Blu-ray is dead - heckuva job, Sony!

[eastmen]

I feel that bluray and hd dvd were the wrong thigns at the wrong time. They should have all waited for holographic discs and its 300-3.8TB + storage. Many people keep asking me why they still have to switch discs for tv series or why they still have multiple discs for a movie.

They could have waited for the xbox next and ps4 and launched hvd with those consoles. TV resolution wouldn't have changed so you'd still target 1080p however you'd have 2010ish hardware to decode 2009ish codecs and 6 to 76 times the capacity. So you'd easily be able to fit whole seasons on a single disc. They'd also have a trasnfer rate of a 128MB/s which would have been great for next gen consoles.

instead we now have a standard that seems to be to rushed and to little too late to deliever what people want

 

[Arwin]

I think BluRay is definitely the right thing at the right time. It may well be that holographic discs are the next best thing, but let's introduce those in 10 years when the technology has matured and become affordable, and wait and see whether we even need them or whether by then we'll stream everything live anyway.

In the meantime, we need BluRay for 1080p movies on the 32"+ LCD screens that are spreading across the world rapidly and for some of the current gen games.

 

[suryad]

I think BluRay is definitely the right thing at the right time. It may well be that holographic discs are the next best thing, but let's introduce those in 10 years when the technology has matured and become affordable, and wait and see whether we even need them or whether by then we'll stream everything live anyway.

In the meantime, we need BluRay for 1080p movies on the 32"+ LCD screens that are spreading across the world rapidly and for some of the current gen games.

Once again I agree. If they are somehow able to keep the movie prices down for the Bluray versions at like say 15 bucks...which are so at Amazon for the slightly older movies, there is no way I would go back to watching DVDs. Though I must say that DVD movies upscaled on the PS3 are quite stunning!

 

[eastmen]

I think BluRay is definitely the right thing at the right time. It may well be that holographic discs are the next best thing, but let's introduce those in 10 years when the technology has matured and become affordable, and wait and see whether we even need them or whether by then we'll stream everything live anyway.

In the meantime, we need BluRay for 1080p movies on the 32"+ LCD screens that are spreading across the world rapidly and for some of the current gen games.

I don't think that a format that has two disc releases for 2 hour movies which feature compression problems is something at the right time and the right thing

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I don't think that a format that has two disc releases for 2 hour movies which feature compression problems is something at the right time and the right thing

To what are you referring, specifically?

I'm guessing that 2-disc release is not for the movie itself, but for the movie and all the extra features. Also, compression problems are not a fault of the format.

 

[Arwin]

I don't think that a format that has two disc releases for 2 hour movies which feature compression problems is something at the right time and the right thing

Yeah, what title are you talking about? Something that was still pressed on two 25GB discs perhaps? Using MPEG2 compression?

 

[catisfit]

I don't think that a format that has two disc releases for 2 hour movies which feature compression problems is something at the right time and the right thing

You're absolutely right, such a (theoretical?) format would have been surpassed by DVD, which could at least fit 2 hours of "compression problems" on a single disc.

However I don't see how that relates to a blu-ray thread

 

[patsu]

BD-50 is more than enough to handle any movie with lossless audio and 1080p video. Some Blu-ray packages come with 2 or more discs because:

(A) The consumers feel that it's better value to have more physical discs (usually for special editions). This will still hold true even if they are using halographic discs -- when they are cheap enough to make.

(B) The second disc could be for Digital Copy (It's a DVD for PC use).

 

[Arwin]

Actually, most of the second discs are stuffed with extras. The Wall-E extra disc for instance contains among others a 1 hour Pixar documentary (haven't watched it yet).

 

[patsu]

I came back to correct myself

Arwin is right. Sometimes the extras are done in a second disc (share 2nd disc with DVD special releases, provide more perceived values, and in some cases just too many/long extras).

 

[N00b]

I have read about this issue a while ago. It seems the sole reason for the extra discs is perceived value. Apparently the movie industry tested this and people don't buy (the higher priced) special editions if they don't get extra discs.
Think about it, with H.264 you can pack lots and lots and lots of extras even on a BD-25 disc) The same applies to TV shows.

For the customer: More discs == better value.

