Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Big Buck Bunny In 4K, 60 Fps and 3D-stereo

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the open-culture dept.

Graphics 102

An anonymous reader writes "Blender Foundation open movie projects like Sintel and Tears of Steel have been mentioned on Slashdot in the recent years. Now an old-timer, their open movie Big Buck Bunny from 2008, has been getting a make-over in a new release: The entire movie has been recreated in 3D stereo with a resolution of 4K (3840x2160) at 60fps. It took years to rework the movie because the original Big Buck Bunny was created for 2D. Most of the scenes had to be modified to work well in 3D stereo. Furthermore, the original movie was made for cinemas and was 24fps; a lot of changes to the animations had to be made to get the correct results. The creator of the reworked version explains about it on BlenderNation where he also talks about the fact that the entire movie was rendered via an online collaborative renderfarm, BURP, where volunteers provided spare CPU cycles to make it happen. If you want to see how your computer measures up to playing 4K content in 60 fps you can download the reworked movie from the official homepage — lower resolutions are also available."

cancel ×

102 comments

Should have made a decent film first... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756241)

No matter how high the resolution, this film is terrible...

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756259)

Yep, high frame rate and 3d stereoscopy doesn't make a shitty movie unshitty.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (4, Interesting)

GrammarPoliceChief (3463019) | about 7 months ago | (#45756525)

If only Hollywood understood this.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (2, Informative)

SavvyPlayer (774432) | about 7 months ago | (#45756273)

My kids enjoyed it quite a bit, watching it several times and will certainly want to see the 'upgraded' edition. What more do can you ask for in an animated short?

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756501)

What more do can you ask for in an animated short?

Quite a bit, actually. It is technically good quality, but the plot is disorganized. Of course the idea is just "animals doing wacky stuff", but it could have delivered a much more interesting and solid arc of events.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (2)

Xtifr (1323) | about 7 months ago | (#45756647)

It's a technology demo created by techies. And now you want a (good) plot as well? You should just be thankful it isn't about Harry Potter defeating Darth Vader! :)

Adapt fairy tales (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45756807)

There are plenty of public domain plots. If techies can get to work adapting familiar stories by the Grimms, H.C. Andersen, Carlo Collodi, and other famous pre-1900 fairy tale authors, that might start to eat away at Disney's position in the marketplace.

Re:Adapt fairy tales (1)

quenda (644621) | about 7 months ago | (#45759035)

There are plenty of public domain plots. .

Unfortunately, Disney have already stolen all the best ones, and wrapped then up in a new eternal copyright.

Re:Adapt fairy tales (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45759167)

Disney has a copyright on the details it added in its adaptations. The original remains Free forever.

Re:Adapt fairy tales (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45760235)

There are plenty of public domain plots. If techies can get to work adapting familiar stories by the Grimms, H.C. Andersen, Carlo Collodi, and other famous pre-1900 fairy tale authors, that might start to eat away at Disney's position in the marketplace.

And which part of TECH DEMO are you still having problems with?

This is an animated show reel to help iron the kinks out of various systems in an animation program.
It is not a general release animation.
It is not entertainment.
It is not a means to usurp Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, Studio Gibli, or anybody else.. It is a tech demo.

It is the equivalent of the transparent refracting sphere that was pretty much stock for the old ray tracing programs.
It is a hello world feature. Not a cartoon.

Eating away at Disney's position is a task for someone else.

It was quite funny, fairly well animated, and it fulfilled it's purpose perfectly.

Re:Adapt fairy tales (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45760881)

And which part of TECH DEMO are you still having problems with?

None, especially. I enjoyed it and Sintel the first time I watched them, just as I enjoyed the old Pixar shorts for what they were. But it would have been nice to kill the tech-demo and thousand-cuts-against-Disney birds with one stone.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (1)

Mercury2k (133466) | about 7 months ago | (#45757175)

It's a technology demo created by techies. And now you want a (good) plot as well? You should just be thankful it isn't about Harry Potter defeating Darth Vader! :)

heh indeed!

Actually iirc, BBB was about developing the hair system in Blender. Also, the movies aren't about just copying something existing out there already, but to give a lucky few that are interested in a particular area (directing, story boarding, concept art, musical score, etc.) a chance to wet their feet on a project and show their skills off to the world and maybe even land a job working for the "big boys" (like how Ian Hubert now works at Pixar thanks to Tears of Steel).

