Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Blu-ray Hits Key Milestone Faster than Standard-Def

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the bond-blu-bond dept.

Media 280

An anonymous reader writes "Slashdot has already reported on the go-go sales for the 'Casino Royale' Blu-ray on Amazon, but now comes news that the same Blu-ray disc is the first high-def disc to ship 100,000 units within the United States. It took standard-def DVD eleven months to reach that retail milestone (in 1998 with 'Air Force One'), but with 'Royale,' the nine-month old Blu-ray format now has done it two months faster."

cancel ×

280 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The spellcheck milestone? (0, Offtopic)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18502991)

Had to be asked.

No, really (2)

JamesP (688957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503013)

Is it just me or early-adopters focus on crappy movies??

Air Force One?? Casino Royale?

c'mon...

Re:No, really (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503065)

Have you seen Casino Royale? It's really not that crappy at all.

With you on Air Force One though...

Re:No, really (1, Offtopic)

Poltras (680608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503119)

What's wrong with Casino Royale? It was pure genius, from someone who watched the Bond series going down lately.
Air Force One is another matter, but hey, could've been worse, could have been Air Force Two [imdb.com] instead of Casino.

PS3 owners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18502995)

It would be interesting to see how many of these are owners of the games machine using the built in blu-ray drive, verses those who have purchased dedicated blu-ray playback units.

Re:PS3 owners? (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503145)

Is the playback supposed to be better or worse?

I went to a Sony store before you could even buy a blu-ray player and I asked him why anyone would buy a standalone player vs. the PS3?

His answer was that the standalone player was higher quality and made with better components and only played movies.

This of course sounded like a general answer to something the guy hadn't a clue about.

Seriously, why would you pay $1,000 for a standalone unit when you can get a PS3 for $500 or $600?

With HDMI everything is digital, but it is uncompressed. Could it be that one player decompresses the video better before sending it off to the TV?

Re:PS3 owners? (4, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503199)

I don't know about the PS3, but the PS2 was in a similar situation with its DVD drive. Ultimately, the DVD drive in the PS2 wasn't the best. It worked ok on simple movies, but it tended to get edge cases wrong on more complex discs. You'd see this as messed up subtitles on foreign films, "camera angle" changes that were handled incorrectly, menu choices that don't get translated correctly in the film and so on. Granted, a lot of these were bugs on the disc itself, but better players managed to work around the bugs and work correctly regardless.

Re:PS3 owners? (2, Insightful)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503259)

Try using the PS2 DVD player on a progressive scan TV. The quality is abysmal, deinterlacing artifacts everywhere. Every software player I've used on my computer has done a far better job. The PS2 DVD player is alright if all you've got is a cheap TV without component/progressive scan, but stick it on a good TV and it looks awful. I got a progressive scan Divx-enabled DVD player at Wal-mart for $37, and it beats the PS2 by leaps and bounds.

Re:PS3 owners? (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503327)

Incorrectly encoded discs are par for the course [hometheaterhifi.com] . While that link has an awful lot of information on it, one thing to take out of it is that sometimes studios just don't care what kind of quality is coming out of the authoring houses. SciFi playing some Dead Like Me prompted me to get the DVD box sets and it looks downright horrible in spots on just about every DVD player.

The question then becomes, does the PS3 follow the footsteps of the PS2 as a finicky, low-quality DVD player or does it rival stand alone players? I don't think we'll know into well into the future of Blu-Ray when the discs start getting churned out as a commodity (like DVDs today) instead of meticulously babied discs (like DVDs were when they started to hit the scene).

IMO, don't rely on a Playstation to play movies... (1, Informative)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503697)

...Especially when said Playstation is still a new model.

I don't know about the PS3, but the PS2 was in a similar situation with its DVD drive. Ultimately, the DVD drive in the PS2 wasn't the best. It worked ok on simple movies, but it tended to get edge cases wrong on more complex discs. You'd see this as messed up subtitles on foreign films, "camera angle" changes that were handled incorrectly, menu choices that don't get translated correctly in the film and so on. Granted, a lot of these were bugs on the disc itself, but better players managed to work around the bugs and work correctly regardless.
Heh, is that all?

