HD-DVD 30GB/Movie Length Facts

[tsd2005]

It is my assumption from talking to people who make the VC-1 encodings that you can fit:

A nearly four hour movie
Dolby True HD
Audio Commentary track
Trailer

all on one 30GB HD-DVD disc very easily, meaning that compression is not a problem and a very beautiful print can be possible.

So can someone who is an insider verify this, and if so, perhaps we can have a new thread made that is sticky that debunks lies spread by the "fans," of opposing formats? One where only they (the insider) can unlock/post on the thread and keep the misinformation debunked?

I mean we've recently had what appears to be a totally fake poster come on and spread obvious lies to help promote BD. This is just silly and uncalled for.

I know the Studios have for years put plants online at Aint It Cool News and the like, so I'm not shocked by AVS being used in this fashion.

Knowing that "plants," are likely being used on AVS now, can we have stickies of facts like the above to point to when people start their misinformation campaigns?

Obviously this could be helpful for both HD-DVD and BD. Perhaps an official facts thread for each that can debunk the horrible misinformation?

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by tsd2005

It is my assumption from talking to people who make the VC-1 encodings that you can fit:

A nearly four hour movie

If you mean a particular 4 hour movie you (or whoever makes the claim) should say that and be careful not to imply that any 4 hour movie would work. Some movies tend to compress better ("Lord of the Rings" might be in the group that does) and even things like whether a movie is 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 can affect the kind of bitrate they need (much like length can, but in a different way). One 4 hour movie might work great and then a shorter movie like "Saving Private Ryan" (1.78:1 and grainy) might be a problem. And even some scenes could be a problem since the bitrate ceiling limitations of HD DVD (and Blu-ray too) can show up where the size of the disc isn't a problem at all. As somebody said before, the bandwidth is like a hose and the size of the disc like the size of a pool. The pool could have plenty of space and the size of the hose still be a problem.

If an insider wants to give some example bitrates here, how about telling us the bitrate that a partially grainy movie like "Miami Vice" ended up at for average and peak.

--Darin

[tsd2005]

Originally Posted by darinp2

If you mean a particular 4 hour movie you (or whoever makes the claim) should say that and be careful not to imply that any 4 hour movie would work. Some movies tend to compress better ("Lord of the Rings" might be in the group that does) and even things like whether a movie is 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 can affect the kind of bitrate they need (much like length can, but in a different way). One 4 hour movie might work great and then a shorter movie like "Saving Private Ryan" (1.78:1 and grainy) might be a problem. And even some scenes could be a problem since the bitrate ceiling limitations of HD DVD (and Blu-ray too) can show up where the size of the disc isn't a problem at all. As somebody said before, the bandwidth is like a hose and the size of the disc like the size of a pool. The pool could have plenty of space and the size of the hose still be a problem.

If an insider wants to give some example bitrates here, how about telling us the bitrate that a partially grainy movie like "Miami Vice" ended up at for average and peak.

--Darin

Darin, I know all the differences that can affect whether or not something will compress well, but the arguement may be ... "What movie will not fit on a 30GB disc with those extras?"

There is a lot of disinformation going on. It needs to be nipped in the bud. There is no reason for anyone to result to misinformation on either side.

[xbdestroya]

Here is my issue with Ben's assertions on the whole LOTR thing. He says that average bitrates would come to about 12.5Mbps, and says that there are current titles even below that, but the thing is... which titles are those? The MS crew keeps that info very close to their chest, and IMO would be useful to know before actually determining if 12.5 is enough for what the viewer would demand from such a flagship title.

I'm not against the idea that HD DVD is up to the task, but until there is more info on what bitrates and compression levels correlate to what in real world terms as they apply to released titles, I'm just more comfortable hoping for BD50, AVC at a high bitrate, a lossless compression scheme, and some good LOTR-esque extras thrown in for good measure.

PS - Actually I have an idea on where to get some real-world VC-1 bitrate info... I'll check it out and return.

[xbdestroya]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

PS - Actually I have an idea on where to get some real-world VC-1 bitrate info... I'll check it out and return.

Ok here we go on some VC-1 cross-format titles.

Blazing Saddles - length 93 min - movie file 18.6GB - video bitrate 25.5 Mbps

Corpse Bride - length 77 min - movie file 13GB - video bitrate 19.9 Mbps

House of Wax - length 113 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 19 Mbps

Lethal Weapon - length 110 min - movie file 21GB - video bitrate 25 Mbps

Phantom of the Opera - length 141 min - movie file 19GB - video bitrate 16.5 Mbps

Superman Returns - length 154 min - movie file 20.5GB - video bitrate 16 Mbps

Unforgiven - length 131 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 17Mbps

...Ok so yeah, I *definitely* do not want LOTR to be at 12.5Mbps, unless one of the MS crew is willing to share a stunning title with the audience that has been encoded at similar levels.

Credit goes to Benes, who has been busy compiling a list of BD titles, their size used, codecs, and bitrates.

In this instance, it provides a clear window into the secretive world of VC-1 as well, since these specific BD titles are direct video ports of their HD DVD cousins.

[Rio]

I'd like to add this:

How many VC-1 titles released are grainy looks, as same level as Tomb Raider, MI3 or Xmen3? If it is grainy but still keep fine details, what is its video bit rate?

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

Ok here we go on some VC-1 cross-format titles.

Blazing Saddles - length 93 min - movie file 18.6GB - video bitrate 25.5 Mbps
Corpse Bride - length 77 min - movie file 13GB - video bitrate 19.9 Mbps
House of Wax - length 113 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 19 Mbps
Lethal Weapon - length 110 min - movie file 21GB - video bitrate 25 Mbps
Phantom of the Opera - length 141 min - movie file 19GB - video bitrate 16.5 Mbps
Superman Returns - length 154 min - movie file 20.5GB - video bitrate 16 Mbps
Unforgiven - length 131 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 17Mbps

Unfortunately, your numbers are incorrect for the titles I know the real numbers for. How were they calculated?

FWIW, there are plenty of titles highly touted for quality out with <13 Mbps ABR.

And, no, sorry, I can say which are which...

[xbdestroya]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Unfortunately, your numbers are incorrect for the titles I know the real numbers for. How were they calculated?

FWIW, there are plenty of titles highly touted for quality out with <13 Mbps ABR.

And, no, sorry, I can say which are which...

The numbers are from here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714

And I'm going to have to trust them to be honest with you, as they're taken in the best way I know of; right off of a PC. IMO if you feel these numbers to be incorrect, it is incumbent on you to indicate how - and IMO, offer up a title as a sacrifice for the knowledge base. There is otherwise no reason to doubt something as unbiased as a PC bitrate readout.

'Highly touted' could mean anything. Let me ask you this - are any of the VC-1 titles out on BD coming in at under 13 Mbps in bitrate?

I own Superman Returns on BD, and it's VC-1. The PS3 allows for bitrate tracking during playback, so I myself will run a confirmation test on that title tomorrow to see if there are discrepencies.

[hmurchison]

I see no reason why AVC or VC-1 cannot look excellent at 12.5 Mbps avg bitrate. The codecs were designed to do well at these levels.

I imagine that if a confluence of factors happen we'll have no problem getting 4hrs of excellent PQ and AQ plus interactivity on a single disc.

1. Encoding improvements. Looking forward to seeing if Dynamic Muxing yields a significant benefit.

2. Moving PiP video to VC-1

3. Utilization of Dolby Digital Plus 1.5Mbps. If you can achieve nigh transparancy with a 24/48 audio master then I don't see much of a need for TrueHD for longer playing movies.

4. Newer movies with cleaner masters. The Panavision Genesis has been used in 3 high profile movies. Apocalypto is probaby the best looking one I've seen thus far over Click and Superman Returns.

[What'sHD]

As BD offers more space and b/w, any advice to stick with lower space and b/w is drivel, considering costs are on par (unless you think the PS3 is junk).

It's about Great High Def. As High Def fans on AVS, the extra space and higher b/w (lets not talk content cos it is not Inherent to BD as a technical format) is worth the extra cost of BD stand-alones people complain about. Or, considering the PS3, no extra cost and better specs.


Neutrals, please do not settle. Buy the format with the better specs and more content support.

When people who support HD say "BD is all about future promises while HD delivers now", I shudder at the thought that plenty of people prob thus buy HD without realizing that a huge %age of the most important part of High Def, the content is wayy in that same future for HD or maybe even never.

Yes, BD buyers lack Universal's content but which group of movies would you as a neutral person rather miss out on? Something to think about..

[hmurchison]

I would be a fervent Blu-ray support if:

1. Sony had not tried to cram 2 extra layers of Copy Protection down my throat in BD+ and ROM Mark. That's an appeal to studios but I'm not a studio and when my warranty runs out and the player begins to act wonky I don't want to have to sit and wonder which DRM layer is acting up.

