Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
I'm not disputing it - I'm just questioning the practicality of it. Again, if the difference were that noticeable, don'tcha think think BR would ask or pay for a newer encode? How much trouble do you really think that is? Don't you think that would be an important enough benefit for Blu-Ray to show off?
But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.
I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.
I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.
I'm not disputing it - I'm just questioning the practicality of it. Again, if the difference were that noticeable, don'tcha think think BR would ask or pay for a newer encode? How much trouble do you really think that is? Don't you think that would be an important enough benefit for Blu-Ray to show off?
Its not the BDA that does it, its the studios. The studios don't want one to be better because they are playing both formats. Thats why they can't be bothered to do a second encode.