Hello Reasons! (Have a good weekend, and we'll 'see' you on Monday then). :-)

Quick question for you A_Klingon, Why does my DVD Shrink make me compress the disc so it's ~4.46GB even though my discs are 4.7GB?? I have been doing this for quite awhile now and just never got around to wondering.

Your DVD Shrink is working perfectly.

A "4.7 GB" disc is not really 4.7 GB, Reasons. It never was. The 4.7 figure is a little bit of "creative" advertising by disc manufacturers. A DVD is actually only 4.38 GB. (More accurately, 4.36 GB). The manufacturers, early on in the game, 'boosted' (fibbed) their way up to 4.7 GB in an effort to impress buyers. They used the number 1000 as a divisor instead of the proper 1024 to arrive at the final GB figure.

Even though more honest companies know it is a bit-of-a-stretch, they too mark their discs as '4.7 GB' to compete with the others. It's an 'accepted' exaggeration within the market.

So your DVD Shrink is really taking full advantage of the disc's available space and actually maxing out your dvds just fine.

Dual Layer discs are only ridiculously expensive because of their relative newness. They don't cost nearly as much to make as what their ridiculous price markup would suggest. Manufacturers charge as much as they do because they can.

They know, in the near-wake of blu-ray and HD-DVD, that their window of price-grabbing is limited, so they're 'making hay while the sun shines' while they still can; before the DL format becomes a near-thing of the past.

(Back a lil early)

Ahhh, that explains it all. Tricky, going by 1000 instead of 1024, that's dirty considering people sometime might count on the 4.7GB for backing up ~4.7GB worth of data. Oh well.

Did the DL companies fudge on the 8.5GB claim too then?

"The biggest difference the Blu-Ray camp emphasises is that Blu-ray will hold more data, whereas HD-DVD can hold 15GB, 30GB or 45GB." Hmmmmm, is that single layer, DL, and three layers? Must be, no? If you take into account BD can do 3 layers too, then were talking 75GB versus that 45GB... Seems someone failed to mention where they got 45GB and how it would relate to BD's abilities.

Who else thinks (I know it has to be at this point.) the 45GB claim is three layers?

Off-topic note: Has anyone else noticed that my tag still says "Newbie" after 140 some posts?

I don't know if consumer blu-ray discs (in Japan) come in the 3-layer variety or not. If so, then yes, we're talking 75 GB.

As for HD-DVD, well they're not a consumer-available item yet, so they presently come in the 0 (NO) layer variety. :)

There are a couple of photos printed in our 'Globe And Mail' newspaper that show sample discs in both formats. The HD-DVD is clearly marked '30 Gig-Dual Layer', and the blu-ray is simply marked '50 Gig'. So I assume the blu-ray is a dual-layer also.

There's billions of potential dollars at stake here for the market winner, so neither camp is going to let up for a second. Pity too - both sides could have cooperated and shared the booty - the way things are now, one of them is going to lose the shirt off their back.

That's greed for you. Pity.

It means we lose too.

I just won't buy either (besides a PS3) until the winner is clear, then I don't lose, yes!

If you go find the lists of supporters for each side it's pretty funny...

"20th Century Fox, ESPN, MGM, Miramax, Sony Pictures, Touchstone, and Walt Disney Company are behind Blu-ray; and HBO and New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers are behind HD-DVD."- PC World

Look, this is a list of the "intelectual property" type company, making movies etc. If you look at the lists of other companies, you'll see that, besides Toshiba and MS + a few others, HD-DVD is backed less by technological companies and more by Hollywood (in the big picture anyway, MS is huge, but is mostly software anyway...). What does that tell you?

I gues four layer BD discs are ready and eight layer discs are possible but are "tech demonstration". Four layers!! That's a single 100GB disc, talk about backing up stuff.

Blu-ray just keeps looking better to me anyway.

Have you noticed no one else is in this forum except me and you, A_Klingon? Looks like not too many people care, on AD anyway.

They must be mesmerised by our dazzling conversation, exquisite wit, impressive insight, and stunning good looks.