My PS2's DVD video playback always had a habit of freezing, stuttering through sections, or crashing to a black screen. "Unable to read disc". These were perfectly fine, brand new DVDs mind you, and my Sony DVD player plays them just fine.

Want to get lured in by the promise of a less-expensive Blu-Ray DVD player that's also a game console? OK, but in the end it may not be a player you want to rely on for movies. Then you'll still have a perfectly good game system, and you may buy a new DVD player so you can reliably watch movies, and all's well. Well, except did you make that game system purchase for the right reasons? Would you have bought that particular system if not for the lure of DVD playback? Possibly - but that's a question you should consider. Buy the game system as if it didn't have DVD playback features, and then see if it's worth it to you.

Of course, this whole post is gonna stink like FUD, and in a way it is - I had a bad experience with DVD playback on my PS2 and I'm using that to cast doubt on the PS3 because I would expect the situation to turn out similarly. Naturally, I could be wrong about the PS3. But after the PS2 I personally wouldn't bank on that - and so if I buy a PS3 at some point, I'll be buying a game system, not a movie player.

Re:PS3 owners? (4, Insightful)

skitzophile (707473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503387)

I currently use a PS3 strictly for a BD player and it works quite well. I have the BD remote control that Sony sells and it functions like a normal play would. It even boots up faster than the standalone players. However, the true videophile would say that because the source of the movie is 24fps and the PS3 outputs 60fps that you're not getting the best picture available. I'm not so sure if I'm able to tell the difference myself. Here's an article from that explains a little bit more [pcworld.com] .

Great.... (5, Insightful)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503011)

...I'll get a blu-ray player when I can easily rip the movies and do what I want with them including making standard def dvd backups, or transcode it for my video iPod.

Right now I can do a lot with standard def DVDs fairly easily. I'll need that functionality before I buy into any HD format. To me that functionality is worth a lot more than the extra resolution.

May I be the first to say (-1, Redundant)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503057)

Good for you

Re:May I be the first to say (-1, Redundant)

MrLeap (1014911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503121)

May you also be the last to say.

Re:Great.... (-1, Redundant)

c00rdb (945666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503107)

That's great.

Re:Great.... (-1, Redundant)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503153)

Thats nice. Most consumers (including myself) don't give a rats ass.

Re:Great.... (5, Interesting)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503189)

I'll get a blu-ray player when I can easily rip the movies and do what I want with them including making standard def dvd backups, or transcode it for my video iPod.


Well, it's a good thing you don't have to wait. [boingboing.net] Every disk released so far is cracked. They are going to take a stab at improving the protection, but companies have been doing that since DeCSS came out.

And yes, I went out and bought a bunch of blu-ray disks after the cracks happened, for much the same reason.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503435)

How about NOT buying these things at all? Am I the only one who still remembers the pain DVDs caused initially?

Re:Great.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503209)

http://wesleytech.com/backupbluray-guide/83/ [wesleytech.com]

Not quite as easy as one-click DVD Shrink yet, but still pretty simple.

So I guess you'll be picking up a Blu-Ray player tonight?

Must be some kind of record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503225)

It's also available on usenet in 87 versions [newzbin.com] , including 2 HD copies (1 blu-ray) and 5+ languages.

Re:Great.... (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503253)

WTF? I've got more than 4000 retail dvd's and never had any need to rip it.. With HD it would be even less, as why would you need to rip it? watching a movie on an ipod of psp is so not done, why would you want to watch a movie on such a small screen where you can hardly follow the movie.. And appearantly you can rip BR movies now already..

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503487)

I've got a blueray player, but I don't really use it much. I don't really get the whole "DVD collection" thing, so . . . I mean - what's the point of having a 600 DVD collection? How many times are you going to watch each movie?! Certainly not enough times to make them worth $20 or $30 each. I'm eager for Netflix and other outlets to jump deep into HD-DVD and Blue-Ray, though.

