Talk:Blu-ray Disc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is either completely or partly within the scope of the Blu-ray Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Blu-ray related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blu-ray Disc article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives

May 2005 - May 2007 May 2007 - January 2008

Contents 1 Region Codes and artifical demand for Region A players 2 Format War 2.1 Removal of Blu-ray/HD DVD comparison 2.2 okay it's widely accepted that Blu-Ray won the format war, why not include this? 2.3 Netflix chooses Blu-Ray over HD-DVD 2.4 Wal-Mart 2.5 Suggestion: Delete Corporate Support section 2.6 Blu-Ray wins the format war. 2.7 AACS in HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray 2.8 Universal Goes Blu-ray 2.9 Paramount and Universal back to Blu 2.10 PS3's contribution is most certainly only a part 3 BD9 versus AVCREC 4 Misspelt name 5 "GEM is the world-wide version of the Multimedia Home Platform standard" 6 BD9 / Mini-Blu-ray Disc - article suggests they are the same, but aren't they completely different things? 7 Inconsistency in region code map 8 blu-ray disc capacity 9 Move suggested 9.1 Discussion 10 Using "BD" 11 how much is actually region free? 12 Why did it take so much longer for blu ray to get full featured? 13 redirected here from BD+ with suggestion of a merge 14 last physical format 15 Do Blu-ray Regions Apply to PS3 Games? 16 Short program HD content on recordable DVD? 17 Resolutions? 18 Blu Ray is the name of the lazers in Burning Rangers! 19 Blu-ray Disc authoring 20 What about Blue-Ray Profile 2.0? 21 Blu-ray Players to be compatible with new 1TB Disk technology 22 BD optical pickup

[edit] Region Codes and artifical demand for Region A players

Maybe like the DVD region codes section, where it states that there was a huge influx of region 1 DVD's, this could be added for BD? I know many friends who have imported a region A player into Australia (region B). I have only known 2 people with region B Blu-ray players in Australia, I got a region A player. I'm pretty sure this has a negative sales effect on non-region A retailers as I sure can't go down to my local jbhifi and get a BD. Don't know if many people do this, but most of my friends do this and I'm not talking about just 1 or 2 around 80% of people I know with BD players do not have one with the region allocated for Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution is to get a derestricted or region free blu-ray dvd player. My modified Sony BDP300 machine plays regions A + B (although not C) blu-ray and regions 1 + 2 standard DVD. I think it's pretty cheeky that the manufacturers make 'limitations' of their product and tell us when and what we can watch. If you want to de-regionalise, you can get a region free blu ray machine from Code-Free DVD admittedly at a fair premium on the single-region price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristo123 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format War

[edit] Removal of Blu-ray/HD DVD comparison

I agree with the person who tried to remove the entire HD DVD comparison section. That section is no longer relevant to Blu-ray or for people looking for information on Blu-ray. There are other pages (Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats) that are a better place to put such information. Can we please remove all reference to HD DVD from the Blu-ray page now? --Sam (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely Seconded on this account. When I have a bit more time in the future I'll get to this. On my list to do. If I don't before someone else, much thanks to them. It's all superfluous data now Queso Loco (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the above comment when there was still a top-level section on it. A single-paragraph discussion of the HD DVD format war seems appropriate in the history section now... and that's largely where it's been relegated to. Yay Wikipedia. --Sam (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] okay it's widely accepted that Blu-Ray won the format war, why not include this?

or if you don't say it blatantly beat HD-DVD, why not include how it's prodigiously beating the HD-DVD format in the intro, SOMETHING. 66.154.192.101 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because "it's widely accepted that..." isn't good enough for an encyclopedia. Check out WP:NOR Barte (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but with sites like EngadgetHD declaring HD DVD is on a "death watch", it seems kind of silly not to note that. Note also that while WP:NOR stops us from reaching our own conclusions, it doesn't stop us from including conclusions reached by our sources. The "death watch" thing is recent, of course, but just saying, if someone were to add such language now, I can't see why we'd remove/omit it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One word BLOG. When the NYT and the like start reporting that HD DVD is dead then maybe. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this article: New York Times : Taps for HD DVD as Wal-Mart Backs Blu-ray PaleAqua (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout this: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL1627196120080216 --w_tanoto (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

