Why is PotC: DMC on 2 discs instead of 1? - Blu-ray Forum

AlexKx · 07-23-2007, 10:53 PM

Can anyone tell me why a movie such as "Pirates Of The Carribean 2" or whatever it is needs two discs? I thought that I understood that Blu-Ray was able to hold 20 hours of film? Is it because it is all High Definition? I am somewhat put off by that because I thought that one of the main points I have supported this new format was because it would hold 20 hours of film and more over time.

jermwhl · 07-23-2007, 10:58 PM

The second disc is bonus features, games, and a bunch of extra junk. I have never even taken the second disc out.
I don't know about no 20 hours of video...maybe SD, but not HD.

dialog_gvf · 07-23-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

Can anyone tell me why a movie such as "Pirates Of The Carribean 2" or whatever it is needs two discs? I thought that I understood that Blu-Ray was able to hold 20 hours of film? Is it because it is all High Definition? I am somewhat put off by that because I thought that one of the main points I have supported this new format was because it would hold 20 hours of film and more over time.

The second disc is for extras. This was the Disney equivalent of a Superbit+ offering. Zero compromise. BD50 for maximum video/audio quality for the feature, and then an entire BD25 for extras.

The video had ~40Mbps peaks and a near 20Mbps average
The audio was 48/24. So a sustained 6.92Mbps of audio.

This was Disney pushing the envelope of what could be done.

Gary

Ender · 07-23-2007, 11:01 PM

The movie is on one disc, the second is special features and games.

Anthony P · 07-23-2007, 11:17 PM

I would not want to see 20h of HD on a BD (simple math 20h for 50GB gives an average bitrate of <6mbps, lower then most DVDs and this would be for HD and does not include anything else like menus and stuff)

BD has 50GB per dual layer disk, that is more then any other disk media that is available. Disney wanted excellent sound, excellent PQ and a cool interactive game. They decided they could not offer everything they wanted on the main disk as well as the DVD extras, so they created some more extras and added the boring extras to the second disk.

AlexKx · 07-24-2007, 03:11 AM

O.k. I think that I understand what you all are saying...BUT does this mean that at least 10 hours of High Definintion of film can be on a disc with 50GB whatever the hell that all means because I have to be honest I don't know what the hell you all are talking about. I suppose I can understand what you all are saying in that they just wanted the best quality with sound and picture for the main feature film which is...what 3 hours or there abouts? But they did put 7 hours of film on the second disc so at least in that case they are using the storage capablity that I was expecting. That's the root of what I am asking is how well the storage capablity is being used. I have always supported this format with the understanding that t.v. shows and movies series that would come in box sets would now be able to be put on far fewer discs. Is this not the case now?

I also always understood that Blu-Ray out did something once called "Digital Multilayer Versatile Disc" or something like that in that it would be able to have as many layers added to it that the developers could add which I always understood would keep growing it would just take time to develope. Is this not the case now? Now they can only have two layers of 25 GB each? Sorry I'm such a nimcampoop.

Blu As Hell · 07-24-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

O.k. I think that I understand what you all are saying...BUT does this mean that at least 10 hours of High Definintion of film can be on a disc with 50GB whatever the hell that all means because I have to be honest I don't know what the hell you all are talking about. I suppose I can understand what you all are saying in that they just wanted the best quality with sound and picture for the main feature film which is...what 3 hours or there abouts? But they did put 7 hours of film on the second disc so at least in that case they are using the storage capablity that I was expecting. That's the root of what I am asking is how well the storage capablity is being used. I have always supported this format with the understanding that t.v. shows and movies series that would come in box sets would now be able to be put on far fewer discs. Is this not the case now?

I also always understood that Blu-Ray out did something once called "Digital Multilayer Versatile Disc" or something like that in that it would be able to have as many layers added to it that the developers could add which I always understood would keep growing it would just take time to develope. Is this not the case now? Now they can only have two layers of 25 GB each? Sorry I'm such a nimcampoop.

The reason why is that Disney wanted to maximize the bitrate for the movie, so by puting the movie on it's own disc with no special features they blew the PQ and the AQ out of the water. So as not to crowd the Blu-Ray up they put all the special features on the second disc to give the movie all the room it needs on the first disc.

And no a Blu-Ray will not hold 20hrs of HD programming.