On the other hand, nothing looks more gorgeous than blue-ray video on my 65" SXRD. In fact, I would rather wait three months for Netflix to get a movie so I can watch it on my home system than go see it immediately in a theater. Especially these days, when movie theater screens are smaller than they used to be (so they can cram more into a multiplex).\

What I'm really waiting for - and what will never happen - is for cable television to start offering HD-DVD / Blue-Ray quality content and to have a larger selection of on-demand material. As it stands, on-demand content is usually a couple hundred movies that are organized poorly and spread throughout a million menus. And $4.00 or more per video for 24 hours is riduclous. $2.00 for new releases and $1 or less for older movies (like low budget horror flicks and stuff older than a few years) would be perfect. What are there - 90,000 movies in the world? And all they can give us is a selection of a couple hundred? They should be able to provide a selection that rivals netflix and blockbuster and everything else combined.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503555)

Yeah, screw DRM laden HD-DVDs. If/when SD and/or broadcast TV reaches that point, its time to go work in the wood shop, go surfing, camping... or get drunk.

Which raises the question (1)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503819)

What fun are any of those activities if you don't get drunk before doing them? (Especially wood shop).

Re:Great.... (1)

bradavon (1066358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503833)

What is the point buying into HD if you're only going to down convert it to SD or less quality? You seriously may as well stick with the much cheaper DVD if your main concerns are ways to rip then down convert. HD is all about HD Resolutions on large Widescreen TVs, if you're not into that then I really so no reason to bother. The vast majority of DVD copies even today are from DVD-9s down to DVD-5s, in other words you still cannot get a 1:1 copy (in most cases). Making DVD copies intention not retaining quality but a cheap way to watch films. As for watching films on any portable hardware (especially Ipod size) that is very much a gimmick, those who do it regularly again may as well not ever bother with HD. In short if your intention is to rip down to 320x240 from 1920x1080 you're entirely missing the point of HD. You're clearly the sort of person who downloads movies, you may as well stick with that. The difference converted to 320x240 will be the same, in fact it's likely the DivX/Xvid down to 320x240 will look even better. I for one will be getting into HD to enjoy HD on my TV screen certainty not on portable hardware. I'm waiting until one format truly wins (Blu-ray is a long way off winning) and/or a proper Combo Player gets released. LG's Combo Player is a great attempt but it's just that an attempt. The LG 2nd Generation (if one comes) will be where it really gets exciting.

Ok (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503033)

And how is this significant?

It's just marketing buzz to me.

Shipped or sold? (2, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503037)

I see shipped. I'd like to know how many were sold. On an interesting sidenote, how many of those sold were to be played on PS3s?

Re:Shipped or sold? (-1, Offtopic)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503139)

Only a Microsoft Xbox programmed fanboy would care.. It's worth noting that Microsoft only quote shipped numbers for 360 sales, which is why there is a difference of a million units between what Microsoft say (10.5) and what retail counts say (9.5)..

Re:Shipped or sold? (2, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503391)

Out of curiosity, what is your console of choice? I have to assume PS3, since you brought in accusations of being a 360 fanboy without there even being the slightest implication in the OP of any kind of fanboyism. I'm dying to know: what makes you guys so defensive?

Re:Shipped or sold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503579)

"fanboy" is a children's insult, on the level of "poopy-head". Do you ask a child why he called someone a poopy-head? No, you tell him to shut up until he can think of an actual argument.

Re:Shipped or sold? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503217)

On an interesting sidenote, how many of those sold were to be played on PS3s?


Zzz...

Re:Shipped or sold? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503447)

I see shipped. I'd like to know how many were sold. On an interesting sidenote, how many of those sold were to be played on PS3s?

This kind of reminds me how at one LPs were certified gold or platinum based on units shipped, not sales. This led to some interesting "gold" and "platinum" certifications where certain LPs were shipped by the boxcar and returned unsold by the boxcar. The Bee Gees and Peter Frampton (and others) soundtrack to the movie of _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band_ is probably the most infamous example. I have a vague memory that actual sales weren't very impressive and it was returned unsold in very large quantities. The RIAA ended up changing the rule to only count LPs sold for gold or platinum certification because it became obvious that a few record companies were willing to ship in quantities large enough to get LPs certified as gold or platinum even though they knew that the product wouldn't sell enough on its own to meet the requirements.

Faster? (4, Interesting)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503051)

The US population in 1998 was 270M, but 298M today, so one would expect a new format to hit some arbitrary number 10% faster, other things being equal.

Re:Faster? (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503161)

Well, it's 2 months faster -- 11 months - 2 months = 9 months or almost 20% faster.