EngadgetHD was just the first example to come to mind. There are, of course, many sites noting that HD DVD appears to be nearing (or in the case of the NY Times, at) death. On a side note, blogs aren't disallowed, just discouraged. So long as they're reliable, I don't see how they're all that different from other news outlets. See WP:V for further information. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

the war is officially over. please update both Blu-ray and HDDVD articles accordingly. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Netflix chooses Blu-Ray over HD-DVD

Reuters is reporting that Netflix has chosen Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.94.51 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart

See this article. 74.56.130.55 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Wal-Mart's decision on 16th February 2008 was a major turning point in this struggle [1] as the Toshiba announcement came only 4 days later on 20th February 2008 [2] This should be included in the article, in my opinion. NaGromOne (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Delete Corporate Support section

Right now it's pretty much a wall of text, and it's not exactly useful. Maybe it should be placed in the comparison article instead? If you want, replace it with a simple description of the studio split and include the pie chart. Alternatively rename it history of the format war, and create a simplified graphical timeline representing the major events. 90.149.15.238 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Split off into History_of_HDDVD_vs_bluray_formats Mrdini (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blu-Ray wins the format war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/tc_nm/toshiba_hd_dvd_dc;_ylt=ArJ95I41f58rnQMNELILPsMjtBAF --CrystalCypher (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AACS in HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray

Could someone please clarify the statement "Blu-ray requires AACS while HD-DVD does not." Does this mean that every Blu-ray disc, even BD-R and BD-RE home movies, needs AACS on it? What is the source of this requirement? I believe every player of both formats is required to support AACS, right?

I can't remember the exact details, but I think that any non-linear disc (BDMV or BD-J) needs to have AACS, even on recordable media. You can have AVC-HD discs (ie, stuff you record on a home video camera) but nothing that looks professionally produced. I could be mistaken though.Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't HD DVD require Managed Copy, which is a feature of AACS? I'm just going to add a "citation" tag to that sentence, I guess, since I can't find any evidence of its veracity. --Sam (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is from SlySoft: "HD DVD is much more consumer friendly (e.g., no region coding, AACS not mandatory)." --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SlySoft isn't exactly an authoritative source. I was hoping for a reference to one of the standards or an actual explanation of what is meant by that statement... --Sam (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Goes Blu-ray

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Breaking:_Universal__Studios_Goes_Blu/1483
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1007

--w_tanoto (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paramount and Universal back to Blu

• Engadget

New titles comming soon please update the article. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PS3's contribution is most certainly only a part

While there's a source at it, it reads alone as it's a vitally important reason. --Leladax (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I condsider the PS3 to be BRD's main savior. BRD disc sales jumped with the release of PS3, certainly, it is patently obvious that Sony put a BR drive in the PS3 to use as a consumer electronic 'Trojan Horse' to insert it's own tech into living rooms. Really, there was little need for the PS3 to have a BR drive to do what it was supposed to do, play games. Sony are cunning to do this, and they can't really be blamed, they are a business, after all.

I am all for changing the bit in the mention of PS3's influence in wording to use the phrase 'Trojan Horse'. Anyone agree?74.210.56.135 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering there's already a game on it that would take more than one DVD, I'd say that Blu-Ray will be increasingly key to the PS3's gaming experience over the next several years. It's certainly true that the PS3 was a major factor in Blu-Ray's success, but I disagree that the drive was a "Trojan Horse" component. It's more than a trophy to the PS3, it's a key part of its identity. --Sam (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BD9 versus AVCREC

These sections are unclear. At first glance, they could be mistaken for the same technology. Some additional information on the formats, as well as their differences, is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinjiin (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know real differences between BD9, BD5, AVCREC and "AVCHD on DVD" for the lack of better term. From what I've searched, I found that:

• BD9 is similar to "normal" Blu-ray disk, but on regular DVDs. On the other hand, original spec says that BD9 disks musth be manufactured, not burned. Hence, self-made burned disks with AVC or MPEG-2 content cannot be called BD9 even if they have proper BD structure.
• BD5 is not a spec at all. Someone made this name up because they thought that as BD9 covers for DL disks, similar recording on a SL disks should be called BD5. But this is not an official spec, there is no BD5!
• AVCREC seems having AVC content on regular DVD disks, can be burned not just pressed. Can't say much about it as docs cost money, $250 at least. I hate closed standards, they charge you for the docs!
• AVCHD video from camcorders. Right not it seems that AVCREC and "AVCHD on DVD" is the same thing. But seems that AVCREC includes content protection, but AVCHD does not. Also, does AVCREC has BD file structure and naming? I checked several AVCHD camcorders and they have directory structure and naming different from BD, though similar. I've heard that this content can be played on new Panasonic HDTVs and BD players and PS3, but my oldish Samsung does not play it, so I have to rename files/directories to comply with BD.
• What about hi-def MPEG-2 on a burned DVD, what should this be called?