(Yeah, that's probably what it is). :-) )

Here ya go, Reasons..... this little piece will make you smile.

(It kindof puts a dent in my arguments too). Still, it may or may not come to pass:

Sony's Playstation 3 to output 1080p
Tuesday, May 17 2005, 11:16 BST -- by James Welsh

The high-definition Playstation 3 will be launched in the spring of 2006, Sony has confirmed.

Sony gaming chief Ken Kutaragi said that the device is intended to be a home entertainment centre: "PS3 truly is the system to be placed in the center of living rooms in homes around the world."

The PS3 will be capable of outputting 1080p, a high definition Progressive resolution of 1920x1080. Moreover, the PS3 will be capable of driving two HD displays - allowing for setups such as a panoramic gaming arena or a separate tactical data display on a secondary LCD monitor.

In line with the goal of positioning the PS3 as a home entertainment device rather than simply a gaming console, the device will be capable of playing CDs, SACDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray discs.

No price point has been mentioned thus far; also, it is unclear whether the spring 2006 release is simultaneous worldwide.

"Thhrrrpppphhhhhhhhh !!!!" :-)

That's the good stuff right there. I knew that, but I didn't mention it because I wasn't sure what you ment by "proper" so I figured tact was in my best interest :) Sony is pretty dead set on the dual outputs, it's one of their biggest advertising points. Plus the GPU (RSX by nVidia) has the power to push both!

Indeed, it does put a smile on my face that the :) parenthesis can't match in size.

If your not into gaming though, it might be too expensive for your needs, unless you use linux too. It's susposed to be around ~$400 and Sony will be taking almost a $100 loss on the hardware. It will run Linux though with the optional hard drive if your into Linux and ready for an open source adventure on the cell CPU architecture. Wow what a pain in hind quarters that's gonna be, I'll stick with windows and x86 for now :)

It's win win, because a 1080p BD player might come close to that price range anyway, maybe, only because it'll be new and they'll charge you for it.

This is one big revolution coming at us next year, gaming, movies and DRM protection. Time to start saving my pennies anyway :), wait what pennies :o

P.S. Microsoft has not settled either for Blu-ray or HD-DVD in the Xbox 360, looks like they want to be on the winning team either way.

---

huh??? what??? eh????

--- sorry I was mesmerized for a moment :P (but it was from MY good looks rofl)

the way I figure it is that what they're going to do is what they are going to do. I myself see no real danger in both formats being available and think that whichever format someone 'buys into to' will be supported long enough before 'another' upgrade is needed. I mean lets think this through for a moment.

For the mediaphile or data hound 50(+) GB on a single disc is excellent (and the talk about enterprise editions of 100+ is even better). But now think hollywood....

A season of Soprano's or Friends' is what?? 5 regular DVDs? So we're talking maxed out at what 45GB (assuming theyre full) so now you buy ONE disc instead of 5. Cool all the way around, less space, less changing discs, better for environment etc etc Except, problem is now people are faced with paying $50-$70 even $100 for ONE DVD. And while it's the same amount of content as what was on 5 discs people will still look at it like they are paying $100 for ONE dvd. So in a way it may actually hurt the 'percieved' value of the movie/season set.

And for regular movies, how many extras can they actually release that people will want? Will we soon see: extras menu 5 option 1: actor X driving into the set. Option 2 actress Y getting her pre-shot makeup done. Option 3 someone who you dont even care about or know (best boy grip maybe? lol) talking about how great it is being a part of this film working with such blah blah blah.....for example I remember hearing about the 10 DVD extreme edition of 'The Matrix' a few times... do I know a single person who bought it? Nope, great movie, but, exactly just how many camera angles do I want to see the same scene from...over and over...? Yeah extras are cool sometimes, but most people don't really care. How many times have we heard, in regards to decrypting, "I like it when the movie just plays, I don't care about the menu or extras...."

