Talk:Blu-ray Disc/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

PS3 game sales

The article says 3.01 million blu ray discs sold. This can't be true as Motorstorm and Resistance together have sold more than that and well over 20m bluray discs have been sold. If they are not included the sentence should be edited appropriately such as "3.01 million videos have been sold on bluray format and 20m games". I think it'd be pertinent to mention ps3 games after this as bluray being the only represented HD disc in the current generation of consoles is quite an important factor.

405nm blue-violet laser for BD/HD-DVD

For me this sounds rather redicolous. As far as I know blue semiconductor lasers have a life cycle around 1000 hours. In case you are very lucky. BD and HDDVD players utilises light source known as laser diode. It allows to increase lifetime of source greatly - up to 15000 hours. If anyone seen yellow mark with "Class I laser product" on your BD/HD DVD player please report. I have no such things on PS3 Vadim Mayorov 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolby Digital Plus Bitrate

I believe the maximum bitrate for Dolby Digital Plus audio on Blu-ray is 4,7mbits instead of 1,7. Blu-ray specs allow for a 640kbits Dolby Digital packet plus up to 4 packets of 1 mbit DD+ audio.

No, the current spec only allows for one extension packet for a total of 1.7mbit/s see the references on the Dolby digital plus page for details. --Ray andrew 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc – HD DVD comparison (chart)

Mentioning single layer and dual layer capacity HD DVDs and Bluray discs is OK. We have established that Bluray has ~66% more data storage capacity than it's HD DVD counter part. However, mentioning triple and quadruple layer discs are unnecessary and possibly misleading. Information on more then dual-layer should be removed removed from the chart and possibly be put in its own section. Non-technical people may brag about 200GB being greater than 15GB, despite that more than 2 layers will most likely never be used for commercial or mass-market purposes, as with DVD. In addition, technical people who may in some way understand this data don't need a comparison chart to tell them that a 3 layer disc has three times the capacity.

Basicly, what I'm saying is, No shit, Sherlock Can Not 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What if they are used? Mbslrm 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It would still be redundant. A sentance or 2 could cover it, but it serves no purpose in the chart, other than misleading the ignorant. --Can Not 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Can Not. These quadruple-layer discs aren't in the spec, so they aren't Blu-Ray discs. Why not have a column for a 50 GB CD-ROM? You don't think 50GB will fit on a CD-ROM? All you have to do is make the marks smaller, make the cover layer thinner, add another data layer, and read it with a 405nm laser through a 0.85 NA lens. At what point does that cease to be a CD? Spiel496 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I just checked to see if there was any objections. Glad to see it's already removed. --216.186.219.99 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

well it's back now soooo I changed the Blu-Ray side to actually show SOMETHING please feel free to remove the 3rd layer thing or change my thing... just not to N/A because they have a prototype going right now, I forget where I heard that though -- Vdub49 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

triple layer BD should read N/A as it is not part of the spec, but apparently as of now it is part of HD DVD's specs (I personally don't think it should be added until more sources confirm but hey). --Ray andrew 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the information is misleading, because it implise that there is no third layer for the Blu-Ray discs, yes HD-DVD has a third layer but Blu-Ray does too. I propose we eather get rid of the third layer row all together or put in an accual number instead of "N/A" -- Vdub49 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep this section simple. Technical comparison does not belong in this article. The Blu Ray Vs. HD-DVD article is great for technical info. Zojj (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The table was made specifically to simplify the section IIRC. Otherwise that section grew quite large with all the technical comparisons. I don't see the problem in having the table in all three articles as a sort of quick reference to what's the same and what's different between the two formats. As far as technicality goes, these articles are inherently technical in nature: look at DVD for example. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I am looking at it from a reader's perspective. The reader comes to this section, reads a paragraph or 3, understands, and goes on to the next section. If the reader is more interested, he can go read the comparison article. If you put the table in, the reader will probably just skip the section with no grasp of how the formats compare. Zojj (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the text you're using (specifically what you've done with the HD DVD article) makes judgment calls. The table presents the data to the reader and allows them to make their own decision. The other alternative, inlining all the technical differences into the article text, grows the section considerably (and makes it harder to comprehend for the reader). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Your right, it does. I tried my best to make it as unbiased as possible. =) Imagine going to wal-mart and seeing people looking at blu-ray and hd dvd. They don't know what the hell 32mbps means, they just want to quickly know what the difference is. Whatever you decide to do, many thanks for developing my table. Zojj (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

8 cm?