The question I am asking, is "AVCHD on DVD" or "AVCHD on SDHC card" or "AVCHD on Memory stick" the same as AVCREC or not? Can someone give the definite answer? If these are different things (as it now stated in the article) should we make a separate entry for "AVCHD on DVD/memory card"? Should someone come up with the name? All this AVCHD/BD cross-pollinating is very confusing. Mikus (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misspelt name

Why is "Blu Ray" not "Blue Ray"? It seems to be a trademarking issue, but I am having trouble finding references. Mojo-chan (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the unique spelling makes "Blu-Ray" easy to trademark. "Blue Ray" would have been harder to protect because "Blue" and "Ray" are commonly used words.Pisomojado (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note it is "Blu-ray" (with a hyphen and a lower-case 'r').

Actually, it's "Blu-ray Disc" --Sam (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question was anwsered on [bda's webpage]http://www.blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/HistoryandAssociation.html, and explains the reason for this ""Blu" is intentionally spelled without an "e" to allow for a distinctive registration of the trademark name." 209.253.20.25 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "GEM is the world-wide version of the Multimedia Home Platform standard"

Is this really the case? I think the "Global" in GEM points to the standard working on physical media, while standard MHP was designed for apps transmitted over airwaves. It is the removal of this restriction that makes it global across devices, not across the Earth. 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BD9 / Mini-Blu-ray Disc - article suggests they are the same, but aren't they completely different things?

The article makes the impression that a BD9 disc and a mini Blu-Ray disc are synonymous. However, Verbatim is manufacturing a miniaturized recordable read/write Blu-Ray disc that is only 8cm (~3in) in diameter with a capacity of ~7.5GB. ^[1]

Ideas on how we should incorporate this? Maybe we should have a section cataloging all variations in Blu-Ray media? Dinjiin (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in region code map

The map of region codes and the table of same are inconsistent with each other. For example, Ukraine and Belarus appear as Region C in the table, but as region B in the map.

90.185.46.103 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Lars Peter Thomsen

The .png "Region Code" map (Image:Blu-ray regions without key.png) does not correctly identify the non-contiguous region of Russia between Poland and Lithuania as being part of Russia (i.e. region C). The .svg version of this map (Image:Blu-ray regions without key.svg) does correctly identify this section of Russia as being part of region C / part of Russia. However, both maps (incorrectly?) include Belarus, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in Region B whereas some/most/all(?) sources put those countries in Region C. see www.astrakan.ca and . I have not been able to find any more definitive sources for BD Region code BY COUNTRY but the current maps appear to be inaccurate in this area. Can someone supply a corrected map with Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine colored as part of Region C (or a more authoritative reference that identifies Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine as Region B and not Region C)?

Pugetbill (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blu-ray disc capacity

the capacity section only mentions 25 gig single layer and 50 gig dual layer but doesnt mention the 100 gig quad layer or the special BD with ~33 gig per single layer, or the 6 layer versions of those which have 200 gig.

http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2006/08/tdk_claim_200gb.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ultimate samurai (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think specific BD stats should be posted somewhere viable. Can this be put up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.185.20 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move suggested

[edit] Using "BD"

