), we need roughly a 100:1 compression ratio.
According to Wikipedia, HD Blu-ray uses H.265 (a.k.a. HEVC), which is a next-gen lossy codec that supposedly gives 2x better compression than H.264 for a given level of quality.
@Waco - You beat me to the punch. I was going to post a similar analysis, but I was nearly at my bus stop and had to put the laptop away!
Krogoth wrote:That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.
Vhalidictes wrote:What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?
Waco wrote:Everything about the whole thing is a mess. I don't have any UHD BluRays yet, but I fully intend on ripping them (if possible) so I don't have to deal with the stupid DRM ****. If I can't, they'll get returned.
I got a BluRay for Christmas (Star Trek: Beyond) and I was amazed to find out that playing a BluRay on a computer requires either paid software (that may or may not work) or the one free player I could find (that was quite sketchy and crappy). My solution was to simply rip it and bypass the idiotic problem.
Ifalna wrote:Krogoth wrote:That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.
Why wouldn't I?
Lets be frank here: 95%+ of my data is inconsequential in terms of security.
I can put the remaining < 5% in an encrypted archive and upload it to a cloud service that uses end to end encryption.
Krogoth wrote:Ifalna wrote:Krogoth wrote:That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.
Why wouldn't I?
Lets be frank here: 95%+ of my data is inconsequential in terms of security.
I can put the remaining < 5% in an encrypted archive and upload it to a cloud service that uses end to end encryption.
Because that data can be sold to marketing and other parties with or without your consent.
Krogoth wrote:You also better hope that cloud services don't go skimpy on long-term data storage either. They could remove old data sets (10+ years old) when they need to make more room or it gets "lost"/corrupted in an upgrade that you have no control over.
techguy wrote:I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers. I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space. I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.
just brew it! wrote:techguy wrote:I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers. I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space. I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.
We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.
Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.
just brew it! wrote:techguy wrote:I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers. I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space. I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.
We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.
Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.
Pagey wrote:just brew it! wrote:techguy wrote:I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers. I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space. I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.
We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.
Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.
JBI, just for the sake of clarity, I definitely wasn't attempting, and have no desire to, run afoul of Forum Rule #1. I was, as you pointed out, just stating for both clarity and the sake of conversation that the makers of some specific/popular "software tools" have stated up front and unambiguously that they have no plans to attempt to circumvent AACS 2.0...and that's fine with me.