What does the "8 cm" mean in the "Physical Format" table? Could someone clarify for me what it exactly is? Is it another kind of Blu-ray disc or is it just for comparison? --Chaz 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The 8 cm size for a Blu-ray disc would look like a Gamecube game disc. Its a actually a standard size that has been applied to Compact Disc and DVD.--Kenn Caesius 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

update links in wikipedia

Could someone update the link to this page in artical "gigabyte", there is a HD-dvd link needin some edit too... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.130.216 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Question about rom-mark

"The Blu-ray Disc Association intends to ensure that only disks that contain the ROM Mark will be playable on Blu-ray systems. The ROM-Mark is expected to prevent the casual copy from BD-ROM to recordable media. It is a mechanism aimed to protect against bit-by-bit data copy. The ROM-Mark requires a special machinery in the disc mastering process in order to be inserted on disc and thus, it prevents malicious replications."

That's from this article and the ROM-Mark article. I'm assuming home videos will be allowed to play, so how are they getting around the ROM-MARK? Maybe someone can clear that up in these articles?

Mandatory audio support

I believe the table is wrong, TrueHD is not a mandatory codec for blu ray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.193.187 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I also believe the table is wrong in regards to HD DVD Dolby TrueHD. It seems it is not mandatory, see Paramount: Transformers HD-DVD doesn't have enough space for High-Res Audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.22.104 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is 3X DVD ROM ?

It is mentioned in the comparison table. Nowhere else in the article does the string "3X" appear. xerces8 --90.157.129.176 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I wanted to ask exactly the same question... someone please tell us...:) 86.120.236.174 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3X DVD-ROM is explained here...[1] This page is a Googleified HTML version of a pdf document. Scroll down to where it says "page 4" on the left.J.delanoy 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Any plans on using this with Blu-Ray?--64.240.163.221 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. From the article I gathered that they were just trying to kick a DVD up to HD standard without manufacturing a new technology. So my guess would be that they will eventually go down the same path as CRT television sets are: the techonolgy works, but it is outdated.J.delanoy 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kernel drivers

Will Blu-Ray use the same Linux kernel drivers as CD and DVD? What filesystem does it use by default? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.253.13 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Comparison with HD DVD

In the "overview" section, the article spends a lot of time comparing blu-ray to HD DVD. In the HD DVD article, almost nothing is said about blu-ray besides mentioning that they are currently in a format war. If someone wants to know which standard is poised to win, they should draw their conclusion for themselves based on what they read about each format.(releases, support, sales, etc.) I think the first part of this article needs to be rewritten, but I want to see what other people think before I just lay into it. J.delanoy 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

==it seems that Blu-ray is for the win, and is outselling HD-DVD by a margin of 9:2 [2] 66.98.94.171 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

====it looks even more like Blu-Ray is for the win now that Warner has started backing it exclusively [3]88.73.242.236 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blu-ray movie experience?

I would like to see this article address the Blu-ray movie experience in a bit more depth than is given in the Java section. A suggested tack could be a comparison between it and the DVD movie experience since a majority of readers could readily use the DVD movie experience as a point of reference. 66.64.203.126 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) =====Just an update on the whole whats better and blue ray is prabably set to win if you look at the new selling rate of woolworths where they are out selling 10:1

Remove 3x DVD from comparison table

It should go, it is not a competing format, its just what you get when you put hd dvd formated data on a dvd. If no one objects I will remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ray andrew (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Dolby Digital Plus is not a mandatory codec for Blu ray

I have seen this added to the table too many times, please stop. Dolby Digital Plus is NOT a mandatory codec for Blu ray. I will continue to revert any BS. Ray andrew 15:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the addition Ray, and thanks for the informational correction. Do you think it should be noted at the bottom of the table that DDS is not a mandatory codec, such that people don't make the same mistake? Oh, and in reply to your comment on the history page im not a PR for FOX, just in case you were wondering. Cheers. hemant tailor 16:39, 18 Feb 2007

Copy Protection

I see nothing here about the Movie Ice age 2, which i believe is the first movie to be cracked from the blu ray disc format with the dvd menus and eveything, and it is listed on the private tracker of Bit-dvd.com, if anyone is a member than you can confirm it.70.50.63.24 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Graffitti removed

--Robin Roberts 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray region codes

Are the three region codes 1,2,3 correct? On the back of PS3 games over here in New Zealand there is a number 4 which would make perfect sense if it were DVDs but there Blu-ray discs. It seems like they are using the same region encoding as DVDs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.182.226 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


I believe region 4 means any region, as PS3 games are region-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.22.104 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like more information about BD region codes. Is it entirely optional? Is it only the big Hollywood movies that are region locked? I know that 100% of all HD-DVD are region free. --72.202.150.92 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD / Blu-ray comparison

Hi. First of all, the numbers in the article is not up to date. Why don't u count them your self Ray? Second, these discs isn't representing all BD, and are therefor twisted facts, nether HD DVD. A better way to backup these numbers is to go to ex. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/ and count them there. The site listing ALL movies, and the size of the disc. This is not a forum for the format war so please keep wrong facts out of it. --85.228.237.186 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--What? Could you restate that in something resembling English, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs Disc Photo

This article needs a photo of an actual Blu-Ray disc. Cribcage 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Profile 1.1 mandatory date

Can someone please post a reference link for the 1.1 mandatory date? I can't find one for the july 2007 date much less the pushed back november 2007 date. Isnt 2.0 supposed to be out in november 2007. some kind of link would be nice.

Scratch resistant: Baloney!!!!

I would like to say to the person who changed what I wrote about the DVD abrasion cleaners not be able to scratch the so-called scratch resistant surface that he is only listening to the makers propaganda. First let me explain: Current generation DVD's can easily be cleaned of nearly all scratches by using an abrasion cleaner.(CD's and DVD's can also be cleaned of some minor scratches by those chemicals you can buy yourself in stores, but they don't work very well.) Abrasion cleaners are the machines some video game stores and rental shops use to clean DVD's of deep scratches. They literally take off a layer of plastic (by scraping the surface with a mild sort of sandpaper) in order to take out the scratch. They can fix nearly all scratched DVD's. On Blu Ray Discs, the data layer is much too close to the surface. DVD ABRASION CLEANERS DO TAKE OFF THE ENTIRE DATA LAYER ON THESE BLU RAY DISCS EXPOSING THE CENTER REFLECTION LAYER, thus permanently destroying the disc. I know because I have seen it done. Now let me use some logic here. OBVIOUSLY, there already was a deep scratch in this disc (Resistance: Fall of Man), and it would not play. That's why someone tried to clean it. Maybe, you say, it didn't have the scratch resistant layer on it. Maybe, but I don't believe so. AGAIN, just because they say it is "scratch resistant" and some joker puts a steel wool video on You Tube that makes it so? This scratch "resistant" layer won't degrade or wear off? I bet they're saying it'll last 50 Years (remember when they said that about DVD's?) I'm betting that these blue ray discs (even with the "scratch resistant" layer) will be about as long lasting as chewing gum. And at 60 to 70 bucks per game, it's a true con game. But then it's all a plus for Sony, because they've finally found a way to "SCRATCH" out the used market!!! Sony must be learning from Microsoft since they've managed to make a defective product that guarantees them more future income. YEEE HAAWWW!!

hence the word resistant. they only said it was resistant to scratches. it is like bullet resistant glass, while they show it can take multiple hits to different locations, multiple hits to one location would probably make a hole. the same applies here, if enough effort is applied to one area, it would be quite easy to make a destructive scratch. --Alphamone 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
From experience, I can tell you that Blu-ray discs are definitely more scratch resistant than HD-DVD. That protective layer is very hard. Most often, I've found those disc buffing procedures just cause more damage to a DVD than the already-present scratch. Also, most consumers don't know about disc buffing. Therefore a protective layer is a better solution than grinding off part of the plastic. As they say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And here we have a pound of prevention.

Scratch resistant: not so much Baloney!!!

who uses those chemicals to clean DVD's at home? with scratch resistant they mean nails/keys screw drivers etc not chemicals since they don't cause scratches but change the structure of the material.

Who said anything about chemicals? --Ray andrew 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

what are: ABRASION CLEANERS?

