Seeing full seasons of 24 in HD, and other TV shows on a single disk. Starwars 1 - 6 on a single disk. Lord of the rings extended versions 1- 3 on a single disk "with extras", Pirates of the Carabean 1 - 3 with extras on Single disk, and so on.
I think blu ray is the only one with enough capacity to accomplish any of those. Personally that's why I like the BR format.
And who would ever sit and watch 12 hours of movies straight? That seems like the only reason for putting it all on one disk, so you don't have to swap out. So for TV shows, it woudl be nice to get a full season on a disk. But having all the Star Wars on one disk isn't a big deal. Personally, I like having the 6 cases, with the cover art, in my dvd rack. If I had one disk and one case, it just wouldn't look as cool
And who would ever sit and watch 12 hours of movies straight? That seems like the only reason for putting it all on one disk, so you don't have to swap out. So for TV shows, it woudl be nice to get a full season on a disk. But having all the Star Wars on one disk isn't a big deal. Personally, I like having the 6 cases, with the cover art, in my dvd rack. If I had one disk and one case, it just wouldn't look as cool
The primary reason would be for portability. I have a friend who keeps his DVDs in a sleeve-based carry case, so he's got like 30 DVDs in a tiny space. If he could keep entire TV series in there (as currently, his TV series DVDs average 4 episodes a DVD), it'd be pretty darn close to beating a media HDD in terms of convenience. I mean, in terms of content/sq inch, it might beat my 400GB HDD w/ H.264 encoded shows.
The primary reason would be for portability. I have a friend who keeps his DVDs in a sleeve-based carry case, so he's got like 30 DVDs in a tiny space. If he could keep entire TV series in there (as currently, his TV series DVDs average 4 episodes a DVD), it'd be pretty darn close to beating a media HDD in terms of convenience. I mean, in terms of content/sq inch, it might beat my 400GB HDD w/ H.264 encoded shows.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
As far as portability, you would need a portable high def player then. The reason people can run around with DVDs in a slim soft case is because EVERYONE has a dvd player, so you can just pop the disks in any place. The likelihood of ending up some where, where your format of choice exists, is slim.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
As far as portability, you would need a portable high def player then. The reason people can run around with DVDs in a slim soft case is because EVERYONE has a dvd player, so you can just pop the disks in any place. The likelihood of ending up some where, where your format of choice exists, is slim.
I have a 300+1 disc DVD carosel, and it's full.
I'd like to add TV seasons in there along with movies that have more than one, but they just dont fit.
Examples. Terminator, Alien, StarWars, LOTR, Matrix, Back to the future. 24 seasons 1 -5 , La femme Nikita entire series. American Chopper seasons 1-3 Plus other OCC bike project DVD's, Biker Build-off. There are so many more that are not coming to mind, and there are also future DVD's that will benefit..
Those cases are a waste of space. All my cases are in a box in the addict. I have no need to display the cases, but if I did it wouldn't matter because my carousel renders an image of all the cases on the on screen DVD menu which IMO is better. (lol cover art.. That "art" is so small that argument is ridiculous!)
Nevertheless I think of the two formats Blu-Ray is the only one capable of handling my needs in the near future.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
I don't know, that sounds like a silly reason to prefer more disks -- wanting a bigger collection to impress people. Personally, I prefer fewer disks for a practical reason -- convenience. Ideally, I'd never have to swap a disk again in my life, but since that's not possible, the fewer the better, at least. As for the cover art and case, I couldn't care less. I buy movies to watch them, not look at the cover art. If it was really good art, I'd probably want the movie poster instead of a tiny case. I can't remember the last time I read liner notes. And if someone thinks less of me because my DVD rack is emptier, that's their problem.
Nevertheless I think of the two formats Blu-Ray is the only one capable of handling my needs in the near future.
