Length of the title is only part of the space equation. Bit-rate and codec (VC-1, MP2, AVC) will determine how much space is used.

Batman Begins used VC-1 =18.92 avg total bitrate
Transformers used AVC(H.264) = 25.03 avg total bitrate


These are total bitrate used as an avg for the whole movie. As far as I know every stream of (Audio,video, etc...) all contribute to the bitrate on HD. So if you have 5 different audio tracks they are all totaled to get the bit rate. The last time I read about it they didn't have branching worked out so only the "active" stream would play. I believe it's also the same on BR but they have a much higher bit rate cap to work with.

It' is true that HDDVD did officially pass the 51 GB TL disc. AS for players being able to read it I don't know how that will work out. As for the guy talking about 100GB -200GB BR that is only for the pc side. They are completely different discs.
The 51 gb HD disc still only gives them a space increase not a bit rate cap increase which will need to happen in the future also.



It's obvious they will try to resell it with new features because it was so successful with DVD.

 

j/k

 

So maybe Transformers should have used VC-1 as it appears to be much more efficient at doing the same job. How did you figure out the average bitrates for these movies anyway? Are they published somewhere? Do you know how many GB Transformers takes on the disc as I have not checked into this yet? Isn't HD-DVD's bit rate limit around 36.5 mb/s leaving Transformers plenty of room above your proposed 25?

 

Even that has been overhyped a bit. High-Def Digest had a great article on bitrate and audio a few months back.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/Commentary:_Specs_vs._Reality/1096

 

Wow, great article! Thanks for the link. TrueHD on a movie (Troy: Directors Cut) 198 minutes long! And Transformers did not have enough room to fit TrueHD? If that is the case maybe they should fire the people who mastered the disc and hire Warner's people.

 

Personally, I'm more concerned with the actual content within the frame than the sharpness of the picture itself. That's what really pisses me off about these uber-HD geeks - most of them have shitty taste in movies.

"Oh, noes! Norbit doesn't have hi-def audio! Lame!"

You can sprinke gold flakes on a turd and put it on a 72 inch screen at 1080p, but it'll still be a turd.

 

What, people aren't allowed to like norbit just because you don't? And what's the problem with those folks liking a movie and wanting a better version of it? That makes you sound just as much of an ass as you seem to think those uber-HD geeks are.

 

I was going to make a joke about HD Norbit having one pixel for everybody who left the cinema wanting thier money back, but I don't think you could find that many people willing to admit that they still pay to watch Eddie Murphy films.

 

It's called the law of diminishing returns. You could crank up the bit rate and allow for better visual or audio quality but how much better is it going to look and will other items have to sacrificed? In this case there was no space for a TrueHD track and a DD+ track. It uses ~28GB which doesn't leave much space. The closer you get to the edge of the disc with data , the higher the chance for disc failure.

I'm not about to debate the use of VC-1 over AVC as it's a pointless debate. If you feel compelled go over to AVS and participate in the many threads about it. I will say it's pointless to speculate how VC-1 would have done on Transformers vs AVC. I'm sure the people at Paramount are much more knowledgeable about the debate than I am so I will leave it to them. You also can't say because a codec did great on 1 movie it would be great on another, it just doesn't work that way. Both AVC and VC-1 have specific pro's and con's which can be read about at AVS.


The specs are published in this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=822245

 

Shrek series seems to be very popular.

 

Different movie requires different bit rate to achieve "master transparency."

 

Like I said, a turd is a turd, NOOB. And part of the charm of many films is that they aren't pristine. Of course, in this generation of addled brain 3-second soundbite, I guess people would want a "better" version of it. "Oh, look at the pretty colors!"

I bet you really liked the SEs of Star Wars, huh?

 

No, I'm not defending norbit, haven't even seen it. My point is, you cant determine that someone else should have a mediocre viewing experience just because you don't like the movie. That's just dumb.

 

Good point, althougth its not like Eddie Murphy is the distinguishing feature or selling point of those movies like he is in the vast field of turds that he has been making since the start of the 90s.

 

No, having an education and a little bit of common sense allows me that determination. Just because I don't like a movie doesn't mean I'll burn it, because I can see what others would like in it. Like Resident Evil. I dont go crapping all over RE threads, even though I hate the movies.

And these dumbasses with their mediocre taste in movies has resulted in a pile of crappy movies coming to HD before many classics.

 

But ... but look at the resolution! Look at how clear the texture is on the pericarp of each kernel of corn!! I don't care that I'm looking at a gold-coated turd, look at how sharp that image is!!

 

I can understand new crap movies coming out on HD strait away for the obvious marketing reasons, but I often LOL when back catalogue gash like End of Days and Waterworld gets released when stuff like Godfather and Shawshank is still waiting.

I should imagine that studios want to horde the big guns until the user base is large enougth for them to make a splash. Normally I would say that such a strategy would be a bit self-defeating, but the fact that most people thesedays have short memories and crap taste means that the formats are carving themselves a market without most of the traditional killer apps.

 

I am sure that is true but enough to make up for a 55 minute difference in the movies? Not to mention Troy has a TrueHD track? I am not going to argue the different video codecs as I do not know that much about them but common sense tells me that if Warner was able to fit 198 minute movie with a TrueHD soundtrack on an HD-DVD that Paramount could have done the same with Transformers. It just was not a priority to them. Saying there was not enough room is just a lame excuse.