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759327)

We already have the demoscene for that.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45765659)

That sounds pretty awesome, I for one vote to make this movie.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757233)

Simple plot is not necessarily the same as a bad plot. Every films, especially shorts, don't need to have deep, complex plots, and there is room for a variety of options.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757487)

I didn't mean that the plot has to be complex. Big Buck Bunny is just a simple plot done bad.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757275)

I pity your sheltered kids if they thought this crap was good

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759645)

Your kids must be retards, Shame they didn't die during birth.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (2)

Urkki (668283) | about 7 months ago | (#45756637)

No matter how high the resolution, this film is terrible...

Well, I think it is excellent at what it is. Everything could be better, but anything will quickly reach a point where making something better makes something else less good. And BBB is easily in the region, where making it better is hard, where any improvement is just making it less good in some other respect, just making it different.

Just because you did not enjoy it does not make it terrible. It only means your life is less enjoyable compared to those who liked it (well,,unless you get kicks out of calling it terrible).

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757613)

Big Buck Bunny is a demo, you dumb fuck. It's meant to show the tech, nothing more, nothing less. Or are you criticizing the graphics?

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759631)

The graphics are shit too. The film has no redeeming qualities.

Sintel is the only open film project that was somewhat decent, but only because it basically retold the tale of Moby Dick.

Re:Should have made a decent film first... (2)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about 7 months ago | (#45758013)

It was meant to show off Blender. Like Blender, the movie is a mess. The difference in completeness, and usability between Blender and any of the big 3 animation packages is a greater disparity than Windows vs Linux for desktop usage.

Happy Saturday From The Golden Girls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756243)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

what a fuckn waste 3d glasses what shit (1)

deysOfBits (2198798) | about 7 months ago | (#45756301)

Reminds me of ObramaCare NY in 3d

What are they displaying this on? (4, Interesting)

afidel (530433) | about 7 months ago | (#45756323)

AFAIK to get 60fps at 4k using existing display connectors you need to use two DP or HDMI1.4 connections and MST, but with two connectors you just have enough bandwidth for 60fps so how are they doing 3D which would require another doubling of bandwidth and thus require 4 connectors? Are there 4k monitors with 4 inputs I'm not aware of?

Re:What are they displaying this on? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756363)

your mom has four inputs

Re:What are they displaying this on? (5, Informative)

fizzer06 (1500649) | about 7 months ago | (#45756369)

http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN85S9-85-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00CMEN95U/ [amazon.com]

The reviews are great: "My wife and I bought this after selling our daughter Amanda into white slavery. "

Re:What are they displaying this on? (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 7 months ago | (#45756447)

And if you're interested in buying that then you'll probably want one of these as well (according to amazon).

http://www.amazon.com/Male-Power-Collared-Harness-Mankini/dp/B00CQCMP4Y/ref=pd_sim_sbs_e_3/180-4293593-6900613 [amazon.com]

I'm not entirely sure what the link is.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757779)

Better hurry, only left in stock at the moment of writing this.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757505)

You can buy IGZO (meaning uber-high quality) 31" 4K displays for $3500. No, I'm not calling that cheap, but if you put it into the context of history for how much 1920x1200 monitors first cost and how fast they were adopted, it's actually a very very fair price that will be coming down rapidly over next 1 - 2 years.

Note that I'm not even going into those Seiki monitors since the image quality isn't that great and they are stuck at a 30Hz refresh rate in 4K mode.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 7 months ago | (#45761067)

As another poster pointed out, buyers of this TV are also selling themselves into sexual slavery in order to afford it:
http://i.imgur.com/aTZNKhc.png [imgur.com]

Enjoy big buck bunny, no not the film but the big, hairy, sweaty guy in the fursuit who is going to pay you $500 a night to "play" with you. Should only take a few months of sessions with mr bunny and several years of medication and therapy to enjoy your new 4k TV.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756419)

One DisplayPort connector is enough for 4k at 60 fps. Using two display connectors for 3D is pretty typical/

Re:What are they displaying this on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756423)

Wrong. DP1.2 can do 3840x2160@60Hz/30bpp over a single cable.
You still need MST though, because the DP spec is weird.
While you have 17.28Gb/s available per cable, each stream is limited to 8.64Gb/s max.
So to get around that limitation the display poses as 2 1920x2160@60Hz/30bpp half-displays and so gets use of the full bandwidth.
Current AMD and nvidia drivers already support a new EDID extension so you don't end up with your OS thinking you have 2 1920x2160 screens and helpfully snapping/maximizing things to half a display.