Wait, my keyboard is being taken ove----

Great! So now we can say that Blu-Ray hit the 100,000 unit milestone at almost twice the rate of population growth since 1998! Thanks, Intron!
                                                                      -- The Sony Marketroids
     

Population growth stupidity (3, Insightful)

douglips (513461) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503163)

This reminds me of all the whiners saying that in the 2000 US presidential election that Al Gore got more votes "than any president in history except Ronald Reagan".

My response was that Ralph Nader got more votes than Abraham Lincoln.

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503281)

*sigh*

Well, Gore got more votes than the guy who got awarded the office; that's the counterintuitive bit.

It still feels like we got a president based on the rounding error that is the electoral college.

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503449)

If everyone upset with that were to take up letters to congress asking them to amend the constitution to get rid of that antiquated electoral college, I wonder if they would ever do it?

Presidental candidates like having to concentrate campaigns in selected states since they modify the final outcome more than predom. blue/red states or states with low populations. That way they also get to pander to said states with promises of subsidies and how they're so totally awesome and the union wouldn't be the same without them. As opposed to having limited influence in states directly and having real conversations about real issues on a federal level.

Rather than a rounding error, it's more like an error in weighted average coefficients. :)

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503485)


Well, Gore got more votes than the guy who got awarded the office; that's the counterintuitive bit.

It still feels like we got a president based on the rounding error that is the electoral college.

OT of course, but if you don't count the dead that voted, the same can be said of Kennedy and Nixon in '60.

Re:Population growth stupidity (0)

Golias (176380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503595)

You know, when he was re-elected, getting more votes than Kerry, who got more votes than Gore did in 2000, the pointless whining became even more pointless.

Bush won two very close elections, in one of which he got over 50% of the vote, something his predecessor never did.

Get over it.

Swerving back on topic: I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Anamorphic 480p DVDs are easier to work with and look great on my projection screen for movies, and I get plenty of high-def content anyway, thanks to h.264 and over-the-air HDTV.

I'm sure most of the Blu-Ray sales of "Casino Royale" were to PS3 owners, who wanted to justify the high cost of their game consoles badly enough that they rushed out to buy the first non-crappy movie they could find in the format to try it out.

I like that the new formats might push down the cost of optical data storage, but otherwise I'm unimpressed.

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503861)

You know, when he was re-elected, getting more votes than Kerry, who got more votes than Gore did in 2000, the pointless whining became even more pointless.

Bush won two very close elections, in one of which he got over 50% of the vote, something his predecessor never did.

Get over it.

Just to push this further in the realm of offtopic political flamage:

I'll get over it just as soon as the negative ramifications of the 2000 are finished. Hell, I'll settle for the war to be over. Sure Bush made himself a war president and got the 2004 election handily, benefiting from how the way he won in 2000 made 3rd party candidates seem even less viable than usual. Big whup.

The fact is, the guy getting a larger number of people's votes not getting the office is kinda weird. I understand there are reasons for it in how we "want" politicians to campaign (i.e. not just play to the needs of big population centers etc etc) but still, it's an ugly special case of representative democracy.

Back on topic:
yeah, I dig projection screens. And I think high-rez is currently a little over-rated.

Re:Population growth stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503703)

But if the Electoral College didn't exist in 2000, the campaign would have been entirely different. Trying to change the rules after the contest - that'd be nefarious.

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503363)

Yup, and Bush's "overwhelming" 51%-to-49% win in 2004 which gave HIM "more votes than any president in history", except that Kerry is now in 2nd place, having earned more votes than Gore or Bush did in 2000, or anyone else in history except Bush. Population increases.

However, the US population has only gone up 10% since DVDs were introduced, and this is 20% faster. Add the fact that a lot fewer people have HD-capable sets today than had DVD-capable sets back then, and the Blu-Ray adoption rate looks unusually good.

Re:Population growth stupidity (1)

Mr. Shiny And New (525071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503511)

What's a DVD-capable set? Are you referring to a TV set? I curious about the number of installed TVs in 1998 that didn't have a composite video input. Anyway, the Atari 2600 came with an adapter for that years ago, so I doubt that was a real problem.