From what I've been hearing, the idea of quad-layer HD-DVDs is not out of the question in the near future, and that's 60 GB/side. Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
....... Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
Not the case. #1 it uses the same machine as a DVD machine which only makes it more convenient for a current manufacturer of DVD's not easier, and there are obviously BD manufacturers already and equipment prices should soon be falling for BR if they have not started already.
And #2 if Quad layer disk was so easy why don't they do it with DVD? I've never heard of one. It sounds more like a propaganda ploy to keep manufacturer dreams alive by the HD-Consortium. Could you imagine the width of a quad layer DVD? I doubt it would fit in existing players, and I would think the same goes for High Def Players.
From what I've been hearing, the idea of quad-layer HD-DVDs is not out of the question in the near future, and that's 60 GB/side. Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
Why don't we wait and see if the three-layer HD DVD ever sees the light of day before drooling over the four-layer? Frankly, I don't think either will ever appear.
Why don't we wait and see if the three-layer HD DVD ever sees the light of day before drooling over the four-layer? Frankly, I don't think either will ever appear.
That wil probably never appear like you said, and TDK has already developed a 200GB Blu-Ray disk. That is 200GB on a single sided disk. Apparently their 100GB single sided disk will work in some current players.
That wil probably never appear like you said, and TDK has already developed a 200GB Blu-Ray disk. That is 200GB on a single sided disk. Apparently their 100GB single sided disk will work in some current players.
what does gazillion layers have to do with Hi-Def Movies?... Bigger storage hasn't helped BD so far, so having extra 50GB will make the movies look 2x better?... BD sure does need that if that is the secret sauce, but I'll doubt that even 100GB extra would do anything to help BD movies look any better.
what does gazillion layers have to do with Hi-Def Movies?... Bigger storage hasn't helped BD so far, so having extra 50GB will make the movies look 2x better?
Nope, doesn't work like that. All codecs have a point of diminishing returns. Meaning you can't just keep uping the bitrate and get better pictures. At a certain point, no matter how much you increase the bitrate, you just get a large file size that looks the same. I don't remember where, but I think I read that for VC1 and AVC that anything above 14Mps yields only bigger files, and no better image quality.
The "advantage" of more space is more movies/tv shows per disk. Some really like this idea, others don't. For TV shows, it makes sense to me, but putting all of the LOTR or Star Wars, or Alien movies onto one disk doesn't really interest me. Plus, that is only useful once they have all been released. So for new movies, you still have to initially release one at a time, and then maybe later do a "one disk" set. But who is going to spend $100 on a "one disk" set, when they already have part one and part two for $25 a piece? I'd just buy part 3 for $25. So in reality, it is only "beneficial" to older movies, not new ones.
Exactly. The Humphrey Bogart collection, The Chech, and Chong collection, etc. etc. etc...
Notice how I put Bogart and Cheech and Chong in one sentence... Not hard to do. 8)
The space is the key. What about the 95 Oscar collection. Universal Studio's presents Best Movies from 2006. There is a huge a market for collections on disk. Think about Disney by the decade collections. A person could go on for days.
The "advantage" of more space is more movies/tv shows per disk. Some really like this idea, others don't. For TV shows, it makes sense to me
TV shows released on DVD is one of the fastest-growing segments of the DVD market, so catering to that is nothing to sneeze at. Entire seasons on fewer discs would also benefit the pressing plants. Multi-disc box sets consume a lot of pressing capacity. If you could knock that down to one or two discs for a season, that would free up 75-90% of any given plant's capacity currently tied up producing box sets.
I think the "one disc for a bunch of DVDs" doesn't take into account the collector mentality.
I think people like the idea of getting the entirety of MASH, say, in a biggish olive green box that looks like a foot locker. Especially if the thing is going to cost upwards of $150, you want to feel like you're getting a lot for your money, and have a hunk of something you can admire on your shelf.
I actually think a single $150 Blue Ray disc is a tougher sell, for a lot of people.
I think the "one disc for a bunch of DVDs" doesn't take into account the collector mentality.
