Are DVDs a great waste of data space ?

[Mod]

Are DVDs a great waste of space ?

I think they are. Within sometime, when internet gets faster, people will begin to share movies as they are doing with music. I think it's a shame using a DVD to store 50 minutes of a show.

To avoid this trand, they should be available smaller quality recordings ( since most people wouln't notice the difference), with 10 or more episodes in DIVx per DVD . For example , there should be a collection in which in 5 or 10 DVDs would contain all X-Files episodes. Not several DVDs per season. These ones would be bought by hardcore fans.

There could be other arguments suporting this reasoning or againgst this. Say something people ... :)

[FastM]

Well i still love the picture and sound quality DVD has given rental movies. I Refuse to rent a VHS anymore.

[raystone57]

Still may need to keep them the way they are, at least the rewritables, for backups. Yeah there are tape backups but it takes longer to access stuff in the middle of a tape. And each dvd gets filled up except the last one sometimes. Heh, dang, there always has to be one. That would show your point too, finishing a dvd backup of a pc and winding up with 10 or 20 kbytes on the last disc. The other full ones should make it worth it though.

raystone

[The Baron]

Let's see.. DVDs have an insane resolution when compared to VHS, they're smaller than VHS, cheaper to manufacture, have more stuff, MUCH better audio, crazy features, etc. al.

How are they a waste of space?

Remember, a DVD movie is probably in the range of 30-40 gigs with 5.1 audio and full quality... and yes, there are people who can tell the difference. Why do you think people supported Betamax instead of VHS?

As for holding entire seasons of shows on a single DVD... of course they can't. The longest movie on one DVD is (I think) the Apocalypse Now Redux, which is about 3 1/2 hours long. That's 4 episodes of Farscape or Stargate or something like that.

So of course you're going to need multiple DVDs. Tough Cookies.

[Mod]

Hey, I am not considering that most people wouldn't bother VHS quality, in exchange of the cheap cost of 1 DVD. I am considering that the data space is being understimated. Take for example an x-file episode. A 200 mbyte DIVx video of 48 minutes has a quality very close to a DVD. A dvd of duble density has 16 gigabyte, so a DVD could hold 80 episodes of X-Files. That is 4 seasons.


I have seen Matrix in a divx video of 740 Mb. It's 2h30m of video. I have seen it with some of my friends and compared to a DVD version, both seen in computer and a usual TV (20 pol) . We didn't notice any diference on TV, except when we saw it on the computer, that we notice some loss efect.

The maximum DVD capacity is 18 gigabytes ( double side, double densidy, like a diskette :p). Most movies have just 4,5gigabytes per 80 min. They may use both sides to play movies, but never double density, which is less reliable ...

Some people can notice the difference. These ones would buy the higher quality movie, as I said. Most woudn't, and so they would buy the lower quality. They wouldn't bother anyway, because they don't have a high quality sound equipment

[thcdru2k]

have you tried to watch a divx on an hdtv, and a dvd on a hdtv. on a regular tv, the resolution won't matter, so you wont notice the difference. thats why you notice the difference on a monitor because it does run at a higher resolution than regular tv. its not as if its a great waste of space, whats wrong with more space for the size same as a cd. plus sharing movies is illegial anyway, just because you can share movies doesn't mean they shouldn't be making dvds.

[Mod]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
have you tried to watch a divx on an hdtv, and a dvd on a hdtv. on a regular tv,

That's why i test it in a computer. Since most people doesn't have hdtv and high quality sound. It wouldn't matter.

[thcdru2k]

true, but couple more years, the price will come down.

[Mod]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
true, but couple more years, the price will come down.

And chips will be exponentialy faster and so compression software ( much more complex and more processing heavier than today) may surpass today's dvd quality with 20x less space...

[thcdru2k]

i don't think compression now matter how good it is will truly surpass dvd quality, or by than hd-dvd quality. but hey if it happens cool.

i think the best thing to do however, is offer it, like divx movies on a high density cd instead of a dvd, at cheaper prices for those who don't have expensive equiptment.

but you will always have your videophiles, audiophiles, those who want best quality, and you will always have companies wanting to make money off of them.

[The Baron]

They may use both sides to play movies, but never double density, which is less reliable ...

Er, wrong. Go check out the 2001 DVD. It had this odd tendency to screw up on my DVD player, so I investigated it--double density. There are PLENTY of double density DVDs. Just not mainstream movies. The really nice ones, yeah, they're all DD.

DivX--yeah, it's the best we've got, but it ain't that great. With GOOD high-resolution output, you can instantly tell the difference between a DVD and a DivX.

And bah to the argument of what most people have. 10 years ago, most people didn't have computers.

[The Baron]

And chips will be exponentialy faster and so compression software ( much more complex and more processing heavier than today) may surpass today's dvd quality with 20x less space...

There is no super compression. You can't reduce a movie into 15 megs without completely killing quality. It's just not possible, nor will it be possible within 20 years.

Let's see.

We can go one path and try to compress things, which requires a LOT of research, huge expenses, etc. al, and probably won't result in anything feasible for quite a while...

OR.

