Max running time of a movie without loss of quality?

vbimport

#1

What is the maximum running time of a movie, that fits on a DVDR without any loss of quality ?

Please help I have a 2hour+ movie and want to know if it’s woth it ?

Mike


#2

Just finished the six DVD set of Taken. Average 8.4Gb per DVD - 2 hours 43 minutes playing time on each. Quality is excellent with virtually no loss that I can discern. And believe me, I’m a purist.


#3

Originally posted by menher
Just finished the six DVD set of Taken. Average 8.4Gb per DVD - 2 hours 43 minutes playing time on each. Quality is excellent with virtually no loss that I can discern. And believe me, I’m a purist.

I got hammered on one of the DVDs for the first time. Maid in Manhatten…quality came out like crap, even I noticed it, though I usually don’t. I think it was due to the fact that two versions of the movie (wide and full) are on the disk thus, its taking up a ton of space. Very watchable, but the first time I’ve ever seen much of a difference. :slight_smile:


#4

why do you consider wide-creen better then full-screen?
only those who have a wide-screen tv can enjoy it…


#5

i am so confused !!!

which one better WS or FS ??

phuocle …

Phuocle’s post has been deleted. He has been warned that his byline is offensive and will result in all of his future posts carrying this byline being deleted too. PMc - MOD


#6

It depends on the bitrate that the original dvd was recorded with. I backed up “Mary Poppins”, which was 2 hours and 20 minutes, with no compression at all, since the original was less than the 4.3 GB. But on the other hand, I’ll run across 90 minute movies that are over 7 GB.


#7

Post deleted. Political and irrelevant.
PMc - MOD


#8

Cobra88:

On which of your two illustrations can you see the most action? In the regular screen shot you can’t even see the fellow on the left!

Keep in mind though, that unless you have a widescreen TV, the characters will all look smaller and you’ll be wasting space with those black bands at the top and bottom.

So, as with most things, there’s no hard and fast rule; it’s all down to your personal preference.

-Pete


#9

To be blunt whats the POINT of NOT having Widesreen TV

If U are a film buff Widescreen is a MUST!!!:o


#10

@The-poacher

To some extent, I agree! However, with prices of 16:9 TVs still hovering above the budgets of most of us Ramen Noodle eaters, most of us are stuck with our old 4:3 sets. Not even HDTV, for God’s sake! So, for those who are stuck with 4:3 (and often, small sets at that!), Whatdaya choose? Many are irritated by the black bars at the top and bottom which are part of the package with 16:9 or Cinematic releases… making “full screen” a better choice for them. Others (myself included) prefer to see the film the way it was shot, so there IS no other choice than widescreen!

So, like Pete said, it’s all a matter of what YOU find acceptable.


#11

@ The poacher: Nice to see you here bud! :wink:

Well as regards the 4:3 v 16:9 debate I will be honest and admit that before I had a widescreen TV I always agreed with the 4:3 brigade that W/S was horrible and I for one did not want it.

However, now I own a W/S TV I now know I was 100% wrong in my earlier opinion. You have to own and use one to know what the big fuss is all about and after all this is how the film should look to the viewer anyway. I don’t want to be missing bits of my picture or indeed watch a 4:3 letterboxed version come to that on a 4:3 screen. :cool:


#12

Also keep in mind that, even with 16:9 screens, some super-widescreen movies will still end up being displayed with black bars!

You then have the choice of zooming (and losing the bits off either end) or sitting a bit closer to the set…:bigsmile:

Decisions. Decisions.

-Pete


#13

Get a projection system that pushes a 5.5 foot tall 16:9 picture on a nice big white wall in your living room like me. Widescreen, Fullscreen, who cares, Big Screen Rules! :wink:


#14

Originally posted by Weezul
Get a projection system that pushes a 5.5 foot tall 16:9 picture on a nice big white wall in your living room like me. Widescreen, Fullscreen, who cares, Big Screen Rules! :wink:

Unfortunately, I’ve had bad experiences with projectors - they’re simply not bright enough in a reasonable price range to watch during the day, especially in brightly lit rooms like my living room with huge windows.

To get the lumens necessary to make it worth while, I have to spend twice as much as my current big, widescreen HDTV monitor.

On top of that, the replacement cost of the lamps are astronomical (several hundred dollars) with the price going up the brighter the lamp. Coincidentally, the brighter lamps also tend to burn out more quickly… I detect a conspiracy here.


#15

Widescreen is the only worthwhile format (and I wouldn’t degrade quality by throwing both onto a dvd-r–in fact, I’m a movie-only fan).
As for budget concerns re: widescreen tv’s/displays,
hark back to the old advice from LD fans in pre-HDTV days…
just sit closer! In many instances sitting 5-feet from a decent 27" is superior to a projection system from 12-feet (and considerably brighter!).


#16

Re: Widescreen TV vs “regular” TV

I read an opinion a few months ago on this subject and the logic still seems difficult to refute.

The writer postulated that IF you still watch much in the way of commercial TV that is broadcast in the squarish 4:3 format AND you are thinking of purchasing a new TV set, you might consider getting a very large standard set instead of a wide-screen set.

Given that you will be watching both theatrical releases on DVD and also commercial TV, you are going to have black bars with one or the other format regardless of which type of TV you have.

If you have a widescreen set, the “regular” 4:3 programming will have black bars on the side. If you have a 4:3 set, the movie programming will have black bars on the top and bottom.

Widescreen sets are still quite expensive. For the same money or considerably less, you can get a very large “regular” set which will show a large picture of 4:3 programming AND show a wide-screen image that is the same size or bigger than what you would see with the widescreen set. You still have the black bars top and bottom, but you get a very large widescreen picture.

So, if physical size of the TV set is not critical, for fewer dollars you can get as large or larger (in inches) widescreen picture with a large “regular” TV than you would get with a real widescreen set and get better 4:3 compatibility also.

I have neither a large 4:3 TV nor a wide-screen TV to test this hypothesis. And I realize that one can easily add a dozen other factors (digital, high-definition, etc. and etc.) to thoroughly confuse the issue.

But the argument about getting a a large 4:3 TV instead of a wide-screen TV IF you don’t exclusively watch movies or programming shot in wide-screen seemed compelling.


#17

Ladd: The only problem with your logic is that the lowest-quality source (4:3 NTSC TV) will be blown up on your very large 4:3 set to a point where it’s practically unwatchable, just like over-enlarging a photo. Your highest-resolution sources, DVD in the scenario you describe, maybe even HDTV, will be using only a portion of the screen. Seems backwards to me. Here’s the voice of experience: it’s a lot easier to bear 4:3 signals when they aren’t over-enlarged.


#18

Most of the TV transmitted in the UK especially satellite/digital is viewable as widescreen so that seems to be the way to go.:smiley:


#19

Ladd,

On a widescreen, you can also watch 4:3 programming “stretched” to fill the entire screen. At first it’s a little weird, but you get used to it and it’s not a problem at all…

That’s what I do with mine; I force 4:3 programming to fit the entire screen, so no black bars… on certain super-wide movies though, I’ll still get bars at the top and bottom. No big deal.


#20

Originally posted by Mary H
it’s a lot easier to bear 4:3 signals when they aren’t over-enlarged.

Out of genteel curiousity: Selecting from a list of quality manufacturers/products, what would you consider to be the maximum size a 4:3 TV could be before 4:3 programming becomes unwatchable?