Warner includes download-only iTunes Digital Copy with 10,000 B.C. Blu-ray
BD-Live isn't the only thing Warner's adding to its Blu-ray releases, with the news that 10,000 B.C. comes with an iTunes Digital Copy. Unlike previous Fox and Lionsgate releases, this one isn't on the disc, apparently due to space considerations on the single-layer 25GB disc. DVD buyers don't even get that option, and in the absence of an official announcement by Warner or Apple about inclusion going forward, it seems to us this is a way for the studio to dip a toe in the water before making a decision on possible wider inclusion. However, if cost is a concern, the choice between copies to take on the road and bonus online features on the disc itself is an interesting one. [Disclosure: Engadget is part of the Time Warner family][Via iLounge]
Filed under: Blu-ray
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Rob @ Jun 26th 2008 11:49AM
They should include the copy on disc instead of passing the cost, and time, on to the consumers. ISPs are already mailing out letters warning their customers about excessive traffic and "recommending" moving up to a higher, and more expensive, plan.
Rick @ Jun 26th 2008 7:41PM
Downloading would work better for me. My computer drive doesn't recognize Blu-Ray.
TJ @ Jun 26th 2008 12:16PM
I never really understood the extra disc. Once you download the movie, it's just a coaster. I prefer what Warner is doing here.
TomWBrowning @ Jun 26th 2008 1:06PM
I agree. Broadband is such now that downloading a digital copy of a flick (especially the low(ish) quality ones on iTunes) is really not a big deal. It also saves you having one extra dead disk lying around the house.
Plus, as a (extremely happy) MacBook Air user, having shit on disks is, um, not so useful to me.
With DVD releases I could understand doing it from both angles - having a digital copy stored on the DVD itself (NOT an extra disk) and giving the user a download coupon. But on Blu-ray that's obviously completely unuseful to most consumers.
Big Wizz @ Jun 26th 2008 12:25PM
Thanks for leaving the folks who don't use iTunes out in the cold.
Piss off, Warner
raymond @ Jun 26th 2008 11:51PM
They didn't forget the non iTunes users, a Windows Media code is also included and requires CinemaNow. So your $30 gets you a $15 iTunes-locked m4v and a $15 Windows DRM'd version.
http://www.wbdigitalcopy.com/10000BC/index2.html
http://www.cinemanow.com/10000BC/
SimbaDogg @ Jun 27th 2008 2:03AM
agreed...i for one HATE itunes. never will use it, amazon would be my choice for music if i paid for...nevermind
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 1:13PM
Did you catch that Blu-ray fanboys?
Here it is again for the hard of reading.....
"due to space considerations on the single-layer 25GB disc."
Like as if anyone didn't know that once the competition was knocked our & away from the field they wouldn't be going back to the cheaper 25gb single layer discs.
So much for all the BS about everyone moving to exploit BD's (50gb DL) higher capacity and how that had to mean high/better bitrates and any sort of noticeable better quality.
Blu-ray; the really dumb way to go for HDMs on disc.
This is what you get when you let the industry take power from the consumer and decide for the consumer.
Reap what you sow.
Now remember fanboys, grit your teeth & pretend it's just what you wanted all along & how really great everything is now.
This is afterall exactly what you guys have been desperate for all along.
wreckedchevy @ Jun 26th 2008 1:42PM
exactly what i was thinking. what's up with the 25g disc?
Jimmy @ Jun 26th 2008 2:21PM
You could be right but according to all of these other sites, this ships on a BD50!
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/948/10000bc.html
http://www.dvdempire.com/exec/v4_item.asp?item_id=1404565&site_id=69&site_media_id=0
http://www.hdmoviesource.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1654&osCsid=56c36828ef36bf15c37be51e0646c9e3
Jimmy @ Jun 26th 2008 2:27PM
Furthermore,
There is nothing in the iLounge story or the Video Business article that iLounge is quoting about a 25GB disc.
DEEZNUTZ @ Jun 26th 2008 2:42PM
Wow Truth Teller, another EPIC FAIL to put under your belt. Try verifying what Engadget posts before going on yet another one of your pointless and fanboyish rants.
LMAO indeed...
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 7:46PM
Excuse me?
"Epic fail"?!
Royally wrong.
Go check out the disc specs & come back and apologise to the board for lying.
Better luck next time.
Dying to hear all about how 25gb is 'good enough' tho.
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 6:12AM
The digital copy is not an addition to the disc, it is merely a lesser quality version of what is on the disc, dummy.
......and I told you you'd not posted your last comment too, didn't I?
LMAO
J.Goodwin @ Jun 26th 2008 1:23PM
Didn't they do something similar with the 360 marketplace for the superduper edition of the Matrix on HD-DVD?
truegamer @ Jun 26th 2008 1:25PM
@Truth
You are such a dumb ass. All the Digital copies I have gotten with any Blu-rays movies came on a second disc (DVD), so it never had any thing to do with them putting the digital copy on any blu-ray disc, be it 25 or 50G... due to space of the disc.. Get a Life Bro....
