M:I-3 DVD to Debut in Three Formats


Recommended Posts

"Mission: Impossible III" will set a milestone when it is released to video on October 30, becoming the first movie to be available on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray simultaneously. The high-def versions will offer 1080p resolution and 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus surround sound.

The HD DVD release will also include an "enhanced commentary" by director J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise that shows the pair talking in the corner as the movie plays. This capability is possible through HD DVD's iHD feature, which is not included in Blu-ray. Analysts say that more studios will follow with similar three format launches -- at least until one high-definition format prevails.

Source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/486000-mi-3-dvd-to-debut-in-three-formats/
Share on other sites

So what was with all this talk about blu-ray "well its better becuase its supported by more companies", i have a hunch that the reason most people liked blu-ray was becuase they thought the name sounded cool.

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

I seriously doubt either format will increase in capacity. When CDs came out, did they ever increase in capacity? Not really. CD-Rs will let you store 700 MB instead of 650, but that isn't always reliable as the extra data is spread on the outer edge of the disk.

If you're going to add multiple layers to a disk to increase capacity, sooner or later you'll hit a barrier where it's not cost effective to add another layer when you could buy another disk. Either that or throughput will suffer due to multiple layers. Two layers may not pose a problem, but three or four layers might.

Just wait and see, disk capacity will not increase :sleep:

I seriously doubt either format will increase in capacity. When CDs came out, did they ever increase in capacity? Not really. CD-Rs will let you store 700 MB instead of 650, but that isn't always reliable as the extra data is spread on the outer edge of the disk.
CDs weren't designed as a multi-layer technology, unlike DVDs or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. If you're going to make a point you should at least have some knowledge about the subject. However, I was disappointed that DVDs only went up to two layers, despite talks that they'd be upto four within no time.
If you're going to add multiple layers to a disk to increase capacity, sooner or later you'll hit a barrier where it's not cost effective to add another layer when you could buy another disk. Either that or throughput will suffer due to multiple layers. Two layers may not pose a problem, but three or four layers might.
Firstly, the cost might not be cheaper than multiple discs but it's a damn sight more practical for the user and certainly something that they prefer over dozens of discs - it could certainly give the format an advantage. Secondly, Blu-Ray has already been tested at 100GB and the 200GB prototype is still being designed (though with some issues), so your arguement holds no weight... with such fierce competition it will surely be something that Sony will wish to push in order to gain an advantage.

I hope that HD-DVD increases in capacity as well. As I have said, I have no interest in Blu-Ray other than for the format's size.

i wouldnt trust sonys "supposed" 100 or 200gb discs. they havent even been able to get the dual layer 50s out yet.
Indeed. I don't trust them but I am hopeful that it's a possibility, particularly with HD-DVD breathing down their neck.

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

QFT

Every movie studio, except Universal, supports either Blu-ray exclusively, or both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

In comparison, there aren't very many movie studios that support HD-DVD (especially exclusively).

The future prospects for Blu-ray are good.

This is nothing like betamax where Sony was the sole supporter.

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Not a good thing at all.

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

So can HD-DVD. Just the first players out are not doing 1080p, but both formats support 1080P.

Whoops

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

So can HD-DVD. Also, both formats can do MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) and VC-1. So video wise, neither format has the advantage. But it's quite perplexing that Sony/Warner/et al. have decided to release the first-gen Blu-ray movies in MPEG-2. Especially Warner since they release their HD-DVD titles using VC-1. Why? No-one knows.

So can HD-DVD. Also, both formats can do MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) and VC-1. So video wise, neither format has the advantage. But it's quite perplexing that Sony/Warner/et al. have decided to release the first-gen Blu-ray movies in MPEG-2. Especially Warner since they release their HD-DVD titles using VC-1. Why? No-one knows.

Sony has made their decision to push ONLY MPEG-2 on Blu-ray and as I had said that many other studios would follow and I was right.

So, as long as studio's push their movies as MPEG-2 on blu-ray and as long as that format is more expensive, then I am not for that format and I think it will be a problem for it.

Why would you want to take a chance on getting HD content in MPEG-2 on blu-ray, when you can get a much better picture in HD using VC-1 content and a cheaper player/media as well.

All content that is HD is being shipped using the VC-1 codec on HD-DVD.

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Size does matter. And whilst single layer might be 15 versus 25 dual-layer will be standard and that will be 30 versus 50, with the gap expanding the more layers that are added. However, as you rightly point out, that makes no difference if they continue using MPEG2 and producing these half baked releases - why, I have no idea, but it is quite ridiculous and it is only hurting Sony to continue down this route. Unless they sort out these outrageous problems soon this is going to be a very one sided format war. :wacko:

Does everyone think this HD DVD v Blue Ray battle will actually result in a single format winner?

To be honest I dont think we will have a single winner, I think both formats will have a large enough following, with them each having their own plus's (and minus's!) that both formats could probably survive. Why does it have to be a single format solution!

Just my personal opion. Does anyone else agree, or am i alone on this one! LOL

I will prob be initially a blue ray follower pretty much because will be gettin PS3, but if I end up gettin 360 too, then having both as an option would appeal!

Cant wait for MI: III to come out, I'll hopefully get it on Blue ray if its available over here by then :)

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Not a good thing at all.

The same codecs are in both standards so that is up to the movie studios AFAIK.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The sweet release of death has never looked more appealing.
    • Meh, just another dongle-haven downgrade compared to my Surface Pro 7+. Whenever I decide to upgrade in the next decade or so, it certainly won't be another microslop Surface with this enshitification trend they've been having after the Surface Pro 7+. Hopefully a future generation of the Framework 12 will be a real upgrade...
    • This could exactly be how our Sun ends but it's not as simple by Sayan Sen Image by Drew Rae via Pexels An international team led by Université de Montréal (University of Montreal) PhD student Érika Le Bourdais has found that the ancient white dwarf star LSPM J0207+3331 is still pulling in planetary debris, even though it has been cooling for about three billion years. White dwarfs are dense, Earth-sized stellar remnants left behind when Sun-like stars exhaust their nuclear fuel and shed their outer layers. The star, located 145 light-years away in the constellation Triangulum, is the oldest and coldest white dwarf known to have a surrounding disk of dust. The star was first spotted in 2019 by a citizen scientist through the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 project. Its cool temperature immediately suggested that it was very old, since white dwarfs gradually lose heat over time. Using the W. M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, astronomers later confirmed that the star shows infrared signals consistent with dust rings formed by asteroids breaking apart under its strong gravity. Such infrared excesses occur when a star emits more infrared light than expected, often because warm dust surrounding it absorbs and re-radiates energy. “This discovery challenges our understanding of planetary system evolution,” said Le Bourdais. “The fact that we still see planetary debris being accreted three billion years after the star became a white dwarf suggests that asteroids, comets, and even planets can remain in orbit around these stars for a very long time.” Spectroscopic analysis—a technique that studies light to identify the chemical elements present in an object—revealed thirteen heavy elements in the star’s atmosphere: sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and strontium. Normally, heavy elements sink quickly in hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, making them hard to detect. “We expected to see only a few elements, but we found dozens!” explained Le Bourdais. The research paper adds more detail. The absence of carbon features suggests the debris came from a carbon-volatile-depleted source. The abundance pattern shows slight deficits of magnesium and silicon compared to iron but otherwise resembles Earth-like material. This points to a differentiated rocky body—one whose materials have separated into distinct layers such as a metallic core and rocky mantle—with a metallic core fraction higher than Earth’s. In other words, the star is accreting the remains of a large rocky object, similar in structure to Earth or the asteroid Vesta. “White dwarfs offer one of the only ways we can directly measure the composition of exoplanets,” said Patrick Dufour, co-author and professor at Université de Montréal. “When planetary debris come too close, they are torn apart by the star’s gravity and end up polluting its atmosphere, leaving a detailed chemical fingerprint of its composition.” The team also detected weak Ca II H & K line core emission, making this only the second known isolated polluted white dwarf to show this feature. These are specific spectral signatures produced by ionised calcium and can indicate unusual physical activity in a star’s upper atmosphere. The finding suggests that extra physical processes may be happening in or above the star’s upper atmosphere. The study stresses the importance of including heavy elements in model atmosphere calculations, since leaving them out can distort the inferred structure and lead to inaccurate stellar parameters. Earlier work suggested the star’s infrared excess came from two dust rings. The new analysis shows that a single silicate dust disk—a ring composed largely of rock-forming minerals rich in silicon and oxygen—can explain the observed signal at 11.6 μm, simplifying the picture of the system’s structure. The question of how debris ended up falling into the star so late remains open. One idea is that giant planets in the system slowly destabilised smaller bodies over billions of years. Another possibility is that a passing star disturbed the orbits of debris. “Future observations with the James Webb Space Telescope or archival data found in the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission could help distinguish between a planetary rearrangement and the gravitational effect of a close stellar encounter,” said John Debes, co-author and researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dufour noted that hydrogen-rich white dwarfs are the most common type, and the coolest among them are the oldest stars in the galaxy. “We didn't have the habit of looking for signs of accretion in them. This unique case motivates us to expand our search to more of these stars.” The findings show that even after billions of years, planetary systems can remain active and complex. Substantial accretion events—the gradual accumulation of surrounding material onto a celestial object—can still occur long after a star’s death, offering a rare window into the composition and fate of distant worlds. Source: University of Montreal, IOPScience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Doesn't DDG mainly use Bing?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Apprentice
      JoeyNeo went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Week One Done
      oliviaexpo earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      485
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      228
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      70
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      58
    5. 5
      neufuse
      56
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!