I think that the articles about Blu-ray Disc would look better if we started using the abbreviation "BD" instead of the full name of the format. Would this be a good idea? (It would look better alongside CD, DVD, and HD DVD.) Nick 8 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good idea, because most people that read this just heard blu-ray mentioned somewhere and decided to find out what it was, meaning they don't know what the abbreviation is. (They may think it is BR or BRD)--Playstationdude (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be a great idea to make it clear that BD is the proper acronym for Blu-ray. It has been commonly mistaken for something like "Blu-ray DVD" and other similar things that make it relate to DVD when in fact it's a completely different media. In the FAQ section of the Blu-ray web site or even going to Sony's Blu-ray web site, the correct acronym for Blu-ray is simply "BD." Information on this can also be found on the Blu-ray Disc Association web site. (blu-raydisc.com) Just to make a better case they have referred to the different discs as BD-ROM, BD-R, and BD-RE. So to conclude, to avoid confusion between Digital Versatile Disc and Blu-ray, it is really as different as DVD and BD. Since it's one less letter, it's even quicker to say. LOL  :-) Dchagwood (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that explaining that BD-r and such are the correct shorthand form is better, when i searched an online merchant for blank blu-ray discs with 'blu-ray' instead of finding media, i found the burners and even some BD-roms, but no blank media came up in the search. Later when i realized it was called bd-r or bd-re I searched again an immediately found blank media. the best way to help people learn the correct abbreviation is to use it, and explain it early in the article. eg: BD-ROM (Blu-Ray Read Only Memory) and such.Kesuki (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] how much is actually region free?

The statistic quoted in the current text (referring to http://www.blu-raystats.com) asserts that most Blu-ray Discs are region free. But that's not consistent with what I see in things like Amazon listings. For example, AVP is listed by blu-raystats as being region free but the Amazon listing says it's region one. Amazon's FAQ also implies that most titles they sell are coded. In fact, *all* the blu-ray discs that blu-raystats lists as uncoded and that i click thru to Amazon on are listed by Amazon as coded. Furthermore, Amazon lists them as "Region 1 (US and Canada only)" which according to this article does not exist (it would be "A"). If I check out the beststellers on dvdempire.com, which is more consistent than Amazon in it's labeling, the majority are coded "A"; of recent blockbusters there are only a handful of exceptions (in fact only Yuma seems to be one). Can anybody shed some light on this? --Psm (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for fun, I've been checking only region free listed titles, by region free from the stats page, vs amazon description pages. [3] all links below are listed by amazon as region 1, if i found one listed region free, i noted only the name. [4] [5] 2001 a space odyssey [6] [7] [8] okay, that's 5 region 1 discs that the stats page claims are region free, to 1 old movie that really is region free. apparently the movie studios are falsifying the data, by say pressing run of region free discs for sale somewhere, and then claiming all discs for that title are region free, even though all the ones sold in the states that are remotely popular are all region a. I'd say that this proves proof positive, that 'blu-raystats.com' is not a verifiable reference, and all claims from that site should be immediately removed. barnesandnoble.com has the same region 1 information as amazon.com under full product details [9]Kesuki (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

okay, blu-raystats.com is registered to Tucows they're a premium domain name registrar... so i pinged them, they're hosted by abhost.net[10] a cheap web-hosting company... frankly blu-raystats.com could belong to sony, vivendi anybody, who just wanted it so nobody would know who owned it. without proof of owner that site is just text anybody could have made up. based on a script that adds new movies as people search for them by verifying the correct title with a amazon search. it could be totally automated, such a script would take an experienced web programmer about half an hour to code from scratch. just more evidence that people are creating websites to spread disinformation on wikipedia. Kesuki (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you claim Amazon as reliable source ? They don't check the region codes. There are many sources available that list the region free blu-rays like my site blurayregioncodes.com , or if that isn't reliable enough, then there are stores like Axelmusic and Movietyme who actually check region codes. If you go to any Blu-Ray forum where region codes are discussed you will most likely also run into a discussion about how wrong Amazon is with it's region code info. --Maxx2029 (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides which, there is no "region 1" in Blu-Ray. The regions are identified by letters: A, B & C. Amazon just c&p'ed the info from the DVD listed to the BD listing without bothering to edit the region code info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.93.133 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did it take so much longer for blu ray to get full featured?

