AfterDawn: News

Blu-ray Disc titles delayed to next month

Movies on Blu-ray Disc will not be available in stores on May 23rd as originally planned, but have been put back until June 25th to coincide with the launch of the first Blu-ray Disc player from Samsung. Benjamin Feingold, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment President, said that the first batch of BD titles will in fact be ready by the May 23rd but that retailers asked the studio to reconsider the release date.

"The majority of our retail base and hardware partners have requested that we reconsider this date to better coincide with the first commercially available Blu-ray-compatible hardware," Feingold said. HD DVD had a head start on Blu-ray, but on launch date only three titles were available for early adopters to choose. There will be 8 titles available with the launch of the Samsung player.



Those movies are Underworld Evolution (arriving the same day as the DVD), 50 First Dates, The Fifth Element, Hitch, House of Flying Daggers, A Knight's Tale, The Last Waltz, Resident Evil Apocalypse and XXX. In addition, the first Blu-ray titles from Warner Home Video are expected to arrive in stores around the same time.

Source:
Reuters

Interested in Blu-ray and HD DVD? Check out our HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discussion forum.

Written by: James Delahunty @ 4 May 2006 18:21

• Previous article

• Oblivion gets 'mature' rating over topless mod

• Next article

• DS Lite arrives in US in June

• 30 comments

• jmaestro

  Why don't they release some good titles?

  4.5.2006 19:29 #1

• oofRome

  House of Flying Daggers was sweet... the rest not so much.

  4.5.2006 21:22 #2

• sisph

  I really wonder who decides what movies get released and when. The guy who decided to release A Knight's Tale and XXX, Hitch, etc. as a launch title expecting to get high profits should be sacked.
  
  Or maybe they don't want to sell a lot of Blu Rays?

  4.5.2006 21:36 #3

• limelight

  Bu-ray and HD-DVD wont last. People are happy with dvd's.
  
  Remember SA-CD? That was better quality than a cd but it never caught on because people had to buy new players, and media cost more. BR and HD-DVD is the same way.

  5.5.2006 03:03 #4

• miraail28

  I beleive Blu ray and HD DVD will catch on but it will be a while. And the titles they've releaserd I think they just want to see how much they can get with just those type of titles.

  5.5.2006 06:42 #5

• jmaestro

  I hope they don't last. I have a feeling that Blue Ray/HD is more for the benefit of the film studios than the consumers.

  5.5.2006 07:05 #6

• pirkster

  Ironically, I think the medium that first brings out 7.1 audio will have the advantage.
  
  Most films aren't shot in "high def", so there's not much to gain with the HD or BluRay media just yet. Just increased storage for larger games, movie extras, and movie sound tracks.
  
  So many audio systems are 7.1 ready, but because of media limitations, there's no space to put down a 7.1 audio track. I think the more people adopt 7.1 home theatre systems, the more demand for 7.1 movies. And only the new media types have the storage for that kind of track.

  5.5.2006 10:10 #7

• rayman72

  I haven't seen either format yet I'm going to wait to see who wins the war before investing. As for DVD being good enough? Don't think so. If you get a HDTV and compare the DVD to a HD broadcast cable movie (which isn't supposed be as good as Blue Ray/HD DVD) there is clear difference on my 57". DVD looks washed out compared to HD which is very sharp, better color, and brightness. I'm going to get Blue Ray/HD DVD after the war but no need to invest at this time since broadcast HD with DVR is good enough.

  5.5.2006 14:55 #8

• Ludikhris

  Seriously, listen to the guy above me. I bought a 56" HD tv (1080i or 720p) like 6-8 months ago. HD television is noticeably better than DVDs. DVDs do seems to have a "washed out" felling to them. You have to kinda get farther from the screen for everything to look better. I for one am very excited to get my PS3 for the purpose of not just the games but the sweet BluRay movies, because as he said they are supposed to be in a higher def then HD tv. It should be noted however that all programs and commercials that are recorded and broadcasting in HD are done at various resolutions and will show more or less border as they project onto an HD screen. They can look better or worse. BluRay and HD-DVD will be constants, though I am sitting with BluRay as they have the most support at the moment and my new PS3 will be a player as well.
  

  6.5.2006 00:05 #9

• rayman72

  Oh yeah forgot about PS3. As long as they don't cripple it. It should be a Blu Ray DVD player and hopefull not to expensive. Xbox 360 is a good example of Hi Def compared to standard TV. When you see is on a hi-def TV there is a clear difference.

  6.5.2006 04:26 #10

• sisph

  Well, I'm gonna wait a while. I can't afford a nice HDTV or PS3 just yet, and I have no intention of watching "A Knight's Tale" or "Stealth" or "XXX" on high res. I don't care how good it looks, it still sucks.
  
  Would love to see 5th Element, though.

  6.5.2006 13:19 #11

• JMG

  hd-dvd/blu-ray players $500-$1000
  
  hd-dvd/blu-ray discs $20-$40
  
  little billy getting a hold of one of ur discs and useing it as a etch a sketch....priceless!!!!
  
  
  no can do/buy until I/we can back up!!
  
  
  ps...wouldn't it be nice if they made them scratch proof??
  
  I can dream can't I :}

  6.5.2006 14:08 #12

• rav0

  Why can't they just release HD movies in XviD? Why, Why? :'(

  6.5.2006 19:42 #13

• sukhvail

  because they're compressed. with hd dvd and Blu-ray you can get uncompressed video and audio that looks stunning

  7.5.2006 10:16 #14

• rav0

  Quote:because they're compressed. with hd dvd and Blu-ray you can get uncompressed video and audio that looks stunningLiar.
  
  With HD-DVD and Blu-ray, you do not get uncompressed video.
  
  With HD-DVD and Blu-ray, you do not get audio that looks stunning.
  
  Besides, if movies in XviD are compressed, that's not a reason to not release them anyway.

  7.5.2006 16:14 #15

• sukhvail

  i read it on this thread
  http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/335718
  
  and if you can fit uncompressed video why would you compress it? it does loose quality once you compress it and its no longer hd quality
  

  
  
  

  8.5.2006 02:48 #16

• rav0

  Quote:i read it on this thread
  http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/335718Wherever you read, it's wrong. It doesn't say anywhere in that thread that it's not compressed. It even says in this thread that it is compressed, and you should have read the whole thread before you posted.Quote:and if you can fit uncompressed video why would you compress it?You compress it because it won't fit otherwise. Uncompressed, a 720p movie would be about 1000 GB.Quote:it does loose quality once you compress it and its no longer hd qualityIt does lose quality with compression, but it still is HD quality.
  

  http://rav0.be/

  8.5.2006 03:12 #17

• sammorris

  Quote:Bu-ray and HD-DVD wont last. People are happy with dvd's. Nah they will, they'll just take some time to catch on. SA-CDs were never a replacement for CDs, just a novel idea.
  Quote:Most films aren't shot in "high def", so there's not much to gain with the HD or BluRay media just yet. I think this may be why there are so few BD or HD films out. They're not going to put 480i films on Blu-ray discs, that's pointless.
  
  Standard DVDs and 480i pictures from Sky look terrible even on a 26" LCD (I'm not minted like most AD users). You need to compare 480i pictures on a CRT to HD films on LCD/Plasma to get a fair comparison, LCDs display low quality pictures poorly because theyre converted.
  
  Converting 768 and 1080 films to XviD or DivX isn't unfeasable, you'd still get good HD quality, but why would you do it when an uncompressed video will fit?

  8.5.2006 03:13 #18

• sukhvail

  i guess you're right after reading the whole thread but a few senior members did say uncompressed. i guess they must have meant something else. sorry!

  8.5.2006 11:26 #19

• sammorris

  If DVD compression to LP is anything to go by though, I'd rather have full uncompressed stuff, me.

