Wasted space on Blu-ray discs?

Rather than try to explain, I'll examplize:

Let's take my 2 disc editon of Transformers 2007, and let's forget for the moment that movies on BD supposedly look better when played on a Blu-ray player. Disc 1 is the feature film, and disc 2 is the special features Now, I checked Amazon for Transformers on Blu-ray. It's also on 2 discs. WTF? Surely there is enough space on a BD for both the film and the special features. I mean sheesh, a single-layer BD is 25GB, and it''s 50GB for a dual.

Is it this way for all movies on BD? Cuz I would think the studios would take advantage of the extra space, and put everything on as few BDs as possible.

Along the same lines, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any experience comparing Blue-Ray to DVD movies. Is there a huge difference?

Personally, I was heart-broken to throw out my college VHS collection. I don't have it in me to chuck the DVDs now...hopefully they'll be around a while longer. It doesn't sound like the studios have caught on yet, anyway :rolleyes:

Well, seems like I was better off asking my question at Blu-ray.com. I already got some informed responses.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=112354

hack, I'll be glad to post your inquiry on Blu-ray.com if you want.

I am curious, so if it's no great effort, I'd be obliged. How big is your BD collection?

no prob.

I don't even have a BD player right now. Lack of funds until next week.

No response yet. I'll keep checking.

Appreciate it, boss.

In other news...I had to laugh about this.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8983.cfm

Think they're gonna hit that deadline, Mr. Smiley? :headshake

:lol: There are still plenty of content available on DVDs, and since apparently the number of discs used for content on BDs is not less than is is for DVDs, I won't be investing in Blu-ray tech until I have to. Anyway, why should I buy a BD player and BDs just to get a better picture? The picture quality of my DVDs is already great.

Datalyss;591108 wrote:

Well, seems like I was better off asking my question at Blu-ray.com. I already got some informed responses.

Informed? You provided more numbers than any of your answers? All I saw was a lot of subjective speculation - and no numbers supporting any of that speculation.

Even the size of a codec was blantant speculation - no number provided.

You say their all speculating. Care to prove it?

Also, I provided the numbers? Where? I was the one asking the question.

Just buy a PS-3. It is a Blu-ray player as well. Great excuse ...

Other major features ... and its use of a high-definition optical disc format, Blu-ray Disc, as its primary storage medium.[10] The PS3 was also the first Blu-ray 2.0-compliant Blu-ray player on the market.[11]

link

Speaking from PSP experience, by chance? My DS doesn't play much in the way of media, but I do love the games Gamefly brings me for it. :) How are the Sony games?

B'sides, I've got my eye on the Crunchpad--as soon as that puppy ships in November, I plan to be $400 poorer.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/03/crunchpad-the-launch-prototype/

classicman;591465 wrote:

Just buy a PS-3. It is a Blu-ray player as well. Great excuse ...

I have a fundage problem at the moment. :D Besides, I don't think I'll be investing in Blu-ray anytime soon.

Speaking as a father - my son finally got me to "ok" it as a group x-mas present with that tidbit of info. Oh and we got 5 FREE Blu-Ray movies as well.

As far as my gaming experience - I'll put it this way - there are 42,570 button combinations on the friggin contoller - WTF???

hackhelios;591102 wrote:

Is there a huge difference?

Steve says yes. I say no.

I'm not sure there is a big enough difference in any of the games. The graphics are insane on all the ones I've seen, but I don't have a big screen super tv either. What difference that makes - I've no idea.

Random link from a friend via Facebook:

[B] #4.Nintendo DS vs. Sony PlayStation Portable [/B]

Everyone expected Sony's new, hand-size PlayStation to trounce Nintendo's weird looking dual-screen second cousin of the Game & Watch. It didn't happen. Today, Nintendo's required by Federal Law to hold their DS releases until weekends in Japan, since children will ditch school for days to pick up any Mario-, Zelda or Dragon Quest title. Heck, even Nintendogs sold millions of copies, and it looked plain silly sitting next to Animal Crossing, Tetris and Pokemon.
Of course, Sony didn't do itself any favors with the most horrible marketing blitz known to mankind. From jive-talking squirrels to sexy European models face-masking black people, Sony's ads for the PSP played out like a train wreck in bullet time. You couldn't make bad press like this if you shot the Pope and played the bongos with his head.
Just one of many awkward reasons Sony's Ad Department couldn't properly market the PSP.

Also, UMDs never really picked up, and load times on most games were horrendous. That disc drive on the PSP sounded like trucks downshifting on raw gravel. Still, you have to give Sony credit for sticking to its less successful, socially awkward child. To this day, the PSP still commands a healthy market share in the portable gaming world, and downsized, slightly cheaper versions of God of War, Tekken and Metal Gear are nothing to sneeze at. Even games like LocoRoco and Patapon have their cult fan followings.
The Victors: Casual gamers, who picked up the DS and finally found out what all this video game nonsense was about.
The Casualties: Sony's brand image, which went from simply being weird in the PS2 era to just getting outright embarrassed in their desperation to outperform the Nintendo DS.
The Fallout: Sony's actively trying to reinvent the PSP for its nebulous demographic, while the DS is still printing money, with 100 Million sold today.



Read more here: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/211734/the-5-best-console-wars/


I can vouch for their review of the Nintendo DS. It doesn't play Blue-Ray (I watch movies on my iPod Touch), but the games are intense.

What I have read is that it only makes a difference if you have the high-def TV to take advantage of it.

I don't have a flat screen tv yet because I'm not ready to spend $500 on a TV - no matter how good it looks. When 27" tvs get down to $300 or so, then I'll be interested.