|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $82.99 21 hrs ago
| ![]() $22.95 5 hrs ago
| ![]() $74.99 | ![]() $34.99 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $101.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $23.60 15 hrs ago
| ![]() $35.94 14 hrs ago
| ![]() $99.99 | ![]() $32.99 2 hrs ago
| ![]() $24.96 | ![]() $27.99 23 min ago
| ![]() $22.96 |
![]() |
#21 |
Power Member
|
![]()
I just saw this posted in the Technology section on Google News.
http://www.slashgear.com/new-h-265-v...ates-27266856/ http://hothardware.com/News/ITU-Appr...eaming-Video-/ If this only needs half the bit rate, then wouldn't it allow 4K enough space to fit on a 50 GB Blu-ray? I realize that the studios would have to quit putting extra stuff on the same disc as the movie, but why wouldn't it work? It would be cheaper for them to put the movie on one disc and any extras on a second disc, than it would for them to start using 100/128 GB BDXL discs. All that would have to be done is making new players that play the codec, just like they did with 3D. The discs can stay the same. ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
|
|