Now for 3D... yeah, that will require 2 cables and quite a bit of magic to make THAT work.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (2)

GrammarPoliceChief (3463019) | about 7 months ago | (#45756487)

4k 60fps doesn't drop a single frame on my Retina MacBook Pro outputting to my Sony 4k TV, which will do 4k on either the two Mini DisplayPort or HDMI connections.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (3, Informative)

GrammarPoliceChief (3463019) | about 7 months ago | (#45756797)

Skip that, it is only outputting 4k 24Hz over HDMI. Plays fine on the 2880x1800 monitor and I'm sure will play fine on the 4k DP monitors in the studio which we edit 4k and 6k at 48fps all the time.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

craighansen (744648) | about 7 months ago | (#45758245)

The Retina MacBook will do 2160p @ 30Hz over the HDMI port - that's what I get with the Seiki SE50UY04.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756775)

I really hope they'll add 60fps @720p.
Because full HD at 60fps is something my PC simply can't handle, and it would still be nice to see the film at 60fps.

Transcode it down (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45756827)

You can always download the 1080p version and transcode it to 720p. Transcoding while scaling down doesn't give quite as much generation loss.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 7 months ago | (#45756791)

Is this full 3D at 60fps, or is this the 4K equivalent of HRF3D like the Hobbit which will simply show 30fps to each eye alternating?

If it's the latter then there's no increase in bandwidth required and the standard 2x HDMI connectors will still suffice.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (4, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 7 months ago | (#45758751)

Is this full 3D at 60fps, or is this the 4K equivalent of HRF3D like the Hobbit which will simply show 30fps to each eye alternating?

The Hobbit is 48 frames per second per eye, and is projected "double flashed":
Each stereo pair is shown twice, alternating between left and right.
So the projector is actually projecting 192 images per second.

Standard 24Hz stereoscopic content by the way is projected triple flashed, resulting
in 144 images per second.

Nice amount of in-depth detail here:
http://www.avnetwork.com/latest/0013/hfrbehind-the-scenes-of-a-major-video-projection-rollout/91486 [avnetwork.com]

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 7 months ago | (#45759223)

Thanks for that. I did a google search and read a few summaries. All those summaries were wrong and had people correcting them in comments.

Goes to show what you miss without the full story.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45765709)

Each stereo pair is shown twice, alternating between left and right.

Aren't the left/right frames projected at the same time?

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 7 months ago | (#45768517)

Each stereo pair is shown twice, alternating between left and right.

Aren't the left/right frames projected at the same time?

The "shutter glasses" [wikipedia.org] way of doing stereoscopic projection needs
temporal separation, otherwise the shutters would be useless.

But even with systems using (circular) polarisation [wikipedia.org] , that would
require two completely independent projection paths, which basically means
two projectors. That would be much too expensive, so: No.

Re:What are they displaying this on? (1)

bertok (226922) | about 7 months ago | (#45757085)

The Sony Bravia 4K TVs have HDMI 2.0 ports, and can display this video.

The hiccup is that as far as I know, there are no PC video cards with HDMI 2.0 outputs!

D'oh!

nope (0)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 7 months ago | (#45756335)

Since all my panels are 1080 or less, I will pass. I assume few people even have panels capable of 4k.

Re:nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756611)

I am sure you are great at solving hen and egg situations.

Re:nope (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#45756717)

There is also a 60fps 1080p version available if you want to enjoy the smoothness.

Why? (2)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 7 months ago | (#45756337)

I can understand needing to alter some things for 3D, like ensuring proper non-nauseating focus, or maybe there's missing geometry out of shot which the slightly repositioned cameras would expose. But this bit doesn't make a lot of sense to me:

Furthermore, the original movie was made for cinemas and was 24fps; a lot of changes to the animations had to be made to get the correct results.

In any game engine it would be trivial to adjust 1/48th exposure and 24fps to 1/120th exposure and 60fps. I find it difficult to believe animations would be keyframed to 24fps in a way that couldn't be correctly lerped.

