When I bought my Western Digital MyBook 500 GB external hdd, that the size of pictures that was estimated for illustrative purposes actually matched the size of pictures of my brand new 14.2 Megapixel DSLR Camera. At the maximum resolution of 4592x3056 the average size of a pitcure is about 3.5 MB.

Although I know that the size of 1 GB may vary, a video using 13 GB per hour is pretty impressive.
An average Hollywood movie would need 5 single sided single layered 4.7 GB DVDs, a Bollywood movie even 11 DVDs without any extras.

  

I'm too lazy to do the math, but presumably they're using some large, raw video for the calculation. They might as well use a low figure anyway, so people are pleased when they can surpass it.

Raw DV is exactly 13GB an hour.  They are not talking about ripping DVDs here, obviously. 

 You have a new Pentax K20D?

Nope, Sony Alpha 350. 

MyKey_:

the size of pictures that was estimated for illustrative purposes actually matched the size of pictures of my brand new 14.2 Megapixel DSLR Camera. At the maximum resolution of 4592x3056 the average size of a pitcure is about 3.5 MB.

That's only true if you shoot in JPG mode. Many people using DSLRs (and even some better point & shoot cameras) shoot RAW or RAW + JPG. On my Canon Rebel, taking a single picture produces a ~10-14 Meg RAW and a 3-4 Meg JPG photo. And of course, if you're editing video it takes up a lot more space than a video produced solely for watching on a DVD.

As someone has already said, this is not a WTF.

If you shoot digital video with a miniDV camcorder, and import that video via FireWire as a DV stream (e.g. using Windows Movie Maker, Premiere, iMovie, Final Cut, or any of the major video editing programs) you will find that a one-hour tape digitizes to a 13 gig DV video file.

Since external hard drives are frequently used by video editors to archive footage from DV tapes, I think this is perfectly reasonable.

Sorry to disappoint.

 

You forgot to consider Full-HD video content which on average works out at 10-15GB per hour:

http://www.dbstalk.com/archive/index.php/t-53615.html

 To make sure they don't get sued hard drive manufacterers will take the largest size per pic/hour etc know to be available when demonstrating capacity giving the worst case scenario. For most people they will be able to store far more than specified

Hitsuji:

You forgot to consider Full-HD video content which on average works out at 10-15GB per hour:

http://www.dbstalk.com/archive/index.php/t-53615.html

 To make sure they don't get sued hard drive manufacterers will take the largest size per pic/hour etc know to be available when demonstrating capacity giving the worst case scenario. For most people they will be able to store far more than specified

Do you people even bother reading the comments before replying?  It is talking about Raw DV.  Fuck. 

morbiuswilters:

Do you people even bother reading the comments before replying?  It is talking about Raw DV.  Fuck. 

 Sorry Morbs, I didn't see your earlier post as I'm using a a  WTF-anti-troll addon for Firefox. I don't see post's belonging to any trolls unless I'm quoted by one.

Hitsuji:

Sorry Morbs, I didn't see your earlier post as I'm using a a  WTF-anti-troll addon for Firefox. I don't see post's belonging to any trolls unless I'm quoted by one.

Pwn3d by your own ignorance!  Delicious, I love it! 

Hitsuji:

Sorry Morbs, I didn't see your earlier post as I'm using a a  WTF-anti-troll addon for Firefox. I don't see post's belonging to any trolls unless I'm quoted by one.

Where can I get a copy?

Some of the uncompressed video we deal in at the studio I work for hits about 40GB per minute for you average full HD feed, it depends on if we're dealing with 8bit colour or 10bit.  More if you're dealing with 2K and 4K film resolutions.  RedCam footage can fit 5 minutes onto an 8GB memory card, but R3D formats are compressed slightly.

Since these drives are typically purchased by video professionals to move large chunks of data around (we mail them, express them, even cab them to other studios) it makes a lot of sense to assume that they might be targetting those people with this statement.  Still, most video professionals know exactly how much space their data will consume so giving them "real world figures" is kind of pointless.

MyKey_:

When I bought my Western Digital MyBook 500 GB external hdd, that the size of pictures that was estimated for illustrative purposes actually matched the size of pictures of my brand new 14.2 Megapixel DSLR Camera. At the maximum resolution of 4592x3056 the average size of a pitcure is about 3.5 MB.

The figures for a raw pic at that resolution would be 42099456 bytes (4592*3056*3 assuming the 3-byte RGB format) = 41112.75 Kb = 40.14 Mb per picture.

32-bit color: 56132608 bytes = 54817 Kb = 53.53 Mb per picture.

