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.
So if Avatar filled a 50gb Bluray...
- Thread starter waloshin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can I see a source that the movie fills that much? The video with lossless audio shouldn't fill an entire dual layer BD that is well encoded.
Could anyone really see a difference in any better quality than there is available with Blu Ray?
lets be realistic, the Avatar movie is roughly 43GB. this takes up a massive chunk of the entire BD.
in saying that, the next BD technology is not far around the corner, which is 250GB and 500GB - should be plenty for the next movies.
in saying that, the next BD technology is not far around the corner, which is 250GB and 500GB - should be plenty for the next movies.
I don't think all future movies will take up as much room as Avatar. Considering the amount of special effects it takes more data.
Maybe im reading the OP incorrectly, and i apologize if i am. The only thing that takes up more space on the blur-ray is if the movie were longer.
You can make a movie that has special effects so realistic it will melt your brain, but it will still take up the same amount of space per minute of movie. So any movie at 1080p/7.1ch will take up the same amount of GB/hour, regardless of the quality of the image.
You can make a movie that has special effects so realistic it will melt your brain, but it will still take up the same amount of space per minute of movie. So any movie at 1080p/7.1ch will take up the same amount of GB/hour, regardless of the quality of the image.
Not quite. It still depends on the encoding. There are different codecs available and bit rates vary.
good for you?
yes, i am also confused - however the fact that the bitrates are variable indicates to me that it is not a constant level of quality, meaning that you can indeed make a more "in-depth" movie of the same length as another to be larger in size. the max bitrate specified is due to hardware limitations/rules and not actual codec limitations.
You're right, but wrong at the same time. First, special effects have no bearing on disk space used, you're quite correct in that. However, image quality is directly related to GB/hour, but again, even for 2 movies with the exact same image "quality", GB/hour can differ.
It's wrong to base a movie's size on length alone. A lot of different factors come into play. First is the bitrate encoding. If you're using CBR (constant bit rate) , which no one uses because it's plain dumb, yes the movie will have a static GB/hour for a given bitrate. The only variable then will be the encoder's chosen bitrate. Bitrate is basically the amount of information used to encode a given timeframe. It's usually listed as mbps (megabits per second) or MBps (megabytes per second). A movie with 40 MBps bitrate will of course be twice as big as a movie with 20 MBps bitrate for the same length of time.
In a CBR scenario, if you use too low a bitrate, your calm scenes will look fine while your action scenes will suffer greatly and have tons of compression artifacts. If however you use too high a bitrate, your action scenes will look fine, but your movie will take up tons of extra space that is getting wasted during the calmer scenes, since the quality won't improve for those particularly.
However, a VBR (variable bit rate) stream will have lower bitrate during more static scenes (think two people sitting down simply talking in a quiet room) and a higher bitrate in fast action scenes (large armies meeting on the field on the battle for what is an epic struggle between man and god!). This will give you a smaller movie, with the same perfect quality during action scenes and the same quality during calmer scenes. The bitrate will adjust automatically so that there's just enough to not have compression artifacts on screen during either scene, but use the less space possible. This is how movies are encoded these days.
So it's wrong to say length of a movie is the only variable. The amount of action on screen (changing scenes, fast paced action, etc..) also can result in a larger movie (more scenes at higher bitrate averages) for the same given length. Then there's bitrate targets that the encoder sets. Higher bit rate targets = more space used. Lower bit rate target = less image quality.
Of course, there's the codec (some can compress more effectively than others, giving you the same quality at lower bitrates) that matters too, but let's not overcomplicate things. Blu-ray mostly uses H.264 anyhow.
And I guarantee you if you had two identical 40 inch or larger 1080p HDTVs side by side, each hooked up to a decent 7.1 surround sound system, one with the Avatar Blu-ray playing on it, and one with your compressed file playing on it, Helen Keller could tell the difference between the two
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think the next logical step is some form of solid state distribution.
I think the next logical step is some form of solid state distribution.
As mentioned above, the length and overall quality affect the size of the movie, not what is within that movie.
It's like taking two MP3 files, both at 320kbps, both at 3 minutes and expecting the one with the most sounds or adverse sounds to be a larger file size, when they will indeed be very close to the same file size.
When you go to several sites to look at reviews for Blu Ray movies, they will usually tell you what codec was used and on what kind of disc. Most movies will be using the 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 codec for the video. Audio codecs have several more variations, but there are about 10 different codecs (all with differing screen sizes and run times) for each one.
Avatar certainly isn't the first movie to take up so much space on a disc though. Avatar isn't THAT great or THAT technologically impressive.
It's like taking two MP3 files, both at 320kbps, both at 3 minutes and expecting the one with the most sounds or adverse sounds to be a larger file size, when they will indeed be very close to the same file size.
When you go to several sites to look at reviews for Blu Ray movies, they will usually tell you what codec was used and on what kind of disc. Most movies will be using the 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 codec for the video. Audio codecs have several more variations, but there are about 10 different codecs (all with differing screen sizes and run times) for each one.
Avatar certainly isn't the first movie to take up so much space on a disc though. Avatar isn't THAT great or THAT technologically impressive.
