HDD/SSD speed needed for 4K and 8K

[spoRv]

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.

[deleted user]

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.

[spoRv]

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...

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.

[deleted user]

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.

[PDB]

In 4K and above it might be best to work by proxies.

[dvdboy]

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.

[deleted user]

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.