Can someone explain in more detail the challenges they faced?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756539)

If it's all linear, plain keyframe scaling will do most of the work. However, if you use non-linear workflow, you're up the creek. (Disclaimer: haven't seen the source scenes.)

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45756949)

Well, for a start, 24 doesn't go nicely into 60 so if you do have a particular keyframe position that you want to keep precisely, you'll need to work carefully around it.

It may also be that you've specially keyed an object's position (perhaps camera position for a cut to another angle) in two neighbouring frames for a particular effect, but interpolating between those positions for the extra frames just doesn't work. Or you might end up with an intersection of objects which didn't happen on the original frames.

Then you've also got the problem of extending the number of frames at either end of a scene. Suppose you have (for simplicity's sake) three frames in a scene:

ADG

and you want to triple the framerate. No problem, just stick two extra frames in for each existing frame:

AbcDefG...

Ah. Where do you get the two extra frames you need at the end? There's nowhere for the animation to go because (quite possibly) you only keyed right up to frame G originally, and that was the frame you wanted to end the shot on (as a hobbyist editor, one can get pretty picky about that). You could insert frames at the beginning of the scene, but that's the same problem. You could stretch the whole scene out more - here by inserting three frames between AD and DG - but then you'll be altering different scenes by slightly different amounts.

They'll also be less motion blur with a higher framerate, so errors that may have been covered up might become more noticeable.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759029)

Lerping is sometimes not just that great, plus despite your frame rate being set to 3000fps if your game logic still runs 30 or 60fps it will tell your animation keyframes to stay at X. Usually game developers don't care about making the engine flexible enough to allow lerping between 1/60th of animations. Only stuff you could likely get realistically would be shader effects and stuff which is procedural.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759781)

I can understand needing to alter some things for 3D, like ensuring proper non-nauseating focus, or maybe there's missing geometry out of shot which the slightly repositioned cameras would expose.

There's usually a lot more to it, since most CG movies aren't just rendered, but there's a lot of post-processing involved, possibly adding layers of fog, color correction etc. I have no idea if big buck bunny had any of that, of if the finished movie is just plain rendered from within blender.

Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

jakedata (585566) | about 7 months ago | (#45756351)

Finally some 4K content for my Seiki. Normally I just use it as a computer display. VLC has experimental support for hardware accelerated decoding which is absolutely necessary to play back 4K video.

It looks great, nice work folks.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | about 7 months ago | (#45756391)

How did you get it to play smoothly in VLC? It kept lagging for me even with hardware decoding on.

Surprisingly, Windows Media Player played it smooth as butter.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

jakedata (585566) | about 7 months ago | (#45756463)

Frankly, I thought I'd never be able to play 4K video on my system.

Windows Media Player is completely unable to handle it and YouTube@4K is jerky at best, even with all the tweaks in Chrome turned on.

I am running a Radeon HD7700, Seiki SE50UY04 and a Core 2 Quad with Windows 7 x64 and the latest Catalyst and VLC.

Once I turned on hardware decoding in VLC it played flawlessly. I can stream YouTube videos to VLC but I can't get them to send 4K yet.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | about 7 months ago | (#45756703)

Odd. I'm using an Nvidia card and VLC stutters every other second or so. WMP has no problems.

But I also have a 2K monitor (2560*1440) instead of a 4K, so maybe WMP is just better at downsampling?

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

dj245 (732906) | about 7 months ago | (#45757153)

I have had plenty of problems with this in the past. I have a small Zotac box with a dinky CPU but hardware playback support. 720p is possible with CPU only but 1080p requires the GPU. Sometimes VLC just doesn't want to use DXVA (hardware decoding) and nothing you can do helps. There are forum threads going back years about this. I hate to pick on free software which is a hobby for other people, but plenty of other free software doesn't have a problem with DXVA.

I have found that Media Player Classic - Home Cinema, XBMC, and Plex (which is based on XBMC) generally pick up the DXVA fine out of the box with no fiddling around in the settings.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45765665)

Have you tried OpenGL rendering instead of DirectX?

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756687)

hardware accelerated decoding which is absolutely necessary to play back 4K video

A i5-3550 happily software decoding 60fps 4k x264 in mplayer without dropping frames calls bullshit.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45760479)

Luckily, x264 does not decode video, so your opinion is moot.

Re:Wow, Pixelicious! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45765669)

Wow, you're so awesome, the way you picked up on that guy's small, forgivable error. You must be quite a hit with the ladies.

Some where. (1)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#45756355)

I read a psyche study on the effects of high frame rates, something above a certain frame rate had an effect on the brain in that it could not distinguish between what was on the screen and real life.
Now obviously you know it's a movie, but it did things to heart rate etc, the consensus was that high frame rates have a variety of effects on the mind.

Re:Some where. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#45756509)

Sounds interesting. Can you still dig up that study?

Re:Some where. (1)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#45756995)

That's just it, I looked for it again and couldn't find it, but there are quite a few articles on HFR film and video on Google (mostly Hobbit).
But none that suggested the implications of the one I read.
The suggestion was because this frame rate increase invoked the the reactions it did that it might be dangerous (to someone with a weak heart) and also that it might be useful as a "suggestive influence" (brain washing?) and advertising (lol are those different things?)

The frame rates were far higher than 48, some were recorded as high as 800 fps, and would be played back at that speed as well.

I'm disappointed because now I am interested in seeing who did the study and how I feel about the validity of it.

Re:Some where. (1)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#45757043)

This touches on the effects, Hollywood was apparently worried that the original plan for 60 fps in theatres looked to "realistic" and would put audiences off.
http://clockworkbrothers.com/?p=1836 [clockworkbrothers.com]

This is off topic, but imagine if the study I mentioned was true and then you showed people ultra violent TV shows at ultra high frame rates.
http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1963JASP.pdf [uky.edu]

I digress.

Re:Some where. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756587)

it was a story here about the hobbit movie IIRC

Re:Some where. (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45756959)

it could not distinguish between what was on the screen and real life.

That's ridiculous, as I was trying to tell Katie Couric only the other day. Wouldn't let me get a word in edgeways though.

Re:Some where. (1)

locopuyo (1433631) | about 7 months ago | (#45758139)

Current film and television frame rates are extremely slow compared to what humans can perceive. Just try watching the hobbit in 48 fps compared to standard 24 fps. The motion blur is reduced so much some people don't like it. They feel sick because it is so much more clear. Other people don't like it because the it makes it easier to tell all the special effects are fake. In my opinion it is awesome and I want even higher frame rates, but special effects need to catch up.

Re:Some where. (1)

koan (80826) | about 7 months ago | (#45759329)

They film effects sequences at 120, the study I'm talking about had rates as high as 800.

I wouldn't be in rush to embrace anything that may brainwash you more than you already are.

Re:Some where. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45760537)

You sound like an asshole that either didn't read or can't comprehend what he is replying to. The parent was saying we are far from having maximum seeable frame rates and even 24 to 48 fps is an enormous improvement.

Nope (0)

markdavis (642305) | about 7 months ago | (#45756359)

>" If you want to see how your computer measures up to playing 4K content in 60 fps "

Not really. My monitor is 1080P, 2D. 4K 3D is about as incompatible as playing a tuna fish sandwich!

But thanks for the offer :)

Try the high-motion render anyway (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45756817)

You can still try the high-motion (60 fps) render at 1080p 2D.

3D? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#45756365)

That'll be perfect to be ready when it comes around again in another couple of decades.

Re:3D? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 months ago | (#45756765)

3D isn't translating well into the living room, but it's doing fine in theaters, isn't it? I saw Gravity in 3d just a few months ago, and the 3d was very much worthwhile.

Awesome! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756427)

I'm going to put it on my cellphone.

Re:Awesome! (2)

xororand (860319) | about 7 months ago | (#45756617)

"Movies are best watched on cell phones."
- David Lynch

Garbage article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45756623)

'Big Buck Bunny' was NEVER made for the cinema, but rendered in the highest resolution format supported by common playback hardware available at the time.

Today, 4K (let alone at 60 FPS) is ***MISSING*** any agreed and standard formats or hardware that might play such formats. 4K is supposed to need the new H265 CODEC, which today has no decent hardware decoders, and no decent software decoders. So, H264 (AVC) is used in the interim. The only problem is there is ZERO agreement about supporting high framerate video at 4K in H264 consumer hardware or software.

If you attempt to play files like this using the usual suspects on your PC, be aware that rather than testing CPU power, you are testing the robustness of the memory management system of your CODEC, which is almost certainly NOT designed to handle these types of files.