I think people like the idea of getting the entirety of MASH, say, in a biggish olive green box that looks like a foot locker. Especially if the thing is going to cost upwards of $150, you want to feel like you're getting a lot for your money, and have a hunk of something you can admire on your shelf.
I actually think a single $150 Blue Ray disc is a tougher sell, for a lot of people.
To each his own. With the amount of DVD's, and special box sets I have I get 0% usage out of all those boxes I keep in my addict now. AFAIAC they are just a huge amount of clutter, and I hate clutter.
But I'm sure they will continue to make those big ass boxes with a billion DVD's in them for guy's like you for years to come.
quick question here: has blu-ray even released a movie over 25gb? i mean are disks out there touting the 50gb storage space promised by the blue-ray camp?
To each his own. With the amount of DVD's, and special box sets I have I get 0% usage out of all those boxes I keep in my addict now. AFAIAC they are just a huge amount of clutter, and I hate clutter.
But I'm sure they will continue to make those big ass boxes with a billion DVD's in them for guy's like you for years to come.
I don't buy DVD sets at all, I'm just commenting on what I've observed.
quick question here: has blu-ray even released a movie over 25gb? i mean are disks out there touting the 50gb storage space promised by the blue-ray camp?
The 1st 50GB BD title was "Click" which looks as good as the upconverted standard definition verion DVD's. There're only handfull of them on scheduled for 50GB release, but rest is on 25GB single layer disc.
quick question here: has blu-ray even released a movie over 25gb? i mean are disks out there touting the 50gb storage space promised by the blue-ray camp?
There are only a few, but 25GB should hold most movies and you probably wont see a huge amount of them from the get go, but when you start getting into extras and things like that space is going be essential. Many regular DVD movies have to use a second disk for extras. MY LOTR Gift BOX collection has 4 DVD's per movie. I'd much rather have all that on one disk.
Comments
What is individual to me are things like:
Seeing full seasons of 24 in HD, and other TV shows on a single disk. Starwars 1 - 6 on a single disk. Lord of the rings extended versions 1- 3 on a single disk "with extras", Pirates of the Carabean 1 - 3 with extras on Single disk, and so on.
I think blu ray is the only one with enough capacity to accomplish any of those. Personally that's why I like the BR format.
And who would ever sit and watch 12 hours of movies straight? That seems like the only reason for putting it all on one disk, so you don't have to swap out. So for TV shows, it woudl be nice to get a full season on a disk. But having all the Star Wars on one disk isn't a big deal. Personally, I like having the 6 cases, with the cover art, in my dvd rack. If I had one disk and one case, it just wouldn't look as cool
And who would ever sit and watch 12 hours of movies straight? That seems like the only reason for putting it all on one disk, so you don't have to swap out. So for TV shows, it woudl be nice to get a full season on a disk. But having all the Star Wars on one disk isn't a big deal. Personally, I like having the 6 cases, with the cover art, in my dvd rack. If I had one disk and one case, it just wouldn't look as cool
The primary reason would be for portability. I have a friend who keeps his DVDs in a sleeve-based carry case, so he's got like 30 DVDs in a tiny space. If he could keep entire TV series in there (as currently, his TV series DVDs average 4 episodes a DVD), it'd be pretty darn close to beating a media HDD in terms of convenience. I mean, in terms of content/sq inch, it might beat my 400GB HDD w/ H.264 encoded shows.
The primary reason would be for portability. I have a friend who keeps his DVDs in a sleeve-based carry case, so he's got like 30 DVDs in a tiny space. If he could keep entire TV series in there (as currently, his TV series DVDs average 4 episodes a DVD), it'd be pretty darn close to beating a media HDD in terms of convenience. I mean, in terms of content/sq inch, it might beat my 400GB HDD w/ H.264 encoded shows.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
As far as portability, you would need a portable high def player then. The reason people can run around with DVDs in a slim soft case is because EVERYONE has a dvd player, so you can just pop the disks in any place. The likelihood of ending up some where, where your format of choice exists, is slim.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
As far as portability, you would need a portable high def player then. The reason people can run around with DVDs in a slim soft case is because EVERYONE has a dvd player, so you can just pop the disks in any place. The likelihood of ending up some where, where your format of choice exists, is slim.