Re:Faster? (0)

l4m3z0r (799504) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503197)

Yes. because all those 18 million 8 year olds and under are guaranteed to be the key consumers of Casino Royale. The most arbitrary number in your post is the 10% (ass)umption.

Re:Faster? (1)

Knux (990961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503311)

Yes. because all those 18 million 8 year olds and under are guaranteed to be the key consumers of Casino Royale.

Yeah but how many 8 years old were there back when DVD was released?

You know, on many developed countries it's the number of OLD PEOPLE that gets %lly higher as time goes by. That's why so many government are getting in trouble to pay old people retirement.

You can't just say that this 20% growth on population is just because of the births, it's also because many people just didn't die.

Re:Faster? (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503239)

Funny part is the number of homes with a HiDef set is remarkably low compared to their supposed adoption rate. MOST people that have a hidef set only have a 720P set which makes standard DVD's look utterly fantastic compared to the crap on your Cable TV and only slightly better when running a blu-ray movie through it. People that own 42" and smaller will not even notice a difference between a blu ray and standard HDDVD with a line doubler running.

Until people can get 1080 native sets for reasonable prices or they atart buying the 50+ inch size sets there really is not going to be the adoption rate they think they are getting. Almost none of the customers at the company I work for want HDDVD or Blu Ray after we go an demo it in their theater. We demo on their gear and a 1080 projector. when they see the higher end projector they are all over it until a price is quoted, then they say "we will wait a couple of years, our current setup is fine." They do not like having to throw away a $10K-$20K 720p projector and buying a similarly price 1080 projector plus all their content, plus player, etc....

Re:Faster? (2, Informative)

PRMan (959735) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503345)

This is so untrue. My brother has a 27" 720p HDTV and you can EASILY tell the difference between an upconverted DVD and HD.

It is absolutely true with my 50" 720p.

Re:Faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503423)

Good post - but since when did facts have anything to do with uptake - it is all just a load of keeping up with the jones's and showing off. "I've god a blu ray player and HD TV don't you know".

The majority of people who have 5.1 setups don't have them properly configured or installed - they get their kicks not from enjoying 5.1 the way it was meant to be, but instead from being able to quip "oh - it's surround sound" when the neighbours pop round.

Re:Faster? (1)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503473)

You're saying you can't tell the difference between 640x480 and 1280x720 on, say, your computer monitor? You need to make an appointment with an eye doctor.

I can easily see the difference between 720p and 480p on a 42" plasma.

Little Shiny Objects (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503643)

I would think that this also has to do with the fact that the format, although new, is still somewhat familiar in terms of the media (looks like a DVD).

When the switch from VHS to DVD occurred (lets pretend Laserdisc never existed) people were going from a big plastic rectangle to a small shiny disc. I would expect some hesitancy there, even though people were accustomed to CDs at that time. But now the change is very small, a Blue Ray disc looks very much like the tried and true DVD disc.

9 Years Later (4, Insightful)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503073)

Technology adoption has grown dramatically since that time. This is similar to the Vista outselling XP story. The truth is, since XP came out the PC market grew by a huge percentage, thus making the Vista sales claim bunk.

No surprise (4, Interesting)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503075)

Could it just be that Casino Royale is a better film that Air Force One?

Funny (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503609)

Get off my website

Re:No surprise (2, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503617)

Much more probably is that there are only a handful of BR releases now and people want to buy something to play on their new expensive players.

Re:No surprise (5, Interesting)

Coco Lopez (886067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503763)

Rottentomatoes.com has Air Force One at 77% fresh, vs. Casino Royale at 94% fresh.

Casino Royale is a 17% better movie, which directly explains the roughly 17% faster selling rate.

What it doesn't explain is why Slashdot has been running so many stories direct from the Sony marketing department lately...

Whole numbers? (0, Redundant)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503079)

It's nearly ten years later. There are so many more people on the planet than there were ten years ago. Blu-Ray reached the same whole number in ~82% of the time DVD did, but nine years later, so I figure that makes up the difference. Looks like it's about on par with DVD to me. I wonder how VHS did back in its day.

Re:Whole numbers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503187)

The real question is, how well did BetaMax do in its day?

Re:Whole numbers? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503215)

It would make more sense to count TVs.

Re:Whole numbers? (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503297)

Not only more people... When DVD came out it was a big jump from VHS to DVD.. Normal people most likely didn't understand it as much, werent sure if they'd want video on disc after being used to VHS for so long. Now everyone has DVDs and bluray/hdvd are similar, just better. I think people will make the jump faster since they're used to video on disc. Also a lot of people have widescreen tvs now and they want HD content.

Not to be sarcastic or nothing... but (1)

orallo (323134) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503103)

I wonder what percentage of those BlueRay drives are on PS3s? /meh

Actually it was even faster (1)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503135)

if you count in Blu-ray discs shipped in the form of PS3 games.

Re:Actually it was even faster (2, Funny)

Mattwolf7 (633112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503179)

Actually probably not, if you haven't heard PS3's aren't selling

Re:Actually it was even faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503273)

Yeah ... and its a good thing the MS's XBox 360 won't use the HD-DVD player for games. Helps people realize that you should buy a separate system for games and movies.

I'm Still waiting... (1)

Performaman (735106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503149)

...for blu-ray burners to come down in price. Imagine being able to back up 50gb of data on one disc.

Re:I'm Still waiting... (2, Interesting)

photomonkey (987563) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503321)

Imagine when everyone out there who knows he needs to back stuff up backs stuff up to a single Blu-Ray disc (all 50gb) and then the disc stops functioning.



Even if disc and burner prices come down pretty dramatically, I think we're to the point with hard disks that they're cheaper and more usable/recoverable after long-term storage and/or damage.



Re:I'm Still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503383)

Imagine being able to lose 50GB of data with one toddler!

Where do they get these dumbass metrics? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503165)

Time-to-unit sales measured against a particular title? Why not measure cost of implementation versus FCOJ futures?

Better format or... (2, Insightful)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503191)

You mean more people bought Casino Royale, a widely acclaimed addition to the ever-popular James Bond pantheon than bought Air Force One, an implausible ho-hum action movie made with a cookie cutter? I am shocked!

Re:Better format or... (1)

gmurray (927668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503313)

Um... Casino Royale is also available on standard def for which everyone and their mother has a player. So for it to see these kinds of numbers its a pretty telling indication of blu-ray penetration so far regardless of the particular title.

Oh and on the note of this being numbers shipped. Its anecdotal, but I've been trying to pick up a copy of this on blu-ray for several days now, and I havent been able to find it in stock anywhere in a 20 mile radius. I've tried best buy, circuit city, borders, all of the usual BD targets.

Channel stuffing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503195)

... in other news, Sony stuffs retail channel with blu-ray DVDs, then issues a press release bragging about it and hoping the gullible tech press will mistake shipments for actual demand.

Depends on your definition of "Key" (4, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503201)

If by key you mean some random arbitrary metric of the success of the format, then I suppose the title is accurate. If you mean a milestone with actual meaning, then I think the title is a little misleading.

Shipped? (2, Funny)

loafing_oaf (1054200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503223)

Yeah, I'll bet that all those shipped Blu-ray discs are sitting at hundreds of Best Buy stores, right next to the towers of Playstation 3 systems.

Re:Shipped? (0, Offtopic)

gmurray (927668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503405)

I'm repeating myself, but I cant find a copy of this anywhere in a 20 mile radius of here. If anyone sees one near bridgewater, nj, could you give me a holler? PS3s I see a few of, this movie on BD nuh-uh. Shelves full of BD and HD-DVD titles (Blu-Ray shelves looking like people have actually been buying things off of them), but an empty space where this should be.

Re:Shipped? (1)

gmurray (927668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503817)

not sure how this is OT? Anecdotal evidence sure, but a pretty valid response to "these things are sitting arounds in piles" I would think.

It's easy to ship when you're giving them away.. (5, Insightful)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503263)

... with each PS3 sold.

All this says is that a number of PS3 owners have registered online for their 'free' disk.

It's like Nintendo claiming to have won the console wars because of the 1-1 sales of Wii Sports..

Vista me this (2, Insightful)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503285)

And Vista has beat XP's numbers for the first month. What's the significance? Not much.