We can make bigger media.

Guess which is gonna win.

[[Corporal Dan]]

Actually I agree.

One thing that has always pissed me off is the way Eps of my favorite shows are sold.

1 or 2 episodes PER DISC!!!!!

Naturally, each disc costs a full 25 bux.

Do ya like TNG?

Gues what! You'll be paying over 150 bucks FOR THE FIRST GOD DAMNED SEASON OUT OF SEVEN!

A whole season's worth of stuff for 50 bucks, that's reasonable.

So yes, DVDs as they are now are a waste of space.

As for movies, though, yes, i like them the way they are.

[[Corporal Dan]]

Originally posted by =SSC=The Baron


There is no super compression. You can't reduce a movie into 15 megs without completely killing quality. It's just not possible, nor will it be possible within 20 years.


What about fractal compression algorithms?

[The Baron]

OK. Let's say they find an algorithm that can compress a movie to five times less space than what they do now. You still have to uncompress it on the fly. So is putting MUCH faster CPUs in DVD players more cost-effective than just making media way bigger, which we can already do and currently are doing?

[thcdru2k]

both will happen concurrently. there will always be more developments in compression and more developments in making movies and such closer to movie theatre quality.

[Feanor]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
true, but couple more years, the price will come down.

Couple more years, HDTV will be mandated by the FCC. Do I want to buy discs today that will look like crap when I buy a TV that meets broadcast standards in 2006? No. One reason for buying DVDs is because they last longer then video tapes. It is so one will not have to go buying the same movie again and again as it wears out. I plan on my DVDs lasting more then 5 years...

As to space, they can get 6 hours on a double density/double sided DVD...aka Stephen King's the stand comes on 1 DVD, and the 4 parts are 2 hours a piece as I remember... Assuming 1/3 the program is commercials (it does very, but I have timed it and seen an average of 10 mins commercials in a 30 min program or 20 minutes commercials in a 1 hour program), that leaves us 9 1 hour episodes per double sided and double density DVD. Something such as Babylon 5, one would not fit on a whole disk...

As to getting a whole season on a single disk, and not losing any image quality, perhaps it'd be better to take a look at these mentioned CDs. People are claiming these disks can hold 650 million MB per disk... An entire TV series could fit on 1 disk and not fill it up LOL

http://www.3dgpu.com/yabb_se/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=1716

The only problem, how long will it take for this to come out? Would make a good replacement for DVD though...

[Elderblaze]

There is no super compression. You can't reduce a movie into 15 megs without completely killing quality. It's just not possible, nor will it be possible within 20 years.

I love it when people make blanket statements like this, and it brings me back to the classic Bill Gates :

"640k ought to be enough for anybody"

Regards,
Mike

[[Corporal Dan]]

You moron!

He meant 640 MEGS!

;)

[The Baron]

Such a scheme may one day exist. But not anytime soon, nor will it be used in any large degree. It's cheaper just to have El Gigante hard drives or media bigger than DVD than to put that much processing power into it.

Look at EVERYTHING in the computer industry and everything in the technology industry. Bigger is better. It's actually pretty true. Will it ALWAYS be true? Maybe, maybe not. But considering such compression schemes are nowhere to be found... if holographic storage takes a lot longer than expected to materialize and we hit the point where we cannot go any farther on magnetic media, yes, then we'll work on compression. Till then, no, we'll just make bigger drives and bigger CDs.

[thcdru2k]

yeah, obviously the direction is towards more media in less physical space. as long as that is happening, compression isn't even all that necesary, only for the internet, as the bandwidth is limited.

[The Baron]

Except now they want to put fiber optic lines going to the curb... so 100Mbps for all! :D I can't wait... ;)

[Feanor]

Hell, some people are predicting that we might end up moving back to flat files for a dBase or something, as disk space becomes relatively unrestricted... Personally, I don't know, even if space doesn't become an issue (and that thread I linked too suggests it might become a non-issue whenever that gets developed, especially if it could be put into hard drive arrays), there could still be other benefits to relating data, so I'm a bit more iffy about that suggestion...

[thcdru2k]

yup yup, like just what 4-5 years ago, the mass majority of internet users were on 56k. so just imagine 5/10/20 years down the road. prices will get cheaper, and people will start moving up.

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by thcdru2k
yup yup, like just what 4-5 years ago, the mass majority of internet users were on 56k. so just imagine 5/10/20 years down the road. prices will get cheaper, and people will start moving up.

are you sure the majority of internet users isn't still on 56k :p

Take for example an x-file episode. A 200 mbyte DIVx video of 48 minutes has a quality very close to a DVD

considering that the X-Files episodes on DVD aren't remastered or anything, that isn't surprising. i watched a few of the early seasons on DVD and you could see a lot of artifacts(banding, et al)

I have seen Matrix in a divx video of 740 Mb. It's 2h30m of video. I have seen it with some of my friends and compared to a DVD version, both seen in computer and a usual TV (20 pol) . We didn't notice any diference on TV, except when we saw it on the computer, that we notice some loss efect.

did it have Dolby Digital sound or just 2 channel mp3 audio?