Profile 1.1 makes 1.0 players obsolete

The use of the word obsolete is inappropriate here. The 1.1 profile no more makes 1.0 players obsolete than does the release of an Xbox 360 with HDMI support make the current Xbox 360 obsolete. Profile 1.0 players will still play the vast majority of content, including the primary feature (the movie). The ability to play back features reliant on secondary video in no way defines the overall value proposition of the Blu-ray Disc platform. Talkstr8t 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talkstr8t, I am assuming that you are the same Blu-ray insider (working for some secret company) that posts at AVS forum under the same name. If that is the case, I should remind you of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. I think the use of the word obsolete is appropriate. If you read the wiki on it one of the definitions is "when a new, more functional product or technology supersedes the old", and this is definitely the case here. I also would like to dispute the assertion you added a while back that some players could be upgradeable by firmware to 1.1, as no current player (besides the PS3) has the appropriate hardware to do dual stream decoding. I will leave profile section as it is for a few days to see if anyone else wants to chime in, but after that if there are no objections I will change it back. --Ray andrew 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ray, your HD DVD edits have consistently been biased toward painting that format in a better light, while your Blu-ray edits have painted it in a more negative light, suggesting a bias which would bring into question a conflict of interest on your part. I obviously have no problem with my edits being subject to community review.
My edit regarding "obsolete" takes a far more objective stance than the original text. The Wiki page on "obsolete" lists five definitions for technical or functional obsolescence. Four of the five clearly do not apply. The subset of text you quoted ignores the examples given, all of which demonstrate a change in format, not a change in feature within a format. By your very narrow definition virtually every CE product on the market today would be considered obsolete due to newer products with additional features. Does HDTV make standard def TV obsolete? Does the Video Ipod make non-video Ipods obsolete? Do mobile phones with Bluetooth make those without obsolete? Obviously not - all of the earlier products continue to perform the primary function for which it was intended, and continue to be developed, marketed, and sold. The ability of a profile 1.1 player to support secondary video in no way obsoletes the dominant feature of the format, playing back a feature title with high definition audio/video.
Regarding upgradeability to 1.1, both the PS3 and the now-released Samsung BDP-1200 are based on hardware capable of supporting profile 1.1 secondary video. Talkstr8t 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


So will you address the question about your conflict of interest? Do you admit that you are a Blu-ray insider? Will you disclose your employer (I know you wont but I had to ask)? If you have no problem with being subject to review then you should suggest the edits on the talk page first to avoid potential conflicts of interest. As to your concerns about me, my contrib log speaks for itself. I revert BS, and make useful contributions to both articles.
Sorry I did not know that the new Samsung had bee released (after all the delays), and yes I see that it uses a new decoder chip. It still doesn't change the fact that that the other players (besides PS3) will not be upgradeable. Maybe the Samsung should be referenced specifically.--Ray andrew 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an insider. That also means I'm a subject matter expert here. I haven't contributed extensively to Wikipedia, so I apologize that I'm unaware of proper etiquette regarding process for making changes. As I said, however, the word "obsolete" is purely subjective in this context and isn't appropriate here.
The Samsung wasn't delayed; it was originally announced at CES for April, and made it easily.Talkstr8t 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Profile 1.1 will not make 1.0 obsolete. The blu-ray discs which have PiP will make them "obsolete," if that is the term you want to use. Profile 1.0 players will still be able to play Blu-ray movies, but they will not be able to take advantage of all of the extra features, ie. the IME (Interactive Movie Experience). So obsolete is correct in that they will be out-dated, but not unable to be used to watch new releases after Profile 1.1 becomes mandatory. They will be like the PS2 or Xbox after Sony and Microsoft, respectively, came out with their next-gen systems. Games were still made for both systems (look at God of War II), but the more advanced systems were, of course, the newer ones. By the way, I'm format neutral; you just need to clarify how you are using the word. By house_n

This comment hugely overstates the significance of the Profile 1.1 additions. Out of all the interactivity which has been shown across dozens of discs of both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD, the only feature which profile 1.0 players won't support is PiP as implemented by secondary video. This is nothing like comparing PS2 to PS3, where an entirely different hardware and software platform is provided.Talkstr8t 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, theres also the question of real time audio mixing, (ie, mixing in the commentary track to the original, etc). Also both camps have demonstrated interactive features that require an Internet connection, profile 1.1 definitely cant do that ;) (all HD DVD players and profile 2.0 Blu-ray players can). But still this is a large amount of the "next gen" interactivity here that profile 1.0 players just cant do (playing static Java games is so last gen).--Ray andrew 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what word is used as long as the article clearly states that upon the release of profile 1.1 systems. That the functionality of all previous profile 1.0 systems will be substantially less then current models that are available and unable to utilize the full functionality of future discs. a very limited amount "may" be upgradable but most just do not have the hardware installed.. to me a 1.0 system is more like a beta test that people paid 1200 to be part of... with profile 2.0 being the actual real "standard" to come.. and in my opinion will obselete both profiles in the long run. leaving 1.0 players with the equivilent of a low end no frills dvd (sorry I mean blu-ray) player...call it obsolete call it limited functionality.. whatever. At ces blu-ray was not showing off the wonderful features of blu-ray.. they were showing off the wonderful features of blu-ray...2.0. Im not anti blu-ray and if anything I think the tech is better (storage ect..)... as for Ray supporting hd-dvd. we all have our preferences. all his edits seemed to me to be accurate and timely.. he deletes bogus anti-bluray info as well. keep up the good work Ray. -Tracer9999 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a Network Engineer and part-time sales person at Tweeter. Talkstr8t is correct. The word obsolete in this case is misleading to people. They might think their Blu-ray player will not be able to play future Blu-ray discs. This, of course, is not true. This should be corrected. This will make Wikipedia lose credibility in the eye of the users if this persists. This issue has been made known on several forums.Ascended_Saiyan24.99.191.203 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record the removed wording was: "It is possible that some profile 1.0 players may be upgradeable via firmware update to profile 1.1. However any player that is not upgradeable will be considered obsolete after November 2007, when profile 1.1 becomes mandatory, since they will be unable to handle all interactive features that new discs released after this date will contain. They will still however be able to play the main feature of the disc as they do now." So I don't think it could mislead people to thinking what you are saying. As to the credibility of wikipedia, I personally think it would be improper to downplay this. Because it is really something that every person looking to buy a Blu-ray player should be aware of. --Ray andrew 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are still a couple of issues I have with the sentence "However any player that is not upgradeable will be considered obsolete after November 2007, when profile 1.1 becomes mandatory, since they will be unable to handle all interactive features that new discs released after this date will contain." Even though new player models released after Oct 31st must conform to the BD-Video "1.1" profile (note that the spec never actually refers to a 1.1 profile), there is no requirement that content will, and in fact it's unlikely much content will be released supporting the new features until a number of players are in the market. Further, looking at the full library of HD DVD titles, only something on the order of 10-15% of them actually feature content which makes use of features introduced by BD-Video 1.1 (i.e. secondary video), even though all HD DVD players are capable of supporting them. From this data one can reasonably surmise that only a minority of future Blu-ray titles will make use of these features (i.e. high-profile titles), especially given the production costs required to support such content, which further dilutes the notion that current Blu-ray players will be "obsoleted" by the "BD-Video 1.1" profile.
Regarding realtime audio mixing, currently available players must support several levels of realtime audio mixing. "Profile 1.1" players must support a greater number of channels and secondary audio. It's also possible that existing players fully support secondary audio, as the current chipsets are fully capable of doing so.
Ray, you've apparently been a stickler in your Wikipedia edits for factual, objective information. The word "obsolete" is not only pejorative, but purely subjective. One consumer's definition of what makes a player obsolete will clearly differ from the next, and for the foreseeable future the overwhelming majority of available content (i.e. all existing titles, all future main features, most future bonus features) will be strictly unaffected when played back on "Profile 1.0" players, and even for that content which does rely on "Profile 1.1" features much of it will be downgraded (i.e. audio but no video) rather than unavailable. The use of the word "obsolete" here clearly degrades the quality of this article.
I will concede that 'obsolete' may be a bit strong, but I still feel that the current article may paint an unrealistic picture of the future prospects of current 1.0 players. Also I was under the impression that current Blu-ray players did not support any real-time audio mixing (ie mixing two streams together), could you give further information about this. --Ray andrew 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't copy from the spec verbatim since it's only available under license, but if you have access to the spec you'll find details in section 8.10 of BD-ROM Part 3: Audio Visual Basic Specifications (3-1 Core Specifications). Interactive audio, primary audio, and secondary audio are defined. Secondary audio is optional in 1G players, but mixer support for primary and interactive audio must be provided. If it weren't supported you wouldn't hear button and other menu sounds.Talkstr8t 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We will see what labelling is applied to discs using Profile 1.1 or 2.0 features. If it does not say, in large letters, 'this feature won't play on Profile 1.0 machines, such as those released before Month/Year', then consumers will use nastier words than 'obselete'! When DVDs such as The Matrix came out with features that, while part of the DVD spec, were not supported by some players, such players had to either update their firmware to play it properly or face consumer wrath. Here, the existence of the better profiles was known, and various makers have chosen not to support them, either directly or via a simple upgrade. The usual phrase for such marketing decisions is 'planned obselence'. Lovingboth (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Title: Blu-ray: Early adopters knew what they were getting into by Nate Mook January 8, 2008, 8:16 PM