So I see nothing conflicting, in hollywood going one format and data going another format all together. Yeah it might slow down the backups and copying that goes on in the dvd scene because most people wont justify buying both sets of hardware for the pc (to rip and burn) and another 2 sets for the settop (one to watch the origionals whether bought or rented) and one for the 'archived sets' they made on blu-ray (of course thats where us HTPC peeps come out ahead of the game lol)

Eventually, you may even (probably!) see the incompatibilities resolved not by the media but when a manufacturer sees an opportunity for a buck and figures out how to make a dual blu-ray/HD DVD set. Recall the DVD +/- 'war' (lol) you don't hear anybody saying how the differences/incompatiblities killed the DVD market eh?

So, I'm gonna do what I always do.. exactly what I want... and eventually either the industry comes my way or some software programmer does ;o)

1. Blu-ray disc media has a lower production cost than a DVD because no glass layer is required in the manufacturing. Blu-ray disc single layer carries lower production cost per disc than a single layer DVD-/+R.

2. What consumers will be charged for blank media may be different, just like how we're getting raped on DL DVD media right now. It however doesn't have to be that way depending on how consumer are angered/boycott/buy less etc. Just like DL media has come down 50%. Blu-ray can be cheap, and will eventually not cost us much for 25GB.

3. Movies will come far from deciding the fate of blu-ray, but will benifit from it being cheap and big. Blu-ray media is a godsend for IT back-ups versus hard drives.

4. DVD-R and DVD+R can be played in the same players. Blu-ray will never be able to play inside an HD-DVD player. But, like blu-ray can play DVD blu-ray will, technically(HD-DVD makers won't let it happen if it's war), play HD-DVD disc similar to it's being able to play DVD. Blu-ray's surface tracks are too small for the larger laser of HD-DVD to read, but Blu-ray can read the larger track widths of HD-DVD and DVD with it's much more expensive and thinner/shorter laser. Like I said though, HD-DVD won't like that or let that happen during a format war. (Patent the ability to play HD-DVD media, duh :)

Your decision is good, but we will never be faced with anything near a $100 tag on even the 8-layer discs (200GB) that are being developed. :) :( :o :p

Talk about a load off.

Whew!

It's 2:00 in the morning; I worked all day and I'm bushed, BUT you guys bring up some awfully good points !!!

Reasons - actually, if the initial asking price for a PS3 is going to be $400, that's not really so bad at all for a 1st-generation blu-ray/hi-def device.

It has been forecast that the first DVD-HD players will all be in the $1000 range.

My 1st-generation DVD player (the Sony flagship model) cost me a friggen $1500 (Canadian). [Just goes to show what a dope a person can be when he gets itchy fingers and decides to become an 'Early Adopter'.] You can get a dvd player at Walmart now for 40 bucks.

duckNrun - My god, if they continue to promote blu-ray's suitability to include even more useless Extras material, I'm going to blow chunks.

I've been bitchingd about this as much as 3 years ago in here. 90% of all extras material is either 100% crap, or 100% unnecessary!

** I couldn't care LESS about what the main actor had for lunch on the 5th day of shooting on set #5. ** ONE angle is all I need or want, thank you very much. ** "Coming Attractions" (bloody trailers) are nothing more than extended infomercials foisted on us (especially by Disney) at the *beginning* of the movie, before you even get to it). ** I couldn't care LESS about 'deleted' scenes. If they weren't good enough to be put in the film in the first place, why would I be interested in them now? ** "Storyboards" put me to sleep. ** Alternate endings suck. ** Showing how the computer-generation effects were put together (as in Shrek), gives me crotchrot. I could go on.

I too enjoyed the 3 Matrix films, but the sheer weight of the Extras Material will make you Numb with boredom. In fact, I find most bonus materials *painful* to watch. When using DVD-Shrink, I always delete this crap, including FBI warnings, Macrovision "Quality Protection" clips (what bullshit), actors' bios' (if I need to know how many movies Clint Eastwood starred in, I'll go to the internet), and a host of other useless material soley designed to make the disc more expensive for you 'n me, and more profitable for the studios.

Example: If you want to buy JUST the original Shrek movie, you're out of luck. It comes as a 2-Disc-Only release. The 2nd disc is all extras stuff 90% of buyers would be quite happy to do without, but it means that the studio gets to sell you two discs instead of one.

