I'm thinking about asking for a new iPod for christmas, but i want to get the right size for me. I plan on putting a few full length movies on there: Star Wars, Office Space, etc., some tv shows: Family Guy, others, and then just some random videos. I'm wondering what the average file size is for a full movie? Can anyone give me an estimate?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Average file size of full movies
- Thread starter Chubypig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Chubypig said:
At 768 kbps video, 128 kbs audio (like the iTMS videos), a two hour movie it's about 800 MB.
Most movies encoded in DiVX are generally aimed to fit on CD, so they end up being around 600-700MB. However, I did see one at 2GB 
I would wager that, at 275.16 kbits/sec (which is for a 2.4MB, 00:01:02.3/15fps podcast video, with these specs: AAC, Mono, 32.000 kHz
H.264, 454 x 258, Millions) a 120 minute movie would come in at 271MB, which is horrendously wrong. I doubt you'd encode a movie in mono, at only 15 fps, and at a resolution that would be too big for the iPod's screen. I need some sleep
I would wager that, at 275.16 kbits/sec (which is for a 2.4MB, 00:01:02.3/15fps podcast video, with these specs: AAC, Mono, 32.000 kHz
H.264, 454 x 258, Millions) a 120 minute movie would come in at 271MB, which is horrendously wrong. I doubt you'd encode a movie in mono, at only 15 fps, and at a resolution that would be too big for the iPod's screen. I need some sleep
I got only movies i mpeg4 because of the higher resolution, so I get a better quality on the tv-screen where I want to watch my movies anyway! so a 2h movies (1.3 gb rip) ends up at around 1.0-1.2 gb (203400 pixel). This is really good quality though...
I got the 60 gb and I am really happy with it, allready full
I got the 60 gb and I am really happy with it, allready full
Well, I think I read Apple quoting a single hour of footage at either 100 or 200MB, so I guess it's not too far off, my fellow rebel.whooleytoo said:
I've gotten a 2 hour movie (fight club) down to 270MB from 1.4GB using iSquint... image quality took a bit of a hit tho, not noticeable on the iPod but a bit more so on a TV. Very good program I think, I'll have to fiddle a bit more with it. I just wish my new 5G wasn't so sluggish sometimes
Just get the 60gb. you can never have enough storage. and its only $100 more for doubling the capacity
We tested our display models out by converting a couple of HD QT trailers through QT PRo. They also look great on the iPod, but equal to less than VHS on a TV, (to really test it out, 50" Pioneerdiego2k7 said:I've gotten a 2 hour movie (fight club) down to 270MB from 1.4GB using iSquint... image quality took a bit of a hit tho, not noticeable on the iPod but a bit more so on a TV. Very good program I think, I'll have to fiddle a bit more with it. I just wish my new 5G wasn't so sluggish sometimes
), so that is expected. Remember, the resolution is typically 320x240, so it isn't supposed to look brilliant on much else bigger than an iPod screen, except maybe one or two smaller TVs.
I am talking about what I said I was talking about.Linkjeniero said:
It depends on the format, you know, like H.264 or regular old mp4
There is a big difference in those in file size with the same bitrate.
Vader said:
Is this true? Just curious. because i know with musc, a 128 kbps mp3 is the exact same size as an 128 kbps AAC, wmv, or whatever. There is a difference in quality, but for audio, the bit rate is a measure of how many bits per second are being put into the file, therefore all formats are the same size at the same bit rate. Bit rate is a measure of size in and of itself. But perhaps its different for video.
Vader said:
No, that's false. The format has nothing to do with the size (what you are saying is roughly equivalent to saying that a Ferrari going at 100 mph for one hour covers more distance than a Toyota going at the same speed for the same time, because you know, a Ferrari is a Ferrari). The bitrate means the amount of info (in bits) that's taken for every second. So, if a video is 768 kbps with audio at 128 kbps, that's a total of 896 kbps, or 112 kilobytes per second. If you multiply that for 2*60*60 (the amount of seconds in two hours), you get a total of 806400 kb, or 787.5 mb, independent of the format. Now, using different formats those equally sized files will look different, but that's another thing.
steve_hill4 said:
Ah. Cheers!
steve_hill4 said:my fellow rebel.
I doubt many readers here will get that reference!Format has a HUGE effect on file size
Whoever is claims format is like a car obviously has no idea what a format entails, or even how programming works outside of the basic nuts and bolts of a bitrate.
According to your extremely incorrect logic, a .wav at 192 kbps for 1 minute is 11520 kb file or, 11.25 mb file. The .mp3 file should be the exact same right, Its a Ferrari and a Toyota issue right? No, you're absolutely incorrect.
Lets just take ONE example of this. An mp3 file is coded based on psychoacoustics. (Wait you mean its not just a multiplication problem?!?!) It takes the sound recorded bit for bit by the microphones or whatever source media it has and removes frequencies that the human ear can not perceive, or if you tell it to code down to an even smaller file it removes frequencies that the human ear can not perceive very well; it continues taking frequencies out of the sound based on how it sounds to the human ear until it reaches the point where it is removing clearly audible frequencies.
The same technique is used for videos, such as in the JPEG format. If a similar color is repeated in a line, the video (since it is digital, NOT analog) will code it as "Pixel number 1 through 22 are all exactly or very similar to the color black" instead of "Pixel 1 is black. Pixel 2 is black. Pixel 3 is black. Pixel 4 is black, etc." Thusly 22 pixels is encoded in significantly LESS data than if it was simply said explicitly. Since, again it is DIGITAL, not ANALOG, the device can read this small piece of data, process it and display it as if it were coded pixel per pixel.
The DISPLAY rate will be the same bitrate, ONLY after the smaller size has been processed and resized to the screen of the device.
So, please, next time dont oversimplify and demean a very advanced concept and codec, developed by a lot of extremely intelligent people into a multiplication problem. It isn't.
Whoever is claims format is like a car obviously has no idea what a format entails, or even how programming works outside of the basic nuts and bolts of a bitrate.
According to your extremely incorrect logic, a .wav at 192 kbps for 1 minute is 11520 kb file or, 11.25 mb file. The .mp3 file should be the exact same right, Its a Ferrari and a Toyota issue right? No, you're absolutely incorrect.
Lets just take ONE example of this. An mp3 file is coded based on psychoacoustics. (Wait you mean its not just a multiplication problem?!?!) It takes the sound recorded bit for bit by the microphones or whatever source media it has and removes frequencies that the human ear can not perceive, or if you tell it to code down to an even smaller file it removes frequencies that the human ear can not perceive very well; it continues taking frequencies out of the sound based on how it sounds to the human ear until it reaches the point where it is removing clearly audible frequencies.
The same technique is used for videos, such as in the JPEG format. If a similar color is repeated in a line, the video (since it is digital, NOT analog) will code it as "Pixel number 1 through 22 are all exactly or very similar to the color black" instead of "Pixel 1 is black. Pixel 2 is black. Pixel 3 is black. Pixel 4 is black, etc." Thusly 22 pixels is encoded in significantly LESS data than if it was simply said explicitly. Since, again it is DIGITAL, not ANALOG, the device can read this small piece of data, process it and display it as if it were coded pixel per pixel.
The DISPLAY rate will be the same bitrate, ONLY after the smaller size has been processed and resized to the screen of the device.
So, please, next time dont oversimplify and demean a very advanced concept and codec, developed by a lot of extremely intelligent people into a multiplication problem. It isn't.