Originally Posted by amirm
That BDA talks about capacity being important, yet, it is wasteful in how it uses, whether it comes to audio, video or now, interactivity.
How is it wasteful to actually use
the capacity?!? You've got 50GB. Sure, doing PiP with a secondary video decoder would require less space than doing it with a second encode of the movie. So is it better to use 5GB for the PiP and leave 20GB empty? That
would be wasteful. The title already has 6.1 audio and plenty of other bonus features, it's not like there's clear indication that something was sacrificed due to the extra space occupied by the second encode.
The negative impact is that instead of working on creative aspects of the project, someone had to sit there and encode the video again. And if the result was not that great, they had to live with it.
Yet by all accounts the result was great, and in the process I'm sure Lions Gate's creative team came up with a bunch of new ideas for the future. Sure, I'd prefer that PiP had been mandatory on all Blu-ray players from the start (along with a network connection). But it's really not that big a deal that it isn't, given that more than 95% of the Blu-ray players in the market today
(the PS3) are capable of PiP and network connectivity (a number which will only rise), and that even with PiP support optional Blu-ray technology is sufficiently powerful to provide another mechanism for achieving a fundamentally comparable result.
Your response here (and in the past) also suggests that PiP is the end-all and be-all of advanced interactivity, which I think greatly overstates its importance. But I recognize that you have precious few capabilities left to seize on where HD-DVD has an advantage over Blu-ray, so I understand why you're beating this into the ground.