Why do studios publish movies on multiple BD discs?

[smcmanus]

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, and I was just gonna throw this question out. I'm not sure if it's been asked before.

I was wondering why studios choose to manufacture Blu-Ray movies using multiple discs, mainly to include Bonus Features. If Blu-Ray discs can hold significantly more material, why not include everything on one disc and save money and materials?

Thanks!

[Batman1980]

It's because blu-ray files take up more space than SD files, period. Also part of the point to blu-ray is to uncompress stuff, the more stuff you put on a disc, the more compressed it gets. Yes, I suck at explaining this stuff.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

It's because blu-ray files take up more space than SD files, period. Also part of the point to blu-ray is to uncompress stuff, the more stuff you put on a disc, the more compressed it gets. Yes, I suck at explaining this stuff.

No you do not, you put it perfectly.

[smcmanus]

Mmmmm that makes sense. Thanks!

[adh56]

I don't know exactly how much the materials and manufacturing costs with blu-rays, but CDs cost only a small fraction of the cost that you pay. I think that combined with the desire for the absolute highest quality of the movie itself is the most important thing people want in their new High Def format.

[Afrobean]

In addition to what was said, more discs in a set also justifies a higher premium price.

It might only cost them 1 dollar more to press a second disc, but they figure they can charge a couple dollars more for it because of the added value of a second disc.

Even if the material on the second disc could have fit on the first. And second discs are often single layer BDs or even DVDs. Much cheaper while still giving the effect of appearing to add a lot of value.

But there are plenty of movies where a second disc for features is legitimately worthwhile. For example, Watchmen is a 3 hour movie that inlcudes a bunch of "focus points" on disc, along with all the material for the picture-in-picture. All of the things on the second disc wouldn't have fit on the first without drastically lowering the quality of the main feature.

[syncguy]

I expect the blu-ray designers are quality conscious and do not compress the main feature too much to assure quality integrity. It is really good to see this attitude rather than compressing and jeopardizing quality to save a dollar or less per disk. Hope that they would continue this practice and quality will be ensured on all blu-ray releases.

[djluis2k6]

That's 1 thing the some people don't understand about Blu-Ray. Yeah, they're 25-50GB discs, but that's first so that they can fit the larger HD file sizes, THEN the bonus content. So it's very similar to DVD in what they can fit on a disc, only a bit longer, but you will still see releases split into multiple discs, especially if both discs have HD content.

[Sylin]

Don't forget that in some cases, the supplemental materials on Disc 2 might also be on just a regular DVD, and not a 2nd BD. This is true of movies that include a digital copy.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Sylin

Don't forget that in some cases, the supplemental materials on Disc 2 might also be on just a regular DVD, and not a 2nd BD. This is true of movies that include a digital copy.

I am happy with this practice. The main point that studios should be careful about is not to reduce the quality of the main feature by applying unnecessary compression to gain room on the disc for the supplements. This should not be done. The main feature should be presented with highest possible HD quality to take full advantage of current HD displays as well as much-larger future HD displays.