> There appear to be multiple high-speed JP2K decoders on the market; Comprimato[0] include a calculator for their product and it claims that a $240 GPU from 2016 can decode 4k 4:4:4 at 72fps.
Interesting, that's a lot better. This is my source for my numbers:
> According to Wikipedia, the DCP standard has a maximum bit rate for picture of 250Mbit/s.[1]
I'm really surprised, I would not have thought that a 4K frame at a theatrical quality level would fit into about 1.3MB. But maybe that's why they chose JPEG 2000.
> Dolby offer a software version of Atmos for soundtrack mastering that runs on a Mac Mini[2]. 128-channel object mixing was possible using consumer-grade hardware as early as EAX 5.0 in 2005[3].
That's not quite true because Dolby Atmos came out in 2012, not 2005. As for theatrical hardware, even though I'm not sure why it is so expensive, look at the Dolby CP850. It's a 64-channel object mixer for theaters and it costs about $8,000 (or $18,000, depending on where you shop and who you trust on the subject). As far as I know, EAX is not even a true surround sound encoding technology in the first place, and was a much more primitive system only for video games that is not directly comparable.
I suspect part of the cost is all of the outputs, and also because Dolby has been clear that they make their money (patent licensing) on playback equipment, not production equipment. I can't find the specific webpage, but it's no secret in the industry Dolby charges much more on licensing for devices with lots of outputs.
Interesting, that's a lot better. This is my source for my numbers:
https://www.fastcompression.com/benchmarks/decoder-benchmark...
A GPU helps for sure, a CPU alone is pretty bad.
> According to Wikipedia, the DCP standard has a maximum bit rate for picture of 250Mbit/s.[1]
I'm really surprised, I would not have thought that a 4K frame at a theatrical quality level would fit into about 1.3MB. But maybe that's why they chose JPEG 2000.
> Dolby offer a software version of Atmos for soundtrack mastering that runs on a Mac Mini[2]. 128-channel object mixing was possible using consumer-grade hardware as early as EAX 5.0 in 2005[3].
That's not quite true because Dolby Atmos came out in 2012, not 2005. As for theatrical hardware, even though I'm not sure why it is so expensive, look at the Dolby CP850. It's a 64-channel object mixer for theaters and it costs about $8,000 (or $18,000, depending on where you shop and who you trust on the subject). As far as I know, EAX is not even a true surround sound encoding technology in the first place, and was a much more primitive system only for video games that is not directly comparable.
I suspect part of the cost is all of the outputs, and also because Dolby has been clear that they make their money (patent licensing) on playback equipment, not production equipment. I can't find the specific webpage, but it's no secret in the industry Dolby charges much more on licensing for devices with lots of outputs.