Summary of which Blu-ray discs are 50 GB?

[Welwynnick]

I was browsing the Blu-ray reviews at HiDefDigest the other day, and noticed that a lot of discs were only 25 GB. I wasn't being scientific or anything, and didn't make any list or tally, but it did seem like 50 GB discs were very much in the minority.

If you look at the back of a disc for the tech info, it will sometimes say whether it's single or dual layer, but most of the time it doesn't. I would have thought that info should be readily available.

Does anyone know of a convenient source of consolidated info on BD specs? I saw one a little while ago, where someone had compiled all the stats for every discs released, but I can't find it anywhere now.

I'm getting curious about what is the actual proportion of 25 : 50 GB discs. Many people (myself excluded) have long said there were three things in BDA's favour: studio support, the PS3, and disc capacity. Well, we all know about the first two, but if the theoretical capacity is not being realised in practice for one reason or another, then it's actually advantage HD DVD.

Goes without saying, lets keep this format-war-free, I'm just after pertinent information.

Cheers, Nick

 

[kourosh]

Hi Nick,i usually look here http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/reviews.html
when you select a review it tells you the spec's on the left hand side

 

[Nic Rhodes]

http://www.blu-raystats.com/

Is this what you wanted? I think there is another good one that even gives the BD25:BD50 release ratios which still shows lots of 25s

 

[Welwynnick]

Thanks Nic, that's the one I was thinking of. And now they do the HD DVD stats as well.

The summaries were good reading. Still a surprise how many MPEG2 discs there are there, but the proportin is going right down. I was also surprised that there were about 14% single layer HD DVDs, which I didn't expect.

Anyway, the interesting bit was that the BD50:25 ratio was about 60:40. However, take the releases before October out of the equation (before BD50 was released) and that ratio becomes about 50:50. Which is a bit more reasonable, I had thought that most were still 25s, which would have been a waste.

Kourosh, that was what started me thinking, but I thought there might be a quicker way!

Watched WOTW -sorry - War of the Worlds last night. Wow, even the wife was drawn to repeatedly comment favourably on a "hobby" of mine.

Cheers, Nick

 

[brian s]

If you look at the back of a disc for the tech info, it will sometimes say whether it's single or dual layer, but most of the time it doesn't. I would have thought that info should be readily available.

Yes I quite agree. The US sites seem to be very good at giving this info. The UK sites are rubbish at it. The info should be freely available in order to judge on a good buy. A good quality dual layered BD should be far better than a HD DVD. A single layer disc however...

Cheers
Bri

 

[Welwynnick]

I found this very interesting site to day. It compares several different media and formats. There is a chilling comparision of the original and re-released Fifth Element BD discs.

The most interesting comparison is between BD & HD, and most people say there is no significant difference, but really the comparison is between MPEG2 and everything else. The codec seems to be more important than the size of the disc. A larger BD file in MPEG2 is distinctly worse than a smaller HD file in VC-1.

This isn't very obvious when you compare the full frame pictures, but when you look at the 200% enlarged segments, the extra blocking of MPEG2 is quite obvious. How Sony could have shackled themselves for so long with such a disadvantage beggars belief. Still, they seem to have put that behind them, and I'd reluctantly agree that even the MPEG2 encode of MI:3 looks pretty good.

I think it also makes clear that none of the compression schemes is transparent, so no form of HD is perfect. By that token, it could be that the differences between the pictures could be attributed to differences between players (though I think that the author may have been using a PC anyway).

Still, my feeling is that there is still scope for superior BD & HD players, just as there was for DVD players. Shame that some of the less descriminating members around here don't share that approach. In case anyone thinks that I might be taking an unfair pop at one particularly familiar character, well let me put your suspicions to rest - yes I was!

BR, Nick