Forums | MacLife

Czachorski wrote:

dcalfine wrote:

Yeah, it seems as though the cartridge was only used when blu-ray was still in development.

Right, because once they release it for consumer purchase, they need a media that exposes the magnetic surface, so that small surface scratches will render the disc unusable, and that combined with the MacroVision copy protection and the DMCA's restriction on fair-use copying that bypasses copy protection means that you will have to buy new copies of scratched movie, even though all you really bought is a license for the content, although they won't replace a scratched disc as if it were a license.

I know (or at least I hope) you're being sarcastic, but FYI, Blu-ray disks use a hard coating that you can't even scratch with a screwdriver, much less the simple things that scratch today's DVD's. http://news.com.com/Try+scratching+this … 55621.html

IcarusFountain wrote:

The Blu-Ray disks themselves, not figuring in the cartridge that it may or may not include (last I heard it was still including it), is ever so slightly larger than the current DVD diameter, requiring new drives, manufacturing systems, etc, and will make multi-format drives nearly impossible (absolutely impossible if BR keeps the cartridge casing).

Where'd you hear that? There already are burners that support CD-RW DVD±RW and Blu-ray: http://www.blu-ray.com/drives/.

IcarusFountain wrote:

And for the record, I support HD-DVD.  Yes, I know its "the Microsoft Format," but dammit, Sony has shown themselves to have absolutely no scruples, and BR (as proposed by Sony and its fiendish supporters) looks like it will severely restrict the consumers' rights with the disks they buy.  Even some of the big names in the movie production industry are starting to agree that BR is probably the worse of two evils.  Unfortunately, I'm 95% certain that the rest of the movie industry will buy in to Sony's asshattery and lies (because it will solve all piracy!!1!!) and we'll find ourselves in such a media-restrictive era that we'll practically beg for a non-Sony alternative very quickly.

This is actually one of those subjects I get pretty upset over, because I just can't fathom why people are supporting the Sony Suck-Up Club on this one, but the movie industry is so strongly focused on piracy these days (just everyone's scapegoat du jour) that Sony's over-bearing, over-restrictive new idiotic media will likely take off and soar (for once in Sony's history).

Dammit, I think I might get sick now.

What the heck are you talking about? HD-DVD has the exact same restrictions on copying as Blu-ray (it's called Mandatory Managed Copy, MMC). Plus, both formats are essentially finalized, so it would be very difficult for Sony to randomly take away something they've said they would allow.

Not reading much of this thread, did anyone see that there are now going to be HD-DVD and Blu-ray combo players?

In the end, it wouldn't matter much of which format would win.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Not reading much of this thread, did anyone see that there are now going to be HD-DVD and Blu-ray combo players?

In the end, it wouldn't matter much of which format would win.

It would to you and I, but not to the Middle-American consumer.  The cost of 4 lasers (CD, DVD, BR, HDDVD) is more expensive than 3.

dcalfine wrote:

I have an idea, rather than streaming it from your bedroom to your living room, why don't you get off your ass and get the disc yourself.

Seriously though, you couldn't (legally) make archival copies of DVDs on your computer, could you?  You can live without that.  Picture this: a blue-ray disc that can hold twice as much info as your hard drive.  That should be the winning factor.

Sorry, but I'm sporting a 160GB drive and a 300GB drive.  Now, I'd agree that a BR disk would be twice the capacity of my iPod, but that doesn't matter much to me.

What bothers me about Sony's "mine's bigger than yours" approach is the way they plan to use it.  They want to keep mpeg2, which I suppose is fine (particularly in comparing the next format to DVD), but how will they plan to use it?  Do you really think we'll start seeing multiple movies released to a single disk (which would make the increased price more worthwhile to me--don't try to deny that prices will go up; no one has yet to even address that aspect of my previous posts), or will they try to claim that 50GBs of a single movie will bring in 1080i resolution?  I have to tell you, I've authored 1080i-res, 1.5-hour home movies to a single-layer DVD-R just by using QT 7 Pro and h.264.

