Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Jeff Kleist]

The Blu-rays are 50GB. Uni calls them "BD-59"

You're not going to see 75/100GB discs no matter how hard you wish for them. They're not practical for any kind of large scale replication. There's really no need, given that you can fit 3 hour movies with bonus materials comfortably on a BD-50 without quality issues. Heck, Gone With the Wind fits, thanks to its relatively low levels of motion and looks beautiful (though I still would have preferred 2 discs)

Bill and I both expect these Bourne flippers to help illustrate why more than 2 layers is never a good idea on any disc, and this is cake compared to grafting another 2 blu-ray layers on the same side

[MerrickG]

Hey Jeff,

Is there any likelihood that Dreamworks Animation will actually release some of their catalog titles.

Id love to see Over the Hedge. An underrated film if their ever was one.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The Blu-rays are 50GB. Uni calls them "BD-59"

You're not going to see 75/100GB discs no matter how hard you wish for them. They're not practical for any kind of large scale replication. There's really no need, given that you can fit 3 hour movies with bonus materials comfortably on a BD-50 without quality issues. Heck, Gone With the Wind fits, thanks to its relatively low levels of motion and looks beautiful (though I still would have preferred 2 discs)

Bill and I both expect these Bourne flippers to help illustrate why more than 2 layers is never a good idea on any disc, and this is cake compared to grafting another 2 blu-ray layers on the same side

What about 2 and a half hour or more 3D movies? Wouldn't they, and the 2D version playable from the 3D disc look better on a 75GB or more disc?

[DaViD Boulet]

You're not going to see 75/100GB discs no matter how hard you wish for them. They're not practical for any kind of large scale replication. There's really no need, given that you can fit 3 hour movies with bonus materials comfortably on a BD-50 without quality issues.

Hey Jeff,

Thanks for the info about the dual-sided flippers at least offering 50GB on the BD side. Good news, despite the flipper controversy.

while I understand your statements about replication difficulty, when I hear statements like "there's really no need" I can't help but think of HD DVD enthusiasts who levied every argument imaginable to suggest that 30 GB was enough and that we didn't need 50.

Even the smallest degree of out-of-the-box thinking can come up with lots of potential for 100 GB discs... anything from basic convenience like getting more HD television episodes on fewer platters to combining HD bonus discs and feature discs into one physical disc... which for Blu-ray is even *** MORE *** desirable than fewer DVD discs because of the rediculously long load times of so many titles. Swapping discs with DVD is a lightning fast ordeal compared to the load times endured for so many BDs... making it even more frustrating when one accidentally loads the wrong BD of a multi-disc set.

And as 4K2K mentions, 3-D encoding will push for higher bitrates all things being equal: so a 2-D disc that really maxed out a 50 GB disc will require multiple discs to translate to 3-D... meaning more headaches with swapping discs and enduring load times just to see bonus features. Future applications for higher-fidelity HD like 1080p encoded at native 60 Hz and/or 4:4:4 color would also benefit from higher bit-rates and storage. how about using BD for applications other than just a 2-hour movie?

While 50GB is "adequate" for most movie applications in 1080p24, let's not pretend that it's the ideal boundary for Blu-ray, the same way that 30GB wasn't ideal though it was argued to be adequate as well.

[Jeff Kleist]

Even the smallest degree of out-of-the-box thinking can come up with lots of potential for 100 GB discs... anything from basic convenience like getting more HD television episodes on fewer platters to combining HD bonus discs and feature discs into one physical disc... which for Blu-ray is even *** MORE *** desirable than fewer DVD discs because of the rediculously long load times of so many titles. Swapping discs with DVD is a lightning fast ordeal compared to the load times endured for so many BDs... making it even more frustrating when one accidentally loads the wrong BD of a multi-disc set.

The coast of the exponential number of additional coasters with each layer you add more than outweighs any financial benefit of collapsing 2 discs to 1, and with the current model players that 95% of Blu owners will have even as their first non-PS3 player, load times are mostly a non-issue these days. While I'm sure Van Ling is hiding in his office plotting how he's going to destroy all our players again, the cookie cutter templates used on virtually all titles load quite fast. Current packaging lets you put up to four discs in a single-width case, so even shelf space is not so much of an issue.

And as 4K2K mentions, 3-D encoding will push for higher bitrates all things being equal: so a 2-D disc that really maxed out a 50 GB disc will require multiple discs to translate to 3-D... meaning more headaches with swapping discs and enduring load times just to see bonus features. Future applications for higher-fidelity HD like 1080p encoded at native 60 Hz and/or 4:4:4 color would also benefit from higher bit-rates and storage. how about using BD for applications other than just a 2-hour movie?

3D animation typically runs in the realm of 90 minutes, and is very easy to cleanly compress with plenty of room for 2D and 3D versions. You'll find most CG features, which for the near and probably longer future will remain the lion's share of 3D material run in the neighborhood of 15-20mbps and are nigh-flawless.

You can't do native 1080p60 in Blu-ray. You can only do 1080i60, which your player will then output as 1080p60.

There is no deep color Blu-ray planned. It's not part of the spec nor is it likely to be added.

If your application can't fit in 50GB, then that's what hard drives are for, because anything you're loading something that big into is going to have one.

While 50GB is "adequate" for most movie applications in 1080p24, let's not pretend that it's the ideal boundary for Blu-ray, the same way that 30GB wasn't ideal though it was argued to be adequate as well.

I'm not pretending anything. You can run Blu-ray at full-on 40mbps bitrate for close to 140 minutes on a 50GB disc. If you cut that in half to 24 mbps, which is close to what most movies run at on average, you're at 280 minute,s or close to 5 hours. Virtually all 2-hour movies come in at 35GB, and are still considered reference. You can also put 3D versions on their own disc if space is a problem.

30GB was not ideal, and more importantly the 30mbps ceiling was not ideal because there wasn't enough room for spikes, or enough bandwidth for high motion scenes. It's HD DVD, and DVD before it's lack of flexibility and "good enough" design for bandwidth that caused their problems.

Disc swapping is not a terrible thing. If you can't get your butt up every two hours/ 4-5 episodes to change a disc, then you probably need to be getting up more anyway

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The coast of the exponential number of additional coasters with each layer you add more than outweighs any financial benefit of collapsing 2 discs to 1, and with the current model players that 95% of Blu owners will have even as their first non-PS3 player, load times are mostly a non-issue these days. While I'm sure Van Ling is hiding in his office plotting how he's going to destroy all our players again, the cookie cutter templates used on virtually all titles load quite fast. Current packaging lets you put up to four discs in a single-width case, so even shelf space is not so much of an issue.

I wasn't disputing the higher manufacture cost.

I own a PS3, and I still feel that the load times for many BD are frustratingly slow compared to DVD. Again, when disc-swapping with multi-disc sets, it's tedious and annoying and every time I find myself wishing for 50+ storage.

3D animation typically runs in the realm of 90 minutes, and is very easy to cleanly compress with plenty of room for 2D and 3D versions.

I wasn't aware that 3-D was to only be used for animated 90 minute films. It's not a very far step out of the box to imagine a live-action film in 3-D... imagine the Hobbit in 3-D with lossless audio. Wouldn't it be nice to have the 3.5-4 hours in 3-D without having to force an intermission in a point that artistically wasn't designed for it? You can pause to take a bathroom break whenever you want, but the media shouldn't force an artist to slap a break where it doesn't belong.

You can't do native 1080p60 in Blu-ray. You can only do 1080i60, which your player will then output as 1080p60.

There is no deep color Blu-ray planned. It's not part of the spec nor is it likely to be added.

I was talking about a future spec for both 1080p60 and 4:4:4 color. Just like 3-D BD is incorporating a new spec. While 4:4:4 color may be hard to get the BDA to change a spec to accomodate, it's possible that a future spec that requires a new player (like 3-D requires a new player) could tack on 4:4:4 color and 1080p60 along for the ride.

Let's think outside the box again: how about BD-games? Deep color and 1080p60 may have great promise with future games built on the BD-format, and while those specs may never find their way into authored movie discs, 75 or 100 gigs could really do some fantastic things with gaming.

30GB was not ideal, and more importantly the 30mbps ceiling was not ideal because there wasn't enough room for spikes, or enough bandwidth for high motion scenes. It's HD DVD, and DVD before it's lack of flexibility and "good enough" design for bandwidth that caused their problems.

I agree that 50 is far better than 30, and also agree that the higher bandwidth of BD (regardless of absolute storage capacity) also changes the game. Both are reasons why I supported BD over HD DVD. However, there's nothing to suggest that 50 GB and current band-width levels are "ideal" either... only that they are satisfactory for most movies with average bonus content if a single disc is desired. Want more and you've got multiple discs. Just like 50GB opened up greater possibilities over 30, so would 75 or 100 open up even greater possiblilities.

Disc swapping is not a terrible thing. If you can't get your butt up every two hours/ 4-5 episodes to change a disc, then you probably need to be getting up more anyway

I'm not talking about getting off my butt. Even having a BD changer would be a drag with waiting through load times to swap discs with the remote... only to realize that the bonus item you really wanted was on the other disc... waiting yet again for that java to load all over to animate some menu you'd rather skip past anyway.

If I say that swapping discs is a tedious activity for me than it is.

It may not be for you.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

3D animation typically runs in the realm of 90 minutes, and is very easy to cleanly compress with plenty of room for 2D and 3D versions. You'll find most CG features, which for the near and probably longer future will remain the lion's share of 3D material run in the neighborhood of 15-20mbps and are nigh-flawless.

Though Avatar has a runtime of 156 minutes according to some websites. They might to want an extended cut on Blu-ray too. Also, things encoded in 50i/60i in 3D might need more bitrate & disc space eg. 3d concerts, 25 3D world cup matches on Blu-ray.

You can also put 3D versions on their own disc if space is a problem.

Though the 3D discs need to be playable in 2D on current players.

Disc swapping is not a terrible thing. If you can't get your butt up every two hours/ 4-5 episodes to change a disc, then you probably need to be getting up more anyway

But more discs take up more space, depending on what cases they use. I'd much prefer less discs than more as long as discs with more layers worked as well as current ones.

[FourToedStatue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Those kinds of retailer exclusives on something they're shipping anyway often happen under the radar.

V got renewed BTW and they're putting it as the lead out of LOST starting in March (they won't crank production back up till January). Probably a good pairing, there's going to be a lot of serial drama fans tuning in for those last eps.

I was hoping FlashForward would be the new Lost. Too bad it has yet to grab me. I'm digging V but its so fast paced I don't know how they're going to stretch this out into multiple seasons.

[Jeff Kleist]

I was talking about a future spec for both 1080p60 and 4:4:4 color. Just like 3-D BD is incorporating a new spec. While 4:4:4 color may be hard to get the BDA to change a spec to accomodate, it's possible that a future spec that requires a new player (like 3-D requires a new player) could tack on 4:4:4 color and 1080p60 along for the ride.

It's not going to happen. There is a huge industry push for 3D. They aren't even transfering in deep color, and nothing is being shot 1080p60, only 1080i60 fields intended for broadcast.

Let's think outside the box again: how about BD-games? Deep color and 1080p60 may have great promise with future games built on the BD-format, and while those specs may never find their way into authored movie discs, 75 or 100 gigs could really do some fantastic things with gaming.

Not really. The vast majority of today's games come in in the 6-8GB range (many PS3 games have redundant data on the disc to reduce access times). The only real exceptions are elaborate wargames with a huge variety of HD terrain like Empire: TOtal War on PC that clocks in around 12GB. Blu-ray will be as archaic as CD-ROM by the time anyone is having trouble with 50GB that isn't Final Fantasy style stuff with hours of CG HD video in it.

I'm not talking about getting off my butt. Even having a BD changer would be a drag with waiting through load times to swap discs with the remote... only to realize that the bonus item you really wanted was on the other disc... waiting yet again for that java to load all over to animate some menu you'd rather skip past anyway.

