Fanres - fan restoration forum

Full Version: HDD/SSD speed needed for 4K and 8K
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Guessing how fast an HDD should be to sustain realtime 4K and 8K play, let's say some figures - extrapolated from http://toolstud.io

UHD 4K - 3840 x 2160 4:2:2 24fps 8bit YCbCr uncompressed: 199MB/s
https://toolstud.io/video/bitrate.php?im...amerate=24

UHD 4K - 3840 x 2160 4:2:2 24fps 10bit YCbCr uncompressed: 249MB/s
https://toolstud.io/video/bitrate.php?im...amerate=24

UHD 8K - 7680 x 4320 4:2:2 24fps 10bit YCbCr uncompressed: 995MB/s
https://toolstud.io/video/bitrate.php?im...amerate=24

So, to sustain realtime uncompressed UHD 4K 8bit and 10bit, fastest HDDs could be up to the task - or slower ones in RAID. Of course, any SSD could do.
For UHD 8K, you need an NVME or at least two SATA SSDs in RAID 0; with HDDs, minimum should be four in RAID 0, even if probably more are required.

Of course, compressed video - even using lossless codecs - would be quite lower than this figures, so *maybe* for a lossless encoded UHD 8K video, around 500MB/s could be needed, leaving the task to a simple SATA SSD or two (or three) fast HDDs in RAID 0.
Realistically I think you would work with ProRes/DNxHD or other lossy intra-frame codecs, which I think have a ratio around 4:1. In particular I don't know of any lossless 10-bit codecs that are reasonably reliable, fast and widespread. I searched myself a while ago and couldn't find anything useful except I think a Blackmagic lossless codec, but it had some weird color issues for me.
Yes I know; indeed, those figures are the "worst case scenario"; yet, a "simple" NVME should be enough to read an 8K file - even a mid quality one; of course, CPUs and/or GPUs are another story... Smile

Want to start to work with Resolve, yet I have to find a lossless codec that will work with it... of course all my Lagarith files must be transcoded, but I am not ready to use a lossy codec, even a good one.
I understand your paranoia, I also prefer lossless all the way! In fact sometimes the results can be even better when the source isn't very noisy. Lagarith ftw.

The problem is ... 995 MB/s ... that's 3,6 TB per hour of film. SSD cost is still significantly higher than HDDs. You'd go crazy with cost, haha. Probably better to make a big enough RAID of normal HDDs?

A bit offtopic, I know we're talking from a restoration perspective, but I always look at it from the perspective of a filmmaker ... especially in the digital age you end up with tons and tons of unused material. I wouldn't be surprised if for your average 2 hour movie you have some 40 hours of source material. Feasible for Hollywood, maybe. But for a normal person? Hell, consider the fact that even Hollywood usually doesn't master or render VFX at 4K, even today.
In 4K and above it might be best to work by proxies.
Wikipedia has a little information on shooting ratio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_ratio

Here are some other numbers:

https://nofilmschool.com/2016/03/shootin...-hitchcock

You would almost definitely work with proxies an then conform the the master files later.
Black Panther supposedly had over 500 hours of footage according to this article: https://www.inverse.com/article/52003-bl...bie-berman

Just for the fun of it: According to imdb it was shot in ArriRaw at 3.4K. Arri says each Open Gate (?) 3.4k frame has 11.26MB per frame or 972.5 GB per hour. I assume GB means gibibyte here. Times 500 means 474.85 TB (tebibyte) of data. This would require 88 x 6 TB (terabytes) hard drives to store. One costs around 120 EUR if you get it cheap, so you're looking at 10,560 EUR for the hard drive storage alone, multiply by 3 or 4 if you want proper backups.

Gotta be honest, it's less than I expected, surely not a problem for Hollywood budgets. But for small amateur-ish productions that's insane. Also, cataloguing and organizing that footage across so many hard drives must be a nightmare. Unless they have some giant RAID I guess, which would only add to the cost.