What I do not understand is why did it took so much longer for blu ray to get full featured, incl. ethernet connection, picture in picture and advanced interactivity. Why was HD DVD so much faster in this? Because Toshiba only had to make agreements reg. standardization with itself? And blu ray with many companies? Because Toshiba used pre-existing building blocks from Microsoft software? Andries (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

the only reason I can think of is that the ps3 has all of those features, and is sold below cost, so other players had to 'do without' to try to compete with the ps3's low price. i by no means know for sure, just my best guess.Kesuki (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In short, Toshiba went for the quick and dirty method for HD DVD, BDA went with the fully featured, but longer to implement route. BD-J is vastly superior to HD-i in almost every way, BonusView is superior to HD DVD's PiP. Ethernet hardware is additional cost, and early units were never designed to support it, so were left out until the cost of the players had dropped to make fitting ethernet viable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.171.21 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are various reasons, but probably the biggest one was that the BDA was originally comprised of CE companies (Sony, Panasonic, Philips, etc.), whereas the DVD Forum was comprised of both CE companies (Toshiba, NEC, etc.) and movie studios (Warner Bros. and Disney) at the time HD DVD was being developed. That meant that HD DVD was built with a lot of input from the Hollywood content providers, who were more interesting in pushing the bounds of interactivity than the bounds of physics :-). Interactivity adds cost to the hardware in terms of CPU, memory, etc. and at the time it was hard for the CE companies to understand the benefits of better software. It was only in late 2005 that the BDA started down the BD-J path. According to a BD industry partner, the first Blu-ray players were rushed to market because the HD DVD format launched earlier than expected. If Blu-ray products were delayed another year until the spec was complete, they would have missed the "war" altogether (not to mention the effect this would have on the already-delayed PlayStation 3).

Funnily enough, now that the "war" is over it is pretty common to see news articles saying that "1080p isn't enough" to get people to upgrade to HD; you need something else (ie, better interactivity) in order to justify the cost. Also note that the DVD Forum has almost 200 members, so it definitely was not a case of Toshiba working by itself. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I found it. See talk:BD-J.Andries (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redirected here from BD+ with suggestion of a merge

BD+ is an article about a special form of encryption for BD-ROM discs, BD+ is not available for use by anyone without a very large amount of money, so it can't be used with BD-RE discs, so it only applies to BD-ROMs. Someone has suggested that the BD+ section be merged with Blu-ray_Disc but I haven't seen anyone discuss this at all. so why is there a redirect here and no discussion? Kesuki (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BD+ should have its own page, separate from Blu-ray. Some have stated that future versions of BD+/SPDC may be used for formats other than Blu-ray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.131.192 (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] last physical format

bill gate's "this is the last physical format there will ever be" quote should be worked in somewhere maybe in some looking forward type section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and really, don't see exactly what the point if this physical format is. As it stands now, the industry claims to lose huge amounts of money on DVD sales to online piracy, which typically features material with a lower resolution than the original DVD, and more compression artifacts. So, if they are having so much trouble getting people to pay for DVD quality, what on earth makes them think tinier pixels are a good excuse for even worse "rights management" (aka rights violations), which will doubtless force the consumer to sit thru hideous commercials and legal threats that shouldn't apply in the first place considering they are stored on a video that was presumably paid for... As it stands now, the first thing I do when I buy a DVD is rip it to an MPEG-4 movie, so that I can watch it and fast-forward and rewind conveniently, with the slider bar, Chapter skip SUCKS, it even makes FF/RWD on VHS look good at times! Zaphraud (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why include non-factual speculation in an encyclopedia, and since when did Bill Gates become an expert anyway? He's just a highly biased marketer with an alternative agenda. Perhaps some discussion of competition with online formats at the end of the format war section is appropriate, but certainly not Gates' speculation on whether or not his company's online vision or physical media will eventually win. --Sam (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You trust words that come out of Bill Gates' mouth? His words mostly came out as wrong at the end/ Can't be trusted. I'd say it's a speculation. w_tanoto (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do Blu-ray Regions Apply to PS3 Games?

I don't know how long there has been Blu-ray regions so this is relatively new to me (if I'm late to the party on this concept...sorry) but if there are regions for Blu-ray Movies. Are PS3 games affected as well? It honestly doesn't make a difference since Japan and the U.S. are in the same region so even if the same regions were applied to games using the Blu-ray disc, I wouldn't have a problem importing games from Japan, but I'm just curious. Xatticus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.251.204 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

no sony has announced very early on that there will be no region coding on games, analog outputting NTSC/Pal will be upto if your tv is Pal/NTSC compatible. Markthemac (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) http://ps3.ign.com/articles/697/697656p1.html Markthemac (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short program HD content on recordable DVD?

