Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Some actual BD file sizes to mull over


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 of 13 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,423 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted June 20 2006 - 10:02 AM

From a Japanese review of the BD title Hitch, with a look at the files used:

Quote:
from japan, some basic stuff using translation tool. It was reviewed on Sony Ruby projector and a new Vaio blu ray notebook . The file size is 21 400 MB, 118 minutes, average bitrate is 24Mbps, 30Mbps max, of which 19 Mbps is video and pcm 5.1 audio is 4.6Mbps. Original sound is recorded at 24bit/48khz but is stored on disk at 16/48.

Then it metions that there is noticeable noise and macroblocking in parts that appears suddenly. Then it goes on to test finger printing the disk and as far as I understand it stood the test very well
The 21 gb file size appears to be for EVERYTHING ("The disc volume is 21400M (around 20.89GB)"). 19Mbps is nothing to get excited about for MPEG2 video (as evidenced by the macroblocking). Japanese link here.

#2 of 13 Sean Bryan

Sean Bryan

    Screenwriter

  • 2,504 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969
  • Real Name:Sean

Posted June 20 2006 - 10:27 AM

If true, it is nuts for Sony to leave 4 gb wasted.

Is this the same disc as the US disc?

I hope we can get some more info on the US discs sometime soon to see if this a quirk or what.

Considering they are using single layer 25 gb discs and MPEG-2, what sane reason would they have for not using all of the available space?

We really need more info on the other discs.
I don't believe in transcending the genre, I believe IN the genre - Joss Whedon

#3 of 13 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,423 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted June 20 2006 - 10:36 AM

Quote:
Considering they are using single layer 25 gb discs and MPEG-2, what sane reason would they have for not using all of the available space?
There's been discussion that they're having a tough time getting 25 gb yields, but I don't know if the two are related.

#4 of 13 Paul_Scott

Paul_Scott

    Lead Actor

  • 6,546 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted June 20 2006 - 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
There's been discussion that they're having a tough time getting 25 gb yields, but I don't know if the two are related.

and people didn't want to believe that- but - I don't think this in in of itself proves it either.
however if more people can confirm the rest of the launch titles hover in this area...then it would appear that the negative rumours about yields were in fact, true.



...which then would bring up the subject of Bds ace-in-the-hole, dual layer discs.

#5 of 13 ChristopherDAC

ChristopherDAC

    Producer

  • 3,729 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted June 20 2006 - 05:38 PM

Well, Sony have been saying all along that they would be using a bitrate of about 18 Mbps for MPEG-II, with peaks rising to about 24. If this information is correct, that's what they're doing, or a little above.

If they can't get an acceptable picture out of that, at the low rate of 24 progressive frames per second [considering that ATSC broadcasts, with a lower bitrate, do a half-decent job on 30 interlaced frames, which are much harder to encode] I'd say somebody in Sony's encoding department is off the beam in a major way.

#6 of 13 Paul_Scott

Paul_Scott

    Lead Actor

  • 6,546 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted June 20 2006 - 06:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherDAC

If they can't get an acceptable picture out of that, at the low rate of 24 progressive frames per second [considering that ATSC broadcasts, with a lower bitrate, do a half-decent job on 30 interlaced frames, which are much harder to encode] I'd say somebody in Sony's encoding department is off the beam in a major way.

Thank God every Blu-ray title pressed doesn't have to go thru them first.




oh wait...

#7 of 13 JediFonger

JediFonger

    Producer

  • 3,912 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted June 21 2006 - 02:17 AM

i think both HD-DVD/BR are still using the same convention as computers, so 15GB, 30GB, 25GB, 50GB isn't exactly that. it's more like: 13.95GB, 27.9GB for single and dual layered HD-DVD's , 23.25GB, 46.5GB for single and dual layered BR. just like our DVD"5" and DVD"9" isn't exactly 5GB nor 9GB.

and when the writable mediums come along, it's gonna be about 5GB off. so that's 10GB and 25GB for single and dual layered HD-DVD's, 20GB, 45GB for single and dual layered BR. i'm not complaining, that's still much better than today's dl even! =). just giving ya'll some stats.

i wish the storage industry would reform and start using "real-usable space" for JBOD's and not be responsible for RAID's during their marketing/ads.

#8 of 13 Rob_HD

Rob_HD

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 213 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2006

Posted June 21 2006 - 04:43 PM

I think this is good evidence that they are using a smaller disc to avoid putting data on the outside edges of the disc and to help increase manufacturing yeilds.

Just as was reported on AVS, in advance, it would seem....

#9 of 13 Ryan-G

Ryan-G

    Supporting Actor

  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2005

Posted June 21 2006 - 06:44 PM

You, um, should probably read the post above yours Rob. You've missed the part where formatting eats part of a discs space availablitity. Which means the BR discs are only 2.36 gigabytes off full capacity.

Which means that the odds are just as good that the person reporting it just didn't understand what happens when you format a disc either.

#10 of 13 Kelly Grannell

Kelly Grannell

    Second Unit

  • 445 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 10 2004

Posted June 22 2006 - 01:07 AM

Where is PeterTHX, usually he jumps and say "just wait when they perfected BD25 and don't worry because they'll soon come out with BD50"

#11 of 13 andre.p

andre.p

    Auditioning

  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2006

Posted June 22 2006 - 03:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by YiFeng
i think both HD-DVD/BR are still using the same convention as computers, so 15GB, 30GB, 25GB, 50GB isn't exactly that. it's more like: 13.95GB, 27.9GB for single and dual layered HD-DVD's , 23.25GB, 46.5GB for single and dual layered BR. just like our DVD"5" and DVD"9" isn't exactly 5GB nor 9GB.

and when the writable mediums come along, it's gonna be about 5GB off. so that's 10GB and 25GB for single and dual layered HD-DVD's, 20GB, 45GB for single and dual layered BR. i'm not complaining, that's still much better than today's dl even! =). just giving ya'll some stats...

HD-DVD disc usage:

The Last Samurai: 29.3GB (~ 29,348,200,448)
Cinderella Man: 28.6GB (~28,648,079,360)
The Chronicles of Riddick: 28.2GB (~28,246,671,360)

#12 of 13 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,423 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted June 22 2006 - 04:23 AM

Juan posted this on AVS:

From pcworld:


Quote:
Using Sony's new Vaio AR Premium, a $3500 notebook that includes a Blu-ray Disc burner, I checked out how much disc space Sony's first seven Blu-ray titles (encoded in MPEG-2, and many of them light on extra features) required. The results of this survey were quite telling: The Fifth Element needed 22.8GB; The Terminator, 23GB; House of Flying Daggers, 23.1GB; xXx, 22.3GB; Hitch, 22.9GB; Underworld Evolution, 22.5GB; 50 First Dates, 18.8GB.

Looks like most BD titles are well over 20 gb.

#13 of 13 JediFonger

JediFonger

    Producer

  • 3,912 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted June 22 2006 - 04:28 AM

andrew, and you know this how?


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow