Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
AS kinda poitned out by einhander, a dual layer blu-ray is slightly smaller than a triple-layer HD-DVD.
However, there are apparently working 200GB Blu-ray discs.
Add to that that none of the current players can handle more than double-layer, and it doesn't really make much differrence.
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
Uh.
Sorry, did you have a point?
I think his point is that it's taking three layers to best the presumably single-layered blu-ray.
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
Uh.
Sorry, did you have a point?
I think his point is that it's taking three layers to best the presumably single-layered blu-ray.
Considering that, right now, HD DVD is a slightly bit cheaper than Blu Ray and that HD DVD and Blu Ray are equal in visual quality...I don't think it's very important that Blu Ray has the potential for multi-layering.
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
Uh.
Sorry, did you have a point?
I think his point is that it's taking three layers to best the presumably single-layered blu-ray.
I'm sure it's 25 GBs per layer for Blu-Ray.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Unless you have a media sharing PC setup in your home, downloading and then streaming your Asian Lesbians to your HDTV... which would be the best of both worlds.
Windows Labia Center Edition?
The big TV thing is a good point I'd missed. And given that current media sharing technology is a bitch to get working without a hard-on drawing all the blood away from the brain, I can see why this wouldn't be too practical.
Hmm... maybe full 1080p on a 60-inch TV is so crystal clear that the blurred parts of JAV movies come through clear as day? :P
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
Uh.
Sorry, did you have a point?
I think his point is that it's taking three layers to best the presumably single-layered blu-ray.
Considering that, right now, HD DVD is a slightly bit cheaper than Blu Ray and that HD DVD and Blu Ray are equal in visual quality...I don't think it's very important that Blu Ray has the potential for multi-layering.
Well, if you make a triple-layered blu-ray then it could be. :P
Ah well. I've still got a whole mess of DVD-Rs to go through before I start worrying about the next generation of media.
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
Mmm ZIP disks. I remember those. I even had one and the drive. Since we're on the topic of porn, that's where I kept all mine back in the day.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
(Just so we're being honest here: I have an HD DVD player)
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
Mmm ZIP disks. I remember those. I even had one and the drive. Since we're on the topic of porn, that's where I kept all mine back in the day.
We still have an old zip disk drive. Even a few old zip disks.
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
You don't think that an extra amount of storage almost half as large as an HD-DVD is significant? Because it is. 7GB is a lot of space. An entire 360 game.
Basically, when you look at dual layer discs (the only format current players seem to read), and extra 14GB of space is a shitload. Do you know how many more extra features, episodes of a TV show, or hours of porn you can fit in 14GB of space?
You're only trying to convince yourself that buying that really, really expensive HD-DVD player was a sound investment. Bad news: You're an early adopter. It wasn't.
Edit: ZIP disks were awesome right until CDR drives showed up to the party. Why bother with a ZIP when you could write to a 650MB CDR that was, as a format, not only cheaper, but was as universally accepted as CD-ROM?
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
You don't think that an extra amount of storage almost half as large as an HD-DVD is significant? Because it is. 7GB is a lot of space. An entire 360 game.
Basically, when you look at dual layer discs (the only format current players seem to read), and extra 14GB of space is a shitload. Do you know how many more extra features, episodes of a TV show, or hours of porn you can fit in 14GB of space?
You're only trying to convince yourself that buying that really, really expensive HD-DVD player was a sound investment. Bad news: You're an early adopter. It wasn't.
Edit: ZIP disks were awesome right until CDR drives showed up to the party. Why bother with a ZIP when you could write to a 650MB CDR that was, as a format, not only cheaper, but was as universally accepted as CD-ROM?
No matter which format fails and which format succeeds the DVD format, I want Blu-Ray to take the PC data storage market. Who doesn't want those extra 14 gigs of space. No matter how much I detest Sony currently, WE NEED MORE SPACE!
[spoiler:70f2959873]Had to be done[/spoiler:70f2959873]
But yeah, I'm not touching either format until either we know who the successor will be, or until dual format players are around $300-$400.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
You don't think that an extra amount of storage almost half as large as an HD-DVD is significant? Because it is. 7GB is a lot of space. An entire 360 game.
Basically, when you look at dual layer discs (the only format current players seem to read), and extra 14GB of space is a shitload. Do you know how many more extra features, episodes of a TV show, or hours of porn you can fit in 14GB of space?
You're only trying to convince yourself that buying that really, really expensive HD-DVD player was a sound investment. Bad news: You're an early adopter. It wasn't.
Actually, it was a perfect 300 dollar investment. Trust me, I was fully aware of what I was buying. The HD DVD player I bought doesn't even output in 1080p. Considering I have an HDTV that only does up to 1080i and I won't be purchasing a 1080p HDTV any time soon, the 300 dollars I spent on this particular player was the most intelligent thing I could have done.
I would say that the drive itself isn't even necessarily an investment. Eventually I will upgrade, once I purchase a 1080p HDTV. The discs, however, will be usable once I upgrade to a 1080p HDTV and compatible player. So those are something of an investment.
The "early adopter" argument is laughable.
Considering your point about space...you realize that that is most likely NOT what the additional space will be used for, right? Because it doesn't serve for publishers to cram all their content on one disc and sell it for 30 dollars, and I don't see anyone speculating about shoving an entire anime series on one Blu Ray disc and selling it for 100 bucks. That's not how consumer perception works; they expect multiple discs and nobody is going to pay 100 dollars for a single Blu Ray disc.
I'd say the only "unsound" investment for me would have been to buy a Blu Ray player or a PS3 - both of which are retardedly expensive - and to start buying up Blu Ray discs, a format I think is destined to go the way of Betamax and UMDs. 14 gigs is meaningless if the format is a complete wash in a year. HD DVDs, however, are more consumer marketable, and I think the discs I buy today are a sound investment for the future.
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
So; when it suits your argument, a difference of roughly a gig renders one technology stupid but a difference of seven is entirely irrelevant.
El Viento on
0
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
I still have my zipdisk drive tucked away with my disk tower on my desk. I haven't used either in years. =P
Also, I dunno if this was mentioned, but I think Toshiba has made a triple-layer HD-DVD disc, which brings the capacity up to 51 gigs (though another site says 45 gigs). Anyway, 51 gigs would make the capacity larger than a single Blu Ray disc. So, Blu Ray technology is kind of stupid in my opinion.
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
So; when it suits your argument, a difference of roughly a gig renders one technology stupid but a difference of seven is entirely irrelevant.
A difference of 1 gig makes the argument irrelevant. If triple-layer HD DVD discs become standard in the future while Blu Ray discs remain at a two-layer standard (which is entirely possible), then the arguments about capacity are irrelevant.
Beyond that, I think the additional 7 gigs per layer or 14 gigs per disc is also irrelevant. But I buy movies for visual quality, not a multitude of extras, and since there is no difference in quality between HD DVD and Blu Ray, for me at least, the capacity difference is irrelevant.
There are at least 50 movies available in both formats now, and a number more announced. I have seen nothing that indicates to me that a larger capacity is significant in any way.
edit: I think the 1 gig thing makes Blu Ray stupid because it is more expensive and its only edge on HD DVD is capacity. Close that gap even further and the technology and their marketing/advertisement of it over HD DVD is pointless.
edit2: I just think it is supremely stupid to have two formats that do exactly the same thing, and I've not seen any reason for the extra capacity, which makes the additional cost of Blu Ray technology and media, and the rift that it causes with movie studios, completely stupid.
I just think that saying that BDs aren't an issue since there are tri-layer HD-DVDs is sort of dumb, since BDs have considerably more space available per layer than HD-DVDs do.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
You don't think that an extra amount of storage almost half as large as an HD-DVD is significant? Because it is. 7GB is a lot of space. An entire 360 game.
Basically, when you look at dual layer discs (the only format current players seem to read), and extra 14GB of space is a shitload. Do you know how many more extra features, episodes of a TV show, or hours of porn you can fit in 14GB of space?
You're only trying to convince yourself that buying that really, really expensive HD-DVD player was a sound investment. Bad news: You're an early adopter. It wasn't.
Edit: ZIP disks were awesome right until CDR drives showed up to the party. Why bother with a ZIP when you could write to a 650MB CDR that was, as a format, not only cheaper, but was as universally accepted as CD-ROM?
No matter which format fails and which format succeeds the DVD format, I want Blu-Ray to take the PC data storage market. Who doesn't want those extra 14 gigs of space. No matter how much I detest Sony currently, WE NEED MORE SPACE!
FOR PORN!
The internet is for porn! The internet is for porn! Grab your dick and double click for porn, porn, porn!
[spoiler:ceda616e37]THAT had to be done.[/spoiler:ceda616e37]
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
The problem with your arguments is that you're only taking the movie standpoint into consideration. Which makes sense, since this was originally a thread about porn.
But an extra 14GB of space on dual layers alone is going to do wonders for the PC market, people who just want to write data. Eventually, one or both of the formats are going to be as commonplace as CDs are now. It would be similar to having a 700MB CDR or a 1.05GB CDR spinning in your drive for the same price.
And I know you know my position on how beneficial the extra storage will be for videogames on the various devices that will take advantage of it.
$300 for a 1080i HD-DVD drive wasn't a bad deal (especially considering spending more wouldn't make sense with your current television), but just because it's beneficial for your particular situation (movies only on a non top of the line television) doesn't mean it's the best decision for everyone, and it might not even be the best decision for you sometime in the future. Starting to build your HD-DVD library now instead of a year from now might be a good way to have a decent back catalog once you do upgrade to a 1080p capable TV and a new HD-DVD player, but it could also really bite you in the ass if Blu-Ray takes off (and it becomes more attractive to you as your next player of choice once you get that new 1080p TV) and you're left with a bunch HD-DVDs.
Movies, games, data, maybe even someday music will all benefit from having the extra space afforded on a BD. To write it off now is just silly.
Honestly, I don't think it will be a good idea to become heavily invested in either format (from the movie standpoint, gaming and regular old data transfer is a different story) as they stand for quite a while. A better bet might have been sticking with regular DVDs (since your TV is sort of median in terms of benefits from a higher definition format) for about a year, and then buying whichever player has the movies and series that you like.
Right now, unless you have a decent amount of income you don't mind gambling, it's far too uncertain in terms of the superior format. I would definately wait a year and reap a Christmas sale or something.
And if all goes well, dual-format players will be available for a decent price around then. That's what I'm hoping for.
edit:
And Drez, I know for a fact that you use your HD-DVD player to watch Firewall!
But Kate Monster, what you think he do after? Hmmmmmmm?
The problem with your arguments is that you're only taking the movie standpoint into consideration. Which makes sense, since this was originally a thread about porn.
But an extra 14GB of space on dual layers alone is going to do wonders for the PC market, people who just want to write data. Eventually, one or both of the formats are going to be as commonplace as CDs are now. It would be similar to having a 700MB CDR or a 1.05GB CDR spinning in your drive for the same price.
And I know you know my position on how beneficial the extra storage will be for videogames on the various devices that will take advantage of it.
$300 for a 1080i HD-DVD drive wasn't a bad deal (especially considering spending more wouldn't make sense with your current television), but just because it's beneficial for your particular situation (movies only on a non top of the line television) doesn't mean it's the best decision for everyone, and it might not even be the best decision for you sometime in the future. Starting to build your HD-DVD library now instead of a year from now might be a good way to have a decent back catalog once you do upgrade to a 1080p capable TV and a new HD-DVD player, but it could also really bite you in the ass if Blu-Ray takes off (and it becomes more attractive to you as your next player of choice once you get that new 1080p TV) and you're left with a bunch HD-DVDs.
Movies, games, data, maybe even someday music will all benefit from having the extra space afforded on a BD. To write it off now is just silly.
Honestly, I don't think it will be a good idea to become heavily invested in either format (from the movie standpoint, gaming and regular old data transfer is a different story) as they stand for quite a while. A better bet might have been sticking with regular DVDs (since your TV is sort of median in terms of benefits from a higher definition format) for about a year, and then buying whichever player has the movies and series that you like.
Right now, unless you have a decent amount of income you don't mind gambling, it's far too uncertain in terms of the superior format. I would definately wait a year and reap a Christmas sale or something.
And if all goes well, dual-format players will be available for a decent price around then. That's what I'm hoping for.
edit:
And Drez, I know for a fact that you use your HD-DVD player to watch Firewall!
But Kate Monster, what you think he do after? Hmmmmmmm?
Heh, where is that quote from? :P
Monster's Ball was a shit-ass movie. And that Play-Asia order got canceled, though they did send me a 5-dollar coupon.
Monster's Ball was a shit-ass movie. And that Play-Asia order got canceled, though they did send me a 5-dollar coupon.
It's from a play that features a song explaining how the internet is for porn. I'm not on my own computer, so I can't link it, but hopefully someone else will.
Also, I got the coupon as well. I gave it to another forumer.
Regarding space on the competing formats, it's very likely that BD will always have an advantage. Toshiba has managed to up the capacity per layer of HD-DVD from 15 to 17 GB; TDK has managed to up the capacity per layer of BD from 25 to 33 GB. Both these size increases are within the current standard, leading to 34 GB discs for HD-DVD and 66 GB discs for BD. Even if Toshiba start manufacturing triple-layer discs outside the lab, they'll only be 51 GB--almost a third smaller than dual-layer BD. (And they might not play in all the HD-DVD players sold so far.)
The question isn't whether HD-DVD can catch up in size, because it almost certainly can't. It's whether the increased price of BD is worth that size.
So far, most movie companies think so. At least one porn studio is releasing on BD, but even if we ignore them just go back in the thread to see the estimate that 15% of movie sales are porn. Given that BD has about 80% of the non-porn movie market, that means that without any porn presence at all they still have over two-thirds of all home movie sales/rentals (68%).
Also, someone said earlier on that there are more HD-DVD players out there than BD players. That's only true for standalones. Because of the PS3, there are already more than quadruple the number of BD players in the U.S., and that gap will almost certainly widen.
Since the primary presence of BD in homes is as an additional function to a gaming machine, its victory is far from certain. But people seem to underestimate it consistently.
Edited for bad math.
Liabe Brave on
My name is Christian Smith.
"I just want people to see my action heart."
Regarding space on the competing formats, it's very likely that BD will always have an advantage. Toshiba has managed to up the capacity per layer of HD-DVD from 15 to 17 GB; TDK has managed to up the capacity per layer of BD from 25 to 33 GB. Both these size increases are within the current standard, leading to 34 GB discs for HD-DVD and 66 GB discs for BD. Even if Toshiba start manufacturing triple-layer discs outside the lab, they'll only be 51 GB--almost a third smaller than dual-layer BD. (And they might not play in all the HD-DVD players sold so far.)
The question isn't whether HD-DVD can catch up in size, because it almost certainly can't. It's whether the increased price of BD is worth that size.
So far, most movie companies think so. At least one porn studio is releasing on BD, but even if we ignore them just go back in the thread to see the estimate that 15% of movie sales are porn. Given that BD has about 80% of the non-porn movie market, that means that without any porn presence at all they still have over two-thirds of all home movie sales/rentals (68%).
Also, someone said earlier on that there are more HD-DVD players out there than BD players. That's only true for standalones. Because of the PS3, there are already more than quadruple the number of BD players in the U.S., and that gap will almost certainly widen.
Since the primary presence of BD in homes is as an additional function to a gaming machine, its victory is far from certain. But people seem to underestimate it consistently.
Edited for bad math.
Right now the standard size for a HD DVD is 34 gigs (dual-layer, 17 gig layers) and the standard size for a Blu Ray disc is 50 gigs (dual-layer, 25 gig layers). So I'd have to ask how long ago TDK made their 33 gig layered discs. If awhile back, I'd say that it's not going to become the norm. So I think it's very possible for HD DVD to "catch up" if it is not fiscally sound to make triple-layer Blu Ray discs with 33 gig layers. As you say yourself, it's whether it is cost-effective at that level. And it most likely is not or won't be for a long time, possibly after they lose or win the format war.
Though Blu Ray is catching up, the actual sales of HD DVD discs is consistent and has outsold Blu Ray discs, at least on Amazon.com, which is probably a good enough indicator. It is disc sales that ultimately matter.
As we've seen with DVDs, the first generation discs are what gets adopted because they're the cheapest and most common. You will never see triple/quadruple layer discs widely adopted by movie producers or consumers, or widely supported by players. They'll be relegated to the same place dual-layer DVD-R's are in. A niche market of PC users. Your PC drive will probably support whatever formats they come out with, eventually, but the media will remain prohibitively expensive until it's succeeded by a new format. So arguing the merits of a triple layer HD-DVD vs a 100GB or 200GB mega-layered Blu-Ray disc is pointless because none of these prototypes may ever reach the light of day. They simply don't fit into the mainstream market.
This is SFW, minus the fact that he mentions porn/adult edntertainment. There is no nudity or anything risque. That said, he confirmes that it is either the replicators or Sony, but his studio (one of the very biggest) has been blocked by all the replication houses from producing porn.
Straight from the horses mouth, as it were.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If I ever wanted to burn 25gb of data to one disc I would just use a small HDD or flash memory. Massively cheaper and safer to use.
I mean for fucks sake, what, seriously what is going to take up 25gb in one file?
Half the time I just burn 3 CDs instead of one DVD and split the files. If it is a movie or whatnot then fine, but honestly, it is utterly pointless.
15 years ago...
What the hell type of file is going to take up a whole gig
A WHOLE GIG?!?
A crappy FMV game. It took how long for CDs to be useful?
Every time someone makes that argument I want to slap them. A BD is a hell of a lot cheaper than a 25GB flash drive. I mean, if you want to carry around a backpack full of flash drives instead of a single optical disc, go for it.
titmouse, the first CD-ROM I ever saw was Groiler's Encyclopedia. This was at the birth of consumer CD-ROM drives. See, Groiler didn't want to sell their encyclopedia on 451 floppy disks, so they used a CD-ROM instead. There will always be a use for more storage, even if it's one you didn't think of.
And to anyone who asks what files could possibly be larger than 25GB: you're retarded. Years ago we wondered what files would ever outclass a 1.44MB disk, and not too long before than a 360k disk, and look where we're at now. We're seeing dual layer DVDs being maxed out at almost 9GB. (Also, to answer your question, high definition movies and games can easily fill 25GB and much more. Movies being a single file. Maybe you'd rather have multiple disc movies like VHS or VCD, or would you rather flip the disc over to continue the movie, like LaserDisc?)
Data requirements grow, and anyone who tries to deny that is either lying or ignorant of the advancement of technology. Thirty years from now our children or grandchildren will be arguing over whether or not the new holographic format Stu-Ray will be a worthwhile purchase, since we already have out 900TB Rape-Ray and what kind of files will ever be larger than 900TB, anyway?
See, Groiler didn't want to sell their encyclopedia on 451 floppy disks, so they used a CD-ROM instead. There will always be a use for more storage, even if it's one you didn't think of.
I'm talking about games. What are the current use of it for games? The only reason Resistance is as large as it is is because they put all of the movies for each version on the disc.
And to anyone who asks what files could possibly be larger than 25GB: you're retarded. Years ago we wondered what files would ever outclass a 1.44MB disk, and not too long before than a 360k disk, and look where we're at now. We're seeing dual layer DVDs being maxed out at almost 9GB. (Also, to answer your question, high definition movies and games can easily fill 25GB and much more. Movies being a single file. Maybe you'd rather have multiple disc movies like VHS or VCD, or would you rather flip the disc over to continue the movie, like LaserDisc?)
We are talking about the present console generation. I don't care how large it will be considered in the future. I care about how large it will be considered in this console generation. I haven't seen any evidence that it will be needed this generation. Saying that it is useful isn't proof. Oblivion was able to fit on one DVD perfectly and most games probably won't get any bigger than that.
Data requirements grow, and anyone who tries to deny that is either lying or ignorant of the advancement of technology.
Nobody has said this. What we are saying is that the data requirements having reached the point where such large capacities are needed.
Oblivion was able to fit on one DVD perfectly and most games probably won't get any bigger than that.
No offense, but Oblivion started development a good 4 or 5 years ago during a period of time when putting software on a DVD would have been considered highly unusual. Yet in the end, it still required a DVD to fit all of its features.
When you consider the amount that data size requirements changed in that period of time, I find it difficult to believe that all the games in this generation of hardware are going to remain at a single DVD's capacity.
I'm talking about games. What are the current use of it for games?
The uses are quite frankly painfully obvious. Every time a new iteration of games comes out, software developers look to include larger features, more content and better graphics. Such things inevitably require a more significant volume of code and hence a larger data storage medium in which to store that code.
More often than not, it seems as though developers go out of their way to purposefully take advantage of the hardware available, even if they don't necessarily need to. Hence, even if a game doesn't require a blu-ray or HD-DVD disc, I wouldn't be surprised to see a developer increasing the scope or size of their game simply because they have the technological ability to do so. I mean, when was the last time you say a big name game developer say something along the lines of "I really want to develop a game for five year old systems!".
"Painfully obvious" is another way of saying "I can't think of anything". And seriously, code taking up more room? Bullshit. The thing that takes up more room in a significant way is content.
Also, you need to take into account the fact that transfer speed has not increased as fast as storage, so if you fill that disc with uncompressed assets it'll take forever to load them, and if you try to fill them with compressed assets, well... that's a lot of artist-hours, and you have to pay them for it...
Posts
Uh.
Sorry, did you have a point?
However, there are apparently working 200GB Blu-ray discs.
Add to that that none of the current players can handle more than double-layer, and it doesn't really make much differrence.
I think his point is that it's taking three layers to best the presumably single-layered blu-ray.
Considering that, right now, HD DVD is a slightly bit cheaper than Blu Ray and that HD DVD and Blu Ray are equal in visual quality...I don't think it's very important that Blu Ray has the potential for multi-layering.
I'm sure it's 25 GBs per layer for Blu-Ray.
^Basically what he said.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Windows Labia Center Edition?
The big TV thing is a good point I'd missed. And given that current media sharing technology is a bitch to get working without a hard-on drawing all the blood away from the brain, I can see why this wouldn't be too practical.
Hmm... maybe full 1080p on a 60-inch TV is so crystal clear that the blurred parts of JAV movies come through clear as day? :P
Well, if you make a triple-layered blu-ray then it could be. :P
Ah well. I've still got a whole mess of DVD-Rs to go through before I start worrying about the next generation of media.
Just checked, that's correct.
BZZZT.
See above.
Note that I said said "single Blu Ray disc" above, not layer.
Space is important, since the next generation of media seems to be all about high definition, and 1080i/1080p content is fucking huge.
I'll be one of the many still using DVDs for a long time since it'll be awhile until I have a TV capable of benefiting from either format, but I just think it's silly to pass one up now since 51GB is "enough".
I remember when 100MB ZIP disks were "enough".
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Mmm ZIP disks. I remember those. I even had one and the drive. Since we're on the topic of porn, that's where I kept all mine back in the day.
I don't think 7 gigs is "considerably more space," sorry.
One layer of HD DVD is 17 gigs.
One layer of Blu Ray is 25 gigs.
Considering that the visual quality of both formats are equal, an additional 7 gigs for content or a slightly-higher and unnoticeable bitrate is completely, entirely irrelevant.
(Just so we're being honest here: I have an HD DVD player)
We still have an old zip disk drive. Even a few old zip disks.
Man that was a bad concept, wasn't it?
You don't think that an extra amount of storage almost half as large as an HD-DVD is significant? Because it is. 7GB is a lot of space. An entire 360 game.
Basically, when you look at dual layer discs (the only format current players seem to read), and extra 14GB of space is a shitload. Do you know how many more extra features, episodes of a TV show, or hours of porn you can fit in 14GB of space?
You're only trying to convince yourself that buying that really, really expensive HD-DVD player was a sound investment. Bad news: You're an early adopter. It wasn't.
Edit: ZIP disks were awesome right until CDR drives showed up to the party. Why bother with a ZIP when you could write to a 650MB CDR that was, as a format, not only cheaper, but was as universally accepted as CD-ROM?
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
No matter which format fails and which format succeeds the DVD format, I want Blu-Ray to take the PC data storage market. Who doesn't want those extra 14 gigs of space. No matter how much I detest Sony currently, WE NEED MORE SPACE!
[spoiler:70f2959873]Had to be done[/spoiler:70f2959873]
But yeah, I'm not touching either format until either we know who the successor will be, or until dual format players are around $300-$400.
Actually, it was a perfect 300 dollar investment. Trust me, I was fully aware of what I was buying. The HD DVD player I bought doesn't even output in 1080p. Considering I have an HDTV that only does up to 1080i and I won't be purchasing a 1080p HDTV any time soon, the 300 dollars I spent on this particular player was the most intelligent thing I could have done.
I would say that the drive itself isn't even necessarily an investment. Eventually I will upgrade, once I purchase a 1080p HDTV. The discs, however, will be usable once I upgrade to a 1080p HDTV and compatible player. So those are something of an investment.
The "early adopter" argument is laughable.
Considering your point about space...you realize that that is most likely NOT what the additional space will be used for, right? Because it doesn't serve for publishers to cram all their content on one disc and sell it for 30 dollars, and I don't see anyone speculating about shoving an entire anime series on one Blu Ray disc and selling it for 100 bucks. That's not how consumer perception works; they expect multiple discs and nobody is going to pay 100 dollars for a single Blu Ray disc.
I'd say the only "unsound" investment for me would have been to buy a Blu Ray player or a PS3 - both of which are retardedly expensive - and to start buying up Blu Ray discs, a format I think is destined to go the way of Betamax and UMDs. 14 gigs is meaningless if the format is a complete wash in a year. HD DVDs, however, are more consumer marketable, and I think the discs I buy today are a sound investment for the future.
And on the other hand we have...
So; when it suits your argument, a difference of roughly a gig renders one technology stupid but a difference of seven is entirely irrelevant.
A difference of 1 gig makes the argument irrelevant. If triple-layer HD DVD discs become standard in the future while Blu Ray discs remain at a two-layer standard (which is entirely possible), then the arguments about capacity are irrelevant.
Beyond that, I think the additional 7 gigs per layer or 14 gigs per disc is also irrelevant. But I buy movies for visual quality, not a multitude of extras, and since there is no difference in quality between HD DVD and Blu Ray, for me at least, the capacity difference is irrelevant.
There are at least 50 movies available in both formats now, and a number more announced. I have seen nothing that indicates to me that a larger capacity is significant in any way.
edit: I think the 1 gig thing makes Blu Ray stupid because it is more expensive and its only edge on HD DVD is capacity. Close that gap even further and the technology and their marketing/advertisement of it over HD DVD is pointless.
edit2: I just think it is supremely stupid to have two formats that do exactly the same thing, and I've not seen any reason for the extra capacity, which makes the additional cost of Blu Ray technology and media, and the rift that it causes with movie studios, completely stupid.
FOR PORN!
[spoiler:ceda616e37]THAT had to be done.[/spoiler:ceda616e37]
But an extra 14GB of space on dual layers alone is going to do wonders for the PC market, people who just want to write data. Eventually, one or both of the formats are going to be as commonplace as CDs are now. It would be similar to having a 700MB CDR or a 1.05GB CDR spinning in your drive for the same price.
And I know you know my position on how beneficial the extra storage will be for videogames on the various devices that will take advantage of it.
$300 for a 1080i HD-DVD drive wasn't a bad deal (especially considering spending more wouldn't make sense with your current television), but just because it's beneficial for your particular situation (movies only on a non top of the line television) doesn't mean it's the best decision for everyone, and it might not even be the best decision for you sometime in the future. Starting to build your HD-DVD library now instead of a year from now might be a good way to have a decent back catalog once you do upgrade to a 1080p capable TV and a new HD-DVD player, but it could also really bite you in the ass if Blu-Ray takes off (and it becomes more attractive to you as your next player of choice once you get that new 1080p TV) and you're left with a bunch HD-DVDs.
Movies, games, data, maybe even someday music will all benefit from having the extra space afforded on a BD. To write it off now is just silly.
Honestly, I don't think it will be a good idea to become heavily invested in either format (from the movie standpoint, gaming and regular old data transfer is a different story) as they stand for quite a while. A better bet might have been sticking with regular DVDs (since your TV is sort of median in terms of benefits from a higher definition format) for about a year, and then buying whichever player has the movies and series that you like.
Right now, unless you have a decent amount of income you don't mind gambling, it's far too uncertain in terms of the superior format. I would definately wait a year and reap a Christmas sale or something.
And if all goes well, dual-format players will be available for a decent price around then. That's what I'm hoping for.
edit:
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Heh, where is that quote from? :P
Monster's Ball was a shit-ass movie. And that Play-Asia order got canceled, though they did send me a 5-dollar coupon.
It's from a play that features a song explaining how the internet is for porn. I'm not on my own computer, so I can't link it, but hopefully someone else will.
Also, I got the coupon as well. I gave it to another forumer.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
The question isn't whether HD-DVD can catch up in size, because it almost certainly can't. It's whether the increased price of BD is worth that size.
So far, most movie companies think so. At least one porn studio is releasing on BD, but even if we ignore them just go back in the thread to see the estimate that 15% of movie sales are porn. Given that BD has about 80% of the non-porn movie market, that means that without any porn presence at all they still have over two-thirds of all home movie sales/rentals (68%).
Also, someone said earlier on that there are more HD-DVD players out there than BD players. That's only true for standalones. Because of the PS3, there are already more than quadruple the number of BD players in the U.S., and that gap will almost certainly widen.
Since the primary presence of BD in homes is as an additional function to a gaming machine, its victory is far from certain. But people seem to underestimate it consistently.
Edited for bad math.
"I just want people to see my action heart."
