Jason S. Global Moderator Posted January 16, 2009 Global Moderator Share Posted January 16, 2009 I have a copy of The Dark Knight in 1080p and it's only 14.03GB. It's truly indistinguishable form the original blu-ray.Still far to big to stream on my bandwith though. right, there's no guarantee that any company is filling up all 50GBs. hell, some movies still come on 25GB discs. The actual movie may be 14GB, but like you said, few people could afford to stream that or even 720p movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted January 16, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 16, 2009 Here's an easier statement. If HD is the future, BD is the future. Until something further catches on (4K) the popularity of BD will be proportional to HD's adoption and popularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm looking forward to getting a Blu-ray player once the prices drop a bit more. $99 (or roughly around there) is the "magical" price for me -- I got my HD DVD player at that price and don't regret it one bit. I hope Blu-ray will last as long as DVDs, but I severely doubt it's the case. Still, I love how much better the movies look. I honestly don't think the next generation will even be as successful as Blu-ray, though, as it's going to become harder and harder to sway consumers when formats aren't lasting as long and the next generation likely won't be as big of a leap (not to mention it's going to have to go through another phase just like Blu-ray is -- getting TVs to that point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 a 16GB flash disk for $25 is still not a 50GB blu ray disc for <$20.a 16GB flash disk cannot sustain the transfer rates for blu-ray. where's the standard required to put all blu-ray's features on a flash disk? where's the software that's going to read and play data from the disk? I did not say that Flash Disks will replace BluRay today, but give it another couple of years and you'll see. 16GB disk was couple of hundred dollars last year, today is only $25 dollar and going down as new disks with larger capacity emerge. Where is the software that will read and play the data from the disk? Thats the easy part, all you need is a chip on your TV or and external usb decoder for the older TVs. Most of the new TVs come with USB drives and can read pictures from flash disks. What will prevent manufacturers from putting a HD decoder chip on the future TV models? Absolutely nothing. As I said this will happen over then next few years but BluRay will eventually phase out. I personally think is a great idea having your HD movies on a flash disk. Easier to transport and no additional players or cases needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Good article. I ain't going digital until a) Quality improves and b) Pricing becomes better People slate Blu Ray prices, but don't realise your buddies supplying you with digital copies never tend to stray far if at all from the RRP. There is no internet/shop competition or many sales or promotion codes or anything as powerful as all of that that helps you get deals that are sometimes 50% lower than RRP. and c) Even if my requirements are filled, I ain't gonna ditch either, I'll use them both in conjunction with each other. Again, I have no idea why people don't think choice in the market can co-exist. and d) Until I can be given faster internet access. There's no point in me saying I can get those MKVs in 3-5 hours 720p, 8-10 hours 1080p as one of my requirements above is better quality and right now I don't even think streaming HD is as good quality as these pirate rips. Edited January 16, 2009 by Audioboxer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Right and how do you get the menus/extras/online content working off a Flash drive, not to mention the severe lack of space, there isnt enough room for a full quality 40mbps 1080p movie like you get on Blu-ray now let alone the transfer rate to sustain that bitrate without jerking and jittering. Thats really funny, because these menus and additional info are quite small in size comparing to the movie and the audio data, and they are just java coded scripts so can be easily implemented on any other media, just as they were implemented on the HD-DVDs. Bit rate will not be an issue what so ever USB 2.0 has transer rate of 480Mbit/s or (60MB/s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiB3R Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 right, there's no guarantee that any company is filling up all 50GBs. hell, some movies still come on 25GB discs. The actual movie may be 14GB, but like you said, few people could afford to stream that or even 720p movies. Your right, most films don't fill anywhere near the full capacity of the disc, but this copy is only 14 gigs because it has been encoded in x264 (extremely well). At 720p it's only 8GB and still looks pretty amazing. I think The Dark Knight on blu-ray is around 35 to 40GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTD Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Shouldn't Blu-Ray have already succeeded? I mean, we're in the dying days of digital physical media like CDs and DVDs. When exactly will Blu-Ray finally "succeed"? When we no longer have use for it or when it's already superseded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 right, there's no guarantee that any company is filling up all 50GBs. hell, some movies still come on 25GB discs. The actual movie may be 14GB, but like you said, few people could afford to stream that or even 720p movies. This is why the push for BD over HD-DVD was stupid, as it regards capacity. Both formats were quite capable of storing the film and the extras, but everyone touted BD as the better format for storage purposes. Sure, it had a higher capacity at the time HD-DVD died, but if no one was ever going to come close to using it, what advantage did it have (I'm talking films only, obviously for computer use the storage advantage would be a good one)? Even Sony can't get the BD games to work without filling up huge amounts of wasted space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thats really funny, because these menus and additional info are quite small in size comparing to the movie and the audio data, and they are just java coded scripts so can be easily implemented on any other media, just as they were implemented on the HD-DVDs.Bit rate will not be an issue what so ever USB 2.0 has transer rate of 480Mbit/s or (60MB/s) Yes they are small compared to the Movie but ive ripped my 200+ blu-ray movies and they have all been AT LEAST 16Gb just for the movie some have been over 30Gb, why compromise as to what bitrate you can use and/or what extras you can add just so you can use flash memory. As for menus its not just java scripts but i agree it is possible to get this thing running on other devices. Bitrate is an issue, USB might support 480Mbit/s but thats theoretical rate, in real world issues you would be lucky to get anywhere near that, not to mention flash memory doesnt have the best transfer rates, ive tried playing 720p video from my usb memory stick and you dont get a smooth experience. Blu-ray isnt going anywhere soon, streaming and/or digital downloads will never surpass Blu-ray till the infastructure is there. This is why the push for BD over HD-DVD was stupid, as it regards capacity. Both formats were quite capable of storing the film and the extras, but everyone touted BD as the better format for storage purposes. Sure, it had a higher capacity at the time HD-DVD died, but if no one was ever going to come close to using it, what advantage did it have (I'm talking films only, obviously for computer use the storage advantage would be a good one)? Even Sony can't get the BD games to work without filling up huge amounts of wasted space. Yes HD DVD had enough space for current films, but the whole point of having extra space is futureproofing and expandability, you were hitting the limit with HD DVD, what would have happened when the space topped out one movie on multiple discs? As for games thats because of the 2x Blu-ray Drive in the PS3, not because Blu-ray is a bad format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted January 16, 2009 MVC Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yes HD DVD had enough space for current films, but the whole point of having extra space is futureproofing and expandability, you were hitting the limit with HD DVD, what would have happened when the space topped out one movie on multiple discs? There is nothing to future proof. Movies aren't coming out at a higher quality any time soon. If they do, an entirely new format would be needed any ways. And, all of a sudden the length of films aren't going to double. The current storage was more than enough for a movie. If anything, extras would be included on another disc. Like many are already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 As for games thats because of the 2x Blu-ray Drive in the PS3, not because Blu-ray is a bad format. So why does Sony make the drive work that much harder reading dummy files? It's not just the speed of the drive that's a factor, it's also that it must read nonsense more than half the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Id say the most informative part of reading that article was learning what cnet passes off as journalism now...as others have mentioned, more assumptions and speculation in this article than facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Id say the most informative part of reading that article was learning what cnet passes off as journalism now...as others have mentioned, more assumptions and speculation in this article than facts. It IS Cnet afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt-DavidW Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 It IS Cnet afterall. CNET :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 So why does Sony make the drive work that much harder reading dummy files? It's not just the speed of the drive that's a factor, it's also that it must read nonsense more than half the time. Dummy files? Sony doesnt pad out the games with useless data, they add redundancy all over the disc so the heads dont have to seek as far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coresx Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I did not say that Flash Disks will replace BluRay today, but give it another couple of years and you'll see.16GB disk was couple of hundred dollars last year, today is only $25 dollar and going down as new disks with larger capacity emerge. Where is the software that will read and play the data from the disk? Thats the easy part, all you need is a chip on your TV or and external usb decoder for the older TVs. Most of the new TVs come with USB drives and can read pictures from flash disks. What will prevent manufacturers from putting a HD decoder chip on the future TV models? Absolutely nothing. As I said this will happen over then next few years but BluRay will eventually phase out. I personally think is a great idea having your HD movies on a flash disk. Easier to transport and no additional players or cases needed. Flash drives are a great step forward but they have one major problem. Per drive cost versus per Blu-Ray cost. It's just too much and will never get to DVD or Blu-Ray levels of cost. On streaming, USB 3.0 handle it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Dummy files?Sony doesnt pad out the games with useless data, they add redundancy all over the disc so the heads dont have to seek as far. That's the data that pads out the disc? So it's many copies of the same data all over the disc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 i dont believe this. most households do not have the speed required for streaming. hell, my house only has 1.5Mbit and im not able to watch any 720p streaming media over that. it has a rough time w/ simple YouTube videos."sooner than you think" to me is 10yrs or more. I have 6 mbit and I still have trouble streaming hd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 That's the data that pads out the disc? So it's many copies of the same data all over the disc? Yes, because the drive has relatively slow reading speeds and to minimise the amount of loading it puts copies of the most used files all over the disc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrCheese Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 This is why the push for BD over HD-DVD was stupid, as it regards capacity. Both formats were quite capable of storing the film and the extras, but everyone touted BD as the better format for storage purposes. Sure, it had a higher capacity at the time HD-DVD died, but if no one was ever going to come close to using it, what advantage did it have (I'm talking films only, obviously for computer use the storage advantage would be a good one)? Even Sony can't get the BD games to work without filling up huge amounts of wasted space. It wasn't stupid. The extra space is there, just because some film studios may not bother with it doesn't make it a bad thing. It's useful for those 3+ hour movies eg Lord of the rings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 It wasn't stupid. The extra space is there, just because some film studios may not bother with it doesn't make it a bad thing. It's useful for those 3+ hour movies eg Lord of the rings. And those wouldn't fit on an HD-DVD? 4 hours on a single-layer wasn't enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 16, 2009 They would, but with more space you can pump a higher bitrate through a 3 hour long movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 They would, but with more space you can pump a higher bitrate through a 3 hour long movie. Let's not fall back on paper-specs; I know what both formats mandated, and it's still up in the air whether or not the difference could ever even be noticed by a human. Even assuming you could, HD-DVD was still 8 hours dual-layered (BD is somewhat more, yes). That's enough to DOUBLE the bitrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 16, 2009 I'm not here to argue what you feel is visible to the eye, just state more space means you can pump a higher bitrate through movies. If that's not a benefit to you, fine! It's just one of the things you can do with more space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts