mathematics gone wild

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

[TauRus]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

Are you serious?

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

Wow.... what a first post.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

given that it is your 1st post, im going to guess you don't realize how ridiculous your comment is. a blu-ray disc offers a resolution 6x greater than dvd and also has uncompressed audio or sometimes just loseless. that is where all the extra space is going, massively sharper and better picture quality and audio quality. have you ever watched a blu-ray movie on a hdtv? it is stunning how crystal clear it is.

[k20king]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

You're right!

You are not an "Expert!"



Please take this post and throw it somewhere else.



Go Blu!

I am in defense mode today! GO BLU!!!

[richteer]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

Ahh, another troll comes out from under his bridge.

Yes, BDs have roughly 7 times the capacity of DVDs, but the point is to use that extra space for high definition stuff, which naturally requires more space.

As for your last sentence, HD DVD could never accomplish Spider-Man on 3 discs, let alone 1: Sony is exclusive to Blu. :-)

[CptGreedle]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

For a first post, that was rather uneducated.
Read the forums. The space is there not for SD quality which could fit all the movies on one disc. it is there to get the quality of HD to the max. It can make an HD movie look and sound that much better than anything SD can handle.
SO Putting them on one disc would destroy the format. The quality would be gone, and people would sooner go to DVD than BD ever again.

I suggest you post in the newbie section first.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

While I certainly can't claim to be an "expert" on the topic, I can say that given the fact that Sony has incessantly touted the "seven times storage capacity" of the blu-ray disc versus standard DVD, WHY am I forced to have the Spiderman trilogy on FOUR blu-ray discs???!!!! I can certainly understand that not everyone realizes the potential for blu-ray storage capacity, and within that context there would be a certain percentage of consumers who would undoubtedly think it a "rip-off" had Sony chosen to release the trilogy on "one" disc... but I would love to see this done. Ultimately, I'd like to consolidate the small library of DVD movies that I own onto a few blu-ray discs, which would save space. Why put three movies on three discs with all the storage capacity that blu-ray has to offer? Show HDDVD what you're made of, Sony, and put the trilogy on ONE disc - a feat that HDDVD could NEVER accomplish!

look at the screename, first post, i won't say the T word, but i will say this: whoever changed the rule so newbie's can't start new threads: YOU ROCK!

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

given that it is your 1st post, im going to guess you don't realize how ridiculous your comment is. a blu-ray disc offers a resolution 6x greater than dvd and also has uncompressed audio or sometimes just loseless. that is where all the extra space is going, massively sharper and better picture quality and audio quality. have you ever watched a blu-ray movie on a hdtv? it is stunning how crystal clear it is.

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

[lztp6k]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

It is true a 1080p flick will fit on a 50gb disc just as a 30gb. You will not get a 1080p flick on a 30gb disc without losing the lossless track though or having no special features.

[bdrex28]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

Are you here to debate or are you here to troll? There's a difference. If you want an intelligent debate then it should be in a different topic than the Nielsen ratings thread.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

Mods, send this troll back to the toilet he popped out of.

[Imakida]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

Lossless audio codec take a lot of space.. (also think of multi-language)

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

For a first post, that was rather uneducated.
Read the forums. The space is there not for SD quality which could fit all the movies on one disc. it is there to get the quality of HD to the max. It can make an HD movie look and sound that much better than anything SD can handle.
SO Putting them on one disc would destroy the format. The quality would be gone, and people would sooner go to DVD than BD ever again.

I suggest you post in the newbie section first.

Again, no reference to the fact that blu-ray can and does hold that much more storage capacity than HDDVD - both of which are running at 1080p. So blu-ray is a waste of space, then? Why have the space available when it isn't being used? Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad you're far more interested in attempting to belittle others than educate them.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