2. The players were more full featured. Networking in only 2 BD products?? Lack of mandatory audio and video features means a wide dynamic range of possible hardware configs.

3. Reliance on MPEG2. Sony has tried to flog crusty technology for too long while pricing it like it is the new hotness. MPEG2 come on. Java for interactivity?? That's so 90's ...high efficiency codecs and XML based interactivity are distinctly more in tune with what's going on today

Thus we have the many of you on these boards asking us to appeal to our paranoia that somehow 30GB won't be enough, that under 30Mbps is limiting. When does it end? You already have the HVD proponents that want to fantasize about 300Gb discs.

If we're talking computers then I'm all for "going large" computing power is always eventually usurped. However the trend for video and audio codecs over the years has been "reducing" the datarate required to maintain quality reproduction.

The problem with Blu-ray fans is that you cannot be persuasive because no data exists that shows BD50 having any appreciable impact on Audio or Video quality. The current BD50 titles today (even the high bitrate versions) offer no quantifiable advantage over a 30GB VC-1 title. Maybe one day it may but right now none of you can back up your assertions with empirical evidence. Thus we HD DVD'ers aren't willing to support a format that is more expensive because of "potential"

When I walk into a Target or Walmart I see DVDs for $5 for decent movies. I think to myself "we need the format that is most likely to get us close to this type of pricing" right now my horse is on HD DVD being that format. 50GB discs are a solution looking for a problem today.

[ILJG]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

Ok here we go on some VC-1 cross-format titles.

Blazing Saddles - length 93 min - movie file 18.6GB - video bitrate 25.5 Mbps

Corpse Bride - length 77 min - movie file 13GB - video bitrate 19.9 Mbps

House of Wax - length 113 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 19 Mbps

Lethal Weapon - length 110 min - movie file 21GB - video bitrate 25 Mbps

Phantom of the Opera - length 141 min - movie file 19GB - video bitrate 16.5 Mbps

Superman Returns - length 154 min - movie file 20.5GB - video bitrate 16 Mbps

Unforgiven - length 131 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 17Mbps

...Ok so yeah, I *definitely* do not want LOTR to be at 12.5Mbps, unless one of the MS crew is willing to share a stunning title with the audience that has been encoded at similar levels.

Credit goes to Benes, who has been busy compiling a list of BD titles, their size used, codecs, and bitrates.

In this instance, it provides a clear window into the secretive world of VC-1 as well, since these specific BD titles are direct video ports of their HD DVD cousins.

Are these video bitrates, as they're referred to here, peak or avg? Let's be honest.

And let's ask the flip side question. Which movies have had their PQ suffer because of bandwidth? (Spare me the "TrueHD was left off this title", or "IME was left off that title", because I don't think anyone who understands the audio would consider a 1.5 Mbps DD+ track "suffering"... and interactivity on the other format is severely lagging behind HD-DVD if not practically non-existent) Please give timestamps of specific titles to prove it was a bandwidth issue. Also, name a title that's had more bits thrown at it and therefore the exact problems in the above question have gone away.

I'm not saying the limitations aren't there. It's just that the people claiming the severity of the limitations (disc size, and much more importantly, bandwidth) haven't really proven their point.

[What'sHD]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I would be a fervent Blu-ray support if:

1. Sony had not tried to cram 2 extra layers of Copy Protection down my throat in BD+ and ROM Mark. That's an appeal to studios but I'm not a studio and when my warranty runs out and the player begins to act wonky I don't want to have to sit and wonder which DRM layer is acting up.

2. The players were more full featured. Networking in only 2 BD products?? Lack of mandatory audio and video features means a wide dynamic range of possible hardware configs.

3. Reliance on MPEG2. Sony has tried to flog crusty technology for too long while pricing it like it is the new hotness. MPEG2 come on. Java for interactivity?? That's so 90's ...high efficiency codecs and XML based interactivity are distinctly more in tune with what's going on today

Thus we have the many of you on these boards asking us to appeal to our paranoia that somehow 30GB won't be enough, that under 30Mbps is limiting. When does it end? You already have the HVD proponents that want to fantasize about 300Gb discs.

If we're talking computers then I'm all for "going large" computing power is always eventually usurped. However the trend for video and audio codecs over the years has been "reducing" the datarate required to maintain quality reproduction.