Hope this helps.

AlexKx · 07-24-2007, 07:08 PM

So will Blu-Ray hold 10 hours of High Definition of film? I thought that the point was also that Blu-Ray would be able to increase their storage space over time?

clyon · 07-24-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

So will Blu-Ray hold 10 hours of High Definition of film? I thought that the point was also that Blu-Ray would be able to increase their storage space over time?

nope, I think it is 3 or 4 hours of HD. THe 200 gig disc will be for BD-rom (computers) & for data storage. Blu Ray players can not read any disc over 50gig at this point, there could be updates in the future that let 75 gig disc be read but that is a guess.

monkyman · 07-24-2007, 07:37 PM

Actually the game liars dice is on disc 1 with the movie, that may have ate up any space that was left on that disc. Any probibly causes the loading times on the stand alone players. Disc 2 has numerious hours of extras, and I mean numerious.

LynxFX · 07-24-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

This was Disney pushing the envelope of what could be done.

Gary

And should be encouraged by everyone. Fantastic discs all around.

Anthony P · 07-25-2007, 01:25 AM

the answer is that they can put as many hours as they want. For a bare bones, one language decent but not excellent audio (at an average bitrate of around 20mbps) you need 9GB/h so a 50GB disk will hold 5-6h but if you want a couple of lossless audio tracks, some subtitles, excellent video the demand grows. If we go with 40mbps then it is down to just under 3h if you go with the max 48mbps you get 2.3h

AlexKx · 07-25-2007, 01:48 AM

Then can someone tell me why in the hell I am supporting this format again?! I thought since the year 2000 that I am have been following this thing being developed the whole point was the storage capability?!! Maybe I have truely been misled and this is not something that should be supported after all?! I am about to loose my mind as all I have been able to think about for the past number of years are the amazing possiblities this format would allow and now it is more of a "high definition" upgrade of which very few of "Joe public" can tell much difference from regular d.v.d.s than perhaps the storage capabilities?! For God's sake if anything I understood that there would be enough room for something simple as the bonus features on one disc as well so AT THE LEAST you would not have to change to a second disc. So this totally chucks the whole idea of box sets being put onto far fewer discs?! Ain't jack slit happenin' apparently after all from what I can tell with this being some great new format. Damn it I am a psychotic supporter of Blu-Ray for years now and I'm NOT liking what I am seeing or hearing!

Anthony P · 07-25-2007, 02:04 AM

why support it? why want it

because you have HD
because if the same HD was put on DVDs you would need 6+ as many disks
because if you are realizing that 50GB is not all that much imagine how a measely 30GB sounds like
because if a box set has content of DVD calibre then 50GB replaces many disks, just that most of us would rather have better quality then trying to fit crap on a disk just to take less place.
because with 1080p you have 6x the resolution so it is normal it will need more bits per hour, because with lossless audio it will obviously take more bits per hour then on the bad DD on DVD
because if we go with the assumption of 4h that is enough for any movie even long ones that were split on two DVDs like LOTR EE

Ender · 07-25-2007, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

stuff

I really hope you aren't serious.

The whole point of having more storage is to store high definition video.

AlexKx · 07-25-2007, 02:15 AM

Please forgive me for the barbaric language...I just...ug...am going to let it all out. Just my feelings. I actually don't mean to be rude or tyranical...seriously....but...bs. I get the ideas of improving the picture and sound. That is the reason for this new format? So it has been a lie after all. I SWEAR that I am and have been a DIE HARD supporter at least in terms of educating people of this format from what I thought I understood (and may now appear to be wrong) but this might for real be dead to me as a format that should be accepted. I understood that for two reasons this format should be supported. The unbelievable scratch resistance and it's STORAGE CAPABLITIES! I love the idea of the whole "High Definition" thing I SWEAR but this product DOES NOT do what I have for years percieved it in being able to do! I thought that the whole point of it being a disc that used a blue ray instead of a red one or whatever other color was not just so that it could hold a few more hours than the for real bullshit format H.D.-D.V.D. but many more. And that they would continue to be able to add many many more layers?! NOT JUST TWO! WHAT IN THE HELL??!!! Again while I love the idea of the whole "High Definition" thing MY responses is who in the hell cares about it compared to what I percieved the storage capablities to be?!

