Blu Ray lets me down again

[CDiablo]

akuma587 said:

CDiablo said:

akuma587 said:

colonelstubbs said:
Thats one of the things that always puzzled me...why, if blu-ray contains so much space, are there hardly any special features on them?

I already mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it was on a BD-25, not a BD-50.  Universal was being cheap.

You run into the same thing with DVD's when a studio decides to go with a DVD-5 rather than a DVD-9.  Its far from a new phenomenon.

 

 

The HDDVD version (with all the features) is 25 gigs, I figure the transfer from HDDVD to Blu would be a fairly easy one. To be honest I seldom see any DVDs that are DVD-5s in all my years of watching and bootlegging DVD's. Even the cheap horror flicks that get realeased are on 9's. The only 5s I ever see are old Martial Arts movies.

Really?  I pirate DVD's all the time and I see at least 15-20% of the DVD's out there are DVD-5's.  Its less common than it used to be, but it happened all the time earlier in DVD's life cycle.  Even the Criterion Collection used them early on, and they are considered the cream of the crop in terms of picture quality.

And no, the HD-DVD version was 30 gigs.  It was on a dual layer HD-DVD (as was just about every HD-DVD ever released since 15 gigs is not enough for an HD movie unless you want wicked compression artifacts).

Nothing to argue about, and I'll take your word for it cause I really havent bootlegged anything in a long time, but it would be lame if I bought a DVD and it a)looked like crap or b) had no features and was on a 5. Blu sellers relly should be putting some effort into the Blus out there so that the price can be justified.

.....And I forgot about the 30 gig thing, I remember during the  war how people would say Blu is double the size of HD and I guess the idea stuck. Oh well, at least I still have the DVD version.