As it has been already mentioned, 13Gb/hour would be for RAW video.

merreborn:

Where can I get a copy?

There's this awesome invention called Google.  It will lead you to http://www.userscripts.org where you can search for this site.  Now here is the important part: you need to download the script and install it?  Got that?  Don't email it to your mom, don't print it out and try to eat it and for the love of God don't roll around naked on an LCD displaying the script source.

 

morbiuswilters:

merreborn:

Where can I get a copy?

*Random Bitching*

 Or in plain nice english: Install greasemonkey firefox add-on. and download one of the sanitiser scripts here: http://userscripts.org/scripts/search?q=tdwtf

there were more but a few months ago but alas only two survive today.

Hitsuji:

there were more but a few months ago but alas only two survive today.

 

Maybe that is because it is an insanely stupid idea which you have proved will only degrade the quality of our forums.

Hi, I'm a video geek in my spare time, so here a couple of cents...

13GB per Hour at a complete guess sounds like probably standard definition DV format (i.e. tape camcorder standard).

At least, that matches my own experience for file sizing in that format :)

This is actually still at roughly 5:1compression (lossless though), so you can image how big raw footage gets.

bikegrinch:

Hi, I'm a video geek in my spare time, so here a couple of cents...

13GB per Hour at a complete guess sounds like probably standard definition DV format (i.e. tape camcorder standard).

At least, that matches my own experience for file sizing in that format :)

This is actually still at roughly 5:1compression (lossless though), so you can image how big raw footage gets.

 

Well I'm a video professional and I can tell you that DV is not lossless!  I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression, and infact having worked on developing video compression technologies I would not expect there to be anything that can be lossless with a reliable ratio better than ~ 1.2:1.

GettinSadda:

I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression

gzip?

GettinSadda:

Well I'm a video professional and I can tell you that DV is not lossless!  I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression, and infact having worked on developing video compression technologies I would not expect there to be anything that can be lossless with a reliable ratio better than ~ 1.2:1.

Depends on what you mean by mainstream. If "used by studios", then you're probably right. If you're looking at home users, Huffyuv and Lagarith are in common use.

ender:

GettinSadda:

Well I'm a video professional and I can tell you that DV is not lossless!  I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression, and infact having worked on developing video compression technologies I would not expect there to be anything that can be lossless with a reliable ratio better than ~ 1.2:1.

Depends on what you mean by mainstream. If "used by studios", then you're probably right. If you're looking at home users, Huffyuv and Lagarith are in common use.

 

Yeah - I tend to find that the sort of people I work with are either happy to work compressed (DV in 25, 50 or 100 variants) or want lossless and so work uncompressed.

Home video and low-end pro (think wedding videos) the like are quite a different kettle of fish andyou do get some odd stuff used there.

Also, I would just love to feed Huffuv and Lagarith withsome of the high-entropy test material that I have used at times, but I don't have time to play with this and a quick look at the Lagarith site shows that a) He has proved that there are some sequences where his codec increases the bandwidth and b) He bases most of his comparisons on DVD video which is already heavily compressed!

Huffy/Lagarith achieve about 2.3-2.5x compression--on completely uncompressed raw video.  Try it on YUV sequences, such as parkrun, crowdrun, etc.  Running lossless on already-compressed video doesn't even necessarily get better compression than on the original source; in some cases it actually gets worse depending on the kind of artifacts the encoder produced.  I did a test the other day where this was exactly the case and the PNG files for the lossy sources were larger than that for the lossless original.

FFV1 does even better; around 2.8x.  You can get a bit better if you go for inter compression, but right now I don't know of any good format that allows it.  H.264 lossless sucks for many reasons and is generally considerably worse than FFV1 except in the case of an extremely clean source where inter prediction makes up for the lack of coding efficiency.

GettinSadda:

Well I'm a video professional ... I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression, and infact having worked on developing video compression technologies I would not expect there to be anything that can be lossless with a reliable ratio better than ~ 1.2:1.

If you are actually serious about this post, I feel sorry for the person who was dumb enough to hire you as a "video professional."

Dark Shikari:

GettinSadda:

Well I'm a video professional ... I am not aware of any mainstream lossless video compression, and infact having worked on developing video compression technologies I would not expect there to be anything that can be lossless with a reliable ratio better than ~ 1.2:1.

If you are actually serious about this post, I feel sorry for the person who was dumb enough to hire you as a "video professional."

 

Where I work we would not regard these as "high entropy" sources - PM me if you want more details. You and I are talking about very differnt things!