you got a bunch of factors. both formats use different codecs, despite being able to handle both of them. blu-ray tends to go with an avc encoding which allows higher bit rates (higher than hd dvd can handle) this allows smoother looking action scenes over hd dvd. higher bit rates are one thing that take up more capacity on a blu-ray disc. another thing is uncompressed audio. blu-ray offers this on nearly all its new releases, hd dvd usually resorts to a lossless track or in the case of transformers and shrek the 3rd a lossy track. uncompressed audio takes up a lot of space. this is where blu-rays higher capacity and higher bandwith beat hd dvd in terms of quality. vc1 (what most hd dvds use) is much more efficient than a dvds mpeg 2 that is why hd dvd can offer 6x the resolution with only about 3x more space. however, like i stated earlier actions sequences will not look as smooth and sometimes the audio is the exact same as the dvd. that is how hd dvd fits a 1080p picture onto its discs.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Again, no reference to the fact that blu-ray can and does hold that much more storage capacity than HDDVD - both of which are running at 1080p. So blu-ray is a waste of space, then? Why have the space available when it isn't being used? Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad you're far more interested in attempting to belittle others than educate them.

btw its pretty obvious you are a troll and im reporting you, i reccomend others to do the same.

[Seretur]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Is it? So you're saying that SEVEN TIMES the storage capacity is required to run full 1080p? Since HDDVD runs at 1080p also, you're basically saying there's no difference between HDDVD and blu-ray, then. In essence, blu-ray is a waste of space and I might as well purchase HDDVDs. And yes, I have a 52" 1080p LCD panel - thanks for asking if I've ever watched a blu-ray on HDTV.

Please don't be so defensive. With a nickname like that, you're bound to raise a few hackles here anyway.

And welcome to the forum.

As for capacity, full high-def image has roughly six times more pixels compared to your regular TV image. So, using the rule of thumb, you'd need six times more disc capacity to achieve the same results as with the today's DVD-9 standard.

HD DVD has little more than three times that capacity. This means that they've had to develop codecs that are twice more effective -- Microsoft claims that they are, even this early in the game, but allow us to remain skeptical about the validity of such claims.

Blu-ray has five and a half times that capacity. Almost ideal when you're using the DVD-standard MPEG-2 codec, and vastly preferable when using some of the more advanced codecs. Blu-ray has plenty of space today, and will offer even more space tomorrow, and that's not even going into the bandwidth issues.

And, anyway, what does this have to do with the Nielsen ratios?

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by TERRORISM

Again, no reference to the fact that blu-ray can and does hold that much more storage capacity than HDDVD - both of which are running at 1080p. So blu-ray is a waste of space, then? Why have the space available when it isn't being used? Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad you're far more interested in attempting to belittle others than educate them.

Here's some education, the space for Blu-ray discs ARE being used. Go look up the space Blu-ray movies take up on the BD50s. They take up over HD DVD's max 30 GB due to a higher bitrate and uncompressed audio.

So no, there is no space being wasted, unless you're Warner who is giving Blu-ray an identical HD DVD castrated encode.

And thank you for your FUD, you may be out of here faster than you came. Ta-ta.

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

you got a bunch of factors. both formats use different codecs, despite being able to handle both of them. blu-ray tends to go with an avc encoding which allows higher bit rates (higher than hd dvd can handle) this allows smoother looking action scenes over hd dvd. higher bit rates are one thing that take up more capacity on a blu-ray disc. another thing is uncompressed audio. blu-ray offers this on nearly all its new releases, hd dvd usually resorts to a lossless track or in the case of transformers and shrek the 3rd a lossy track. uncompressed audio takes up a lot of space. this is where blu-rays higher capacity and higher bandwith beat hd dvd in terms of quality. vc1 (what most hd dvds use) is much more efficient than a dvds mpeg 2 that is why hd dvd can offer 6x the resolution with only about 3x more space. however, like i stated earlier actions sequences will not look as smooth and sometimes the audio is the exact same as the dvd. that is how hd dvd fits a 1080p picture onto its discs.

Thank you for the clarification (without the insolence).

Originally Posted by marzetta7

Here's some education, the space for Blu-ray discs ARE being used. Go look up the space Blu-ray movies take up on the BD50s. They take up over HD DVD's max 30 GB due to a higher bitrate and uncompressed audio.

So no, there is no space being wasted, unless you're Warner who is giving Blu-ray an identical HD DVD castrated encode.

And thank you for your FUD, you may be out of here faster than you came. Ta-ta.

Really? You're right, and it will be my own decision. I certainly haven't been made to feel very welcome - especially from arrogant remarks such as yours. Is this how you treat newcomers who have concerns with the blu-ray format? Best of luck to you, Champ. Best of luck.