Some of the latest GPUs, and one of the common, cheapo Chinese ARM companies (Rockchip, or maybe Allwinner) boasts 'support' of 4Kish H264 video streams, but they mean the industry (TV and cinema) standard of 24FPS, ***not*** 60FPS.

A software H264 CODEC running on a modern 4+ core x86 CPU could probably handle 4K @ 60FPS if the data rate isn't too high, but like I said, that means finding a CODEC optimised to expect such large data sets for each frame, at such high frequencies.

Compounding the issue is that the world's best H264 encoder, the open source and free x264, compresses so well (a 2 hour film at virtually best Bluray quality needs only 6GB), new H265 CODECs have an uphill battle challenging the efficiency of x264, but x264 isn't designed to be great for 4K (or 60FPS). While x264 can encode any resolution at any framerate, its optimal compression efficiency has evolved across time to match common usage cases.

So x264 just works (at current HD), but early H265 is going to produce crazy large files simply to handle 4K by comparison, with little visual improvement for most viewers (given monitor size and viewing distance). 4K video formats exist for digital distribution of cinema movies- the latest Hobbit movie was stated to be 600GB for the 48FPS version in 3D. By comparison, the 'rip' of the film will be around 20GB for the 3D version at 24FPS, and will lose very little detail indeed.

It gets worse. Broadcast (and Internet streaming services) already serve completely DREADFUL HD content, blocky and fuzzy whenever high motion events occur. They do so despite having relatively high data rates because they use absolutely TERRIBLE hardware encoders from useless companies that have had a monopoly of providing broadcast equipment for many, many decades. Commercial Real-time hardware encoders are complete JUNK, but provide brainless off-the-shelf solutions to lazy TV broadcasters. My point is that a bad situation becomes infinitely worse at 4K, where broadcast streams will have to constantly degrade to the quality of mid-90s 'RealPlayer' video content (recall all that .rm stuff?).

And no replacement for Bluray is ever coming- physical disks are over. What consumers need is first quality, x264 encoded, 720 and 1080 content, maybe with some of that at 48/50/60 FPS. There will be little to drive the coming 4K TVs, save for simple video games, and EXTREMELY expensive first-run pay cable-channels showing the latest Hollywood movies and premium sporting events. Normal 4K broadcasts, like I said, will be a total joke, with higher data rates and far lower picture quality than current best quality 1080 cable channels.

Discs are for rural customers (2)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45756843)

And no replacement for Bluray is ever coming- physical disks are over.

Where does that leave rural customers who can't get cable, fiber, or even the higher tiers of DSL?

satellite tv and it's better then cable at mpeg 2 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#45756883)

satellite tv and it's better then cable at mpeg 2

Re:satellite tv and it's better then cable at mpeg (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#45757127)

In other words, it leaves them stuck with what happens to be playing at the moment, not a large back catalog of videos on demand.

Re:satellite tv and it's better then cable at mpeg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757263)

"better then" - Ha ha!

Spot the American... you fucking idiot.

Don't you know what the words 'than' and 'then' mean? Most two year olds do. Why don't you?

Best use of resources? (1)

mbstone (457308) | about 7 months ago | (#45756747)

They could have spent the same amount of effort improving the Blender user interface, i.e. making it usable.

Re:Best use of resources? (1)

Mercury2k (133466) | about 7 months ago | (#45757061)

They could have spent the same amount of effort improving the Blender user interface, i.e. making it usable.

While I agree that 2.4x wasn't the best UI, I tend to think that Blender 2.5x and up is orders of magnitude better. Do you still find the newer versions of Blender to be that bad?

Re:Best use of resources? (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 7 months ago | (#45757211)

Considering most 3D modelling programs and their users have unique user interface settings, and requirments. If you cant be bothered to customise blender to your style, theres nothing the foundation can do for you.

I hated Blenders interface and default settings, comming from using Silo, it was so backwards. Once i changed all the blender settings to match Silo, i've never looked back. Been using Blender for over 2 years.

Re:Best use of resources? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45759139)

The Blender Foundation was not involved in creating this 4K 3D version.

4k != 2160p (2)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 7 months ago | (#45757019)

Since when is 2160p 4k?
Who decided to use the number on the left, round it up even more and hope noone with half a brain notices.
Ah thats right, the marketing twats. Probably the same ones who throw "cloud" down everyones throat.