So explain to me what the heck you and everyone else thinks we could possibly need 50GBs of Shrek 3 for.  Seriously, I fail to see it, and I'm one of those guys who keeps ripped copies of every SG-1 episode archived on my hard drive in case my DVD boxsets get damaged.  That's disk usage.

IcarusFountain wrote:

dcalfine wrote:

I have an idea, rather than streaming it from your bedroom to your living room, why don't you get off your ass and get the disc yourself.

Seriously though, you couldn't (legally) make archival copies of DVDs on your computer, could you?  You can live without that.  Picture this: a blue-ray disc that can hold twice as much info as your hard drive.  That should be the winning factor.

Sorry, but I'm sporting a 160GB drive and a 300GB drive.  Now, I'd agree that a BR disk would be twice the capacity of my iPod, but that doesn't matter much to me.

What bothers me about Sony's "mine's bigger than yours" approach is the way they plan to use it.  They want to keep mpeg2, which I suppose is fine (particularly in comparing the next format to DVD), but how will they plan to use it?  Do you really think we'll start seeing multiple movies released to a single disk (which would make the increased price more worthwhile to me--don't try to deny that prices will go up; no one has yet to even address that aspect of my previous posts), or will they try to claim that 50GBs of a single movie will bring in 1080i resolution?  I have to tell you, I've authored 1080i-res, 1.5-hour home movies to a single-layer DVD-R just by using QT 7 Pro and h.264.

So explain to me what the heck you and everyone else thinks we could possibly need 50GBs of Shrek 3 for.  Seriously, I fail to see it, and I'm one of those guys who keeps ripped copies of every SG-1 episode archived on my hard drive in case my DVD boxsets get damaged.  That's disk usage.

I think 50GB is plenty space for an HD movie.  For the entire LOTR extended edition HD collection, I would want it all on one disk, simply because I can.  In regards to mpg2, i had no idea that was the codec they were using.  THat sucks.  Balls.  I thought it was going to be h.264 mpg4 or some new, HD format for just bluray disks (like they did with DVDs)

wtf is 1080i?  Is that the same as 1080p?

Your argument over TV shows doesn't hold much water; I can fit an entire season of Stargate on a dual-layer disk.  If I can do it, MGM can do it.  Instead, they put 4-5 episodes onto a disk, and sell you 5-disk boxsets for $60 a set.  Do you think that will change when the capacity limit is increased ten-fold?  We'll still see the exact same sales strategy, nothing will change.  We'll also see a similar issue with single movies on a disk; either we'll be told that there's such high detail in the movies that our current systems can't show it all (so we'll be encouraged to shell out tons more money on a whole new entertainment center, like with Sony's "SuperCD" b.s.), or they'll try to create all sorts of ridiculous drabble to fill enough of the disk to make us think it was worth it (now you can watch the movie 3 different times, each filmed from different angles or using set/costume alternatives!).  Do you really want to pay more for this kind of a waste?

ctachme wrote:

1080i means it's interlaced. That is, each frame only contains every other line of data. It's a way on saving bandwidth and processing power without loosing quality, but it introduces stuff creatively called "interlace artifacts," which look ugly.

Actually you should know that 1080i is part of the HD specs and 1080p barely has any content out there and is NOT part of the supported / accepted HD specs. talking about something being 1080p means its only going to see any benefit on a computer monitor.

Czachorski wrote:

dcalfine wrote:

Yeah, it seems as though the cartridge was only used when blu-ray was still in development.

Right, because once they release it for consumer purchase, they need a media that exposes the magnetic surface, so that small surface scratches will render the disc unusable, and that combined with the MacroVision copy protection and the DMCA's restriction on fair-use copying that bypasses copy protection means that you will have to buy new copies of scratched movie, even though all you really bought is a license for the content, although they won't replace a scratched disc as if it were a license.

