For those of us with 30 inch monitors - download this AWESOME 2560X1440 movie clip!

W

wasserkool

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
346
http://vimeo.com/33110953

Its a hefty 500MB download but one of the few rare 2560X1440 native movie clip that will show off the awesomeness of a 30 inch monitor!

I am simply blown away by the video quality and this guy's talent and really made my NEC PA301W shine and one of the few rare moments that also received the wife approval :D
 
^^ wow.
if you took four 1920x1080 LCD panels and put them side-by-side in a rectangle shape, you would you have 4096x2160 4K screen.
Click to expand...

that's incredibly stupid.
 
if you took four 1920x1080 LCD panels and put them side-by-side in a rectangle shape, you would you have 4096x2160 4K screen.
Click to expand...

As a rough illustration, using example displays most people viewing the video would be familiar with, it's close enough. Though it would be a little better if it pointed out that it was a rough approximation...
 
Mind = blown. that was gorgeous. Watching it again, and preordering the digital download.
 
nothing special about this clip as it have exactly as much noise as every 1080p movie
 
2560 x 1440 is a 16:9 resolution and that's the resolution of my 27" :mad: don't leave us out! Wish I had a 30 incher :(
 
XoR said:
nothing special about this clip as it have exactly as much noise as every 1080p movie
Click to expand...

Seeing at how the clips are shot in low light and with the world's best cameras and camcorders this clip is certainly impressive. I mean just a few years ago clips like this are almost impossible to capture.
 
Very beautiful video but resolution wise, nothing amazing happening there. Probably too much compression?
 
A "good" quality x264 1080p blu-ray rip is at least 12 gigabytes for a 2ish hour movie. So that's very roughly 12E9/(2*60*60) = 1.67E6 bytes/sec

1440p is about twice as many pixels as 1080p. This clip is 2:18 or 138 seconds long, and 579E6 bytes.

1.67E6 * 138 * 2 = 460E6

So it's in the right ballpark size wise.

The parts that look the most grainy/artifacty to me, are the night shots where the exposures were long enough that the sky appears blue. Those shots were probably a few minutes in duration per frame. So the pristine full frame shot was going to have some noise, no matter what. And that noise was going to vary from frame to frame, again, no matter what.

The questions is whether the video encoder makes it worse. And I think in a few of the scenes it does. You can see a definite blockiness to the noise, which I don't think you'd see on the raw frames. So a higher bit-rate might help, I'd like to see files 2 and 4x the size of the currently available one.
 
stewartjm said:
A "good" quality x264 1080p blu-ray rip is at least 12 gigabytes for a 2ish hour movie. So that's very roughly 12E9/(2*60*60) = 1.67E6 bytes/sec

1440p is about twice as many pixels as 1080p. This clip is 2:18 or 138 seconds long, and 579E6 bytes.

1.67E6 * 138 * 2 = 460E6

So it's in the right ballpark size wise.

The parts that look the most grainy/artifacty to me, are the night shots where the exposures were long enough that the sky appears blue. Those shots were probably a few minutes in duration per frame. So the pristine full frame shot was going to have some noise, no matter what. And that noise was going to vary from frame to frame, again, no matter what.

The questions is whether the video encoder makes it worse. And I think in a few of the scenes it does. You can see a definite blockiness to the noise, which I don't think you'd see on the raw frames. So a higher bit-rate might help, I'd like to see files 2 and 4x the size of the currently available one.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean come on - some of the videos are shot using ISO 3200 and even 6400 to capture all the star light! Maybe a few years down the road we will have noise free video and photos at those ISO.

Correct me if I am wrong, without those DSLR cameras and large sensor video camcorders those star shots were only previously possible via telescopes and in outer space.
 
You've been able to take photographs of star trails and such since the dawn of photography. I used to take similar wide angle night sky photos, back when I was in middle/high-school in the 80s. I shot many star trails pictures, from 5-30 minutes or so in duration. Even took some pictures of aurora, in Ohio, if you can believe it. The aurora appeared blue-green to the naked eye, but came out red with a 10-20-30 second exposure on film.

