Assassinator Wrote:

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:

ProperBritish Wrote:completely uncompressed with many different audio track on a Blu-Ray, and special features, im quite sure they take up about 30GB, so this might take the film down to single layer discs to make it cheaper to buy and manufacture discs.

Uncompressed video is gigantic, so no.

Uncompressed video?  Like raw RGB?  Lets do some rough estimates (probably not all that accurate, but you should get the idea).

Assume...
video length = 100mins = 6000 seconds
video fps = 25
total amount of frames = 150000
frame size = 1920x1080
size of each frame in raw RGB = 6MB  (estimated by saving 1080p image in bitmap)
total size of video = 900000MB = 900GB.

Uncompressed video is just stupid though.  Use a lossless codec instead.  (Lossless video is also stupid too for that matter).

Assassinator Wrote:

trademark91 Wrote:

Assassinator Wrote:Uncompressed video is just stupid though.  Use a lossless codec instead.  (Lossless video is also stupid too for that matter).

then in your opinion, what's the best codec?

H.264 (aka. AVC).  The most efficient video codec nowadays.  If you use a high enough bitrate (which Blurays most certainly do), you practically cannot see the difference between that and lossless anyway.

It's like with audio.  If you use some really high bitrate (lets say vorbis @ Q6 or MP3 @ 256kbps), noone cannot hear the difference between that and lossless.  But you end up with a much smaller file.

Lossless is more of a psychological thing.