If THAT'S what's going on then this format IS NOT GOING TO REPLACE D.V.D.s! Joe public are not going to switch AGAIN just a few years after switching to d.v.d because of this slight picture and sound quality! UNnUCKING BELIEVABLE! I am truely starting to feel like I have been in some religous nut cult and am just realizing it! PLEASE TELL ME I AM WRONG!

Blu As Hell · 07-25-2007, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

Then can someone tell me why in the hell I am supporting this format again?! I thought since the year 2000 that I am have been following this thing being developed the whole point was the storage capability?!! Maybe I have truely been misled and this is not something that should be supported after all?! I am about to loose my mind as all I have been able to think about for the past number of years are the amazing possiblities this format would allow and now it is more of a "high definition" upgrade of which very few of "Joe public" can tell much difference from regular d.v.d.s than perhaps the storage capabilities?! For God's sake if anything I understood that there would be enough room for something simple as the bonus features on one disc as well so AT THE LEAST you would not have to change to a second disc. So this totally chucks the whole idea of box sets being put onto far fewer discs?! Ain't jack slit happenin' apparently after all from what I can tell with this being some great new format. Damn it I am a psychotic supporter of Blu-Ray for years now and I'm NOT liking what I am seeing or hearing!

Dude...Calm Down. Blu-Rays have hella storage space, and yes Disney could have put all the special features on the same disc as POTC 2, but it was a choice by them to put them on two separate discs so they could maximize the bitrate on the movie so it would look the absolute best that it could. The more stuff you put on the disc the lower the bitrate would be for a movie, with POTC pushing 50 mbps that makes it one of the best looking Blu-Rays available so we can show off to our friends how good a Blu-Ray can look. If they had put all the special features and a movie that's almost 3 hours long the bitrate for the movie would have to be dropped dramatically because with all those special features on the disc (and it's a ton of special features on the POTC discs) the movie would not have the room to look as good as it does and the biggest draw for Blu-Ray is it's PQ and AQ. Now I agree with you that we can get rid of that whole multi-disc thing for movies if we don't have to, but to get the best looking movie possible I can deal with a 2 disc Blu-Ray set. So you did choose the right format, but just because you don't agree with something a company does where that format is concerned you shouldn't get upset and decide to not buy anything else on that format you wouldn't have any movies in your collection at all. So please don't get angry about the things said in this tread, and enjoy Blu-Ray.

Sorry posted this after you posted yours AlexKx.

AlexKx · 07-25-2007, 02:28 AM

I am REALLY sorry for my iNsAnE outburst but I am REALLY taking a second look at this format...MAYBE I am wrong but I am getting a BAD feeling about this.

Blu As Hell · 07-25-2007, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexKx

I am REALLY sorry for my iNsAnE outburst but I am REALLY taking a second look at this format...MAYBE I am wrong but I am getting a BAD feeling about this.

I understand your feelings, but keep this in mind as well. Even though Blu-Ray has been developing for the past few years, it's still a young format and it has not reached it's full potential so I think for the next few years we'll see some incredible advancements in the mastering of the Discs themselves.

DON'T LOSE FAITH!!!!!!!!!

Anthony P · 07-25-2007, 02:36 AM

if they will add more layers, none of us know.

My opinion is that it is easier to add layers to r/re/rw disks then rom disks because people buy the disk they want in the first instance but the movie(content) they want in the second one. If they make a 4layer BD-r and you have a 4 layer BD-r drive you can use it and if someone has an older drive that is only 2l they will only buy the 2l BD-r disk. For BD-rom you buy POTC4, if they make different sets where set one uses one QLBD and set two uses two DL BD some consumers with a DL machine will buy by mistake the QL version and it won't play.

That is why we all discussed what is available today (especially since your title was about a title available today where QL does not even exist)

As things stand today BD can hold 60% more data and it is as simple as that. If someone thinks HD DVD 30 can have 3 hours, for the same quality it is 5h on BD. If it is 6h on HD DVD then BD is 10h. If it is 2h on HD DVD then BD is a bit over 3h. A disk holds data the more hours you want the less data/hour it can hold, it is as simple as that, for DVD quality it is close to 20h (like you were talking about above) but all of us came to BD (or HD DVD) to have better quality and not just to fit more ours per disk.