Blu-ray may have taken a commanding lead in the next-generation format war, but the group has a big problem looming: early supporters of the format will be left out in the cold when the Blu-ray Disc Association introduces BD Profile 2.0

Link: http://www.betanews.com/article/Bluray_Early_adopters_knew_what_they_were_getting_into/1199841379 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.25.49 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Amount of 50 gig releases on par with 25 gig

I added up the releases in the last 90 days and it seems there has been 35 25gig and 39 50gig releases. so its right around 50/50. the previous statement that 25gig is far more preferred by devlopers seems no longer accurate. the outlook on new releases looks about the same. Does anyone disagree? If you want to add in all the 25gig releases since blu-ray came out sure you come up with more. I think 90 days is a fair amount of time to go by and Its possible that since the first releases were in november for 50 gigs alot of the projects in the works were still based on the 25gig discs slowing the ramp up a bit. any thoughts? 71.107.48.182 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanations needed

1) What is PIP? 2) What is the significance of Region codes? Kdammers 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--PIP is 'picture in picture'. It used to be a popular thing in the 90's but I haven't seen a whole lot of it lately. On the television it was basically a small box in one corner of the screen that would show another channel or input source. I'm not really sure why it would be important for a DVD player to have PIP, but I'm sure they'll think of something interesting to do with it.

Region codes are significant because a player will generally only play discs from its own region. Manufacturers tend to state that this is to protect end users from device damage due to differences in display rates or voltages, but personally I think it's just a form of market control. So you get some info and my opinion as well... *BONUS!*  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New Compare table discussion

Hi all. We are discussing a new Compare table. Please come in and leave your opinion on the new tables here. --StarChild74 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard-coating technology

"Nonetheless, if a scratch does occur, there is no current way of removing the scratch without causing further irreparable damage. Abrasion cleaners used in video game stores to clean DVD game discs and movies (by removing plastic and thus the scratch) will not work. This is because the data layer is so close to the surface that even if the abrasion cleaner was able to remove the scratch, it would also remove the data layer destroying the disc."