Did you know? It is *quite* routine now to have secondary film crews filming the primary film crews as they are in the process of making the movie, JUST to create some 'extras' stuff. ALL Hollywood movies are made today with the EXTRAS material firmly in mind, no matter how stupid, boring or useless those extras may be.

It's a price-grab, pure and simple.

You're right about perceived-value when it comes to Joe Public plunking down (say) $100 bucks for a single disc. THAT will take a bit of educating to be sure, because the value IS there! A 100-gig blu-ray disc of (say) standard tv episodes, would be a thing of beauty if you ask me. It would save SCADS of storage space, and pretty much make the need for a 5-disc changer obsolete.

Although I suppose that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD could likely co-exist (blu-ray for computer/video data storage) and HD-DVD for commercial films), I hope it doesn't come to that. If both camps can set aside their greed long enough to make a cooperative deal, then there's NO reason why one unified format couldn't be ideal for both purposes, and make life easier for us consumers in the bargain. (WHY should we be forced to choose between incompatible formats just because the conglomerates can't get their act(s)/shit together?) It is WE who are going to be parting with our hard-earned dollars!

(God, I love ranting!) :-)

What else? Oh poo..... I'm quite tired this morning, but I'll have to review youze guyze's posts later on 'cause you made a lot of other good points too. :)

No kidding, I am so sick of extras. I just want the whole season on one disc insted of four. Or to have both widescreen and full screen on one disc. Some deleted scenes aren't bad, but those extras are mostly garbage. I hate it.

Blu-ray will have it's uses, but if they throw more extras at me I'm going to break. This is exactly why I take just the movie, completely uncompressed 95% of the time, and burn it to a 40 cent disc. I don't want anything, not even the menu. Just pop it in and it starts playing the movie.

No one watches the extras, scrap them and gives us an ultra HD movie like HW is always saying they'll give us with HD-DVD. Damn, just cut the extras and then you can gives us ultra HD!!!

(Wow) - I too could live without Menus. When it comes to films (or TV episodes, which I love), "interactivity" is something I definately do not require or want.

(It is quite an amazing thing to hear about this from you, Reasons - a confessed gamester - where interactivity reins supreme.) <g>

But what you describe (just popping in the disc and have it begin playback immediately) is - for me - the preferred way for a disc to act. It's known as a "Linear Play" dvd - it acts just like a VHS tape (but looks a lot better of course) - playback begins automaticaly. On my backups, it's not necessary to choose from among 8, short 1/2-hour (25 min) tv shows from a menu; it's not necessary to sit through an FBI or copyright warning *each* time before that episode plays, it's not necessary to choose which audio track I want to listen to each time (I do that ahead of time when I use DVD Shrink).

I agree, there are indeed some Extras worth having - I'm not dismissing Extras altogether, but I'm tired of being bilked ($$) for useless matrial just because Hollywood is greedy. You can always include which bonus tracks you want, and just add them as regular video clips.

If you'll notice, a lot of 8-episodes-per-disc TV dvds force you to return to the Main Menu each time an episode ends, which is a pain in the ass. When you dump the Menu, all episodes play back in perfect sequence. (To be fair, *some* dvd menus have a "Play All Episodes" option, but don't depend on the availability of this feature).

The only 'interactivity' I need is a simple remote control to choose which tv show I want to watch. Click-click.

And you're right, by the time you dump all the extras-nonsense from an expensive, dual-layer movie disc, (and unneeded foreign-language audio tracks) it very often fits comfortably on a .40c single-layer blank, *without* any compression whatsoever.

Oy! :)

(I have to get ready for work now). Gotta make some $$$ so the poor folks in Hollywood will have someone to sell their Boner tracks to! :-)

you guys hit it right on the head, perhaps we should form a consulting group and promote our services to HW (lol).

Just to clarify, I meant a Season Disc for $100 not a blank. While this is higher than most (I've just seen most for as low as $35 upwards of $70) but last time I looked at Sopranos or even a few others that I cant recall right now (sorry) they did post a $89-99 tag.