I am curious why does it annoy you so much that it is not for 20h of good quality content. what 20h do you want to see on one disk.

07-23-2007, 10:53 PM	#1
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	Why is PotC: DMC on 2 discs instead of 1? Can anyone tell me why a movie such as "Pirates Of The Carribean 2" or whatever it is needs two discs? I thought that I understood that Blu-Ray was able to hold 20 hours of film? Is it because it is all High Definition? I am somewhat put off by that because I thought that one of the main points I have supported this new format was because it would hold 20 hours of film and more over time.

07-24-2007, 03:11 AM	#6
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	O.k. I think that I understand what you all are saying...BUT does this mean that at least 10 hours of High Definintion of film can be on a disc with 50GB whatever the hell that all means because I have to be honest I don't know what the hell you all are talking about. I suppose I can understand what you all are saying in that they just wanted the best quality with sound and picture for the main feature film which is...what 3 hours or there abouts? But they did put 7 hours of film on the second disc so at least in that case they are using the storage capablity that I was expecting. That's the root of what I am asking is how well the storage capablity is being used. I have always supported this format with the understanding that t.v. shows and movies series that would come in box sets would now be able to be put on far fewer discs. Is this not the case now? I also always understood that Blu-Ray out did something once called "Digital Multilayer Versatile Disc" or something like that in that it would be able to have as many layers added to it that the developers could add which I always understood would keep growing it would just take time to develope. Is this not the case now? Now they can only have two layers of 25 GB each? Sorry I'm such a nimcampoop. Last edited by AlexKx; 07-24-2007 at 03:15 AM.

07-25-2007, 01:48 AM	#13
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	Then can someone tell me why in the hell I am supporting this format again?! I thought since the year 2000 that I am have been following this thing being developed the whole point was the storage capability?!! Maybe I have truely been misled and this is not something that should be supported after all?! I am about to loose my mind as all I have been able to think about for the past number of years are the amazing possiblities this format would allow and now it is more of a "high definition" upgrade of which very few of "Joe public" can tell much difference from regular d.v.d.s than perhaps the storage capabilities?! For God's sake if anything I understood that there would be enough room for something simple as the bonus features on one disc as well so AT THE LEAST you would not have to change to a second disc. So this totally chucks the whole idea of box sets being put onto far fewer discs?! Ain't jack slit happenin' apparently after all from what I can tell with this being some great new format. Damn it I am a psychotic supporter of Blu-Ray for years now and I'm NOT liking what I am seeing or hearing! Last edited by Deciazulado; 07-26-2007 at 05:58 PM.

07-25-2007, 02:15 AM	#16
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	Please forgive me for the barbaric language...I just...ug...am going to let it all out. Just my feelings. I actually don't mean to be rude or tyranical...seriously....but...bs. I get the ideas of improving the picture and sound. That is the reason for this new format? So it has been a lie after all. I SWEAR that I am and have been a DIE HARD supporter at least in terms of educating people of this format from what I thought I understood (and may now appear to be wrong) but this might for real be dead to me as a format that should be accepted. I understood that for two reasons this format should be supported. The unbelievable scratch resistance and it's STORAGE CAPABLITIES! I love the idea of the whole "High Definition" thing I SWEAR but this product DOES NOT do what I have for years percieved it in being able to do! I thought that the whole point of it being a disc that used a blue ray instead of a red one or whatever other color was not just so that it could hold a few more hours than the for real bullshit format H.D.-D.V.D. but many more. And that they would continue to be able to add many many more layers?! NOT JUST TWO! WHAT IN THE HELL??!!! Again while I love the idea of the whole "High Definition" thing MY responses is who in the hell cares about it compared to what I percieved the storage capablities to be?! If THAT'S what's going on then this format IS NOT GOING TO REPLACE D.V.D.s! Joe public are not going to switch AGAIN just a few years after switching to d.v.d because of this slight picture and sound quality! UNnUCKING BELIEVABLE! I am truely starting to feel like I have been in some religous nut cult and am just realizing it! PLEASE TELL ME I AM WRONG! Last edited by Deciazulado; 07-26-2007 at 05:59 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
POTR:DMC 16x9	Movies	Gouletor	17	10-01-2008 02:02 AM
POTC Trilogy (6 discs) coming Sept 16!	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Living Near Shamu	51	07-06-2008 12:53 AM
DMC 4 Collector's Edition question??	PS3	MazinBlu	6	02-12-2008 09:50 PM
No problems with PotC: DMC	Blu-ray Movies - North America	sevensixthree	3	07-22-2007 12:39 PM

07-23-2007, 10:58 PM	#2
jermwhl Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Virginia	The second disc is bonus features, games, and a bunch of extra junk. I have never even taken the second disc out. I don't know about no 20 hours of video...maybe SD, but not HD.