Does someone have a link of a reliable test that confirms this? Until then I see this as speculation. Ray Andrew say that it is fact. So I guess that you have some proof to show that then, as you know that it's fact? The last part is even written as speculations; '"...close to the surface that even if the abrasion cleaner was able to remove the scratch...". My personal believes is that this is right information, bocouse it sounds right, but should this wiki base on persons believes and speculation? If this is right, then it should be a test somewhere. Until then I will continue deleting this part. And when someone comes up with some reliable proof I gladly put it back myself. --StarChild74 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If everything in this article had to have good references, we would not have an article. So if you think its true, then why don't you assume good faith and just tag it {{cn}}. --Ray andrew 12:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That section doesn't contain any relevant information to the article. Does any other consumer product include a section that basically says "It is possible for the owner to damage this product beyond repair." Every product you could ever buy can be damaged beyond repair. Laserdiscs can be scratched beyond repair, CD's can be scratched beyond repair, DVD's can be scratched beyond repair, HD-DVD's can be scratched beyond repair. Heck even your car can be scratched beyond repair (yes a collision with a brick wall at 50mph could be considered a scratch). Why does blueray need a special section about scratches? Just like CD's, DVD's and HD-DVD's, Blueray includes robust EEC algorithms to protect against scratches ruining the disc.The Goat 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't think its relevant that unlike CD's and DVD's scratches cannot be repaired? I would consider that relevant information, as it is an important difference from the technology that it is seeking to replace. ECC is nothing new either and it can only do so much. --Ray andrew 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
So you, Ray andrew, basicly say that it is free to anyone to just put something in articles without any backup and then it's not okey to delete it. Shouldn't it be the one who wrote it that going to have some proof. Thats something new for me. --StarChild74 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your inner fanboy bias your editing. If you dispute the facts then do so, if not then answer the question: Do you think its relevant that unlike CD's and DVD's scratches cannot be repaired? --Ray andrew 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ray there is no difference with scratches on CD's/DVD's and scratches on Blueray discs. Shallow CD/DVD scratches can repaired. Deep CD/DVD scratches can not be repaired. How is that any different to scratches on blueray discs? Are you claiming that any scratch at all ruins a blueray disc? That is clearly not the case. Unless you can show an actual study that has some evidence that blueray discs are ruined by scratches at a significantly higher rate then CD's and DVD's I will continue to remove this section from the article. CD's are much easier to ruin with unrepairable scratches. Scratching the label side of a CD can leave the disc unusable with no hope of repair. That is much easier to do then scratching a blueray disc.The Goat 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I would go with removing the wording. only because I don't think 99% of the population has a home DVD repair kit in thier home. Most I bet just buy a new dvd. If I added up the number of dvd's and cd's I had that are now coasters due to scratches (which I had to re-buy) I would be pretty pissed. the whole "virtually indestructable" line when we switched from cassettes was a riot.. lets not do anything to make that format look any better then it really is..lol You scratch a cd or dvd its just as useless if you don't have a repair kit and if you do have one (at an extra expense I might add) then it "may" work after repairing it but it prob wont a second time.. At least blu-ray added a hardcoating.. and one that seems fairly robust and stands up to quite a bit of abuse.. I give them that much (the hardcoating IS thier abrasion cleaner by preventing as much as possible before they happen. some scratches on dvd's are just too deep to be fixed as well.). I mean if you take the pizza cutter and steel wool to it then find out that doesnt break it so you decide to run over the disc with your car. sure you may need to buy a new one ;). seriously though.. if you don't take care of it.. it breaks.. seems pretty self explanatory to me. has anyone done a test on how different an HD DVD is to blu-ray in the scratch catagory? maybe we should add a note on that article that unlike blu-ray which has a protective coating and is not susceptiple to damage even from steel wool and pizza cutters, a slight scratch on your disk may render it useless causing you to need go out and purchase a home abrasian cleaner which may or may not work... thats just as bad I think. -71.107.48.182 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ray: I'm the fanboy? Thats something new to. It's obviously you who is the fanboy. You say: When we going to discuss "remove Hard-coating info" that are a minus to Blu-ray we don't need a source. But when we discuss "adding Sample frequency" in HighDefMediaComparison Table, that is a minus to HD DVD, then we need a source (as Blu-ray's white-paper weren't sufficient for you). So I wonder who's the fanboy around here, and I suggest that you think outside the box in the future. I try to be as neutral as possible when I write in this wiki. If I aren't you are welcome to notice me instead of just calling me a fanboy without any explanation. If that is the case I suggest we take that discussion in a PM as it don't belongs here. And for your notice I'm not convince to any of the two sides, I'm just allergic to unneutralized information and fanboys behaviour.
I suggests that we leave this information out of the wiki as we are tree against one. IF you can show us some reliable proof, I'm on your side! --StarChild74 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You all are a tough crowd :). It looks like a quick Google search solves everything. From this information it looks like there two options, if its a light scratch (ie does not go through the 0.05mm hard coat) then buffing may be able to remove it without totally removing the hard coat. But if its bigger, then the whole hard coat must be removed (which they admit is dangerous as the data layer is so close), but then the disk has no protection and could easily be damaged. So a rewording is in order, but the topic is still relevant. I'm sorry if I offended anyone earlier, that was not my intent. --Ray andrew 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of those sources you linked to actually say scratches on blueray discs are repairable with the current machines. They also state that early experiments show it is much more difficult to scratch a blueray disc then a CD/DVD. They also hypothesize that repairing a scratch will be more difficult on a blueray disc because of the thin plastic layer on top of the data layer. But they note there lack of experience in the subject when making this statement. There is no actual real world evidence either way yet. Blueray is too young to make a statement about its repairability. The article already makes a clear statement about the thin plastic layer over the data layer, and the possibility of scratches affecting the disc's data layer.The Goat 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that at odds with the way I rewrote it: "However if the hard-coat is scratched it is harder to repair then other optical media. If the scratch does not penetrate the hard-coat (less then 0.05mm) then some of the hard-coat can be removed to repair the disk. If the scratch is deeper then the entire hard coat must be removed, leaving the disk vulnerable to further damage."??? This issue needs some mention, so If your going to take issue with my verbiage, you better come up with some replacement. --Ray andrew 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ok... a few things. source one states they have not been able to repair to many because its very hard to find damaged discs in circulation (thats good for blu-ray)and that they were impressed at how difficult it was to actually damage the disc.. even when personally trying to. (I breathe on my dvd and its scratched) source 2 states that the coating gives them a "much better" scratch protection then dvd's (and I imagine hd dvd's as they are made the same). also according to the sources the scratches within the hardcoating come out with what amounts to a "good cleaning" with a buffing machine..the buffing process does not penetrate the hard coating they say...alot better then having to take sandpaper to the disc and prob less risky for light scratches. the hard coating only needs to be removed IF the scratch pentrates the hardcoating completly not even if it does not penetrate as the new verbage states. at that point...the disc will only THEN be as scratchable as easy as dvd's are. I think adding anything about the scratchability is unfair at this point until more data is avail. otherwise it appears we are just looking for a negative. and in fairness if we add something about the scratchability something really needs to be put on hd-dvd and dvd as to how blu-rays coating gives much better scratch protection compared to hd dvds - dvd's in everday use. otherwise we would be playing favorites. thats just my opinion.. maybe I read the article wrong. and remember these are companies who make a profit off fixing discs..not very good for them to be saying blu-ray is very scratch resistant. my guess is if they could they would be saying these things are very scratchy buy our product now to save your discs..... -71.107.48.182 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that hard-coated disks are harder to scratch is not contested. The hard-coat does its job admirably in that regard, however like everything it is not perfect. If a scratch occurs though, it does create problems with Blu-ray discs. Why? Well its the depth of the data layer, no the scratch probably wont be that deep, but none the less it is harder to focus around then on other disks (CD, DVD, HD DVD) because the beam spot on the disk is considerably smaller. This is in contrast to the other optical disks, where most small scratches can be focused around. This slack has to be picked up by the error correcting code.
Back to the topic, buffing a disk does remove a small (even if we are talking microns here it makes a difference) amount of the surface of the disk. That is what I stated in my rewrite "..some of the hard-coat can be removed..". I'm not just looking for negatives here, but hype needs to be balanced with reality. We need remember why a hard-coat is required (they had no choice besides cartages), and that in the case that it does get scratched it works differently then other discs. --Ray andrew 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyones interested, there is a nice article with the differences in ECC between Blu-ray and HD DVD here. Warning: some knowledge of ECC is required. --Ray andrew 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

