Blu-ray is 50gb right? Why do TV show seasons take more discs?

[mikey3319]

I see TV shows coming to Blu ray but they are coming as VOLUMES?? I mean.. why?!?! yo ucan hold the whole season on a Blu Ray cant you? or is it cause the transfer and quality holds more memory?

there are usually 8 DVD discs for a normal 22 epsiode season (1hr show)
if a Blu Ray is 50 gigs ( 4.7 x 8 = 37.6 gigs)

more than enough room???? is it $$$$$ thats why? greed.

[blublublu]

Originally Posted by mikey3319

I see TV shows coming to Blu ray but they are coming as VOLUMES?? I mean.. why?!?! yo ucan hold the whole season on a Blu Ray cant you? or is it cause the transfer and quality holds more memory?

there are usually 8 DVD discs for a normal 22 epsiode season (1hr show)
if a Blu Ray is 50 gigs ( 4.7 x 8 = 37.6 gigs)

more than enough room???? is it $$$$$ thats why? greed.

If you just wanted SD then you could certainly fit some series seasons on a single disc, but not with HD, which is currently the main point of Blu Ray.

[BLURAYSONYES]

BECAUSE THIS IS A BLU RAY FORUM! You dont expect to get SD on a BLU RAY DISC!

-dan

[Mote]

Your math doesn't take into account for the fact that an HD image is higher in file size as well as other factors.

[WickyWoo]

Because

1- These are highdef transfers, the ratio of minutes to % of disc space is roughly equivalent, though actually the Blu disc can usually hold 5 episodes comfortably.

2- There are usually 6 DVD-9 discs (dual layer) for 22 episodes, which add up to basically 50GB.

3- They're never going to shove an entire season of any TV show on a single disc, unless it's going in the ultra value bin, even if it will fit. You will sell many many more 3 disc sets at $59.99 than you will 1 disc, even though they have the same identical content because the 3 disc is seen as being worth more because there's more physical product.

4- There is no "greed" factor. Producing multiple discs costs a lot more money, from packaging to shipping than producing just one. But the cost of the physical product is a miniscule part of any movie or TV show, as with CD, it may cost them $2 a disc for the set, but what's on it cost $2 million an episode(x5 eps) plus about $15,000 a disc for compression and authoring. You pay for 98% for content, not the box it came in. Your avereage DVD season box cost about $5-6 each to roll off the line. Now factor in the content, advertising, shipping, storage costs, and the fact that most TV boxes sell in the 30-50,000 range, and a wholesale price of $39 starts not to seem like a ton does it?

[IamNhobdy]

I see what you're saying, and in some cases, I agree(when an hd transfer isn't going to yeild much improvement like with old analog tape). I would pay the equivalent of multiple disk dvd sets of some shows for a one or two disc season without it being HD. But besides that one simple difference in opinion, I whole-heartedly agree with WickyWoo. Most people have the "more is more" mentality, not to mention there's almost always more cost than most consumers calculate into their home grown equations.

[Pilam69]

Admittedly a short season but one disc none-the-less.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Pilam69

Admittedly a short season but one disc none-the-less.

Exactly, one disc for the Blu-ray versus I believe 2 discs for the DVD (at least or season 1).

One other factor that hasn't been mentioned, though, is that a number of the existing TV volumes that have been released are by Warner Brothers -- for example, The Sopranos and Planet Earth. These titles could have both used less discs, however the Blu-ray versions were transferred from the HD DVD version, so they were designed around a 30GB limitation, not a 50GB limitation. How releasing titles on more discs than was needed makes any financial sense for Warner is beyond me, other than their bizarre infatuation with making sure the Blu-ray version is never better than the HD DVD version for any of their titles.

The sooner we can get rid of HD DVD the sooner we can get the number of discs needed for these sets down... and hopefully the prices with go down as well.

[WickyWoo]

One other factor that hasn't been mentioned, though, is that a number of the existing TV volumes that have been released are by Warner Brothers -- for example, The Sopranos and Planet Earth. These titles could have both used less discs, however the Blu-ray versions were transferred from the HD DVD version, so they were designed around a 30GB limitation

Actually in the case of PE, apparently they designed around the limitations of BD25, since when they were planning it BD50 was not assured capacity in the amounts they needed run, especially taking the European releases into account. BBC produces it and then hands it to warner for distribution. They make all the choices in regard to production

How releasing titles on more discs than was needed makes any financial sense for Warner is beyond me, other than their bizarre infatuation with making sure the Blu-ray version is never better than the HD DVD version for any of their titles.

