kitler53 said:
aside from LOTR extended edition start naming dvds where the ACTUAL MOVIE didn't fit on one disc. |
What significance would that have ? he's already offered a full explanation.
After FFVII, I went searching for multi disc games. I always buy the 2 disc version of DVD movies, and given a choice, I'd buy a 2 disc Blu Ray. It just seems like a bigger deal. I agree with Onyx. Blu-rays specs led me to believe that multi-disc releases were a thing of the past. Yet, here we are. Hooray!
Imperial said:
What significance would that have ? he's already offered a full explanation. |
because he can't. even titanic one of the longest movies ever (actual minutes, not just the way you feel) is on 1 dvd. when an arugument is full of shit i'm going to call it out.
kitler53 said:
because he can't. even titanic one of the longest movies ever (actual minutes, not just the way you feel) is on 1 dvd. when an arugument is full of shit i'm going to call it out. |
i'm pretty baffled now , can you explain how his argument is full of shit despite giving a pretty good explanation for multi disk Blu-Rays.
kitler53 said:
aside from LOTR extended edition start naming dvds where the ACTUAL MOVIE didn't fit on one disc. |
Edit: Remembered another one, Lawrence of Arabia. That is six off the top of my head.
I own quite a few. Apocalypse Now, Pearl Harbor, Andrei Rubliev (one disc, but holy hell the movie looks terrible on one disc because of a bad source and bad bit rate), The Good the Bad and the Ugly, The Last Emperor, Seven Samurai, and a few others which I have seen long ago but don't own, so I can't really recall them.
Noted, some of the times it has to do with the fact that you have two "cuts" of the movie on the same disc, but the recent Spiderman 2 Blu-Ray had Spiderman 2 and 2.1 on the same disc with no issues. For that matter, the DVD had it on two discs, though it does have more special features. Don't quote me on the Spiderman 2.1 DVD since I don't own it.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
This thread has earned this.
Blu-Ray does offer the advantage that you need two discs less often than compared to HD-DVD, so those people weren't lying. To get the same quality as some of the better 2 disc Blu-Ray sets out there the HD-DVD sets would have had to go to 3 DISCS! There is a space advantage and disc advantage whether or not you admit it. Now many of the studios would have cheaped out and gone the 2-disc route on HD-DVD rather than the 3-disc route, but it doesn't change the fact that giving a movie room to breathe on a BD-50 is a huge advantage rather than using an HD-DVD-30. You get a better bitrate on the video and more often than not get a better audio codec. You guys are coming into this thread without even a basic understanding of what is on the disc.
The same thing happened with DVD's. Many of the movies with a DTS track were two disc sets because the DTS track is so big that if you put the supplements on the same disc that you lose a lot of quality. With HD-DVD's, you got the rise in video, but often didn't get the rise in audio. And if you have the right set up it makes a difference. So already Blu-Ray has demonstrated that that extra space matters. Don't believe me? Go research how many HD-DVD movies have hi-def audio tracks and how many Blu-Rays's have one. King Kong is a great example where they had to cut it.
However, HD movies take up a lot of space, and now that studios are actually doing the supplements in hi-def as well (ton of examples, Close Encounters, Speed Racer, Iron Man, most every recent theatrical release when the studio isn't half-assing it). And guess what? When we had movies that were on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD you NEVER saw the supplements in hi-def as well. You know why? Because there wasn't enough room. Hell, on the most recent (or second most recent, I don't own it) Harry Potter movie, the Blu-Ray version had hi-def supplements and the HD-DVD version did not. That alone proves that Blu-Ray can take advantage of that extra space compared to HD-DVD.
So until you guys have actually done your homework on how Blu-Ray has already demonstrated advantages over its HD-DVD counterpart in utilizing the space, you guys are simply pissing and moaning for no good reason.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
I thought the Point of HD was for High Res Content that takes up a huge amount of space. But I can see why you would also pretty much assume the single disc thing. I thought so aswell until I saw the Hulk Commercial. Perhaps it is a marketting gimmick though.... who knows.
4 ≈ One
Yeah, the metal box with only one disk, Id feel ripped off. I need two disks to make it look like a value.
2 disc, even 3 disc (Wall-E) special edition blu-rays are absolutely nessecary.
If a studio wants to put loseless (dolby truehd or dts-hd ma) or uncompressed lpcm audio on a movie, that takes up a lot of space. then you need the 1080p video, with a jacked up bitrate, so the HD content doesn't have compression artifacts on a large HDTV or projector. this all takes up a ton of space.
blu-ray is aimed at high end home theaters, especially right now. the studios aren't going to compromise audio and video quality (lowering bitrate or not using loseless or umcompressed audio codecs) by squeezing everything on one disc.
Gangs of New York and Ghandi were both on two dvds.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