Either way, i'd rather have 1080p at 60fps. Give it a year for compression/codecs and streaming services to catch up.
Then upgrade the resolution to 2k (its not 4k).
60fps just feels more natural. 24fps feels like slideshow. Upping the resolution of a slideshow does nothing for me.

But since the marketing has already started for 2k, and, the TV manufactures failed with 3D sales. No doubt we will have this crap rammed down our throats, and , sucked up by the masses.

Re:4k != 2160p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757095)

The width for 2160p is 3840. 3840 isn't exactly 4k either but it's closer than 2160.

Re:4k != 2160p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757305)

That's what the GP was complaining about.
During the whole "HD" craze we've been using the vertical resolution for measurement (1080, 720, 480, etc).
Suddenly we've switched to the horizontal with 4k (which is actually 2160p, or 3840x2160).

Re:4k != 2160p (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757117)

Since when is 2160p 4k?

Since never.

Who decided to use the number on the left, round it up even more and hope noone with half a brain notices.

Clueless "Journalists".

Ah thats right, the marketing twats. Probably the same ones who throw "cloud" down everyones throat.

Wrong. Marketing is *very* careful about calling it QuadFullHD or 3840x2160 UltraHD.

Either way, i'd rather have 1080p at 60fps. Give it a year for compression/codecs and streaming services to catch up.

If you think it'll only take a year for enough bandwidth to magically appear, I got a nice bridge to sell you.

Then upgrade the resolution to 2k (its not 4k).

Because 1k==1080. Right.

No doubt we will have this crap rammed down our throats, and , sucked up by the masses.

Who gives a shit about TVs? 24" 60Hz 3840x2160 displays for $1299. Finally a spiritual successor to the T220.

Re:4k != 2160p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757527)

Since when is 2160p 4k?

I agree that the faux-k marketing bullshit has to stop. However depending on aspect ratio 2k and 4k aren't always 2048 or 4096 (respectively) pixels wide either. I guess this content is 4k, just at 16:9... which isn't a cinema aspect ratio. Really, we can't perceive a visible difference of 6% resolution. We probably can see perceive crappy scaling algorthims when 4k is squashed down to 3840 pixels though. So it's fine calling this 4k but not fine calling UltraHD displays 4k.

QuadHD gets my goat too, those of us with basic numerical skills would correctly call it DoubleHD. It's obvious that 2160P requires 4 times the pixels of 1080P but the resolution is doubled not quadrupled. False advertising.

Re:4k != 2160p (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 7 months ago | (#45759529)

You watch very fast slideshows.

Re:4k != 2160p (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45765077)

You watch very fast slideshows.

You obviously haven't attended the same meetings as I have.

60fps and 30fps are same size (1)

craighansen (744648) | about 7 months ago | (#45758093)

I downloaded a few different versions - surprisingly, the difference in size between the 30fps and the 60fps versions is very small. I'm not sure if they sandbagged the quality of the 60fps version to match file sizes, or there is just not that much bandwidth required for additional B frames. Or did something go wrong in the rendering at 60fps? Curious.

WebM (1)

short (66530) | about 7 months ago | (#45758539)

And where is it compressed as VP9 WebM? What do they mean with H.264?

Re:WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45758781)

And where is it compressed as VP9 WebM? What do they mean with H.264?

Actually, I guess part of their point about making the output images from their renderfarm available for download was for people to be able to do codec comparisons with that dataset. I would be surprised if we don't see it pop up in all kinds of different formats soon.

Missing option (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#45759507)

They should have included a parallel stereoscopic view.

Re:Missing option (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#45759837)

I tend to agree, since that is the format my 3D tablet works with.

Re:Missing option (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 7 months ago | (#45765701)

I'm still miffed that they (the general "they") went with parallel instead of cross-eyed as the side-by-side standard. You can manage the latter without glasses for a quick preview at a reasonable size, but not the former.

Re:Missing option (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 7 months ago | (#45776849)

Cross-eyed is the worst thing ever invented for 3D viewing. Parallel can be viewed without glasses for very long periods if you can control your focus properly.

My comment was that they didn't even include a parallel viewing movie file. They went with a weird "one eye at the top, the other eye at the bottom" format.

"3D stereo"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45769993)

Since "3D" is stereo, why the redundancy?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...