• SupportApps
  • Converting 12K H264 video into 12K H265/AV1 ?

rerun119

Well from what i have seen guess this is not native 12K but just 8K upscale . I dont think there is any good VR camera above 8K yet unfortunately ...

    TemporaryName Side note: 12k, 16k.. file sizes for some original videos are going to be half a TB

    The 12K vid of virtualrealporn is just about 22GB in H264 if it was in AV1 i guess it could be about 15 ...

    btw i tried the 12K vid of virtualrealporn on Quest3 and SkyBox player (steam version) via Virtual Desktop and it can play it but its not smooth ... its like 30fps ... but still the only player that i found that can even play it .

    boboweb what I remember from when they first released a scene like this is that h264 has less computational overhead and they hacked the format somehow. So it stood the best chance of being playable lol. If a 4090 can't play it what the hell can but yeah.

    Seen the new Blackmagic cam that's 16000x8000@90fps with top of the line lenses. Can only imagine how cool that would look on a true 4k per eye headset. If we could play it haha

      fenderwq what I remember from when they first released a scene like this is that h264 has less computational overhead and they hacked the format somehow. So it stood the best chance of being playable lol. If a 4090 can't play it what the hell can but yeah.

      Yeah no hardware accelerated decoding for resolutions that high means they had a choice between not being able to play the video on any device (HEVC) vs almost being able to play it on some (AVC).

      FYI 12K AVC isn't hacking the format. The resolution limits for codecs are only relevant when encoding files to be compliant with standards like h264 and h265. Following the standards guarantees that the video files will be playable on the widest range of devices possible. All video encoders follow the standards by default but you can tell some of them to ignore the limits imposed by the standards and encode videos at higher resolutions, with the downside being lack of compatibility with devices.

        boboweb There's the FM DUO which VRBangers are apparently using. Without having seen the VirtualRealPorn 12K video yet, I'd speculate that they used the same. Because of it's size, that camera is a problem for studios that care about good camera positioning. Not a problem for VRBangers and VirtualRealPorn though.

        Hairsational yeah maybe hack wasn't the right word but it's still pretty pointless if a 4090 can't play it anywhere near a watchable framerate, why even make it? I mean it was cool to see the difference it made but apart from that it's pretty pointless.

        I don't see the point of higher resolutions past 8K right now. Most headsets can't run it and we'd be better off with higher bitrates at lower resolutions.

          I feel like 12k might be getting ridiculous, feel like higher frame rates, higher color depth, and just higher bit rates would be more valuable than raw pixels at far lower storage sizes

          Yeah, not to say that 12k or even 16k on 4k screens couldn't make a HUGE difference. I think we'll be blown away by that. It's just that we've been stuck at that decoding limit for forever now that's so frustrating. Barely anything will be made to utilize such resolutions when nothing can play it back and therefore camera development is stuck and everybody is still mostly using the Canon lens.

            tmynx
            Futureproofing..

            Plus, 8k is 4k per eye... and we're zoomed way in on it, so correct me if I'm wrong, but even when we get 4kx4k per eye headsets (Pimax Crystal Super coming soon, early 2025 supposedly).. we're still only actually looking at like 2kx2k of actual video data at a time? (since we're able to look around at the rest of the video/pixels currently not in the field of view)

            Basic example using inches of a display as FOV 110FOV vs 180FOV..
            https://www.displaywars.com/110-inch-1x1-vs-180-inch-1x1

            even with 110FOV we're only seeing 61.11% of the diagonal, so around 2444 pixels out of a 4000 pixel per eye video

            We'd need videos with around 6550x6550 per eye.. or 13k videos to fill the pixel density of a Pimax Crystal Super at 110 degrees out of 180 degree video

            Around 7280x7280 per eye.. or 14.5k videos to fill the pixel density of a Pimax Crystal Super at 110 degrees field of view of 200 degree video

            8000x8000 per eye.. or 16k videos to fill the pixel density of a Pimax Crystal Super at 110 degrees of of 220 degree video

            Blackmagic URSA Cine Immersive
            https://www.editorskeys.com/en-us/blogs/news/black-magic-design-unveils-revolutionary-camera-for-apple-vision-pro
            https://petapixel.com/2024/06/10/the-blackmagic-ursa-cine-immersive-captures-8k-footage-per-eye-for-the-vision-pro/

            8,160 x 7,200 pixels per eye 90fps, as mentioned above

            2nd article also mentions what I was on about in my post above this..
            "In order to reproduce video for Vision Pro, you need to have at least 100 megapixels,”

            Pimax Crystal Super is above the resolution of Apple Vision Pro, but similar.. this camera is 117.5 megapixels.. about what's needed to fill the pixel density of a Pimax Crystal Super while viewing VR content

            Yeah, so excited for these kind of resolutions. Hope some company makes some solo or non pov with this ursa cine immersive camera (it's big). That camera is just miles beyond anything we have now not just resolution wise but also in terms of low light tolerance, workflow, production quality, very likely scale, etc.

            More and more pc vr headsets are popping up with slightly higher then vision pro quality often at half the price or below (new crystal, megane x 8k, etc.) If the hardware decoders catch up in the next gen of gpus this might actually finally start to slowly become a reality.