|
|
Posted by Jay G. on 06/24/06 12:36
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:38:07 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:17:14 -0500, "Jay G." <Jay@tmbg.org> Gave us:
>
>>And you know that Blu-Ray discs are less reliable? Where's the evidence?
>
> Their problems are pressing plant related,
So it's not related at all to the discs that get out of the pressing plant
and into consumer's hands.
> as well as being layer
> count related, and ANY multi-layer disc (burned) is less reliable.
Please cite your evidence that this is true. And who said that recordable
Blu-Ray would be only multi-layer? And who said HD DVD wouldn't be?
> There is not a lot of need for a multi-layered movie. At least not
> more than a pair.
Currently, HD DVD is the only one putting a movie on more than one layer.
> All the extras I've seen so far have been captured at a lower res anyway.
See, there's a problem right there. At low res, extras fit on a HD DVD
just fine. But why should we settle for low res extras?
>Second disc time... That's the way I would go for extras.
That's the way HD DVD will *have* to go. Blu-Ray discs will have much more
storage available for extras. And that will certainly drive up costs for
studios, having to press two HD DVDs for a film rather than one Blu-Ray.
> Devote al that space to great A/V tracks of THE MOVIE being laid down.
Blu-Ray has more space for more great A/V tracks, and is even the only one
to have uncompressed 5.1 sound on them.
> Put the rest of the shit on the flip side or another disc.
Yes, because if there's one thing people love more than changing discs,
it's flipping them.
-Jay
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|