12/3/08 at 8:09am
Guess what...
Guess what...
|
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
Wonder if this is going to be vaporware or if it will actually come to fruition. Perhaps as storage-media only? Otherwise that should be enough room to have lossless video!
![]() |


Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".
|
Originally Posted by nolesrule
Where's my Duke Nukem Forever?
|

|
Originally Posted by Jason Seaver
I'm guessing bandwidth would be a bigger problem for lossless video.
So, we believe this, but not 51GB HD-DVDs? ![]() |
Sanjay
Member since July - August 1997
|
Originally Posted by Sanjay Gupta
I suppose the difference in credibility and thus believability is due to the fact that the Blu-Ray group has no reason to lie now, having already won the HD format war. While with HD-DVD it was important for them to try and play down the 50GB advantage that Blu-Ray had over it.
|
|
Originally Posted by digitalgliff
I read from pcmag that curantly blu-ray is unable to do double layers. so the 50 gig disk is hype at this point & so is the 400 gig & what i hear is 1 terabyte by 2010. HD-DVD on the other hand could easily do a triple layer holding 45 gigs. So Why again did blu win?
I'm betting on HD-downloads. |
Huh?! Studios have been using 50G dual layer discs for some time now. Something is not computing here. How old was that magazine?
When you have to shoot...shoot. Don't talk!
|
Originally Posted by digitalgliff
I read from pcmag that curantly blu-ray is unable to do double layers.
|
|
Originally Posted by digitalgliff
I read from pcmag that curantly blu-ray is unable to do double layers. so the 50 gig disk is hype at this point & so is the 400 gig & what i hear is 1 terabyte by 2010. HD-DVD on the other hand could easily do a triple layer holding 45 gigs.
|
|
Originally Posted by digitalgliff
So Why again did blu win?
|
|
Originally Posted by digitalgliff
I'm betting on HD-downloads.
|
Sanjay
Member since July - August 1997