View attachment 616669
I've seen 2160p rips that fit on a DVD9 that look good, it'd surely fit on 100GB disc with a better codec. This 'technology' is bloated BS, marketing lie, and plastic waste. We could've had 1080p video on DVDs I always say.
I for one found out that the SOUND/AUDIO part and its various forms are the ones that take
MUCH more space than the IMAGE/VIDEO part.
And if there are more than one sound/audio language, then even more space taken.
I believe that's one of the reasons the streaming is always smaller, for example, since they have NEVER used the uncompressed audio formats, as the Dolby TrueHD and/or DTS MA and later.
I think just one language in either above mentioned uncompressed formats, for a movie length about one and half hours, would easily be more than a DVD can hold (what was, 5GB or so?)
Furthermore, the images could also be further compressed with less visible loss (hence a 2160p rip don't take much more than a 1080p), but the audio track would always be with a loss.
Therefore, I believe that keeping them on disk is more about as much as uncompressed or compressed without visible/audible loss.
I personally found that the image of pretty much all streaming videos being even further ENHANCED by our players and/or TVs (hence satisfying), but I've always could differentiate the sound of streaming against the sound of the disk (Blu-Ray and 4K UHD Blu-Ray).
I'm sure you already know all this, just that you are satisfied with the loss, right?