Accidental? (3, Insightful)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503293)

Given that some disappointingly high percentage of people don't even know what the hell Blu-Ray or HD-DVD are, much less the difference or that they don't work in normal DVD players, how many of these orders were actually intended to be SD-DVD purchases?

Re:Accidental? (1)

egomaniac (105476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503597)

More than a few, I'm sure. My mother actually bought the HD-DVD version of a movie, because she knew she had HDTV and a DVD player and assumed that it would work. And I'm not sure if I'm just going easy on her because she's my mom, but it seemed like a perfectly reasonable mistake for a layperson to make.

Well..... (1, Insightful)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503295)

Probably gonna get modded badly for this, but....... I've yet to see a real reason to care. My level of Apathy on the Blu-ray / HD-DVD thing is so high that, um, I'm not even interested in a witty euphemism.....

It's a marketing spin, and maybe, just maybe, Sony won't repeat the betamax/minidisk/whatever format stumbles they've done in the past. But, based on the companies history alone, you'd get good odds that blu-ray ends up a niche market product.

Re:Well..... (1)

PenguinGuy (307634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503343)

Same with me...don't really care about the formats right now since I don't have any of the equipment to actually use them.

Re:Well..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503701)

For many, many, MANY of us, that cr@ppy old SD tv is just fine -- a $200 set and a $32 dvd player, you're done.

This is why the FCC has had to continually push back the manditory HDTV cutover date. Most ppl either don't care or can not/will not spend the $$$ required.

all stories are now permanently on pending .. (-1, Offtopic)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503337)

From: emacsuser
To: Rob Malda
Subject: posts stuck in pending ..
-------

To: emacsuser
From: "Rob Malda"
Subject: Re: posts stuck in pending ..

'all stories are now basically permanently on 'pending'. they are
forever available for other users to inspect...'
-------

From: emacsuser
To: Rob Malda
Subject: posts stuck in pending ..'

'Like for instance where are Zonks or kdawsons pending recent
submissions that I can inspect ..',
-------
To: emacsuser
From: "Rob Malda"
Subject: Re: posts stuck in pending ..

'yeah we'll work on fixing it... but we've totally rebuilt the
submissions code & process, so its a bit off for now'
-------

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday March 26, @10:11PM
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday March 26, @10:56PM
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday March 27, @03:54AM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @01:50PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @02:31PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @03:11PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @03:53PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @04:29PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @05:09PM
Posted by Zonk on Tuesday March 27, @05:50PM
Posted by kdawson on Monday March 26, @11:41PM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @01:04PM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @01:45AM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @02:49AM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @05:01AM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @07:45AM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @10:33AM
Posted by kdawson on Tuesday March 27, @12:37AM

So what? I'm still not buying HD.... (3, Insightful)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503375)

..until they get the Blu-Ray v. HD DVD settled. Or I can buy a player that supports both formats for about $200.

Wake me up when that happens.

Personally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503377)

The closer to HD-DVD or Blu-ray are to winning the format wars, the happier everyone should be. I don't favour one over the other, I just want to see the whole thing resolved so that prices on high-def players can drop and we can make the transition to a new, better platform.

I must confess to a slight preference to Blu-ray, though, because then I could justify buying a PS3!

Mixed Messages (1)

Noxx (74567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503389)

So is this a commentary on how popular the shiny new gotta-have-it Blu-Ray format is? Or on how much more popular Amazon is today 2007 than in 1998?

Time For Xbox/HD-DVD Fans To Congratulate Sony (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503411)

Sony just had the greatest European launch ever with 600k BluRay playing PS3s sold:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499841.stm [bbc.co.uk]

BluRay is now up to a 80-20 markeshare lead:

http://www.dvdempire.com/index.asp?site_id=69&site _media_id=0 [dvdempire.com]

Any more money spent on HD-DVD titles is just throwing good money after bad. It's time for people to move on. Congratulate Sony on their phenomenal job with the PS3 and BluRay go pick one up.

PS3
One of the best BluRay players out there - with the remote of course
The gold standard console FPS - 40 player dedicated servers no lag ever - free to play
The most insane offroad racer with the best racing game graphics ever with Motorstorm
Heavenly Sword, Lair, Tekken 6, Killzone, Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4...
Little Big Planet coming later this year
The amazing online world Home coming out later this year
A growing number of indy games on the PSN
Free network play for all games
Linux support
Almost silent operation
Virtually defect free hardware

It's an amazing gaming machine and HD movie player.

