<p>Instead of 8 bits per every channel and per every pixel you need 10 bits, which is 25 % increase of the raw footage.</p>
<p>Since the size of 8-bit raw footage is as such huge enough, 25 % of it is high enough price, isn't it?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T19:09:11.193Z
Why would recorded video need alpha channel?
Delta Oscar Uniform
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T19:14:09.693Z
For the recording it has no meaning, you're right. But for storing/processing the main schemes use it nowadays. The reason for it is the compression: the alpha channel — if it's not used — practically don't increase the size.
MarianD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T19:19:08.023Z
Can you give me an 1 sec 30 fps 4K video example? My math doesnt hold up nicely.
Delta Oscar Uniform
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T19:26:00.990Z
64 × 4 K = 256 K for the recording, 256 × 4 K = 1 M for storing/processing. Of course, it's true only for raw (uncompressed) videos.
MarianD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-30T00:54:55.853Z
This is simply incorrect. A file with 10 bits per pixel would be only 1.25 times bigger than an 8 bit per pixel file. As mentioned above compression would make it somewhat inexact. The 64 and 256 factors mentioned in the answer are relevant to the number of possible colors for each pixel, which grows at 2^n, were n is bits per pixel. File size is proportional to n.
Carl Raymond
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-30T12:13:40.980Z
@CarlRaymond I knew it!
Delta Oscar Uniform
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T19:06:36.787Z
2020-12-08T20:49:23.043Z
2020-12-08T20:49:23.043Z
MarianD
<p>How much color information does a 8 bit pixel need compared to an 10 bit pixel? What is the difference. As an example how much file size would an single 640x480 frame take if had 10 bit color instead of an 8 bit colour</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-09T23:53:59.520Z
This question doesn't really make sense. The file size is a function of the bit rate, not the bit depth. What makes more sense is to compare the quality of different bit depths at the same bit rate.
Michael Liebman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-10T01:51:00.817Z
@MichaelLiebman so what bitrate someone have to use to get same quality they would get in 8 bit fpr a 10 bir video? Either wqy ypu jabe tp comprise blockiness or colour depth anyway right?
Delta Oscar Uniform
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-11T09:42:03.660Z
@JonathanIrons Please try to avoid spelling mistakes/misstypes. 10bit uses as the name implies 10bit/channel compared to 8. So for RAW, uncompressed 10bit compared to 8bit you would need 1.25x more space. But most codecs use compression etc. which doesn't make it that easily comparable
Timothy Lukas H.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-29T17:27:41.520Z
I fixed it people.
Delta Oscar Uniform
<color><colorspace>
What is the file size difference between 8 bit and 10 bit raw video?
Delta Oscar Uniform
# What is the file size difference between 8 bit and 10 bit raw video?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-08)

How much color information does a 8 bit pixel need compared to an 10 bit pixel? What is the difference. As an example how much file size would an single 640x480 frame take if had 10 bit color instead of an 8 bit colour

**Tags:** color, colorspace

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question doesn't really make sense. The file size is a function of the bit rate, not the bit depth. What makes more sense is to compare the quality of different bit depths at the same bit rate.  
> **username_0**: @MichaelLiebman so what bitrate someone have to use to get same quality they would get in 8 bit fpr a 10 bir video? Either wqy ypu jabe tp comprise blockiness or colour depth anyway right?  
> **username_2**: @JonathanIrons Please try to avoid spelling mistakes/misstypes. 10bit uses as the name implies 10bit/channel compared to 8. So for RAW, uncompressed 10bit compared to 8bit you would need 1.25x more space. But most codecs use compression etc. which doesn't make it that easily comparable  
> **username_0**: I fixed it people.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-06-29. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Instead of 8 bits per every channel and per every pixel you need 10 bits, which is 25 % increase of the raw footage.

Since the size of 8-bit raw footage is as such huge enough, 25 % of it is high enough price, isn't it?

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Why would recorded video need alpha channel?  
> **username_3**: For the recording it has no meaning, you're right. But for storing/processing the main schemes use it nowadays. The reason for it is the compression: the alpha channel — if it's not used — practically don't increase the size.  
> **username_0**: Can you give me an 1 sec 30 fps 4K video example? My math doesnt hold up nicely.  
> **username_3**: 64 × 4 K = 256 K for the recording, 256 × 4 K = 1 M for storing/processing. Of course, it's true only for raw (uncompressed) videos.  
> **username_4**: This is simply incorrect. A file with 10 bits per pixel would be only 1.25 times bigger than an 8 bit per pixel file. As mentioned above compression would make it somewhat inexact. The 64 and 256 factors mentioned in the answer are relevant to the number of possible colors for each pixel, which grows at 2^n, were n is bits per pixel. File size is proportional to n.  
> **username_0**: @CarlRaymond I knew it!  

---

