2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Christine Tham

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Universal Dualdisc Webpage - Garnot 10:12:38 10/23/04 (69)

Re: Universal Dualdisc Webpage - davcole 05:07:36 10/24/04 (62)

that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD players. - Teresa 19:53:49 10/24/04 (61)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - NotMe 21:42:43 10/24/04 (60)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - jimby 21:10:45 10/25/04 (12)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - NotMe 10:52:09 10/27/04 (5)

Re: Universal content. - John Kotches 12:54:38 10/27/04 (4)

Re: Universal content. - NotMe 20:17:31 10/27/04 (2)

Re: Universal content. - Martin419 02:24:50 10/28/04 (1)

Re: Universal content. - NotMe 10:51:44 10/28/04 (0)

You are right. - Christine Tham 13:31:47 10/27/04 (0)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - John Kotches 07:31:13 10/26/04 (4)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - jimby 11:38:07 10/26/04 (3)

Question about DualDisc licensing... - Frank.. 02:25:39 10/27/04 (0)

Re: that has to do with limited disc space as both the DVD and CD layers are thinner so they can fit in regular CD playe - John Kotches 16:06:51 10/26/04 (0)

thank you for stating the "facts" - Christine Tham 13:18:30 10/26/04 (0)

My take . . . - Martin419 03:01:29 10/26/04 (0)

This may be great news: The DVD layer is NOT compromised so maybe Warner will give us full resoulution DualDiscs. - Teresa 23:23:31 10/24/04 (46)

Re: This may be great news: The DVD layer is NOT compromised so maybe Warner will give us full resoulution DualDiscs. - Garnot 18:17:27 10/26/04 (0)

Not necessarily - Christine Tham 00:25:17 10/25/04 (44)

Example disc space calculation - Christine Tham 01:19:12 10/25/04 (43)

Assumption confusion . . . - Martin419 06:26:07 10/25/04 (4)

No. I deliberately left the 300MB for authoring overhead ... (nt) - Christine Tham 13:43:00 10/25/04 (3)

Now câ€™mon Christine . . . - Martin419 14:10:46 10/25/04 (2)

I must also point out the 300MB overhead is based on my own experience ... - Christine Tham 14:43:08 10/25/04 (0)

You missed out on "(excluding menus and overheads)" in the post (nt) - Christine Tham 14:15:20 10/25/04 (0)

They dropped bandwidth not resolution. - Frank.. 03:03:19 10/25/04 (37)

Nine Inch Nails.... - racerguy 07:38:32 10/25/04 (2)

Re: Nine Inch Nails.... - Frank.. 09:40:41 10/25/04 (1)

Re: Nine Inch Nails.... - racerguy 10:53:14 10/25/04 (0)

You just rattled a series of compromises ... - Christine Tham 03:30:40 10/25/04 (33)

Hardly serious dealbreakers. - Frank.. 04:23:08 10/25/04 (32)

It gets better . . . - Martin419 05:05:44 10/25/04 (31)

What both you and Frank seem to miss is that ... - Christine Tham 13:42:16 10/25/04 (23)

Sorry, how stupid of me to mis your fabricated Warner 'norm' :) - Frank.. 05:26:25 10/26/04 (5)

You obviously don't own many Warner discs then :-) - Christine Tham 05:54:48 10/26/04 (4)

Would not call that a 'norm'. - Frank.. 07:23:44 10/26/04 (3)

ALERT! "Tortured justification" in progress :-) - Christine Tham 14:12:05 10/26/04 (2)

And does it hurt Christine? :-) (nt) - Frank 01:57:54 10/27/04 (1)

Only when I laugh (nt) - Christine Tham 02:27:58 10/27/04 (0)

Some points . . . - Martin419 03:40:55 10/26/04 (16)

Re: Some points . . . - Christine Tham 04:34:20 10/26/04 (15)

"I struggle to understand your comment about backward compatibility. " - Frank.. 02:13:25 10/27/04 (4)

so, do we know that HD-DVD uses the same file structure? - Christine Tham 02:36:27 10/27/04 (3)

Re: so, do we know that HD-DVD uses the same file structure? - Frank.. 04:00:23 10/27/04 (2)

so, you were just guessing then? :-) - Christine Tham 13:39:16 10/27/04 (1)

Nope... - Frank... 14:28:22 10/27/04 (0)

Re: Some more points . . . - Martin419 05:58:31 10/26/04 (9)

Re: Some more points . . . - Christine Tham 06:08:22 10/26/04 (8)

Re: Some more points . . . - Martin419 07:26:51 10/26/04 (7)

Re: Some more points . . . - Christine Tham 13:03:18 10/26/04 (6)

Re: iLink - John Kotches 10:53:16 10/27/04 (3)

2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Christine Tham 13:35:03 10/27/04 (2)

Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Martin419 04:51:18 10/28/04 (0)

Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - John Kotches 14:34:16 10/27/04 (0)

Re: Some more points . . . - Martin419 16:15:09 10/26/04 (1)

OK, let's leave it at that - we do appear to be substantially agreeing so it's just semantics (nt) - Christine Tham 16:19:34 10/26/04 (0)

"Consumer" format - racerguy 07:47:17 10/25/04 (6)

Universal probably figures ? - Frank.. 10:03:58 10/25/04 (5)

Re: Universal probably figures ? - racerguy 10:34:16 10/25/04 (4)

Still fabricating your spins.. - Frank.. 01:11:34 10/26/04 (3)

You should do a better job - racerguy 05:53:16 10/26/04 (2)

You should read more carfully.. (nt) - Frank.. 07:30:02 10/26/04 (1)

You should take spelling lessons :-) (nt) - racerguy 07:50:51 10/26/04 (0)

thanks for info - Christine Tham 14:28:49 10/23/04 (5)

Re Warner . . . - Martin419 15:20:51 10/23/04 (4)

i saw the post, as well as ZS KEKL's post ... hoping for more specifics (nt) - Christine Tham 19:37:46 10/23/04 (1)

" . . . hoping for more specifics " -- me too. {n.t.} - Martin419 13:28:47 10/24/04 (0)

thanks for the update Martin - Teresa 17:14:30 10/23/04 (1)

Re: thanks for the update Martin - Martin419 07:45:41 10/24/04 (0)

Follow Ups

2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Christine Tham 13:35:03 10/27/04 (2)

Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - Martin419 04:51:18 10/28/04 (0)

Re: 2 is 1 short of a minimum of 3 - but i acknowledge your point ... - John Kotches 14:34:16 10/27/04 (0)