I have a 300+1 disc DVD carosel, and it's full.
I'd like to add TV seasons in there along with movies that have more than one, but they just dont fit.
Examples. Terminator, Alien, StarWars, LOTR, Matrix, Back to the future. 24 seasons 1 -5 , La femme Nikita entire series. American Chopper seasons 1-3 Plus other OCC bike project DVD's, Biker Build-off. There are so many more that are not coming to mind, and there are also future DVD's that will benefit..
Those cases are a waste of space. All my cases are in a box in the addict. I have no need to display the cases, but if I did it wouldn't matter because my carousel renders an image of all the cases on the on screen DVD menu which IMO is better. (lol cover art.. That "art" is so small that argument is ridiculous!)
Nevertheless I think of the two formats Blu-Ray is the only one capable of handling my needs in the near future.
I guess for different people, it might make sense. But at my place, we have a huge dvd stand/rack. And I really like the fact that I can show each LOTR, Matrix, or Star Wars in the rack, with its individual case, and cover art. I prefer having 100 DVDs in my rack, rather than just having like 25 DVDs.
I don't know, that sounds like a silly reason to prefer more disks -- wanting a bigger collection to impress people. Personally, I prefer fewer disks for a practical reason -- convenience. Ideally, I'd never have to swap a disk again in my life, but since that's not possible, the fewer the better, at least. As for the cover art and case, I couldn't care less. I buy movies to watch them, not look at the cover art. If it was really good art, I'd probably want the movie poster instead of a tiny case. I can't remember the last time I read liner notes. And if someone thinks less of me because my DVD rack is emptier, that's their problem.
Nevertheless I think of the two formats Blu-Ray is the only one capable of handling my needs in the near future.
From what I've been hearing, the idea of quad-layer HD-DVDs is not out of the question in the near future, and that's 60 GB/side. Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
....... Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
Not the case. #1 it uses the same machine as a DVD machine which only makes it more convenient for a current manufacturer of DVD's not easier, and there are obviously BD manufacturers already and equipment prices should soon be falling for BR if they have not started already.
And #2 if Quad layer disk was so easy why don't they do it with DVD? I've never heard of one. It sounds more like a propaganda ploy to keep manufacturer dreams alive by the HD-Consortium. Could you imagine the width of a quad layer DVD? I doubt it would fit in existing players, and I would think the same goes for High Def Players.
From what I've been hearing, the idea of quad-layer HD-DVDs is not out of the question in the near future, and that's 60 GB/side. Apparently HD-DVDs are easier to manufacture than BRDs, since they're a lot more like DVDs, and apparently the transition to dual/triple/quad layer (for the media) is less steep now than it was for DVDs, and I think you can do a lot to make current players compatible with 2-4 layer discs via a firmware update.
Why don't we wait and see if the three-layer HD DVD ever sees the light of day before drooling over the four-layer? Frankly, I don't think either will ever appear.
Why don't we wait and see if the three-layer HD DVD ever sees the light of day before drooling over the four-layer? Frankly, I don't think either will ever appear.
That wil probably never appear like you said, and TDK has already developed a 200GB Blu-Ray disk. That is 200GB on a single sided disk. Apparently their 100GB single sided disk will work in some current players.
http://news.digitaltrends.com/article11210.html
That wil probably never appear like you said, and TDK has already developed a 200GB Blu-Ray disk. That is 200GB on a single sided disk. Apparently their 100GB single sided disk will work in some current players.
http://news.digitaltrends.com/article11210.html
what does gazillion layers have to do with Hi-Def Movies?... Bigger storage hasn't helped BD so far, so having extra 50GB will make the movies look 2x better?... BD sure does need that if that is the secret sauce, but I'll doubt that even 100GB extra would do anything to help BD movies look any better.
what does gazillion layers have to do with Hi-Def Movies?... Bigger storage hasn't helped BD so far, so having extra 50GB will make the movies look 2x better?