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 1:47PM
truegamer
Go read the article again and see that they are using a 25gb single layer disc for this movie.
Go look up www.blu-raystats.com and see that about 46% of all Blu-ray releases are on the smaller 25gb disc.
It's got nothing to do with the download (which itself will be nothing like even 25gbs).
So much for 30gbs being too small, eh?
Then go look in a mirror and call yourself a dumbass at least 100 times or until you feel rightfully & properly ashamed of yourself.
:P
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 6:17AM
LMAO
Well how unexpected. Not.
Once again you have absolutely nothing to say at all except a predictable defensive whinge (laughably now on behalf of 25gb high def discs) & the usual infantile feeble cat-call.
Seriously, you are a ludicrous little self-appointed hydra gone very
wrong.
truegamer @ Jun 26th 2008 1:58PM
@Truth
You are the dumb ass. I said the digital copy did not have anything to do with the size of the Blu-Ray disc. I said I got my digital copies on a second disc, so I do not care what size of the blu-ray disc. Did it hurt the PQ of the 10,000 B.C.
You the one that keeps on looking like a dumb ass in every post and getting owned by everyone on the site for posting the same shit over and over.... How many times have you been proven wrong on this site, sure over 100 times, you should look in the mirror for posting crap every day.
You the one bitching and crying every day because hd-dvd lost, I have over 150 hd dvd movies and many people on this site too, but do you see us crying and bitching and spreading shit like you..... I think you are paid to post on this site to bring traffic! go fuck off!
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 2:07PM
LMAO, truegamer.
Your running away from the point about Warner retailing this Blu-ray movie on a 25gb disc is noted.
Yeah, the bit I specifically referred to here is about the download.
Not.
Hilarious.
Carry on.
It was a pretty funny attempt at dodging the point, as was your rapid move to whining about seeing a contrary non-PS3/Blu-ray fanboy view here.
LMAO
DrXym @ Jun 26th 2008 4:00PM
Sorry baby, the disc is 50Gb.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/948/10000bc.html
DrXym @ Jun 26th 2008 4:05PM
I take that back, not that it makes the slightest difference either way.
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 7:40PM
LMAO
Yeah, 25gbs is enough now, right?!
Too funny.
DrXym @ Jun 27th 2008 4:22AM
Your loony extrapolations are getting worse by the day. Do you apply the same rationale to account for there being single layered DVDs too? I mean how can 9Gb possibly be justified if some movies only use 4.7Gb???? Inconceivable!
Did you put your moronic thought processes on hold when you desperately tried to pretend a triple layered 51Gb HD DVD would somehow save it?
Grow up baby your precious format lost.
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 6:22AM
Ooops, comments screw-up.
Obviously this was intended for the resident PS3/Blu-ray fanboy Dr Sad-sack.
LMAO
Well how unexpected. Not.
Once again you have absolutely nothing to say at all
except (how predictable) a trademark defensive whinge (laughably now on behalf of 25gb high def discs) & the usual infantile feeble cat-call.
Seriously, you are a ludicrous little self-appointed hydra gone very
wrong.
StPaddy @ Jun 26th 2008 2:07PM
is it just me or does this movie look absolutely horrible?
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 2:12PM
It's not exactly one of Hollywood's finest for a start nevermind whether it's got a dodgy Blu-ray transfer.
I wonder if they have gone back to a vanilla Dolby Digital (not even Dolby Digital plus) audio track?
Uncompressed audio must take up a hell of a lot of room on a 25gb disc.
Ordeith @ Jun 26th 2008 2:20PM
No thanks on having to use iTunes and the DRM.
I'll just re-encode the disc content to h264.
Thanks.
DEEZNUTZ @ Jun 26th 2008 2:32PM
Can anyone confirm this movie is on a 25GB disc? Other than Engadget's stating it, it's not even in the source they linked.
Both Blu-Ray.com AND High Def Digest review of this movie stated it's on a 50GB dual layer disc.
Quick, someone confirm before Truth Teller makes a total ass... nevermind, too late.
Mike P @ Jun 26th 2008 2:40PM
I scanned the disc myself.. its on a BD25.
Dolby TrueHD (lossless compression) 16-bit/48kHz
Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ----------------- ---------------------
10,000 BC VC-1 1:48:55 18,644,281,344 20,400,127,760 22.82 16.43 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 1864Kbps (48kHz/16-bit) DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps
Mike P @ Jun 26th 2008 2:42PM
Erm that came out sucky. If you wanna see the stats properly formatted as well as for most blu-ray discs out there. See this thread on AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714
Truth Teller @ Jun 26th 2008 7:43PM
Hilarious.
25gb high def, awesome.
Premium pricing and a spec that makes hypocrites of the PS3/Blu-ray fanboy element.
Fantastic amusement.
Were you speaking ever so slightly too soon there DEEZNUTZ?
DEEZNUTZ @ Jun 27th 2008 12:23PM
OK Truth Teller, I have to admit you are right. it is LAME that it's on a 25GB.
And the fact that 3 sites are claiming that it's on a 50GB, can't really blame me for calling you out on it, but nevertheless, apologies for jumping on ya when the disc scan confirms it's a 25GB.
Nfinity @ Jun 27th 2008 4:15AM
it is indeed very said and hypocritical that the new release is on 25gb.
This goes against all the rhetoric from every blu-ray die hard dissing on 30gb discs.
I can only assume that BD50s cost them too much and have been forced to release on 25gb.
It is really sad if the HD discs continue coming on 25gb discs. This means that not only that bitrate will be lower then HD DVD but that we won't even have the additional content on discs that we had on HD DVD 30gb discs or BD50s.
Sad really if it continues like this.. but it's not like this comes as huge shocker. Like anything Blu-Ray is work in progress and will continue to be such in the next 2 years at least.
But I guess Blu-Ray diehards will be spending their money to support this practice since I'm assuming that when you are so vocal in supporting something you would be also supporting that with the wallet.
DrXym @ Jun 27th 2008 10:02AM
Sorry baby, but I did make a point. A point which is obviously too sophisticated for your brain to recognize. Here let me say it again for baby in simple sentences.
Many DVDs were single layer. Many DVDs were double layer. Does a single layer DVD mean double layer DVDs are not needed? No baby, the answer is it doesn't.
I know you are a rage filled cretin, but I hope even my simple sentences get the point across. I fully understand why you would make such an infantile point to begin with. You'll grasp at any straw even if its one of your own making. Of course when it suited you, you grasped at triple layer HD DVDs too. Grow up baby your precious format is dead.
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 10:56AM
Yeah defend 25gb all you like but it's blatant hypocrisy
(and I suspect even you blush doing so).
The huge difference being that DVD did not have an army of game console spec-obsessed fanboys proclaiming the supposed vast quality difference due to a capacity 'advantage' at every turn.
You lot droned on and on and on how 50gbs was the wonderful new standard to deliver vastly improved PQ & SQ over 30gb HD DVD.
Now we see almost 50% (actually 46%) of Blu-rays are 25gb and new 25gb movie disc production continues.
.....and you 'defend' that.
Too funny.
Oh, and the laughably feeble little cat-call gets another run out.
You are very funny.
DrXym @ Jun 27th 2008 5:23PM
Sorry baby, I'm not "defending" 25Gb discs. I'm merely pointing out the utterly cretinous basis of your arguments. Bawling about a single layer disc or feebly implying that since one disc is single layer that no disc needs more is pathetic even by your own low standards.
Grow up baby, your precious format lost.
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 5:59PM
* quote
DrXym
or feebly implying that since one disc is single layer that no disc needs more is pathetic even by your own low standards.
=====================================================
Wow, besides the implied risible back-track away from defending 25gb Blu-ray this little bit at the end is a stunningly crazed invention, even by your own subterranean standards.
Truly you have lost the plot entirely.
Big laughs at your feeble little jibe, once again, laughing stock.
So funny to see you stuck with it.
Give it up & look like a tool for backing down, keep going with it & look like the creepy pathetic infant stalker you so clearly are.
Oh my, decisions decisions, eh?
LMAO
corncobb @ Jun 27th 2008 12:12PM
@ Truth Teller
I don't believe that anyone that is a Blu-Ray fan or not is happy about Warner releasing on 25GB discs, they seem to be the worst offender too. Everyone wants them to use 50GB discs, for a multitude of reasons. Their releases always seemed to lack compared to other studios (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). BTW when are going to end your Blu-Ray hate tirades? You may not like it as much as HD-DVD but its really the only viable option for HDM at the moment. It isn't going away anytime soon and the only way to make it better is embrace it and start getting on the studio's asses for releasing garbage such as this.
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 12:29PM
corncobb
Whether you prefer to take my word for it or not it's actually not a "hate tirade".
It's just a sober analysis of how & why it's my view that the PS3 format, Blu-ray, isn't & can't going anywhere
(and has a malevolent intent behind it which is always worth pointing out.......which goes way beyond the norm).
If you choose not to listen then fine, work away.
But if a few of us did not provide a counter-point to the endless 'everything is going so well' BS how boring would that be?
It's also amusing to point out the hypocrisy of the PS3/Blu-ray fanboys (subjects like this 25gb issue being a case in point.......and with 46% of all Blu-ray releases it's not just Warner).
Truth Teller @ Jun 27th 2008 12:33PM
Very gracious of you DEEZNUTZ.
I was only going by what was said here
(which I guess could have just as easily been wrong too).
But (accepting the stats may be a wee bit behind) it is true, the '46% of all blu-ray releases are 25gb' is the current stat on the Blu-raystats site.
corncobb @ Jun 27th 2008 4:27PM
@ Truth Teller
agreed, and by no means am I telling you that you are not entitled to your opinion. In fact, it keeps this blog interesting when all is stale. I also wasn't saying that Warner was the only studio releasing 25GB BDs. When looking at past releases, sice they have a large catalog, they seem to be the biggest offender (both on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). It is very unfortunate that with the technology there and the extreme high price that they are charging for these BDs that they wouldn't release on 50GB, but all I can do is email them and complain. I encourage all of you to do the same.