IRON MAN - Cover art/final specs.....

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by AcePunK

2nd that I was thinking the same thing

That's not the point of the BD50. The point is greater storage. If that storage is used up, why try and cram more extras on it? At that point, the bitrate of the film's video and audio could begin to suffer.

I have absolutely no problem with multi-discs with tons of features. My problem lies where they try to stuff too much on and the feature suffers for it. If they had NO features but great PQ/AQ- then personally, I'm happy with the release. If they have a ton of features that's great too as long as the film doesn't lack due to it.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by aramis109

That's not the point of the BD50. The point is greater storage. If that storage is used up, why try and cram more extras on it? At that point, the bitrate of the film's video and audio could begin to suffer.

I have absolutely no problem with multi-discs with tons of features. My problem lies where they try to stuff too much on and the feature suffers for it. If they had NO features but great PQ/AQ- then personally, I'm happy with the release. If they have a ton of features that's great too as long as the film doesn't lack due to it.

A very good answer... Again they can fit it on a single dual layered BD-50 but we got the extras in standard definition and not HD.I dont have any problems with 2 disks or 3 disks if the PQ or SQ of the feature doesnt suffer........

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

A very good answer... Again they can fit it on a single dual layered BD-50 but we got the extras in standard definition and not HD.I dont have any problems with 2 disks or 3 disks if the PQ or SQ of the feature doesnt suffer........

I'm not enough of a compressionist (as in, I'm a stupid layman) to even begin to answer if it would fit or not. I'm guessing however that it would not and hence why we're getting multiple discs. By the way, a single layer is a BD25, dual layer is a BD50.