You beat me to it. I've been bitching about unprotected optical media for years. I do remote backups with DVD-RAM catridges, although it's difficult to find the catridges anymore.

I've said it's particularly ridiculous to make game systems little kids use and allow kids to handle unprotected optical movie discs. I don't like to rent DVDs and won't rent video games on disc. I've been burned with movies stopping in the middle and games crashing due to scratches.

Last edited by XYZ (2006-01-05 2:09 am)

IcarusFountain wrote:

(now you can watch the movie 3 different times, each filmed from different angles or using set/costume alternatives!).  Do you really want to pay more for this kind of a waste?

Um... that actually sounds kinda cool. So, yeah. The fact is that content should never be limited by the media the content is on. I don't know everything that you could do with 200GB, but maybe someone out there has a great idea for that much space. Creating a media  format that supports that enables people to me more creative with what the put on it, not limited by storage space. And I call that a Good Thing.

dcalfine wrote:

I have an idea, rather than streaming it from your bedroom to your living room, why don't you get off your ass and get the disc yourself.

Hypothetical Scenario: You need to change the channel on the TV. Do you walk up to the TV and change the channel, or use the remote? Even the if the remote is misplaced, you're more likely to use the remote, because it's easier. Now, why do you think people would like to stream as opposed to using the disc?

dcalfine wrote:

Seriously though, you couldn't (legally) make archival copies of DVDs on your computer, could you?  You can live without that.  Picture this: a blue-ray disc that can hold twice as much info as your hard drive.  That should be the winning factor.

And of course, the fact that backing up dvd's is considered illegal stopped tons of people. On a plane trip I get about 2x longer battery usage out of a ripped dvd existing on my hard drive, as opposed to using the dvd drive. And I can't lose my dvd either.

Storage space will not be the winning factor. The winning factor will be whatever the consumer decides is better

bah!  Exactly!  HD-DVD is not only supported by Microsoft (the proper noun), it is a microsoft (improper noun)!

IcarusFountain wrote:

dcalfine wrote:

I have an idea, rather than streaming it from your bedroom to your living room, why don't you get off your ass and get the disc yourself.

Seriously though, you couldn't (legally) make archival copies of DVDs on your computer, could you?  You can live without that.  Picture this: a blue-ray disc that can hold twice as much info as your hard drive.  That should be the winning factor.

Sorry, but I'm sporting a 160GB drive and a 300GB drive.  Now, I'd agree that a BR disk would be twice the capacity of my iPod, but that doesn't matter much to me.

What bothers me about Sony's "mine's bigger than yours" approach is the way they plan to use it.  They want to keep mpeg2, which I suppose is fine (particularly in comparing the next format to DVD), but how will they plan to use it?  Do you really think we'll start seeing multiple movies released to a single disk (which would make the increased price more worthwhile to me--don't try to deny that prices will go up; no one has yet to even address that aspect of my previous posts), or will they try to claim that 50GBs of a single movie will bring in 1080i resolution?  I have to tell you, I've authored 1080i-res, 1.5-hour home movies to a single-layer DVD-R just by using QT 7 Pro and h.264.

So explain to me what the heck you and everyone else thinks we could possibly need 50GBs of Shrek 3 for.  Seriously, I fail to see it, and I'm one of those guys who keeps ripped copies of every SG-1 episode archived on my hard drive in case my DVD boxsets get damaged.  That's disk usage.

Amen.  You nailed it.

It is not about "Who needs that much [processing power|storage space|RAM|Bandwidth|Screen Resolution], you'll never be able to use that much".  That is not what I read in the above post by Ic.  I read that it is BS to justify a 50 GB optical disc size, just to put mpeg2 codec onto it to justify the need for the large size.  Give me the best codec and the best optical disc.  If that is h264 on blue ray, then fine, but don't pick the optical standard first, and then justify it after the fact by saying that it is needed to deliver the large file sizes associated with an inefficient and outdated codec.