Wouldn't it be great if instead of needing 50G to archive a bad movie, we worked on making things smaller? I think Microsoft's new file formats are the only thing in a long while to come along that makes its data smaller. What a concept!

They already have this in a relatively inexpensive format - it called the standard DVD.
The world doesn't need yet ANOTHER proprietary compression algorithm!

I don't care if they want to generate yet another HD format ... what would be really novel would be if there was any compelling reason to have ANY HD format considering the lack of worthwhile programming!! I mean, when was the last time they even printed Hubble telescope photographs or high quality nature material made available on HD - or even DVD for that matter?

The ability to see the nose hair on Oprah or some idiot football running back, or, heaven forbid, Adam Sandler as he wastes oxygen, is hardly a compelling reason to invest in HD!

Yeah, if you want crap quality.

We're talking HD here. Compression = loss of quality. Period.

The document comparison sucks, man. They are two entirely different birds.

What about divx. Divx makes smaller files.

Divx makes smaller, lower quality files.

The whole purpose of Blu-Ray/HD DVD is to *increase* quality.

What's the point?

Ooh... "Scary Movie 7" Shawn and Marlon Wayans flubbing a line. Catch it in HD! *bright ping bounces off it* Ugh.

"...when it releases Adam Sandler's latest click, "Click.""

And to think I haven't spent $1K on a player yet! Oh,..., and an HDCP monitor.

Yawn...

It seems that only Adam Sandler could capture the spirit of the moment so well...

Whilst the launch of true HiDef movies, and 50GB space for decent bitrates, extras and uncompressed audio is welcome, I would like to think they could have selected some better movies to launch with. That said it's no worse than Kong on HD-DVD.. I suppose they need to be recently shot movies, or people will complain about the non-HD source, but what about DeVinci Code for example, a Sony Movie, with everything shot in HD. Killer 50GB launch title..

the "extra 25GB for extras" is misleading, as it implies the main movie can fit in the 1st layer's 25GB, which is untrue. Still it beats having to turn the disk over unlike another HD format has to.....

"Still it beats having to turn the disk over unlike another HD format has to....."

What format would that be? Surely you don't mean HD-DVD. Name ONE movie that requires you to flip over the disc.

It will happen. I have some movies on standard def DVD's that require a flip (an earlier release of Seven Samurai, for one). And then there are more commonly movies that have widescreen on one side and pan-and-scan on the other, some of which only have certain features per side (I think Rush Hour is like that). Other movies require multiple discs, which is for all practical purposes of a viewing session, the same as flipping it (LotR). The point is that no disc format is going to have an omnipotent data capacity.

Err, but that's just the thing - the movie CAN fit in the first 25GB. The bitrates are not that high, as evidenced by the number of releases already made that do not use the second layer at all.

Personally I think that's the best feature ever. 4:3 one side, 16:9 the other. I love the versatility, because I can't always watch a DVD on a widescreen.

But I've never seen a DVD that required you to flip it over mid-movie. That sounds like a crock to me.

You do realize that dual layer and even triple layer HD-DVDs are coming don't you? There will never be any need to flip them over.

They are developing multi-layer discs that will be able to have regular DVD content in a single layer so there won't be any need for double sided discs.

There have been no 50GB releases, how do you know the new bitrates? The bottom line, is more storage allows higer bitrates, which provides better picture quality...

But nothing is here today, Blu-Ray has this already, which is why virtually everyone except Microsoft, Toshiba and Universal supporta Blu-Ray, as it's the way forward.

Will current HD-DVD players play this future dual/tripple layer vapourware?

Like I've stated before. If that second layer was used to better the movies visual quality, then you'd have a point. But its being used on extras.

Yes it is true that some HD movies can NOT fit on 25GB layer. Thats why 50GB (dual layer) are the discs of my choice.

How do you know this? Does anyone know the bitrate of the 50GB movies, or even of they are H264, VC1, or MPEG2....

Read the article

For a second I thought you were trying to say you can play a Bluray disc in a regular player.

Boy thats worth buying blue ray for.

Too bad this movie sucks. I guess they figured it needed all the bonus material it can get. I still wouldn't want it if you gave it to me.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/click/

what do you mean? didn't you read the article?it has 2 layers now! how can it be bad on 2 layers? i understand it would suck if it included only one layer because you just cant fit all the hi-def goodness in just 25 gig, but with spacious 50 gig it just cant suck! how can it?

i understand you probably didn't like the movie to much but it doesn't mean you don't have to purchase it. as the matter of fact you absolutley MUST purchase it since it is your obligation as consumer and they didn't release it for nothing. think of all the movie producer's sexual favor providers and studio janitors - they need your money to survive! if you don't buy it they not going to have enough funds to create and sereve you with next piese of crap movie and we don't want that to happen , right?

LMAO, i hope your not serious. If your being sarcastic, its not evident.

As for having 50 Gigs making a movie good, thats crap. If you polish a turd, its still a turd. The movie sucks bottom line, and pointless extras are not going to make it any better.