Back then, to take pictures like this, you needed a tripod and a decent camera(SLR) with a wide angle lens, which supported a cable release. You used the cable release to lock the shutter open. You didn't need high ISO film,100-400 or so was fine as I recall. The higher ISO(1600,3200) films were for really high magnification astro-photography, and then you could get fancy and add dry ice to keep the film cold and all sorts of fun stuff. I did shoot some high ISO shots of the moon and planets, maybe a Nebula or 3, through my 6" Newtonian telescope. Ground the mirror for that scope by hand. But I never played with dry Ice.


Digital makes photography like this a lot less labor intensive, which makes it a lot cheaper. Especially to take multiple shots(i.e. make a movie), since the cameras are basically computers, and you can program them to take pictures with specific parameters on a schedule. I believe chdk adds some time lapse features to many/most supported Cannon Digi-cams. Digital also makes developing the expertise to make such neat films a lot cheaper, since you don't have to buy film, and pay and wait to have it developed. Though it still takes plenty of time, which requires a lot of passion and dedication.

The artistry of the Timescapes comes not just from taking time lapse pictures of the night sky, but rather from taking time lapse pictures of the night sky, with the camera moving nice and smoothly between frames, in relation to something in the foreground. And the music doesn't hurt, even a little bit :)

It's not 1440p, but there's an earlier Timescapes trailer here. My favorite sequence, out of the 2 trailers is in this earlier clip, it's the 2nd sequence, where the camera is tracking a point within the Milky Way, as rotates down a hillside. It's just soooo cool.

The music for the trailers, and it sounds like for the upcoming Timescapes film is by John Stanford. He has the trailer music for download on his page, as well as a few other songs.
 
Dang, my E6600 duo core can't even run that video lol it just chunks through it at 1 FPS.. Good thing I got a new pc to go with my dell u3011 lol.
 
it looks good.... .but for some reason I thought I'd be more impressed... but wasn't

It doesn't look as sharp as I imagined - perhaps because of the low lighting and high amount of grain.
 
I'd guess it's mostly the x264 codec's fault. I doubt they spent a lot of effort optimizing them for time lapse photogrophy, let alone time lapse photography of starscapes. Video codecs are mostly optimized to efficiently encode the small, and semi-regular differences between frames in normal 24-60 FPS video.

With a little luck, more bitrate should help. In a perfect world, the 1440p movie version would have 2x the bit rate of the blu-ray version. That'd be a pretty big download though.
 
27" 16:9 isn't being left out as one person decried - its the native and proper rez for this 2560x1440 16:9 material. A 30" will have thin bars (which aren't a big deal imo either). A 30" is however a lot larger of a screen than the x1440 and x1600 resolution differences would imply because its pixels are larger. I'd be happy with either screen if all other tradeoffs were the same, but I do like the ppi of my 27" a lot. I'd prob just set a 30" back a little further. At the same ppi as a 27" (108.8ppi), a x1600 would only have .75" bar above and below peeking out from behind a 27" centered on it(about the diameter of a dime coin each). You aren't missing out either way depending how you look at it imo.. especially on a 16:9 video for that matter.
.
I'm going to download it. I have seen the youtube 4k vids before though.
.
These are the 4k film standards..
4K-digital-film-standards.png

.
The Eizo 4k screen is too large for a desk imo and has an astronomical price.. its also a VA panel I believe which is great for TV's black levels+detail in blacks but not good for a desktop monitor (VA generally = very bad input lag for games that is).

36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9 , release est. $36,000 usd /


LG's quad full hd supposedly coming out in the next year or two is a 60hz IPS monitor sized perfectly for a large desk monitor imo.