In other news, 100,000 blue lasers were sold (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503459)

The price of blue lasers have come down too.

9 months? (1)

JazzyJ (1995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503503)

Where could you get a blu-ray player 9 months ago? Didn't they -just- come out a couple of months or so ago?

Shiped but not Sold? (4, Insightful)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503543)

This article [eurogamer.net] states that Sony was GIVING AWAY 500,000 copies of Casino Royale on Blueray to the first 500,000 people to register their PS3 after the European launch of the PS3, which was on March 23rd.

So how many people actually "bought" the movie?

Re:Shiped but not Sold? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503691)

Call be cynical about whole anti blu-ray sentiment, but I slightly doubt Sony buys their discs at Amazon.

Re:Shiped but not Sold? (1)

grangerfx (998424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503771)

At least 100,000 people have bought the movie on Blue Ray. Noone who bought a PS3 has got their "free" copy of Casino Royale yet and won't for weeks. I bought my copy at buy.com who has them for sale at a pretty big discount.

Send Blu-Ray to the Chalkboard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18503629)

I'll get Blu-Ray (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503687)

I'll get Blu-Ray when I actually care less about the CONTENT of the movie and, God forbid, its production values, and care more about seeing if I can find a pimple on Bond's perfect, sexy, desireable, face, and...*breaks down sobbing*...why are people in movies always so beautiful!?!? In any case, I care more about content than quality in the case of most things media.

Not surprising... (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503717)

...considering how a lot of places bundled this movie with the PS3. What about the OTHER blu-ray movies that have been sold?

How long before they relieve us of the old format? (2, Interesting)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503735)

How long before they begin to offer new movies ONLY on the new discs thus forcing us old timers to "upgrade or die"?

I have no use for this new hi-def stuff. My old legacy dvd players and TV's work fine, thank you very much and I don't and won't shell out for new equipment, period. People throw away old CRT TV's all the time, I just pick them up from the curb, repair them and "watch on".. It will be many years before I run out of old style legacy CRT's. I get them for free and it costs me just about as much to repair them.
Why should I go spend money on new stuff when what I have works fine?

Besides, most of the new movies suck anyway. Too much CG and "shaky-cam" and not enough real acting.
I'm perfectly happy watching Turner Classic Movies on my 36" CRT which looks most excellent!

Re:How long before they relieve us of the old form (2, Funny)

hador_nyc (903322) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503829)

yeah, and you kids get off the grass too!

sorry couldn't help myself... :)

hmmm (2, Insightful)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503797)

for one.. the article and sony announcement do not say "in the US", just shipped. As another person pointed out Sony is giving away 500,000 copies for registering your PS3 in europe. http://www.siliconera.com/index.php/2007/02/12/eur opean-ps3-owners-get-casino-royale-for-free/ [siliconera.com]

Yawn... (2, Informative)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503909)

This is even less impressive than Microsoft's claim that Vista is selling faster than XP did.

And it suffers from the same oversight...

That is, it fails to take into account the increases in market volume and buying power which would make it a useful comparison and instead uses the same raw number to compare two very different markets in two different eras. That raw number of 100,000 doesn't mean the same thing at the dawn of the DVD player as it does now at the dawn of the "BluRay player."

A useful comparison would consist of a ratio or percentage adjusted to take those differences into account. But it's obvious that an honest comparison isn't going to impress anyone.

After 12 years (I'm making an educated guess here), all they can say is that they beat the same raw number of purchases by 2 months?!?!

There's an old saying... "you can't polish a turd."

What's the comparison to DVD sales though? (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503925)

How does this number compare with the standard def sales of Casino Royale? Does this in any way show that Blu-ray is actually catching on? Could it just be that Bond has a larger appeal to everyone who already owns a Blu-ray player? How many people are purchasing the movie along with a player (which would indicate that the movie is drawing new customers)?

Could it just be that people finally have a compelling reason to actually purchase a hi-def format movie?

Standrd (1)

aarku (151823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18503927)

Nice standard Slashdot proofreading!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>