So far, I'm not a Blu Ray/HD fan

Tools    





Registered User
Simply put, that is the most sensible thing I've read in this thread yet!

Please tell me you got the BBC version? And Planet Earth is a great showcase material. Like "oh hey, look at what my TV can doooo."
Just a shame Blue Planet isn't on Blu-ray.



The People's Republic of Clogher
I toyed with getting a HDDVD player a while back (as you say, they're obscenely cheap now) but it's a dead format and the few films which aren't already released on Blu Ray surely can't be far off. A dual layer BD gives you 50GB storage capacity and I think that's what effectively killed HDDVD - they can't hold that much more than a D/L DVD (15GB as opposed to 9-ish).

True HD sound is an advantage to me but not in the short term. My present amp only has standard digital connections and my speakers are of good enough quality that I doubt I'd notice much of a difference in a room the size of mine. When I upgrade the surround system it'll definitely be for an HDMI one though. Why not?
__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan



Registered User
I got a HD DVD player as things were cheap. I saw The Shining on HD DVD for about £5, when it was £20 on Blu-ray. For me, it was worth getting.



You ready? You look ready.
Yea, I bought the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 (the best way to play HD-DVDs) about a year before the format went kaput. Then when they killed it I picked up the Toshiba HD-DVD A2 (crappy player, but dirt cheap) and several HD-DVD films (spent about 8 bucks a piece on them). I have 25 HD-DVD discs, and I'm not buying anymore than that. I will not be replacing them with Blu-Ray copies because the discs and players still work. Not only that, but 5 or 6 of my HD-DVD discs have the DVD version on the other side.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza



The People's Republic of Clogher
but 5 or 6 of my HD-DVD discs have the DVD version on the other side.
Why did they do that, John? Genuine question.

If you've bought the disc you've surely got a HDDVD player to play them on.



You ready? You look ready.
Why did they do that, John? Genuine question.

If you've bought the disc you've surely got a HDDVD player to play them on.
It was geared at consumers for two reasons. One, as an early adoption alternative to DVDs so you could continue to watch movies on all your DVD players, yet flip it over to the HD-DVD side for that one and only HD-DVD player in your house. Two, Toshiba saw HD-DVD as a supplement format rather than a replacement of DVDs and made them so you could get both on one disc, instead of buying it twice.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
My own gripe with the blu-ray Planet Earth is the complete lack of the behind the scenes content. I loved those parts on the dvd and wish I had kept those instead of giving them away because they really added to the series.

Forking out extra cash should mean better, not less.

For shame.

Still, amazing picture though and sound though.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Registered User
What I don't get is, Blu-ray can have what? 100gb of space, yet films, boxsets come on several discs. Why not just bang it all on one disc? I have The Mist, 2 discs, for the film in colour and black and white, why not stick it all on the same disc. Planet Earth, that should all fit on one r two dics, and why remove features? There's planty of room for them



You ready? You look ready.
Single layer disc is 25GB and dual layer disc is 50GB. As for fitting stuff on these discs, HD content is larger so it takes up more space. Which is why they made the new formats because DVDs would just not be practical for HD content.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Just sold my PS3, if that tells you what I think of HD movies. I can see wanting to go all out for the big blockbuster movies, but anything that's just story driven would be a waste of money.

I could be wrong, but I think the best flick I watched on Blu-Ray was Speed Racer.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



The People's Republic of Clogher
Just sold my PS3, if that tells you what I think of HD movies. I can see wanting to go all out for the big blockbuster movies, but anything that's just story driven would be a waste of money.

I could be wrong, but I think the best flick I watched on Blu-Ray was Speed Racer.
I think you're coming at things from the wrong angle.

I got round to watching 2001 on Blu Ray last week and, forgive me if I seem to be channelling JRS here, was frankly amazed at how well it looked. Only the monkey suits gave the game away that it's 40 years old...

It's still the same movie it always was but I could feel beardy Stan smiling with pride, though maybe it was just wind.



Registered User
Single layer disc is 25GB and dual layer disc is 50GB. As for fitting stuff on these discs, HD content is larger so it takes up more space. Which is why they made the new formats because DVDs would just not be practical for HD content.
Indeed true, but 25gb, is more than enough for 2, 3 or even 4 films to fit on in HD, look at the HD film downloads on the 360. A non HD film is around 2-3GB and the HD are 5-7GB, sometimes only 4GB. There is plenty of space for the extra features. There are also bigger Blu-ray discs, the PS3 has just been made/being made compatible with 400GB Blu-ray discs.

http://playsona.net/forums/viewtopic...patible#p22047

Those discs will be around in 2010. Still 50gb = films and many more special features, there's no excuse to not have them.



The People's Republic of Clogher
I've not really researched this but know quite a few Blu Ray movies are taking up dual layer disc space (50 GB, as you say), according to the specialist reviews. That's single movies, too, not compilations on one disc.

The downloaded HD stuff I've seen has one audio stream (AC3, I think) and no extras. If anyone has ever tried backing up one of their DVDs to a single layer disc they'll know just how much space a DD or DTS audio track takes up, True HD sound must be a fair bit more.



Registered User
If that's the case and one film is taking up 50GB on a Blu-ray disc, then there's something clearly wrong with the format. A HD DVD has is 1080p and has true HD sound, and still has more special features than a few Blu-rays. They only have 15GB of space(dual layered,) if I'm correct? How can one film, in HD, with HD sound and special features fit on one HD DVD, and not on one Blu-ray disc, when there is more than 3x the amount of space?



The People's Republic of Clogher
I'm no expert so won't insult your intelligence by giving you a Googled explanation and, to be honest, I don't really care. Blu Ray is the format at the moment and I'm happy with it.

Ok, my inquisitiveness got the better of me and I had a quick look.

It's to do with audio tracks and the encoding of the films at a higher bitrate apparently (The Dark Knight on its own takes up 35GB) but, as it's Google, there are probably many more reasons.



Registered User
I like Blu-ray, it's just a shame that a few of them lack in special features. Still, you wouldn't think, they'd take up that much space of the disc. Wouldn't they be able compress it some way? Also torrents for that film are only 11GB. Maybe they are compressed. No idea.



You ready? You look ready.
Pedz, lots of issues come into how big a HD film ends up being. Video codec choice, video bit rate, audio codec choice, audio bit rate, length of the film, etc. It's not just a simple "oh, well every film is only this big, so there should be plenty of space for extra features." As for the extra features, companies did the same thing with DVD when it launched. Give it some time. Plenty of Blu-Ray films are being released with extra features these days.

As for HD-DVD, their single layer discs were 15GB and their dual layer discs were 30GB. Most discs at the beginning of their launch used dual layer. Blu-Ray, on the other hand used their single layer 25GB discs. Also, the encoding methods and audio formats were different, as well. There's a lot more to it, honestly.



Registered User
No, I know there is more to it, but, I simply thought, that they'd still manage it. Clearly, I'm wrong on this, and I'm not disputing that. I'm just curious as to how it can take up so much space. I don't know much about the stuff that goes onto the disc. I gueinly thought, that due to HD DVD's being smaller and the same or more stuff going on the discs, that they'd be able to fit more on a Blu-ray disc. Ah well. I'll go cry now







Sammieb91's Avatar
BANNED
It is true. Blu-ray discs should carry more special features. Releases out on HD-DVD have had tons of stuff. It was a shame that HD-DVD died cause it was the forerunner of the technology.

There are great releases on HD-DVD and films on Blu-ray out now (and there are plenty) just dont top AT ALL the quality of features HD-DVD had.