In theory there seems to be no reason why short programmes should not be recorded onto DVD-R but using a Blu-ray compatible HD codec for full HD resolution. Does anyone know whether Blueray players will play such a disk, and whether any special format is needed to make the player treat the data as a Blu-ray stream rather than a file? Would an HDV M2t file be recognised as an acceptable MPG2 codec format. There is a big problem for anyone wanting to put edited HDV material onto DVD at present, as it is almost impossible to convert from HD to SD on a PC with acceptable de-interlacing. Until Blu-ray recording on PC's becomes possible, the use of DVD-R in this way would seem attractive, given that most people do not need the two-hours or more length of a movie. --Memestream (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You can create a proper Blu-ray structure on a DVD disk, and it will play in many (most? all?) players. So structurally it is a valid BD, but technically not because media is not BD. I don't know what to call it. As it is MPEG-2 not AVC, it cannot be called AVCREC. As it is burned, it cannot be called BD9, as BD9 are spec'd to be manufactured not burned. This is a moot point. See above BD9 vs. AVCREC discussion. Mikus (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray DVDisc? (ala cDVD aka miniDVD) Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolutions?

Strangely this article is lacking any information on the resolutions found on commercial BR discs that have been released so far. Are they all 1080p or not? I wasn't able to find the answer to this. It doesn't even state that 1080p is the maximum resolution on a BR disc. 193.71.152.5 (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (Nick)

Good point. A lot of that information is covered in Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats, but now that the format war is over the Blu-Ray Disc-specific information should probably be copied into this article. --Sam (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BD and HD DVD specs in the mentioned article specify 1920x1080 frame size only, but 1440x1080 is also supported. At least I was able to play both HDV video (1440x1080) and AVC video from AVCHD camcorder (also 1440x1080) on my Blu-ray player. I know many other people do the same with HD recordings from their camcorders. This may not be an official mastering standard for "proper" BD disks, but it is playable. I think it should be added to the table. Mikus (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blu Ray is the name of the lazers in Burning Rangers!

When I set up my Sega Saturn (great system BTW) and played Burning Rangers all over again, I just found out something in this awesome game... the lazer guns that the Rangers use to take out fires are Blu Ray Lazers! WTF! The creators of Blu Ray, thats actually copyright infringetment (LOL, mispell) to Sega!

[edit] Blu-ray Disc authoring

I think that there should be a seperate article on Blu-ray Disc authoring. See Optical_disc_authoring#Blu-ray_Disc. Blu ray authoring is at the moment quite tricky and I would appreciate some help with the article. Andries (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Blue-Ray Profile 2.0?

This article http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-05-12-sleeping-beauty-blu-ray_N.htm states that the upcoming summer 2008 release of Blu-Ray Profile 2.0 won't work in existing Blu-Ray players, thus making them obsolete. There should be a mention in the article by one of you regular editors. 5Q5 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily see there can be content for a specific profile but that does not actually affect the movie playing simply disables a feature, 2.0 is a online feature, meaning allowing access to content not on the disc such as perhaps another special feature not originally on the disc.

That does not affect the players ability to watch the movie or any other feature on the disc.

Profile 1.1 deals with the picture in a picture feature, and if your player is not 1.1 simply you can not use the 1.1 feature but everything else is normal.

Thus the players are not obsolete they can view the movies just fine they just do not have access to all the features of the disc.209.253.20.25 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blu-ray Players to be compatible with new 1TB Disk technology

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/call_recall_optical_drive/

"Call/Recall has announced it is developing a 1TB optical drive and disk, backwards compatible with Blu-ray, in partnership with with the Nichia Corporation of Japan.

Call/Recall began synthesizing 1TB materials for Nichia’s blue-violet laser diodes in December 2007, with first initial testing successfully completed in March 2008.

InPhase has just this year announced its revolutionary 300GB holographic disk and here is another optical format with more than three times the capacity."

Denzelio (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BD optical pickup

I have been looking for information about the optical pickup used in BD players/recorders. These in some cases must include several diode lasers and photodiodes to permit retro-compatibility with CD and DVD. There is currently no multi-wavelength diode laser or other set up which overcomes this problem. Given how important the pickup is to the function of BD perhaps someone could add some more info?

Also, does anyone know if the violet lasers that are in BD machines are the same as those in Toshiba's HD players?

Cheers Royzee (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)