Cobretti on 11 September 2007
| Imyourvillain said: Am I the only one who noticed that this just DVD with many more layers? This, in my opinion, proves why BD is better: the disc is much thinner which allows for more layers than a DVD or HD DVD. I've ever read one article saying the BD could theoretically hold 200GB of data since the layers are so thin. People should just wait for the actual next gen formats to drop in price instead of buying a DVD on steroids. |
yes if you read all the posts.
There is nothing wrong with that. It will be cheaper, and people are mor eliekly to accept what they know not what they don't know. To them this will be just a advanced dvd.
| kn said: Apparently no-one paid attention to the previous post in this thread and is ignoring this little gem: "The format uses MPEG-2 and VC1 video formats to encode at 1080p resolution for the time being, and will possibly move to the H.264 format in the future." They really need to support H.264 and VC1 right out of the gate. That's going to be a huge issue for the hardcore videophile and will ensure they look to HD DVD and/or Blue-ray to get it. |
yet again yes I saw that. I too wish they did h264 from the begining.
However did Blue-ray (sony releases of movies) use h264? cause i remember seeing sony were gonna use mpeg2 and everyone flamed them for it so did they do the right thing in the end and use h264 like the rest of the movie studios?