Right now the standard size for a HD DVD is 34 gigs (dual-layer, 17 gig layers) and the standard size for a Blu Ray disc is 50 gigs (dual-layer, 25 gig layers). So I'd have to ask how long ago TDK made their 33 gig layered discs. If awhile back, I'd say that it's not going to become the norm. So I think it's very possible for HD DVD to "catch up" if it is not fiscally sound to make triple-layer Blu Ray discs with 33 gig layers. As you say yourself, it's whether it is cost-effective at that level. And it most likely is not or won't be for a long time, possibly after they lose or win the format war.
http://www.hack247.co.uk/2007/01/07/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-a-comparison/
Though Blu Ray is catching up, the actual sales of HD DVD discs is consistent and has outsold Blu Ray discs, at least on Amazon.com, which is probably a good enough indicator. It is disc sales that ultimately matter.
And you guys keep saying Sony DOESN'T want us to have porn!
Man, who uses memory sticks? Or burns porn to DVD? SATA hard drives are PLUG and PLAY. They're like the new floppy.
I mean for fucks sake, what, seriously what is going to take up 25gb in one file?
Half the time I just burn 3 CDs instead of one DVD and split the files. If it is a movie or whatnot then fine, but honestly, it is utterly pointless.
i KNOW it is not feasible right now, but werent MANY more layers built into spec for blu ray?
Nintendo Friend Code: SW-0689-9921-0006
This is SFW, minus the fact that he mentions porn/adult edntertainment. There is no nudity or anything risque. That said, he confirmes that it is either the replicators or Sony, but his studio (one of the very biggest) has been blocked by all the replication houses from producing porn.
Straight from the horses mouth, as it were.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
15 years ago...
What the hell type of file is going to take up a whole gig
A WHOLE GIG?!?
Every time someone makes that argument I want to slap them. A BD is a hell of a lot cheaper than a 25GB flash drive. I mean, if you want to carry around a backpack full of flash drives instead of a single optical disc, go for it.
titmouse, the first CD-ROM I ever saw was Groiler's Encyclopedia. This was at the birth of consumer CD-ROM drives. See, Groiler didn't want to sell their encyclopedia on 451 floppy disks, so they used a CD-ROM instead. There will always be a use for more storage, even if it's one you didn't think of.
And to anyone who asks what files could possibly be larger than 25GB: you're retarded. Years ago we wondered what files would ever outclass a 1.44MB disk, and not too long before than a 360k disk, and look where we're at now. We're seeing dual layer DVDs being maxed out at almost 9GB. (Also, to answer your question, high definition movies and games can easily fill 25GB and much more. Movies being a single file. Maybe you'd rather have multiple disc movies like VHS or VCD, or would you rather flip the disc over to continue the movie, like LaserDisc?)
Data requirements grow, and anyone who tries to deny that is either lying or ignorant of the advancement of technology. Thirty years from now our children or grandchildren will be arguing over whether or not the new holographic format Stu-Ray will be a worthwhile purchase, since we already have out 900TB Rape-Ray and what kind of files will ever be larger than 900TB, anyway?
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
We are talking about the present console generation. I don't care how large it will be considered in the future. I care about how large it will be considered in this console generation. I haven't seen any evidence that it will be needed this generation. Saying that it is useful isn't proof. Oblivion was able to fit on one DVD perfectly and most games probably won't get any bigger than that.
Nobody has said this. What we are saying is that the data requirements having reached the point where such large capacities are needed.
No offense, but Oblivion started development a good 4 or 5 years ago during a period of time when putting software on a DVD would have been considered highly unusual. Yet in the end, it still required a DVD to fit all of its features.
When you consider the amount that data size requirements changed in that period of time, I find it difficult to believe that all the games in this generation of hardware are going to remain at a single DVD's capacity.
The uses are quite frankly painfully obvious. Every time a new iteration of games comes out, software developers look to include larger features, more content and better graphics. Such things inevitably require a more significant volume of code and hence a larger data storage medium in which to store that code.
More often than not, it seems as though developers go out of their way to purposefully take advantage of the hardware available, even if they don't necessarily need to. Hence, even if a game doesn't require a blu-ray or HD-DVD disc, I wouldn't be surprised to see a developer increasing the scope or size of their game simply because they have the technological ability to do so. I mean, when was the last time you say a big name game developer say something along the lines of "I really want to develop a game for five year old systems!".
Also, you need to take into account the fact that transfer speed has not increased as fast as storage, so if you fill that disc with uncompressed assets it'll take forever to load them, and if you try to fill them with compressed assets, well... that's a lot of artist-hours, and you have to pay them for it...