 

[RudeCurve]

Think about it, with H.264 you can pack lots and lots and lots of extras even on a BD-25 disc).

Not true, a really good master will use over 20GB of space. Add in extras/special features in HD and multiple lossless language tracks and you'd be over 25GB.

 

[patsu]

Use BD-50. It should be sufficient for most movies, plus extras.

 

[eastmen]

To what are you referring, specifically?

I'm guessing that 2-disc release is not for the movie itself, but for the movie and all the extra features. Also, compression problems are not a fault of the format.

Right , 1 disc for the movie and a second for features. Its obvious that 50 gigs is not enough for 1080p movies. Recent examples are wanted , the hulk , the dark knight


Its not about the second disc per say , its about having 50 gigs to the movie itself and still having image quality problems

 

[Arwin]

Right , 1 disc for the movie and a second for features. Its obvious that 50 gigs is not enough for 1080p movies. Recent examples are wanted , the hulk , the dark knight

Its not about the second disc per say , its about having 50 gigs to the movie itself and still having image quality problems

Do you have a source for this? Most respectable reviews I can find of both of the titles you mention actually rate the picture quality of both of these movies very highly. Maybe it's the (original!) CG you find fault with?

Universal presents 'The Incredible Hulk' on Blu-ray in 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 video (at 2.40:1). It looks absolutely fantastic -- this is reference-quality transfer in all respects.

The source is pristine -- 'Hulk' looks as shiny and glossy as you would expect from a brand-new Hollywood blockbuster. Blacks are spot-on and contrast is excellently modulated -- there's none of the overdone whites or digital fleshtones that so often mar new release Blu-rays. The image is vivid and natural, with a wonderful sense of three-dimensionality and exquisite detail. From close-ups to wide shots, the image never looks anything less than finely textured and sharp. Colors are bright and bold, but as clean as a whistle and with accurate fleshtones. The encode is also first-rate, with no edge enhancement, motion jaggies, or other artifacts. At times, some of the film's CGI can look a bit blurry and not up to par with the rest of the film, but this is inherent to the material so I can't fault this transfer for that. 'The Incredible Hulk' earns a perfect five-star rating.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Right , 1 disc for the movie and a second for features. Its obvious that 50 gigs is not enough for 1080p movies. Recent examples are wanted , the hulk , the dark knight

Apparently it's only "obvious" to you. I have owned plenty of BD25 releases that managed to somehow fit the full movie in 1080P, with lossless audio, and tons of extras and they even did it without compression problems! Also, what are these "examples" of? In what regard do you mean that "50 gigs is not enough for 1080p movies"? Does the movie and its audio fit on one disk? (yes) Sounds like you don't have a leg to stand on...

Its not about the second disc per say , its about having 50 gigs to the movie itself and still having image quality problems

I have yet to see a single case that is as you say. Seems to me like you're confusing poor quality encoding with some format limitation.

 

[catisfit]

Its obvious that 50 gigs is not enough for 1080p movies. Recent examples are wanted , the hulk , the dark knight

Its not about the second disc per say , its about having 50 gigs to the movie itself and still having image quality problems

I'd really like to see examples of these supposed "image quality problems" and "compression problems", as a Google search for "hulk blu-ray image quality" brings up nothing but positives.

 

[suryad]

I have the Hulk movie on Bluray and it was jaw droppingly stunning looking. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. The only bluray movie I can think of off the top of my head that was a bit disappointing was the Batman Begins movie. But maybe I am hallucinating.

 

[nicolasb]

Hmmm. From the original ZD article:

Second, the advent of low cost up-sampling DVD players dramatically cut the video quality advantage of Blu-ray DVDs. Suddenly, for $100, your average consumer can put good video on their HDTV using standard DVDs. When Blu-ray got started no one dreamed this would happen.

What utter b*llocks! It's depressing enough that consumers think that "upscaling players" actually convert SD into HD. For a professional journalist to say it is beyond depressing.

 

[N00b]

Not true, a really good master will use over 20GB of space. Add in extras/special features in HD and multiple lossless language tracks and you'd be over 25GB.

Of course you can make a master that uses over 20GB for a feature-length film. But there is a pretty good chance that at least 50% of this space is wasted and could as well be filled ab with random data, because the quality gain is simply neglectible.