Search results

Well, there's a development.

And the good news is, you don't have to choose, because higher effective resolution (resolve) is a free bonus of higher frame-rates.

I think a lot of other things would be much more useful, but I think that has little bearing on the industry's interest in finding/creating a market for a new format they (think they) can sell.

Ever seen a backward-compatible format? Ever seen a combo-pack?

I fully agree with you, although I suspect the answer to your rhetorical question relates to the manufacturing costs involved with producing higher-density media at commercial volumes. I'd love to see something even better, too, but I do think the BD-50 approach could be done without...

There you go. :) Yes, and this is why your Lawrence of Arabia example is a little ironic. I can't begrudge you skepticism about Universal's ability to do this well. In general though, I think it can be done.

It wouldn't be cannibalizing Blu-ray sales; it would be Blu-ray sales (as in, if they did this well, there would be no need for additional product SKUs).

A single DVD didn't adequately support a four-hour long film, either. Was that an issue for you?

Ok. I'm not sure what to tell you then except maybe to read a couple of MPEG whitepapers. Well, of course. They could also coat the disc in potassium cyanide and various other dastardly things, but that's beside the point, too. I'm not talking about something absurd like trying to fit 3 - 5...

It doesn't require four times the efficiency. Past a certain point, there's a diminishing rate of data demand as resolution increases because of the nature of cinematographic subject-matter. With a newer, more efficient codec, two-to-three times the data rate is probably sufficient and a BD-50...

Awesome! Nice job, Ron- thanks!