20th Century Fox is labeling the BLU-RAY discs with incorrect info in terms of specs - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:06 AM
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,238
Default 20th Century Fox is labeling the BLU-RAY discs with incorrect info in terms of specs

20th Century Fox has some amazing BLU-RAY's with high bit rate MPEG-4/AVC but I notice that they are labeling the discs incorrectly in the amount of GB's used. 20th Century Fox automatically labels dual layer discs as 50GB and single layer discs as 25GB under the specification area on the back of the case jacket. All the 20th Century Fox discs that I have seen so far do not use a full 25GB or 50GB like the jacket says. Most single layers are in the 20's and most dual layers are in the low to mid 40's that I have seen from 20th Century Fox.
A much more accurate labeling would be to call the disc a dual layer or single layer and not to list an incorrect automatic 50GB for dual layer and 25GB for single layer. What would even be better is if 20th Century Fox listed the actual GB used. Like say 46.6GB, 43GB, 37GB, etc.
If 20th Century Fox is going to label the discs as 50GB or 25GB then they should use the entire disc for high bit rate video and audio with extras instead of just only using part of the disc.
I could give several examples of movies that are labeled incorrectly but one can easily discover this for themselves by placing the disc in a BD-ROM computer drive to check the actual size of the BLU-RAY disc.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:09 AM
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,238
Default

The problem is they say "50GB DUAL LAYER" and "25GB SINGLE LAYER" when they should be saying just "DUAL LAYER" or "SINGLE LAYER". I have never seen a Fox title use the full 50GB or 25GB that is stated on the specs. The Fox titles are still some of the best in picture and sound.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:11 AM
cheez avenger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,694
Default

That would look "cluttered".

43.7gb looks sloppy compared to 50gb.



Is this an OCD thing?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:26 AM
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,462
Default

Cheez, i see nothing wrong w/ seeing 47.294gb disc. in fact, they should make discs in every fractional tenth of a gb increment.

What titles EVER use the full capacity of a disc? hell, 2x4's don't measure 2x4. a 20x30x1 air filter is 19 3/4 x 29 1/2 x 3/4. that 12 gallon tank in my truck? 11.95. My 120GB hard drive? 116.

This is not a new thing.....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:31 AM
cheez avenger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by project-blu View Post
Cheez, i see nothing wrong w/ seeing 47.294gb disc. in fact, they should make discs in every fractional tenth of a gb increment.

What titles EVER use the full capacity of a disc? hell, 2x4's don't measure 2x4. a 20x30x1 air filter is 19 3/4 x 29 1/2 x 3/4. that 12 gallon tank in my truck? 11.95. My 120GB hard drive? 116.

This is not a new thing.....
Wait, are you being sarcastic?

I know what your saying, but 47.294gb would look lame on the back cover. I'm really not against it, but as far as the person designing the layout, etc, it's not very efficient. It's actually a pain in the ass from a "typesetters" perspective.

IMO
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:41 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 51
Default

im pretty sure that was sarcasm
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:42 AM
jus10 said's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 248
Default

damn, i just measured my levi's... they're 33 1/2 inches instead of 34!!!! the number on the back is wrong!! TIME TO WRITE A LETTER
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:43 AM
cheez avenger's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fabz View Post
im pretty sure that was sarcasm


I hope so. I didn't see no dang emoticon!


NATE!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,994
Default

But they ARE 50GB Dual Layer discs, no matter how much of it is filled up.

So no, there's nothing incorrect about it at all. Perhaps somebody might ot realize it doesn't mean how big the actual files are but...well, considering that's a big who gives a shit...

Now, when they screw up the aspect ratio...or something actually important...let me know.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2008, 01:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 219
Default

They're telling you the type of disc used, not how much data is on the disc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SHUTTER (20th Century Fox/Regency) ClinicaTerra LTD Blu-ray Software General Discussion 0 07-22-2008 08:12 PM
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment is back now what? Strahan92 Blu-ray Software General Discussion 35 10-07-2007 03:28 AM
What's with 20th Century FOX not releasing anymore Blu-Rays? ChronBong Blu-ray Software General Discussion 1 08-20-2007 05:02 AM
20th century fox uk bd schedule devlin Blu-ray Software General Discussion 0 08-16-2007 08:53 AM
20th Century Fox Blu Ray Exclusively..... Aibo High Definition Smackdown 4 07-02-2007 06:03 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off