The problem with Blu-ray fans is that you cannot be persuasive because no data exists that shows BD50 having any appreciable impact on Audio or Video quality. The current BD50 titles today (even the high bitrate versions) offer no quantifiable advantage over a 30GB VC-1 title. Maybe one day it may but right now none of you can back up your assertions with empirical evidence. Thus we HD DVD'ers aren't willing to support a format that is more expensive because of "potential"

When I walk into a Target or Walmart I see DVDs for $5 for decent movies. I think to myself "we need the format that is most likely to get us close to this type of pricing" right now my horse is on HD DVD being that format. 50GB discs are a solution looking for a problem today.

If you are going to ascribe all of BDA's decisions to Sony (while complaining about hypothetical miniscule probability scenarios), acknowledge the awesome work done by the BDA in designing the BD format and give that credit to Sony instead too. Consistency..

i will give you an example of a problem with non-miniscule probability. 1% of 360 consoles had critical problems, according to MS and I am quite sure that is an underestimate.

My 360 was manufactured march 2006, I got it in August and it just conked out for no apparent reason. My add-on arrives monday and I can tell you I am not feeling too much Christmas love for MS' engineering and thus MS and thus HD-DVD.

Hey, the chaps saying that sony's -ive public image is working against BD might be right. I feel pissed off at HD right now even though I know its crappy design by MS. Pissed off..

[namechamps]

Hey, the chaps saying that sony's -ive public image is working against BD might be right. I feel pissed off at HD right now even though I know its crappy design by MS. Pissed off..

Well that explains a lot. Thanks.

The reason people have a problem with Sony is the constant manipulation. Why is Sony pushing titles in mpeg2? Cause mpeg2 needs 50GB. A movie that looks good w/ 50GB mpeg2 and LPCM sound will look equally good with 30GB VC1 and TrueHD.

Without mpeg2 the need for 50GB is substantially reduced. Without the need for 50GB the BD is a solution looking for a problem. HD 30GB has cost parity with BD 25GB now. Nobody knows how much 50GB really cost and how much of a subsidy Sony is kicking in during authoring.

Space only matters if it is needed. 30GB works fine. 50GB is nice but not at the added cost it bring. I mean where does it end. Why not wait for holographic playback at 300GB? You could use mpeg2, and have room for 6 tracks of LPCM.

[avshaman]

Look, if capacity does not matter then we would never have moved beyond DVD in the first place. HD movies could be spread out over just a couple DVDs for example, but why didn't we do it? Because we don't like the inconvenience of switching discs and because DVD's maximum bitrate of 9.8Mb/s would put limits on picture and audio quality. Does it really take that much imagination to envision scenarios where the extra 20 GB of capacity and higher bandwidth that BD affords could not be put to great use?

So what if you can prove to me that a HD DVD disc can fit a 4 hour movie while maintaining quality? It is easy to think of scenarios in which that will not be enough. Not to mention the fact that we cannot always anticipate uses that may come in the future in which the greater capacity would be of great benefit.

Studios can always switch codecs or make codecs more efficient but we cannot, if the war is decided in HD DVD's favor, change the physical limitations of the format.

[gljvd]

My question is , what movies have used close to the 50 gig capacity of bluray ?

Wouldn't we better served with what could be a cheaper 30 gig disc + second 15 gig disc for extras ? If the two disc set up comes out to be cheaper why not go for it ?

If what others in this thread are saying are true and a 30 gig hd-dvd disc is price close to a 25 gig bluray disc the 15 gig disc should be much cheaper and most likely the two togethr would be less than the bluray 50 gig .

I have no problems putting in a second disc for extras . The only things i really use on the current dvds are the commentarys and on few discs (lord of the rings ) the extras

[Anamorphiac]

Originally Posted by shakafell

I think this is the first time in history that people are actually arguing for LESS storage capacity. And its mostly because of their irrational hatred of one company.

There can be MANY rational arguments and examples...just because others choose to ignore or overlook them, do not make them irrational. You can have your opinion, yes and overlook the issues at hand...and that is fine. It is because you choose to place your desire for the product above these issues. Others of us believe these company issues overshadow the current and future support and success of the format. You do not have to agree...but that doesn't make it irrational.

[TomsHT]

As someone that favors HD I would just say that I think HD has done a great job with fitting longer length movies on a 30g disk but I would never say any specific size is enough for all future content.

