What's with the recent 25GB releases?

[bageleaterkkjji]

I've never really looked at movies i buy to see if they're 25 or 50's, but i just looked at this week of new releases and 6 of 10 are on 25gb. Two of which i preordered (Crimson Tide/Brave One)and arent 50gb. The ones that suprised me that werent on 50's, were Crimson Tide and Me Myself and Irene.. Warner Bros movies on the other hand doesnt suprise me and if they were a person i'd tell them to jump off a bridge. I feel like im buying hddvds, i should go buy a player as well. Nevermind then i'd have to leap off a bridge too.

[Josh]

Crimson Tide is a stunning release. You can't judge a release by how many gigs it takes up. BD-25s have a purpose.

[bageleaterkkjji]

im sure it looks great but why not make it as good as possible...if not why dont we just release everything on hddvd

[bootman]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

im sure it looks great but why not make it as good as possible...if not why dont we just release everything on hddvd

Yes lets release everything on HD-DVD.
Then you will be happy and have nothing to complain about since that is how good it will ever get.

Why are you worried about it if they look and sound good?

Correct me if I'm wrong but when did Me, Myself and Irene become a must have title worthy of the Lord of the Rings treatment?

[Living Near Shamu]

I was wondering the same question as the OP. What's the deal? The Assassination of Jesse James BTCRF is also on a BD-25. Was the movie not long enough to make it on a BD-50? Is the audio not that good that it can fit on a small disc? What gives?

[Josh]

Review is up for Crimson Tide:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...15&show=review

4.5/5 for Video
5/5 for Audio

What does it matter what size the disc is if you can acheive results like that?

[Living Near Shamu]

Sweet. Thanks Josh!

[Minimejer05]

Where does it say the GBs on the box?

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by bootman

Correct me if I'm wrong but when did Me, Myself and Irene become a must have title worthy of the Lord of the Rings treatment?

i didnt say anything about being worthy i said all movies should be released a good as they can be and that would be on 50

Originally Posted by bootman

Why are you worried about it if they look and sound good?

well why dont we all just buy hddvds if you want to settle for good enough ..there is obviously a reason they have 50s so why go to 25's .....i am really only mad at warner....you have no idea how much i hate them and i keep getting their movies in the mail because i accidentally preordered alot of them awhile ago....them and their hddvd ports and oddball codec that make me think bad things when everyone else but them uses the same thing lol

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

well why dont we all just buy hddvds if you want to settle for good enough

Because the majority of HD DVDs don't sound good...they have lossy audio. Crimson Tide, even though on a BD25 both look and sound good.

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by Josh

Review is up for Crimson Tide:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movie...15&show=review

4.5/5 for Video
5/5 for Audio

What does it matter what size the disc is if you can acheive results like that?

there we go again, i dont really care other than the fact that warner bros sucks a big one...but saying less is ok is why i keep saying why not get hddvd lol could have it been a 5 on a 50?
edit: im mad i bought brave one dvd port..forgive me lol

Originally Posted by Minimejer05

Where does it say the GBs on the box?

not all boxes will say but just look on the back of whatever you have and it should say somewhere if its 25 or 50 or it will say dual/double layer?

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by Living Near Shamu

I was wondering the same question as the OP. What's the deal? The Assassination of Jesse James BTCRF is also on a BD-25. Was the movie not long enough to make it on a BD-50? Is the audio not that good that it can fit on a small disc? What gives?

apparently he was assassinated before the 25 mark

[HighDefChief]

Because 25 GB is plenty for many movies with lossless audio tracks.

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by HighDefChief

Because 25 GB is plenty for many movies with lossless audio tracks.

well lets compress everything 50% more then from now on

[HighDefChief]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

well lets compress everything 50% more then from now on

Did I say that? Oh wait I didn't!

The Polar Express took up about less than 12 GB (yes less than 12 GB) that leaves plenty of room for special features and a lossless audio track that Warner didn't put on the movie. There are other examples of movies using very little space that look fantastic on Blu-Ray.

[ben7ben3]

i think what the OP is saying is if they are only gonna use 25 gbs, it might as well be on hd dvd. a lot of people on here complain about hd dvd sucking because they cant get good quality on 30 gbs. well, some movies are only 25 gbs. thats all he's saying, and i understand his point. however, 25gb discs are fine, just as hd dvds are fine. however, blu rays are usually better cuz of 50 gbs.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by ben7ben3

i think what the OP is saying is if they are only gonna use 25 gbs, it might as well be on hd dvd. a lot of people on here complain about hd dvd sucking because they cant get good quality on 30 gbs. well, some movies are only 25 gbs. thats all he's saying, and i understand his point. however, 25gb discs are fine, just as hd dvds are fine. however, blu rays are usually better cuz of 50 gbs.

Nope - just because it could have fit on a HD30 doesn't mean that the quality is lacking....BD's are better because they have higher bandwidth than HD DVD. Storage capacity is a secondary issue to bandwidth.

[Luis_A51]

Originally Posted by bageleaterkkjji

im sure it looks great but why not make it as good as possible...if not why dont we just release everything on hddvd

THe problem with your logic is that you assume using a 50gb disc automatically improves the quality. It doesnt need to use more space to be excellent quality. Depending on the movie it might not require a consistently high bit rate. Also movie length is a factor. Also depending on wether or not they use multiple language tracks is another consideration.

[Luis_A51]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Nope - just because it could have fit on a HD30 doesn't mean that the quality is lacking....BD's are better because they have higher bandwidth than HD DVD. Storage capacity is a secondary issue to bandwidth.

+1

Also it might be fair to say that not all 30gb HDDVDs actually use the full space. Its just that 15gb HDDVDs are entirely useless and thats the only other option.

[fronn]

Originally Posted by HighDefChief

Did I say that? Oh wait I didn't!

The Polar Express took up about less than 12 GB (yes less than 12 GB) that leaves plenty of room for special features and a lossless audio track that Warner didn't put on the movie. There are other examples of movies using very little space that look fantastic on Blu-Ray.

Polar Express is a pretty poor example to use. It's got block artifacts and banding up the wazoo (I'm not sure if the banding is on the master though, but the blocking artifacts that are all over certainly aren't). It's one of the worst releases I've seen as far as encoding goes.

Don't get me wrong though, I still agree that you can have an excellent looking movie on a BD25, especially if the extras aren't taking up much room. BD25 still has something HD DVD will never have and that's the bandwidth for the scenes that need it.