It's simple costs. Compression alone for a 2 hour movie runs well into 5 figures. With VC-1 they can make one compression support both formats, and drastically drive down the costs fo fufilling their HD DVD contract.

The sooner we can get rid of HD DVD the sooner we can get the number of discs needed for these sets down... and hopefully the prices with go down as well.

As I showed above, the number of discs is hardly ever a factor in the final SRP of the product.

[goodstuff]

Originally Posted by blublublu

If you just wanted SD then you could certainly fit some series seasons on a single disc, but not with HD, which is currently the main point of Blu Ray.

Exactly. Take the Buffy The Vampire set which is 39 DVD's. If you kept them all in SD format then you could have all the episodes put on 7 BD's. But they're still in SD resolution.

[AlexKx]

I love the High Definition thing BUT the whole reason I supported the idea of Blu-Ray being developed and understood the point of them for the past SEVEN SCHMUCKING YEARS was to hold more film time on less discs. I imagine the High Definition is definitely the way to go but I do have reservations now about Blu-Ray (by far the suprerior format by the way) when now there seems to be some question as to how many layers are going to be able to be used on a disc. My understanding was that they were going to be able to keep increasing the storage space and now at least according to the people in this forum the response is, "Oh that's so silly. That will never happen. What would you do with all of that space? It can't really be done after all.". Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Fine. Cool. Good. ...and yes. It is the superior format. But what's the point? Is High Definition important enough to upgrade and adapt a whole new format? I might be sold on that so one day years from now when I have money to burn I will actually have a t.v. that can give me some indication of High Def. Will Joe Schoe and Sally Sue. I HIGHLY dought it. At least in the NEAR future.

Otherwise what I thought I was sold on now out of nowhere seems to have no support from anyone on this forum and they all seem to be alien to me making some claim that that was never the point of Blu-Ray in the first place in terms of what I understood "storage space" to be. I feel like I just walked into a resturant and people are WEARING food while I'm hungry and I'm like, "What the hell?! I'm STARVING!" and the response is, "That's not what the food is for.". HUH?! What the phuck?!

I'm sorry that the consensus apparently is that the public are so incompetant that they would not understand why a disc's value would go way up because more is on it and that they are so assinine that they have to be sold a more inferior product in order to meet their mental capabilities as to what they are purchasing.

[jadafa]

Originally Posted by AlexKx

I'm sorry that the consensus apparently is that the public are so incompetant that they would not understand why a disc's value would go way up because more is on it and that they are so assinine that they have to be sold a more inferior product in order to meet their mental capabilities as to what they are purchasing.

It's the ideology of "more bang for the buck". It's the mental misconception that they get more for each dollar they spend. More for less. More for less. So, if a whole TV series was encoded on a blu-ray disc at SD quality, and they only see it as 1 disc for $60, the masses will see it as "that's expensive for one disc!" even though it's the entire season...same quality as their 6 disc DVD versions but on one 1 50GB BD.

Some people just don't have the logic in their heads that they are the same, irregardless of what media or format they come in.

[shido]

Originally Posted by AlexKx

I love the High Definition thing BUT the whole reason I supported the idea of Blu-Ray being developed and understood the point of them for the past SEVEN SCHMUCKING YEARS was to hold more film time on less discs. I imagine the High Definition is definitely the way to go but I do have reservations now about Blu-Ray (by far the suprerior format by the way) when now there seems to be some question as to how many layers are going to be able to be used on a disc. My understanding was that they were going to be able to keep increasing the storage space and now at least according to the people in this forum the response is, "Oh that's so silly. That will never happen. What would you do with all of that space? It can't really be done after all.". Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Fine. Cool. Good. ...and yes. It is the superior format. But what's the point? Is High Definition important enough to upgrade and adapt a whole new format? I might be sold on that so one day years from now when I have money to burn I will actually have a t.v. that can give me some indication of High Def. Will Joe Schoe and Sally Sue. I HIGHLY dought it. At least in the NEAR future.

Otherwise what I thought I was sold on now out of nowhere seems to have no support from anyone on this forum and they all seem to be alien to me making some claim that that was never the point of Blu-Ray in the first place in terms of what I understood "storage space" to be. I feel like I just walked into a resturant and people are WEARING food while I'm hungry and I'm like, "What the hell?! I'm STARVING!" and the response is, "That's not what the food is for.". HUH?! What the phuck?!

I'm sorry that the consensus apparently is that the public are so incompetant that they would not understand why a disc's value would go way up because more is on it and that they are so assinine that they have to be sold a more inferior product in order to meet their mental capabilities as to what they are purchasing.

I don't think you understand what blu-ray is for. The whole point of the two nextgen formats is to display movies in HD picture and sound. Hence why the competition is called HD-DVD. Without HD picture and sound, what would separate these new formats from DVD? Storing hours and hours of SD content on a single disc is nice - that's great for storing personal home videos. But when it comes to feature movies - and tv series boxsets - if blu-ray doesn't distinguish itself from DVD with better picture and sound quality, why would anybody buy it - they'd just stick with DVD since it's cheaper. The extra space is really just wasted if you use it for SD. And do you really think that people will drop the money on a new blu-ray player, just to have their favorite tv series on a single disc rather than, say, five DVDs? That's ridiculous. The jump to HD is certainly enough motivation to get people interested in making the transition to either nextgen format. I know it's expensive having to buy new equipment to get the most out of the format, but that's just the way it is with technology.

[WickyWoo]

I'm sorry that the consensus apparently is that the public are so incompetant that they would not understand why a disc's value would go way up because more is on it and that they are so assinine that they have to be sold a more inferior product in order to meet their mental capabilities as to what they are purchasing.

No, they don't understand and they'll never understand. All they see is the raw cost of the media they're holding, not the hundreds of thousands (or with a blockbuster, hundreds of millions) behind it

[Glow007]

Originally Posted by AlexKx

I love the High Definition thing BUT the whole reason I supported the idea of Blu-Ray being developed and understood the point of them for the past SEVEN SCHMUCKING YEARS was to hold more film time on less discs. I imagine the High Definition is definitely the way to go but I do have reservations now about Blu-Ray (by far the suprerior format by the way) when now there seems to be some question as to how many layers are going to be able to be used on a disc. My understanding was that they were going to be able to keep increasing the storage space and now at least according to the people in this forum the response is, "Oh that's so silly. That will never happen. What would you do with all of that space? It can't really be done after all.". Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Fine. Cool. Good. ...and yes. It is the superior format. But what's the point? Is High Definition important enough to upgrade and adapt a whole new format? I might be sold on that so one day years from now when I have money to burn I will actually have a t.v. that can give me some indication of High Def. Will Joe Schoe and Sally Sue. I HIGHLY dought it. At least in the NEAR future.

Otherwise what I thought I was sold on now out of nowhere seems to have no support from anyone on this forum and they all seem to be alien to me making some claim that that was never the point of Blu-Ray in the first place in terms of what I understood "storage space" to be. I feel like I just walked into a resturant and people are WEARING food while I'm hungry and I'm like, "What the hell?! I'm STARVING!" and the response is, "That's not what the food is for.". HUH?! What the phuck?!

I'm sorry that the consensus apparently is that the public are so incompetant that they would not understand why a disc's value would go way up because more is on it and that they are so assinine that they have to be sold a more inferior product in order to meet their mental capabilities as to what they are purchasing.

Whats with this guy?

HD picture and sound is the only reason I invested in Blu-ray. Without that it is pointless. The extra storage is huge in storing HD content, HD DVD would die for 20 extra gigs to put lossless audio and better security features on their disks.

Whatever makes you think anyone would make such a jump into Blu-ray to watch a bunch of SD content on one disk is beyond me.

[AlexKx]

It wasn't just the "one disc" factor it was also the "scratch resistance" factor. But it was more than that. It wasn't the one disc factor in that my understanding (and apparently other people's too such as the original poster) was that it was to mean less discs to a significant degree because I and the rest of the public ARE overwhelmed at the amount of discs that come in a box set of a t.v. series, movie series, or whatever box set. Because we want to collect (and pay for) numerous amounts of these for our own collections. I still have yet to see how the public who don't have excess money to burn are suppose to go and buy these top of the line products and start their film collections over for High Def. Honestly I LOVE the whole High Definition thing. How much of the public do you all think are ready and willing for it?

We already know not only the next format but the next TWO formats for film recordings. My understanding is that holograms are next and then 3-D so the question that I am now going to ask is what's the point if these things are just a couple or few decades away? Like someone said they will always come up with something new but d.v.d.s and c.d.s are VERY young! As far as I'm concerned the whole idea of being able to record audio mere less visual recordings in terms of human history is very young and while vinyl doesn't do all things MP3s can or c.d.s or what have you MOST people don't give a damn about quality to this extent is all I'm saying! I'm just trying to figure out if you all really think this is going to go over with the public because I'm not so sure now.

I for one am not going to support this format if it is not used for the "storage capabilities" like I percieved it for being in terms of the music industry adopting it as its new format. I have a HIGH desire for the music industry to adapt a format that would include 5.1 and all the film and extra stuff an album can have that I mention ever so often. Seriously if that doesn't happen then forget this as far as I'm concerned. This is unbelievable.

[WickyWoo]

Overwhelmed how? The modern TV season box takes up a little over an inch of shelf space. I can't imagine that the stress of reading the lable to see which disc it is, and opening the tray and putting in another disc is offputting to anyone but the rare bird that marathons 10 hours at a go

[shido]

Originally Posted by AlexKx

It wasn't just the "one disc" factor it was also the "scratch resistance" factor. But it was more than that. It wasn't the one disc factor in that my understanding (and apparently other people's too such as the original poster) was that it was to mean less discs to a significant degree because I and the rest of the public ARE overwhelmed at the amount of discs that come in a box set of a t.v. series, movie series, or whatever box set. Because we want to collect (and pay for) numerous amounts of these for our own collections. I still have yet to see how the public who don't have excess money to burn are suppose to go and buy these top of the line products and start their film collections over for High Def. Honestly I LOVE the whole High Definition thing. How much of the public do you all think are ready and willing for it?

We already know not only the next format but the next TWO formats for film recordings. My understanding is that holograms are next and then 3-D so the question that I am now going to ask is what's the point if these things are just a couple or few decades away? Like someone said they will always come up with something new but d.v.d.s and c.d.s are VERY young! As far as I'm concerned the whole idea of being able to record audio mere less visual recordings in terms of human history is very young and while vinyl doesn't do all things MP3s can or c.d.s or what have you MOST people don't give a damn about quality to this extent is all I'm saying! I'm just trying to figure out if you all really think this is going to go over with the public because I'm not so sure now.

I for one am not going to support this format if it is not used for the "storage capabilities" like I percieved it for being in terms of the music industry adopting it as its new format. I have a HIGH desire for the music industry to adapt a format that would include 5.1 and all the film and extra stuff an album can have that I mention ever so often. Seriously if that doesn't happen then forget this as far as I'm concerned. This is unbelievable.

So your argument really is that it takes up too much physical space to have more than one disc?? Wow, that's just... bah I'm not even gonna bother. HD adoption is definitely increasing, whether you choose to see it or not. You may not care, but I think most people with any sense can definitely appreciate it.

[AlexKx]

I DO CARE! Same thing I've said I think in most of my posts! My question is how much do you all think the general public for one are going to care enough for High Definition to buy new players, update their films (again for the second time in just a couple of decades) and buy the required equipment for all of this? I have certainly been laughed at by a number of people I know who are millionaires and would not in their minds waste their money on these things.

[Smackos]

Originally Posted by shido

So your argument really is that it takes up too much physical space to have more than one disc?? Wow, that's just... bah I'm not even gonna bother. HD adoption is definitely increasing, whether you choose to see it or not. You may not care, but I think most people with any sense can definitely appreciate it.

Agreed mate... and what most people choose to ignore about HD is this. Whether Joe Six Pack actually deliberately buys into HD or not as yet matters little, when it's time to replace they're old tv's with a new model it'll be almost impossible to buy a tv that is'nt HD capable whilst on the other side of the coin if costs can be lowered enough in the next few years (which they will) then that "dvd player" they'll be buying in Wally World etc will be a Blu-ray machine whether they know it or not.. the industry WANTS this..even if the average Joe has'nt a clue. Once they phase out the older "DVD only" machines from the market then over time everyone will upgrade to Blu-ray whether they know it or not.. well.. that's my Blu-Utopia anyway..