Now give me VC-1 along with a BD50 and/or TL45 and I think we will end up with even more content per disk then were already getting

[spawnbadboy]

Originally Posted by shakafell

I think this is the first time in history that people are actually arguing for LESS storage capacity. And its mostly because of their irrational hatred of one company.

if you knew anything about the formats you would know size isnt in the question here.
Your like a blind man looking at numbers. Its like saying a 320gb WD drive is better than the 150 WD raptor drive just beacuse it has more space...

yes HD-DVD has less space than blu-ray but has has MUCH better features and is the better format

[avshaman]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I would be a fervent Blu-ray support if:

1. Sony had not tried to cram 2 extra layers of Copy Protection down my throat in BD+ and ROM Mark. That's an appeal to studios but I'm not a studio and when my warranty runs out and the player begins to act wonky I don't want to have to sit and wonder which DRM layer is acting up.

2. The players were more full featured. Networking in only 2 BD products?? Lack of mandatory audio and video features means a wide dynamic range of possible hardware configs.

3. Reliance on MPEG2. Sony has tried to flog crusty technology for too long while pricing it like it is the new hotness. MPEG2 come on. Java for interactivity?? That's so 90's ...high efficiency codecs and XML based interactivity are distinctly more in tune with what's going on today

Thus we have the many of you on these boards asking us to appeal to our paranoia that somehow 30GB won't be enough, that under 30Mbps is limiting. When does it end? You already have the HVD proponents that want to fantasize about 300Gb discs.

If we're talking computers then I'm all for "going large" computing power is always eventually usurped. However the trend for video and audio codecs over the years has been "reducing" the datarate required to maintain quality reproduction.

The problem with Blu-ray fans is that you cannot be persuasive because no data exists that shows BD50 having any appreciable impact on Audio or Video quality. The current BD50 titles today (even the high bitrate versions) offer no quantifiable advantage over a 30GB VC-1 title. Maybe one day it may but right now none of you can back up your assertions with empirical evidence. Thus we HD DVD'ers aren't willing to support a format that is more expensive because of "potential"

When I walk into a Target or Walmart I see DVDs for $5 for decent movies. I think to myself "we need the format that is most likely to get us close to this type of pricing" right now my horse is on HD DVD being that format. 50GB discs are a solution looking for a problem today.

Cheering for the home-town company then huh?
Microsoft good, Sony bad!

Both Microsoft and Sony are big companies that are in the business to make money. In the process they are bound to make mistakes and to do things which are percieved to be anti-consumer. Microsoft has been just as guilty of these kinds of things as Sony. Many in the open source community still have a bitter taste in their mouths with regard to Microsoft.
However, HD DVD is not Microsoft and Blu-ray is not Sony, so deciding things this way is just silly.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by avshaman

Cheering for the home-town company then huh?

You can say that again. We should probably have a "Washington State forum" for them alone.

Only problem is, poor darin wouldn't stand a chance.

[avshaman]

Originally Posted by gljvd

My question is , what movies have used close to the 50 gig capacity of bluray ?

Wouldn't we better served with what could be a cheaper 30 gig disc + second 15 gig disc for extras ? If the two disc set up comes out to be cheaper why not go for it ?

If what others in this thread are saying are true and a 30 gig hd-dvd disc is price close to a 25 gig bluray disc the 15 gig disc should be much cheaper and most likely the two togethr would be less than the bluray 50 gig .

I have no problems putting in a second disc for extras . The only things i really use on the current dvds are the commentarys and on few discs (lord of the rings ) the extras

Well, you're not everybody are you!? I look forward to the special features almost as much as the film itself and I don't like switching discs.
And again, are you really unable to think beyond the current moment to imagine uses which would require or benefit from the larger capacity?

[TomsHT]

Originally Posted by avshaman

Well, you're not everybody are you!? I look forward to the special features almost as much as the film itself and I don't like switching discs.
And again, are you really unable to think beyond the current moment to imagine uses which would require or benefit from the larger capacity?

I also enjoy the extras and although I would not want to force the extra on the same disk at the cost of reduced PQ/AQ I do enjoy them when they are available.

Reading your post though I have to wonder if you see the same problem I do, so far I have seen far less extras on my BR disks even including some of the BD50 disks released and coming soon.

So even with the extra space we seem to still lose out unless BR also decids to start using a more efficient codec for all there future releases

[avshaman]

Originally Posted by Anamorphiac

There can be MANY rational arguments and examples...just because others choose to ignore or overlook them, do not make them irrational. You can have your opinion, yes and overlook the issues at hand...and that is fine. It is because you choose to place your desire for the product above these issues. Others of us believe these company issues overshadow the current and future support and success of the format. You do not have to agree...but that doesn't make it irrational.