Managed Copy will solve all your disc swapping problems, and I'm sure some smart people will start to write Java that will consolidate features if it finds itself on a hard drive. The code to do so would be fairly simple to implement.

Though Avatar has a runtime of 156 minutes according to some websites. They might to want an extended cut on Blu-ray too. Also, things encoded in 50i/60i in 3D might need more bitrate & disc space eg. 3d concerts, 25 3D world cup matches on Blu-ray.

So 2 discs, no big deal. I do also think that people greatly overestimate how many things will be in 3D that people will constantly want to goggle up for.

Though the 3D discs need to be playable in 2D on current players.

They need to ship with a 2D version at least, yes. No one ever said it had to be on the same disc. The disc would load, and just like playing bonusview on a 1.0 player, the option would simply be greyed to play 3D and you'd get a message "Playing the 3D version requires a 3D player"

But more discs take up more space, depending on what cases they use. I'd much prefer less discs than more as long as discs with more layers worked as well as current ones.

No they don't. The slimpacks that hold 2 discs are exactly the same size as the 1 discs. I have 2,3, and 4pack cases that are identical inside to the 1 disc cases

[chris0]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I own a PS3, and I still feel that the load times for many BD are frustratingly slow compared to DVD. Again, when disc-swapping with multi-disc sets, it's tedious and annoying and every time I find myself wishing for 50+ storage.

I have a PS3 and waited what felt like 10 or so seconds while "Terminator: Salvation" loaded up (although I think it was actually more like 3-5 seconds.) I don't think I've had to wait longer than that for any Blu-ray movie. Which movies have taken an annoyingly long time for you to load? And as far as multi-disc sets, since there would be fewer Blu-rays vs. DVDs per multi-disc set, wouldn't the load time per Blu-ray disc be less than the extra time required to exchange the larger number of DVDs in the player?

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Wouldn't it be nice to have the 3.5-4 hours in 3-D without having to force an intermission in a point that artistically wasn't designed for it?

Don't most movies longer than 3 hours have an intermission "built" into them by the director? I just watched the most excellent "Che" and it was split into chunks that were about 2 and 1/2 hours. I know not all movies are the same but how many movies are longer than 3 hours and don't have a built in intermission?

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I'm not talking about getting off my butt. Even having a BD changer would be a drag with waiting through load times to swap discs with the remote... only to realize that the bonus item you really wanted was on the other disc... waiting yet again for that java to load all over to animate some menu you'd rather skip past anyway.

I've wondered why there aren't any multi disc players yet. Once they were available for DVD that's all I owned. About 4 years ago I was using a $500 Sony multi disc DVD player and it took what seemed like 15-20 seconds to go from playing one DVD to playing another (although it was probably more like 10-15.) The time it takes to switch, whether it's DVD or Blu-ray, is just a function of how fast the current technology is. You don't think it's going to remain static, do you?

I'm not trying to just contradict everything you're saying, I'm actually wondering about the answers to the questions I've asked. How long do your BD discs take to load in your PS3? How long of a movie have you watched that didn't have an intermission? Don't you think that BD players will soon be fast enough?

[Jeff Kleist]

I've wondered why there aren't any multi disc players yet. Once they were available for DVD that's all I owned. About 4 years ago I was using a $500 Sony multi disc DVD player and it took what seemed like 15-20 seconds to go from playing one DVD to playing another (although it was probably more like 10-15.) The time it takes to switch, whether it's DVD or Blu-ray, is just a function of how fast the current technology is. You don't think it's going to remain static, do you?

There are. There's a few jukeboxes from Sony built into high end media servers. The CD-style 5-disc changer DVD players never sold very well because people don't look at movies like they do music, and they don't put movies on in the background habitually.

Those who want changers are going to be much more interested in managed copy servers. They're far more mechanically reliable, though capacity is certainly an issue given that you're only looking at about 30 movies per terabyte.

[chris0]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There are. There's a few jukeboxes from Sony built into high end media servers. The CD-style 5-disc changer DVD players never sold very well because people don't look at movies like they do music, and they don't put movies on in the background habitually.

Guess I was one of the few who bought them. I had 2 of them. (5 DVD changer that is, not one of those mega things from Sony.)

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Those who want changers are going to be much more interested in managed copy servers. They're far more mechanically reliable, though capacity is certainly an issue given that you're only looking at about 30 movies per terabyte.

I hadn't thought about that but it makes sense. Now if someone wants the equivalent of a 5 disc changer they'd just use a server. I'd guess that for those who aren't so techno savy to have a server now there will be some more consumer friendly servers in a couple of years, probably a similar time frame as happened with DVD changers.

[Jeff Kleist]

Pioneer demonstrated their server. It's as simple as doing digital copy is now

[DaViD Boulet]

Don't most movies longer than 3 hours have an intermission "built" into them by the director?

the LOTR extended cuts did not have artistically inserted intermission sequences. They just sort of stopped abruptly.

Yes my PS3 loads light-years faster than my Panasonic, but both are a drag when having to swap discs (the Panny is almost unusable when swapping discs due to wait time). I'm sure that players that store disc meta-data in virtual memory even after powering on/off will speed up load times in the future (such an obvious oversight for player manufacturers, it's hard to accept that they were ever designed and shipped without such a feature... an design oversight that's obvious every time I have to wait 1 minute for some disney BD to load on the Panny). FYI I have two BD players in two different rooms... a PS3 for the living room and a Panny for the HT room (since it streams audio codecs etc.).

It sounds like whether or not one feels that more than 50GB BD would be beneficial is purely a matter of opinion stemming from how one feels about spreading content out over multiple discs or using one disc. I personally hate having to swap discs... felt that way with DVD too and hated it every time when watching a TV series I had to keep re-swapping discs bcs I couldn't locate the episode I wanted. I feel that way with BD too... but even more strongly with the increased load times and menu systems that seem to force more patience than DVD menus. I also like the idea of having more space and headroom to accomodate high-fidelity 1080p 3-D encoding without having to resort to spreading long movies over 2 discs or push bonus features to a 2nd disc. Why? because I already said that I don't like having multiple discs. If someone doesn't care about multiple discs, then obviously they wouldn't feel a need for 100 GB BD platters either.

[Jeff Kleist]

the LOTR extended cuts did not have artistically inserted intermission sequences. They just sort of stopped abruptly.

Yes they did. Those break points were chosen by Jackson, and when they were shown theatrically, there were intermissions at those points. They were not inserted based on the needs of the DVD, they were inserted for theatrical presentation. I don't see how you can feel that the first one particuarly is abrupt. It's a natural break point

felt that way with DVD too and hated it every time when watching a TV series I had to keep re-swapping discs bcs I couldn't locate the episode I wanted.

Most TV sets come with an episode guide, and those that don't you have the internet. Standard DVD spread was 4 episodes a disc with the occasional 3 in the middle or a 2 on the end.

Movies aren't moving to 100GB discs. They're not practical, and stacking 4 layers on a side is suicide for yields (TL-51 was very very much just a pipe dream, they never got past a single prototype disc that was hand assembled). Just deal with it and install a 10TB managed copy server if it bothers you that much, and make sure you're running dual quadcores so it loads java as fast as possible. Problem solved.

[PeterTHX]

I just want to say to Bill and Jeff and the rest of the crew over at The Digital Bits:

Happy Anniversary!!!!

[Jeff Kleist]

I want a pony and a Red Ryder carbine-action, two hundred shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and a thing which tells time

[blindcat87]

You'll shoot your eye out kid.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I want a pony and a Red Ryder carbine-action, two hundred shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and a thing which tells time

[Jeff Kleist]

That's right, there wasn't any during the blitz because the intermissions were between films. They were still placed with theatrical consideration at the forefront. If you saw them standalone, intermissions are up to the individual theater

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I want a pony and a Red Ryder carbine-action, two hundred shot Range Model air rifle with a compass in the stock and a thing which tells time

Ooooooohhhhhh Fuuuuudgeeeeeeee........