I too like the seasons discs and am going to have to repent for 'coveting' your Star Trek collection :o) also wish I could afford more seasons of more shows e.g Sliders and Quantum Leap besides completing my Friends and Soprano's seasons. Just so many choices (note to HW I am NOT complaining about choices lol)

I, like you many here, sure could use mass storage DVD's. It kind of amazes me that average consumers don't get it. Once when I jokingly 'complained' to a Wal-Mart electronics employee about them not carrying quality media and nothing bigger than 30 pk's he looked at me dumbfounded and actually said "why would anyone need a 100 pack of DVD's? That's a lot of storage" pmsl. And that is alot of storage about a TB. But they sure do fill up fast, I'm mainly using them as cheap storage media until eventually HDD space drops even lower than it now, and also TB drives (as a single unit not the Raid TB Drives they offer now) at 0.40 per 4.37 GB thats a '400' GB 'drive' for about 40 bucks! Yeah I know... not really a drive but in terms of storage capacity... so be nice :P

Anyways class starts way to early in the morning and this is cutting into my sleep time ;o)

A hundo DVDs is a little less than half a terabyte, and the biggest HDD availabe is 500GB, or half a TB. Just clarifying that, I think you were thinking 500 was a TB, it's all by the 1000s generally when measuring HDD and (now I know>>>>>) media too.

Yeah, X-files are up in the $90 range I think. Your right it is cheaper if you don't have to change the data.

just read couple or three days ago that they are in peace talks :) Are they actually going to consider the consumer? "The good of the one outweighed the good of the many." ... or something like that. Dammit Spock!

"I would accept that as an axiom, Captain....(er).... Sliztzan."

Unfortunately, I fear the needs of the few (technology-company owners/stockholders) far outweigh the needs of the many (you 'n me).

You mean, they're actually *talking* to each other again ???

(Hmmmmmm....) Well, this time I hope they smarten up. 4th-quarter 2005 draws ever nigh....... (the release date for HD-DVD). Sony's gotta do *something* QUICK before those promised 89 HD-DVD titles start showing up on the retailer's shelves before christmas.

I have NO idea why Sony hasn't already shipped some of their blu-ray burners to North America and Europe. They're already selling them in Japan.

Although I'm very interested in all this stuff, (as you can no doubt tell), I'm going to sit this one out. It's the only sensible thing to do. Let 'em kill each other if they really feel they must. Sooner or later, I'll know which format to buy!

lol yeah my math was way funky last night (darn pain pills lol), 100 DVD is about 1/2 TB I was mixing in too many thoughts, at once, about dvd9's and 5's.

:o)

Lol, at least you were on something then :)

No, peace talks are still over, it was probally an old article you read. Sony already has it invested into the PS3, so HD-DVD can back down if they want.

Sony doesn't feel threatened by either HD-DVD or the Xbox 360 lauching first. Blu-ray must truely be better, and HD-DVD buyers are going to get burned. How would you feel if you bought it for $500 then found out this new Blu-ray thing it 10GB more for the same damn price? That would suck and that's what Sony ha splanned I bet.

I am buying everything Blu-ray the second it hits the shelves, because I know it's the better, more advanced (obviously) technology.

---

Yep -- I think Blu-Ray is a whole new thing altogether, a huge jump forward over what we now have, and a worthy successor to DVD, while HD-DVD is just more-or-less an extension of the present system.

If we're going to be entering the new Hi-Definition World sonn (which we are), we may as well do it in style and go blu-ray.

But don't buy into it too soon. I know you're anxious (me too), but you might want to see how others fare with the system first before plunking down your money. A month away, the same player might be had for $100 bucks less, or someone may find that the DRM is too horrific to describe, or any one of a million problems may start showing up.

Yeah, I'll wait for a decent price drop and then get a good Sony internal drive. Internal drives tend to be cheaper. As far a media goes I will probally only buy a small 5 pack or so, just to get an idea of what the media is like and how well it works for data too. As for playing them I'll see if anyoen figures out how to get the PS3 to play copies, if not I'll buy a real player after a few months.