07-23-2007, 11:01 PM	#4
Ender Active Member Top contributor Member since:Jun 2007 Location:Columbia, SC Blu-ray collection:113 DVD collection:3	The movie is on one disc, the second is special features and games.

07-23-2007, 11:17 PM	#5
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	I would not want to see 20h of HD on a BD (simple math 20h for 50GB gives an average bitrate of <6mbps, lower then most DVDs and this would be for HD and does not include anything else like menus and stuff) BD has 50GB per dual layer disk, that is more then any other disk media that is available. Disney wanted excellent sound, excellent PQ and a cool interactive game. They decided they could not offer everything they wanted on the main disk as well as the DVD extras, so they created some more extras and added the boring extras to the second disk.

07-24-2007, 07:08 PM	#8
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	So will Blu-Ray hold 10 hours of High Definition of film? I thought that the point was also that Blu-Ray would be able to increase their storage space over time?

07-24-2007, 07:37 PM	#10
monkyman Special Member Member since:Jun 2007	Actually the game liars dice is on disc 1 with the movie, that may have ate up any space that was left on that disc. Any probibly causes the loading times on the stand alone players. Disc 2 has numerious hours of extras, and I mean numerious.

07-25-2007, 01:25 AM	#12
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	the answer is that they can put as many hours as they want. For a bare bones, one language decent but not excellent audio (at an average bitrate of around 20mbps) you need 9GB/h so a 50GB disk will hold 5-6h but if you want a couple of lossless audio tracks, some subtitles, excellent video the demand grows. If we go with 40mbps then it is down to just under 3h if you go with the max 48mbps you get 2.3h

07-25-2007, 02:04 AM	#14
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	why support it? why want it because you have HD because if the same HD was put on DVDs you would need 6+ as many disks because if you are realizing that 50GB is not all that much imagine how a measely 30GB sounds like because if a box set has content of DVD calibre then 50GB replaces many disks, just that most of us would rather have better quality then trying to fit crap on a disk just to take less place. because with 1080p you have 6x the resolution so it is normal it will need more bits per hour, because with lossless audio it will obviously take more bits per hour then on the bad DD on DVD because if we go with the assumption of 4h that is enough for any movie even long ones that were split on two DVDs like LOTR EE

07-25-2007, 02:28 AM	#18
AlexKx Active Member Member since:Jan 2005	I am REALLY sorry for my iNsAnE outburst but I am REALLY taking a second look at this format...MAYBE I am wrong but I am getting a BAD feeling about this.

07-25-2007, 02:36 AM	#20
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	if they will add more layers, none of us know. My opinion is that it is easier to add layers to r/re/rw disks then rom disks because people buy the disk they want in the first instance but the movie(content) they want in the second one. If they make a 4layer BD-r and you have a 4 layer BD-r drive you can use it and if someone has an older drive that is only 2l they will only buy the 2l BD-r disk. For BD-rom you buy POTC4, if they make different sets where set one uses one QLBD and set two uses two DL BD some consumers with a DL machine will buy by mistake the QL version and it won't play. That is why we all discussed what is available today (especially since your title was about a title available today where QL does not even exist) As things stand today BD can hold 60% more data and it is as simple as that. If someone thinks HD DVD 30 can have 3 hours, for the same quality it is 5h on BD. If it is 6h on HD DVD then BD is 10h. If it is 2h on HD DVD then BD is a bit over 3h. A disk holds data the more hours you want the less data/hour it can hold, it is as simple as that, for DVD quality it is close to 20h (like you were talking about above) but all of us came to BD (or HD DVD) to have better quality and not just to fit more ours per disk. I am curious why does it annoy you so much that it is not for 20h of good quality content. what 20h do you want to see on one disk.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals