High vs low bitrate discussion v. 20-10

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by jeffb66

https://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_capacity_video

section 1.6 in the Blu-ray FAQ states that a BD of 50 GB will fit over 9 hours of HD video. I suspect this is only possible if an extreme amount of compression is done to the HD video.

The 200GB discs may be very useful for longer movies that could conveniently fit on a single disc. I woder if the BD versions of each LOTR films span two BD50s or just one disc since these films are over three hours?

A BD-50 can fit 9 hours at 720p but not at the 1080p were used to.

Lord of the Rings does not need to be spread over two discs. A BD-50 can fit about 4.5 hours without compromising quality. Baring some kind of 3D conversion (which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility) there is absolutly no reason whatsoever to spread any of the Lord of the Rings extended editions over two discs. I find it hilarious how often Blu-Ray fans severly underestimate Blu-Rays storage capabilities. May I remind you King Kong was 200 minutes long with reference quality video and audio yet only used 37 gigabytes for the feature. Return of the King Extended Edition can be fit at the same quality with its audio commentaries if it uses up the BD-50. Video extras would certainly need a second disc.

These higher capacity discs are vaperware. They might be useful for media storage or recording but for pre-recorded movies they will never be used cause no current Blu-Ray player has the hardware to play them. No a firmware update won't due as the disc reading capacity is inherit in the hardware. However I don't think they would benefit movies much given that studios so rarely use the space BD-50s have now prefering to use multiple discs even when there is absolutly no need to. A least half the Blu-Rays released as two disc sets could have easily been single disc sets without any quality or content lost but the studio wanted to add more percieved value. Money talks.