So if Avatar filled a 50gb Bluray...

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by waloshin, Nov 28, 2010.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    So if Avatar filled a 50gb Bluray then we will have to wait years to see a movie better in picture quality then Avatar because it already is using all the space?
     
  2. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #2
    How much of the disk contains special features, coming attractions, commentary and other non-related featured presentation content
     
  3. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #3
    Nothing at all, just the movie.

     
  4. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    Was that the 3D version or the standard version?
     
  5. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #5
    Standard Edition. The 3d version isn't even out yet.
     
  6. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #6
    Wait for the successor to Blue Ray which features 1TB single layer discs
     
  7. ZenErik macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #7
    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.
     
  8. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #8
    the stream file is 43.3G
     
  9. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #9
    They could split it up onto 2 discs if absolutely necessary.
     
  10. bobr1952 macrumors 68020

    bobr1952

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #10
    Could anyone really see a difference in any better quality than there is available with Blu Ray?
     
  11. paolo- macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    #11
    No, a 90 minute film could 1.8 times better image quality. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
  13. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #13
    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.
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Xavier macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Location:
    Columbus
    #15
    I have the blu ray version of Avatar ripped to my computer and compressed to 4gb in 720p...
     
  16. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #16
    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.
     
  17. ZenErik macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #17
    Not quite. It still depends on the encoding. There are different codecs available and bit rates vary.
     
  18. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #18
    good for you? :confused:

    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.
     
  19. KnightWRX macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #19
    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.
     
  20. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
  21. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #21
    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 ;)
     
  22. Xenc macrumors 6502a

    Xenc

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Location:
    London, England
    #22
    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.
     
  23. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #23
    flash drives :)
     
  24. Rapmastac1 macrumors 65816

    Rapmastac1

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Location:
    In the Depths of the SLC!
    #24
    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.
     
  25. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #25
    Or even, it isn't a new concept of a story... think Pocahontas.
     

Share This Page