I bet the uncompressed PCM sound goes to 11. ;)

does the bonus material change the fact the movie is utter crap? does having 2 layers on the media improve the quality of the movie (quality, not definition)?

people, when are you going to stop accepting low quality (and by quality i dont mean low definition)? piese of crap on a gold plate is still piese of crap.

You lost me. :'(

explain quality vs definition,
and when does a movie being "utter crap" get fixed by an extra layer of crap?

quality - subjective. consider: movie being interesting to watch, conveys a point, leaves something to think about, good actor work (rehersing before shooting). up to you to deside

definition - ammount of lines on the screen.

my point exactly - no ammount of layers will make a crap movie better

In that case: yes, quality sucks. But if Sony was going to make an impression, then they shouldve increased the definition on that extra layer.

It's possible the hardware can't support higher bitrates or 'definition', as you put it.

Have you at least seen this movie ? I've watched it in cinema, and i'm almost cryed (few tears dropped ;) ) this is not average Sandler movie i can tell you.

"The extra 25GB of space will be used for interactivity and extras, such as high-definition bonus features and uncompressed PCM audio." Sounds to me like Sony is just trying to fill up space with useless stuff, so the second layer doesn't appear useless. Uncompressed PCM will take up a lot of space and it's something nobody really needs. Maybe they can start adding these useless things to their other crappy movies and re-release them as Special Edition dual layer titles.

"Sony is just trying to fill up space with useless stuff"

Well any fanboy will disagree with you as far as useless stuff is concerend, but I can definitly agree that they are simply trying to fill up space

Don't they know they can compress PCM audio and still maintain lossless quality?

Looks like the marketing schmucks got there before the engineers finished their donuts.

Damn...

None of the current Blu-Ray players from Sony, Samsung or Panasonic support Dolby TrueHD. Support for Dolby Digital Plus is just recently starting to become available thanks to Panasonic. The best solution is to use uncompressed PCM until hardware manufacturers get their sh*t together.

The first movie that Sony is releasing is "Click"? Why couldn't it be like some GREAT picture like "Scarface" or even "The Shining"....f*cking "Click"..yeah..LET ME GO BUY THAT QUICKLY! I love Adam Sandler..don't get me wrong..but I guess that's why I'm not CEO of Sony..lol

About the only extras I'd like to see in HD is for either T2, or Star Wars. Other than that I don't see the point in HD extras.

Now that I think of it, why are the extras only on the second layer? Shouldnt the extra space be used to increase the movies quality? Or is really not necessary to have more than 25 gig for the movie itself?

I wouldn't be surprised if the movie and its extras could fit on a single-layer 25GB disc, and Sony is just trying to wrongly imply that HD-DVD couldn't have it because it doesn't have quite as high a capacity.

25GB is more than enough space for a full 1080p HD movie lasting even four to five hours. HD DVD is only 15GB on each layer for this reason.

Most movies are shot in pure Kodak Film and converting that film to Digital HD usually kills alot of the quality. Click was probably shot entirely on HD and thus content for Bonus features in HD is available. Scareface, a movie dear to my heart, wasn't shot on HD, and any bonus features if any would be shot on film also thus making HD bonus features a waste of money because the quality would be the same as DVD even after they enhanced everything. 50GB Blu-ray isn't something we will all be using for several more years. DVD was out several years before it was widely adopted. And the binus features on DVD were a big deal to back then.

Thats exactly what I'm thinking. Because I'd rather have extra quality on the film itself, not the bonus stuff.

It looks like Sony are just using the Bonus features to sell some 50 Gig disks. Any REAL bonus we'll see would be in using that extra capacity for gaming, as the PS3 will use Blu-ray for games that are bigger than ever before. Nintendo are using HD DVD, so it looks like their films could be better, but that Sony will lead on the gaming front. (although Nintendo are getting their Wii out for X-mas...)

I am not really sure I would want to play a game that would need six dual-layer dvds worth of capacity.

You mean Microsoft, the Wii is going to use regular encrypted DVDs.

That would have to be a VERY poorly coded game to use 50GB of data and still be capable of running on the PS3. I can't even imagine what you would require from a PC to do that, and they've already got the leg-up in processing power.

Or a game that uses very high quality and detailed textures for 1080p gaming..

People forget that for true HD gaming, more storage space is required, todays DVD9 will not cut it...

Yeah. God forbid they actually use the space by providing more levels, longer games, or merging sequals...

Who'd want to buy the entire burnout series on one disc??

Last game you'd ever need to buy. Would take a lifetime just finish the 30k or so levels.

Point. shoot. go through door. Point. Shoot.

Repeat 30M.

Sounds like fun. ;)

People forget that for true HD gaming, more storage space is required, todays DVD9 will not cut it...

Console gamers need to remember that PC gamers have been "HD gaming" for years, and still don't need more space than a DVD9 can hold.

Who'd really mind buying a bundle of the individual discs?

It is possible for a game to need 50GB of data and be playable on a PS3 or PC. It would just be lots and lots of content. I myself don't care if a brick-wall repeats a texture every 2 screens but some people might think they will actually notice a difference.

Well, obviously, he would, you insensitive clod. ;P