(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

some other high ppi "desktop" monitors
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop
22.5" (24")........2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm
.
,
.. "block of four 1080p resolutions ~ Quad Full HD 3840x2160"

.. 1920 vs 3840 ~> +960 left, +960 right (+1920 wider)
.. 1200 vs 2160 ~> +480 top, + 480 bottom(+960 taller)
...1080 vs 2160 ~> +540 top, +540 bottom (+1080 taller)

.. 2560 vs 3840 ~> +640 px left , +640px right.. (+1280 wider)
...1600 vs 2160 ~> +280 px top, +280px bottom (+560 taller)
...1440 vs 2160 ~> +360 px top , +360px bottom (+720 taller)
 
XoR said:
with DVXA decoding of such files should be effortless for CPU.
Click to expand...

Not really,

DXVA* has some restricted limits (for instance: max b frames & ref frames), or else the ASIC chip in your graphic card won't be able to decode your CPU offloaded works smoothly (& I'm talking about 1080 res. here...let alone 4k)
 
stewartjm said:
You've been able to take photographs of star trails and such since the dawn of photography. I used to take similar wide angle night sky photos, back when I was in middle/high-school in the 80s. I shot many star trails pictures, from 5-30 minutes or so in duration. Even took some pictures of aurora, in Ohio, if you can believe it. The aurora appeared blue-green to the naked eye, but came out red with a 10-20-30 second exposure on film.

Back then, to take pictures like this, you needed a tripod and a decent camera(SLR) with a wide angle lens, which supported a cable release. You used the cable release to lock the shutter open. You didn't need high ISO film,100-400 or so was fine as I recall. The higher ISO(1600,3200) films were for really high magnification astro-photography, and then you could get fancy and add dry ice to keep the film cold and all sorts of fun stuff. I did shoot some high ISO shots of the moon and planets, maybe a Nebula or 3, through my 6" Newtonian telescope. Ground the mirror for that scope by hand. But I never played with dry Ice.


Digital makes photography like this a lot less labor intensive, which makes it a lot cheaper. Especially to take multiple shots(i.e. make a movie), since the cameras are basically computers, and you can program them to take pictures with specific parameters on a schedule. I believe chdk adds some time lapse features to many/most supported Cannon Digi-cams. Digital also makes developing the expertise to make such neat films a lot cheaper, since you don't have to buy film, and pay and wait to have it developed. Though it still takes plenty of time, which requires a lot of passion and dedication.

The artistry of the Timescapes comes not just from taking time lapse pictures of the night sky, but rather from taking time lapse pictures of the night sky, with the camera moving nice and smoothly between frames, in relation to something in the foreground. And the music doesn't hurt, even a little bit :)

It's not 1440p, but there's an earlier Timescapes trailer here. My favorite sequence, out of the 2 trailers is in this earlier clip, it's the 2nd sequence, where the camera is tracking a point within the Milky Way, as rotates down a hillside. It's just soooo cool.

The music for the trailers, and it sounds like for the upcoming Timescapes film is by John Stanford. He has the trailer music for download on his page, as well as a few other songs.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed explanation - as always learning something new here from knowledgeable forum members. Is it correct to say in the film days photos like those seen in the video is possible but videos are certainly not since there is really no high-ISO movie shooting options available before the advent of DSLR video and large sensor camcorders?
 
I dug around a little, and I found this article:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/richardson-field-notes

According to it, the ability to capture a lot of stars, and an image of the Milky Way, without blurring either the stars, or the foreground, has only recently been enabled by the latest digital sensors. Some of the Timescapes footage does lack significant star blurring, so in those cases, it's probably not possible to exactly replicate those sequences with a film camera.

wasserkool said:
Is it correct to say in the film days photos like those seen in the video is possible but videos are certainly not since there is really no high-ISO movie shooting options available before the advent of DSLR video and large sensor camcorders?
Click to expand...


I know virtually nothing about film movie cameras... But, I would say, given a 35mm Camera with equivalent optics, a body/back that allows the use of 1000+ frame roles of bulk 35mm film stock, an auto-winder that can handle a large mass of bulk film, a computer controllable cable release, equivalent computer controllable motion bases, and many many $1000s of dollars worth of 400-800-3200ISO film+development services, it would probably be possible to figure out how to replicate(or at least come really close to) a heck of a lot of the night sky segments in Timescapes. If you could put up with the pain of dealing with film again for such a long and involved project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top