DVDs: does size really matter? (1 Viewer)

[Chris Hicks]

I bet you thought this was a nasty post huh? I was wondering if the studios released a new video format similar to DVD but the disc size was say 8"(or larger, like the LD) would you accept it? Would you consider this a step backwards? It seems that people keep wanting everything smaller, ie. cellphones,computers,etc. So would this be acceptable in the present if the discs actually grew in size say for extra storage reasons?

 

[Jack Briggs]

One of the explanations for DVD's success is its convenient size, as opposed to LaserDisc's vinyl LP-like bulk. More data could be stored on an eith-inch disc, but its practicality would be in doubt. (Slightly edited your thread title, btw.)

 

[Alex Spindler]

I think that the size of a DVD is an important factor in its success. I was initially skeptical about the size of keepcases (why not use Jewel Cases, I pondered), but the size that they are now make them a more attractive case than VHS and certainly more space efficient in comparison to LD. In addition, having DVDs be effectively the same media size as CDs has allowed for the multifunction of DVD players. Just imagine if a DVD-ROM had to have a huge external SCSI LD player? Instead, my computer has a hybrid DVD-ROM/CD-RW, which is only possible because of the media form factor.

A wise decision, and one that I can't see anyone abandoning in the future.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Absolutely. Imagine watching a movie on your laptop during a flight to Chicago, only the disc is 12" in diameter and the drive that plays it back is bigger than your whole computer. I don't think so. The smaller the better, I say. I particularly like the idea of making all media physically identical even if the actual surface data is different so that combo drives are possible.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The current size is fine with me.

 

[Chris Hicks]

The reason I ask this is it is supposed to be home theater not travel theater. DVD fits the bill for everywhere play but other formats weren't. I mean look at how many people buy LD and VHS still plus with D-VHS coming this doesn't make home theater a travelers companion. I'm talking about a hardcore format that you will only watch at home. Besides LD lasted for quite awhile even though it wasn't playable in a portable format. And I also don't think we will have mini-HD sets to travel with so we can take advantage of this (imaginary)format anytime soon. I don't mean to sound sarcastic if I do.

 

[Mike Broadman]

One advantage of a larger media size is the possibility of more attractive packaging. Look at vinyl records- some great album art gets lost when shrunk to fit a CD jewel case.

However, this is a minor concern.

To me, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I agree, Mike. Somehow, CD jewel boxes don't ooze with the excitement factor that 12-inch vinyl LP covers did--too, there was always that rich smell associated with opening the shrinkwrap of an album.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

When DVD was being discussed, people said it would have been better to use the existing 12-inch laserdiscs and try to put UNCOMPRESSED audio and video on them. I would have preferred it that way if it were possible; the only advantage I see of DVD's size is that it's less expensive to manufacture. I personally couldn't care less how big or small the medium is, though since DVD cases are thicker than LD sleeves they still take up more space than they should.

BTW CDs are the size they are because that was how big a disc they needed to fit Beethoven's entire 9th symphony on one disc- they were originally going to be a little smaller but someone suggested they should be able to hold an entire Beethoven symphony. That's why I thought it was silly when they were taking the same physical medium and trying to make it into a new video format. But it worked out pretty well, so what can I say?

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I'd also like to see a 12-inch disc with uncompressed a/v. There used to be a lot of discussion whether or not DVD was a real improvement over LD. With a 12-inch disc with today's technology there would probably have been no such doubt.

But the size of DVDs is practical in the mass market and DVD is a great format in my experience, so I don't complain.

 

[JoeDeM]

Althought the size of DVD is great, I think it was the price that kept LD from getting major penetration, most movies in my area were always $100.00-$150.00cdn , you can buy 5-7 dvds for that for that price. If LDs cost the same, and had cheap players, would we even be having this conversation.

So to answer your question, if the players and discs (8" HD-DVD) were priced right(not like this $2000.00 D-VHS crap), I would buy it as long as the player was backwards compatible with 5" discs.

P.S. I don't watch movies on my Laptop, and it has a DVD player.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Okay, but what about the other direction then.

Assuming these 2 choices -

1) Smaller size, same info storage as current DVD

2) Same size but more info storage than current DVD

Which would you prefer then?

 

[Alex Spindler]

Option 2 - Same size but with more capacity.

I think it is a real sweet spot with what they have now. Portable devices to play the media aren't so bulky as to be unuseable, the established PC interaction is assured, the "palm of the hand" factor keeps them easy to deal with, and the discs are large enough to put meaningful artwork on them. Any smaller, and it's back to the VHS/audiocassette days of no artwork.