• Mossy Feathers (She/They)
    link
    fedilink
    73 months ago

    Personally I’m hoping Microsoft’s project silica takes off and replaces blurays. Having worked in a movie theater, I can tell you the files on blurays aren’t the same ones that get played at a theater. Same resolution and framerate (probably), but dramatically higher bit depth (though I dunno if you could tell the difference normally). This could be a way of releasing master quality recordings for home use.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      253 months ago

      IDK what Project Silica is, but I don’t want Microsoft in charge of the future of physical media. That experimental multi terabyte disc standard should be where physical media goes next.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
        link
        fedilink
        33 months ago

        I mean, iirc, Blu-ray was originally Sony’s thing; VHS was JVC. Most formats were something a company came up with and then became so widely used that people thought they just sprung out of the ether.

        The multi-terabyte disc thing sounds neat. Project Silica is the sci-fi crystal data cube thing, where they vaporize tiny bits of crystal with a laser to write data, and then read it back with a laser as well. I like the idea of project silica more just because “muh sci-fi data cubes”, but discs capable of holding terabytes of storage would be sweet.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      113 months ago

      I mean a 4k blurays can already hold like 100GB of data. How much more can you push through home connections like HDMI?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        113 months ago

        A lot more. A 4k disc has a bitrate of 128Mbps. Right now there are HDMI cables that can push 8Gbps and can be bought at Walmart.

        The returns definitely are diminishing though. I am really struggling to see differences between 4k and 8k on an 80" screen at 6ft away – granted, I was looking at a floor model.

        I think the real value is in archival though. If you have the true copy then you’ll know you’re not suffering any generational loss whenever you transcode the file. It’d also be nice to get the IMAX versions of movies with no loss of detail.

      • @FooBarrington
        link
        23 months ago

        The most recent HDMI versions are limited to 48Gbit/s, so you could fit almost 17s of a movie on a 100GB disk!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Sorry I mean to say how much more meaningful data? Like with modern and upcoming common TV tech would there be much noticable difference?

          Unfortunately physical home media is dying. I hate it but it’s true. I don’t think it has enough life left in it to have another format/player change and it certainly wouldn’t be worth trying for the limited return.

      • Mossy Feathers (She/They)
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Afaik HDMI hasn’t been a bottleneck for movies in a long time. The 4k masters I had when I was working at a theater averaged around 100-200 megabits per second, which translated into movies that averaged around 200-300gb. Larger WORM (write-once, read-many) storage would potentially allow for master quality recordings to be produced for cinemaphiles.

        While you might think there isn’t enough demand for it, you might also not be aware that movies from back-catalogs come on hard drives. When your company has an outing to a movie theater where you all watch Elf together, that movie was likely originally on a hard drive (afaik only new releases get the luxury of being transferred via satellite). Instead of shipping spinning drives, they could ship data crystals (project silica) instead. This would have the side effect of potentially making the crystals reasonably priced for collectors and enthusiasts, allowing them to get the master quality version of their favorite movie(s).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        For archival purposes, you want a lossless master so that new copies can be made from the original using any new codec that is later developed, whether that codec prioritizes quality, file size/bitrate, encoding/decoding cost, certain hardware optimizations, etc.

        That way a 1995 film can be shown using a 2035 codec when the time is right, rather than relying on a 2035 encoding of a 2020 encoding of a 2000 digitization of a 1995 analog master.

    • @acosmichippo
      link
      English
      43 months ago

      though I dunno if you could tell the difference normally

      yeah, that. given the infinitesimal amount of people with the equipment and eyes to discern that difference, i doubt that will be a financially viable business. already most people are fine with streaming which is worse quality than 4k discs.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        On a Blu-ray 1:1 remux, I definitely notice choppy gradients on my Sony bravia, and I’m not much of a snob for video as long as it’s HD.