Just because some of you have that opinion does not make it rational either. You must have a good argument and so far I have seen only one sided, biased attacks againsts Sony and uncritical, hypocritical support for Microsoft.

I know, I know, its cool to bash Sony right now. But that doesn't make it right.

[avshaman]

Originally Posted by TomsHT

I also enjoy the extras and although I would not want to force the extra on the same disk at the cost of reduced PQ/AQ I do enjoy them when they are available.

Reading your post though I have to wonder if you see the same problem I do, so far I have seen far less extras on my BR disks even including some of the BD50 disks released and coming soon.

So even with the extra space we seem to still lose out unless BR also decids to start using a more efficient codec for all there future releases

I don't think there is as great a disparity between the two formats as you allude to but I do think you have a valid point.
However, there is every reason to believe that market forces will work that problem out, while the difference in capacity is inherent in the formats themselves.

[What'sHD]

Originally Posted by namechamps

Well that explains a lot. Thanks.

I dont get what you mean but just to clarify, my 360 conked out 2 hours ago. Before this, I was hot for GoW and anticipating my add-on like the blazes.

Such is life..

[scaesare]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

Ok here we go on some VC-1 cross-format titles.

Blazing Saddles - length 93 min - movie file 18.6GB - video bitrate 25.5 Mbps

Corpse Bride - length 77 min - movie file 13GB - video bitrate 19.9 Mbps

House of Wax - length 113 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 19 Mbps

Lethal Weapon - length 110 min - movie file 21GB - video bitrate 25 Mbps

Phantom of the Opera - length 141 min - movie file 19GB - video bitrate 16.5 Mbps

Superman Returns - length 154 min - movie file 20.5GB - video bitrate 16 Mbps

Unforgiven - length 131 min - movie file 18GB - video bitrate 17Mbps

...Ok so yeah, I *definitely* do not want LOTR to be at 12.5Mbps, unless one of the MS crew is willing to share a stunning title with the audience that has been encoded at similar levels.

Credit goes to Benes, who has been busy compiling a list of BD titles, their size used, codecs, and bitrates.

In this instance, it provides a clear window into the secretive world of VC-1 as well, since these specific BD titles are direct video ports of their HD DVD cousins.

Firstly, I think you are quoting the mux for all streams on the disc, not avg video bitrate.

Secondly, I believe Batman Begins was in the 12 range.

[avshaman]

Originally Posted by What'sHD

I dont get what you mean but just to clarify, my 360 conked out 2 hours ago. Before this, I was hot for GoW and anticipating my add-on like the blazes.

Such is life..

I know what you mean. My first Xbox 360 that I bought at launch died on me within a few hours and had to be replaced twice. The second one also died after a few days of use. The third one finally worked but after I started playing Gears of War it started freezing on me every time I play that game.

My PS3 hasn't had one problem since I got it.

I really do like both systems but I hear so much anti-Sony drivel claiming the PS3 is crap I just feel the need to give credit where credit is due.

It is widely agreed upon that Microsoft had a far greater failure rate with the Xbox 360 launch than Sony did with the launch of the PS3.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by scaesare

Firstly, I think you are quoting the mux for all streams on the disc, not avg video bitrate.

Secondly, I believe Batman Begins was in the 12 range.

Firstly, you obviously didn't follow the link so xbdestroya nicely gave us, which gave us movie and disc sizes, and total and (approximate) video bitrates.

Just an example:

Blazing Saddles
Codec VC1
Length 1:32:51
Movie size 18,601,672,704
Disc size 22,981,967,872
Total bitrate [all streams] 26.7121489197
[Approx.] Video bitrate 25.4961489197

Secondly, xbdestroya indicated they were cross-format titles. Which Batman Begins is not.

[spawnbadboy]

Originally Posted by avshaman

I know what you mean. My first Xbox 360 that I bought at launch died on me within a few hours and had to be replaced twice. The second one also died after a few days of use. The third one finally worked but after I started playing Gears of War it started freezing on me every time I play that game.

My PS3 hasn't had one problem since I got it.

I really do like both systems but I hear so much anti-Sony drivel claiming the PS3 is crap I just feel the need to give credit where credit is due.

It is widely agreed upon that Microsoft had a far greater failure rate with the Xbox 360 launch than Sony did with the launch of the PS3.

well there werent as many ps3s at launch as x360...