  8.5.2006 12:49 #20

• rav0

  Quote:Converting 768 and 1080 films to XviD or DivX isn't unfeasable, you'd still get good HD quality, but why would you do it when an uncompressed video will fit?Uncompressed video will not fit.Quote:Most films aren't shot in "high def", so there's not much to gain with the HD or BluRay media just yet.Most films are just that, they're film. They can be telecined to HDTV (digitally remastered).
  

  http://rav0.be/

  8.5.2006 18:24 #21

• sammorris

  Good point. Films aren't even digital to start with so there's no los at all. Are you sure BluRay /HD-DVD films are compresed?
  

  
  
  
  3000+, MS-6775, WD2500x2, DM+8, Muse 5.1 DVD, G90F+, T3000 2.1, MC-70, 751B, Silverline, X800Pro, Type-R 480W, GSA-4163B, SF-464T2-S

  9.5.2006 00:07 #22

• rav0

  Quote:Are you sure BluRay /HD-DVD films are compresed?Feature films released on Blu-ray and HD-DVD media are compressed. Do quote me on that.
  

  http://rav0.be/

  9.5.2006 01:05 #23

• sammorris

  Okey doke. I must admit, thinking about it logically - Maximum size of film - 1920x1080p so that's going to be 10x the detail as 480i. 10x 4.7GB (as used for 1 hour of HQ DVD video) is going to be 47GB/hour - 70GB for a standard film. Point taken!
  

  
  
  
  3000+, MS-6775, WD2500x2, DM+8, Muse 5.1 DVD, G90F+, T3000 2.1, MC-70, 751B, Silverline, X800Pro, Type-R 480W, GSA-4163B, SF-464T2-S

  9.5.2006 11:32 #24

• joshjosj

  blu ray bleep ssssuuuccckkkksss take it from me

  9.5.2006 11:34 #25

• sammorris

  What are you chatting about? Bluray has massive potential and will be used in one of, if not the most popular home entertainment device of 2007, so no, I don't think I will take it from you, you can keep it.

  9.5.2006 11:42 #26

• Mr-Movies

  Are we going backwards here? Blu-ray (BD) will be coming out in two formats, last I heard, 50GB and 100GB but has a much higher capacity which will be utilized later. 1080p is not 10x's 480i (240x2) even at 1 frame non-interlaced to 1080p only gives you a 4.5x increase (1080/240=4.5), mathematically speaking. Why would they use DivX when MPEG4 and MLP are much better, if they need the extra space? SA-CD's were not marketed well and DVD Music came out which is much more enticing with video added then SA's without and you get 96k PCM resolution. Besides you can't make backups of SA media and need a special player to listen to them. As to their selection of movies to release on BD I believe they look at the numbers of sales at the box office, rentals, and retail purchases to make their decision, I know there not all on my top list either but these days that's normal and we are to blame for that. Stop going to sh*t movies and Hollywierd will stop producing crap movies, but that won’t happen because the average person supports that. BD is here to stay in my opinion and I can hardly wait, but wait for the prices to drop before jumping in of course.

  12.5.2006 04:10 #27

• sammorris

  Do the maths properly.
  
  Normal widescreen TV resolution is about 850x480, 30fps (well 25 here)
  1080p is 1920x1080, 60fps (50 here).
  
  850x480x30 = 12240000
  1920x1080x60 = 124416000
  Pretty much exactly 10x the capability.

  12.5.2006 04:49 #28

• Zerxez

  LOL,
  Your math is good, but your eyes must be missing something. I have a High Def Projector and a really good Upscaling (progressive scan) DVD player. When I download a high def trailer and play the same scene from a DVD there is little or no perceptible difference. HDTV broadcast TV yes definately worth it. Buying an HD DVD or Bluray not even worth it. My stance "Boycot both HD formats and make them give us a format without DRM" Oh yeah and Boycott ALL Sony products because their company philosophy unacceptable. We don't want to ruin the music or the movie business (except Sony). What we want is to BUY decent products we can use any way we want.

  16.5.2006 15:11 #29

• sammorris

  My eyes aren't missing anything, they've yet to see a 1080p image at all, let alone alongside a 480i one. Tbh, I think 720p/768p is the best way to do things at present. Only the elite of TVs above £1000 are good at displaying the 1080 resolutions, and not all games/films are being produced for it. This'd make a lot more sense.

  17.5.2006 01:41 #30