Nope, doesn't work like that. All codecs have a point of diminishing returns. Meaning you can't just keep uping the bitrate and get better pictures. At a certain point, no matter how much you increase the bitrate, you just get a large file size that looks the same. I don't remember where, but I think I read that for VC1 and AVC that anything above 14Mps yields only bigger files, and no better image quality.
The "advantage" of more space is more movies/tv shows per disk. Some really like this idea, others don't. For TV shows, it makes sense to me, but putting all of the LOTR or Star Wars, or Alien movies onto one disk doesn't really interest me. Plus, that is only useful once they have all been released. So for new movies, you still have to initially release one at a time, and then maybe later do a "one disk" set. But who is going to spend $100 on a "one disk" set, when they already have part one and part two for $25 a piece? I'd just buy part 3 for $25. So in reality, it is only "beneficial" to older movies, not new ones.
Notice how I put Bogart and Cheech and Chong in one sentence... Not hard to do. 8)
The space is the key. What about the 95 Oscar collection. Universal Studio's presents Best Movies from 2006. There is a huge a market for collections on disk. Think about Disney by the decade collections. A person could go on for days.
The "advantage" of more space is more movies/tv shows per disk. Some really like this idea, others don't. For TV shows, it makes sense to me
TV shows released on DVD is one of the fastest-growing segments of the DVD market, so catering to that is nothing to sneeze at. Entire seasons on fewer discs would also benefit the pressing plants. Multi-disc box sets consume a lot of pressing capacity. If you could knock that down to one or two discs for a season, that would free up 75-90% of any given plant's capacity currently tied up producing box sets.
I think people like the idea of getting the entirety of MASH, say, in a biggish olive green box that looks like a foot locker. Especially if the thing is going to cost upwards of $150, you want to feel like you're getting a lot for your money, and have a hunk of something you can admire on your shelf.
I actually think a single $150 Blue Ray disc is a tougher sell, for a lot of people.
I think the "one disc for a bunch of DVDs" doesn't take into account the collector mentality.
I think people like the idea of getting the entirety of MASH, say, in a biggish olive green box that looks like a foot locker. Especially if the thing is going to cost upwards of $150, you want to feel like you're getting a lot for your money, and have a hunk of something you can admire on your shelf.
I actually think a single $150 Blue Ray disc is a tougher sell, for a lot of people.
To each his own. With the amount of DVD's, and special box sets I have I get 0% usage out of all those boxes I keep in my addict now. AFAIAC they are just a huge amount of clutter, and I hate clutter.
But I'm sure they will continue to make those big ass boxes with a billion DVD's in them for guy's like you for years to come.
I get 0% usage out of all those boxes I keep in my addict now.
i dont know what kind of rehab programs you have in your area
To each his own. With the amount of DVD's, and special box sets I have I get 0% usage out of all those boxes I keep in my addict now. AFAIAC they are just a huge amount of clutter, and I hate clutter.
But I'm sure they will continue to make those big ass boxes with a billion DVD's in them for guy's like you for years to come.
I don't buy DVD sets at all, I'm just commenting on what I've observed.
quick question here: has blu-ray even released a movie over 25gb? i mean are disks out there touting the 50gb storage space promised by the blue-ray camp?
The 1st 50GB BD title was "Click" which looks as good as the upconverted standard definition verion DVD's. There're only handfull of them on scheduled for 50GB release, but rest is on 25GB single layer disc.
quick question here: has blu-ray even released a movie over 25gb? i mean are disks out there touting the 50gb storage space promised by the blue-ray camp?
There are only a few, but 25GB should hold most movies and you probably wont see a huge amount of them from the get go, but when you start getting into extras and things like that space is going be essential. Many regular DVD movies have to use a second disk for extras. MY LOTR Gift BOX collection has 4 DVD's per movie. I'd much rather have all that on one disk.