New Blu-ray titles: Kingdom of Heaven 1st 50 gb dual layer (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

James,

thanks for the correction.

It seems that some of Fox's BDs (especially the MGM titles) might have been authored previously in MPEG2. Nevertheless, the fact that many are using AVC shows that the studio is now able and willing to use that codec and I'd bet that future releases are virtually all AVC/VC1. Hopefully we'll get some more info soon!

 

[JediFonger]

good news =). i shouldn't have bought the SD-DVD version... ah well. it's going to be a few years before MPEG4 or VC1 version of KOH will be out .

 

[RobertR]

So the MPEG2 monster is still alive, doing what I feared: Eating up BD50 space just to get to where they could have been in the first place with 30 gb and VC-1. Keep in mind this is a 3 hour, 42 minute movie, which means that the use of MPEG2 is going to fill up an awful lot of that 50 gb, and won't allow super high bit rates.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RobertR,

thanks for posting that info. What a bummer. Though in truth on 50 gig MPEG2 might be viable (as it is on D-VHS where it looks good) but obviously using MPEG2 on 50gig basically negates the point of having 50 gig software... 30 gig at VC1 would use less space!!!!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

DaViD,
What are your sources saying about the new info?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Most of my sources are connected with the WB titles and so my confirmation about VC1-only is only in regards to BD titles released through WB studios.

The information I had about Fox using AVS (mistakenly assumed by me to mean all titles) was from another post.

:frowning:

 

[Nick Graham]

MPEG2 on BD50, on one of the few titles that would have been worthy of a fence-jump for me....one step forward and 2 steps back for Blu-Ray. I'm back to leaning towards that Toshiba player again (or the Xbox 360 add-on). This has got to cause major frustration for the Blu-Ray supporters...finally the promise of dual-layer is fulfilled, but ends up totally wasted potential....$40 wasted potential to boot.

Fox has fallen pretty far from the consumer and enthusiast friendly studio they were during the years Peter Staddon posted here, between demands for draconian copy protection, high prices, and this MPEG2 fumble.

 

[PeterTHX]

Sheesh, folks.

Given the space MPEG2 can look AMAZING Every "bit" as amazing as VC-1. VC-1 is more efficient.

So if KOH looks "great" but is MPEG2 you'll still boycott it?

 

[Larry Sutliff]

If it looks good, I don't care about the codec, I'll get it.

It's just that VC-1 is there, it's more efficient, it has proven itself time and again on the excellent WB and Universal releases. I don't understand what is going on behind the scenes, but using MPEG2 is definitely a step backwards.

 

[RobertR]

The problem is, this is a LONG movie, and that in combination with the space hog MPEG2 means that it's not a sure bet that it will look amazing, even with BD50.

 

[Efrain Lopez]

I could only afford an HD DVD Player at the moment, but if KOH looks amazing (doesn't even have to be reference quality) on MPEG2, and packs in ALL the special features from the 4-disc DVD edition (the way Warner and Universal treat their hi-def releases as opposed to Lion's Gate and Sony), then I'll definitely have envious eyes this November.

 

[Ricardo C]

It's a nearly four-hour movie. Which means that, we're back to square one: Can MPEG2 handle this film? I'm not so sure. Sure, it has twice the space to work with, but also twice the feature length to fit in it.

"One step forward, two steps back" is right.

 

[Cory S.]

Kingdom of Heaven is only 3 hours and 8 minutes.

 

[Harminder]

Plus, the lack of extras also made this release pretty lame.

Give me a release with Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master with extras from the Ultimate AND Extreme edition DVD's and some exclusive content (IME let's say), and you got yourself a buyer of Blu-Ray.

Furthermore Peter, accusing people of being bias against Blu-Ray when what they want is something that is equal OR superior to HD-DVD, isn't helping your cause of making people believe in Blu-Ray.

 

[Ricardo C]

Cory: You're right, I don't know where that came from.

My bad, Peter.

Back to being cautiously optimistic.

 

[James St]

 

[PeterTHX]

Ironic you choose that review Harminder..FROM THE *SAME WEBSITE*:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=23209

"This is one of the better Blu-Ray discs that have been released. The image is much better than the SD releases, the sound is solid, and the two commentary tracks are significant bonus features. While I really wish they had included all of the bonus features from the various releases on a double layer Blu-ray "Extremely Ultimate" edition, I'm sure that will come out someday. Until then, this is the best this film has looked."

Talk about picking and choosing! The rest of the reviews out there are very good!

Roger Dressler's addressed the DD+ vs. DD 640kbps confusion. It is the SAME as any 640kbps DD+ track out on HD DVD (the majority of tracks, especially from Warner).


So when there are reviews out there saying the BD verisons are equal to or (and in the case of Good Night and Good Luck) superior to, resorting to finding the one bad review or just making stuff up makes it better?

 

[Cory S.]

James,

That press release is wrong on the running time. It's listed on the 4 disc DVD as 194 minutes for the Director's Cut. That's 3 hours and 14 minutes (minus credits equals 3 hours and 8 minutes).

 

[James St]

Has it been confirmed to be the same as the DC on DVD? Some are saying it is a longer version.

 

[willyTass]

exactly what I thought- until I saw the Directors Cut.