Then we've got the whole copyright protection thing. Hey, maby if we put the region code back on and re-encrypt it, we might get lucky. But then again, They can detect a copied one any way because of the disc can't they?

---

Internal drives.....(hmmmm....), well yes, I want one too, but...

I only have 2 IDE slots. Each slot will take 2 devices - a primary and a slave.

I already have 3 HDDs and a dual-layer burner hooked up, so I'm plumb out of plug-in space. (I think).

The dual-layer, +/- burner is the best one yet that I've owned - I hate to lose the bugger. It works perfectly and is only a coupla months old.

I'll probably have to let one of my hard drives go to make room for the blu-ray. (ratz)

Unless blu-rays will come in an optional external USB model .....

Shame too, because I just bought a whopping big tower case - I still have room for 3, front-mount, full-size devices but no place to plug those devices in.

Oh poo...... :-\

USB will most likely be avail. right away, but it will be more expensive no doubt.

I have an empty HDD slot and a drive bay, sweet! Because my second DVD burner is USB, that way I had room for a more important 5.25" device, like Blu-ray!! When I first heard of Blu-ray, and then how long before AMD would support DDR2. I figured Blu-ray would be out before I built a new PC, so I left the slot empty for it :) anticipation, no?

---

DDR2 ?? What's that, Reasons?

I too have an AMD cpu (2.4 Ghz), but I've never heard of "DDR2".

Anyway, I've just figured out what to do.....

I'll wait 'till you get a new blu-ray burner, then look for your findings. I'll wait to see if you (have to) pull your hair out in frustration because of some unforeseen snaffu or whatever. Cool!

Yes, YES, Reasons, you *must* run out and get a blu-ray right away, (so that I can sit on my a--), and let you work out all the early-adopter problems for me!

I can see it now...... I can see you camping out with a sleeping bag in a 50+ lineup at your local Walmart store at 4:00 on a still-dark Monday morning, because they announced they will have 50 blu-ray units available on a first-come, first-serve basis as soon as the door opens....

Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!! :=)

That's the way to go, have someone else try it first. And I will be one of them.

DDR2, is the successor of DDR which (DDR not DDR2) is in your PC right now. You probally are running DDR-400 (PC3200). DDR2 basically requires different memory controllers to handle data rates and distribution to DDR2's higher clock speeds ranging from 533MHz to a whopping 800MHz, twice as fast as anything you can run on your AMD now. Intel has DDR2 because they only need chipset change, because the memory controllers are housed in the motherboard. AMD however has memory controllers inside the actual CPU!! That means AMD has to launch a new line of CPUs to adopt DDR2. But, AMD hasn't done it yet because the design (CPU housing memory controllers) is what makes AMD perform so much better than intel. So, actually, A current AMD CPU is still faster than an intel with DDR2 even though the AMD is stuck working on 400MHz memory. When AMD does adopt DDR2, then intel is screwed and AMD will really blow past them. But it will be costly for AMD to develope the new CPUs and unfortunately render the old CPUs, relatively, obsolete.

As for camping outside, naw, I think I'll find out some way to have Best Buy reserve one for me. All I need is a release date now.

---

If nobody bought anything I would be so happy. That would show them. Did I hear boycott!!?? Sorry, just a little dream of mine.

This debate sounds very familiar. It started with 33RPM records. Nobody argues that they were far superior to 78RPM. Then came 45RPM which had no purpose except for RCA to steal the recording business from everybody else.
Then it was Beta vs VHS. Anyone who used Beta will say it was the best format, but VHS caught on. We'll see what happens. This time, I'm waiting before I spend money.
As for the movie industry complaining about sales, why don't they makes some movies for a change? I'm sick of everything being animated. I guess animators are cheaper than actors, but not if it kills their sales. That's all that's really wrong with the movie industry. Also, it would be a good idea to pay actors what they are worth. That would reduce costs considerably. No actor is worth millions for making a movie. There are many good actors out there who can't get started because the industry seems to think the big names are indispensible.
Personally, I gave up going to a theater when movies prices passed $5.00. It's cheaper to buy or rent.