vulnerability to data loss due to scratches/wear

Let's see if I can summarize this.

Case 1: CDs have two different sides with respect to scratching. The label side and edge is only a lacquer layer away from the data layer. The other is some mm of polycarbonate away from the data layer. Same with CD-R and CD-RW, just a different kind of data layer. Exotic variations, such as double sided CDs are more like DVDs in that the data layer is not immediately under a very thin lacquer layer. So scratches to the label surface or edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On the non-label surface, buffing/polishing, if done carefully can save many disks. On the label surface, this is not possible in practice as the lacquer layer is both thin and soft.
Case 2: All DVDs have a layer (thinner than in the case of ordinary CDs) of polycarbonate between the outside surface and the data layer. Except for the edges, where there is lacquer protection only. How thick the polycarbonate layer is depends on how many data layers or sides the DVD has. And like CDs, the nature of the data layer changes between pressed DVD and the field writable DVDs, but not the polycarbonate layer protection. So scratches to the edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On both surfaces, buffing/polishing, if done carefully can save data on many scratched disks.
Case 3: The Blu-ray disc data layer is immediately under the reading surface (the non lable surface in most cases). In these, scratches on the label surface are much less dangerous to data, exactly the opposite of CDs. The protective hard surface layer makes scratches there less likely than for similar media. But harder to repair when present as the hard layer is quite thin, and more urgent since the data layer is so close to the surface and such scratches are more optically important than in CDs or DVDs. So scratches to the edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On the reaading surface scratches are dangerous and less easily ignored, but harder to make given the hard surface layer. On the reading surface, buffing/polishing, if done very very carefully can save data on some scratched disks.

I think I've got the differences fairly covered. If so, and I'd appreciate a check or two by other editors, something like this info should be in the CD article, the DVD article, the Blu-ray and HD-DVD articles. The differences are relevant to WP as the Average Reader for whom we are writing/editing are not being educated about them, though understanding (and the differences) are important to protecting their data (eg, songs, movies, images, programs, ...). ww 11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The thin layer protecting the data on a blueray disc is already correctly addressed in the article. The major disagreement as I see it Ray wants to include a section about scratch repair machines being used on blueray discs. These scratch repair machines are not a major factor in the optical disc industry. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about these scratch repair machines that I could find. Furthermore there is no real world evidence for repair attempts on blueray discs available yet. All optical discs (CD's, DVD's, HD-DVD's, BD's, etc.) have been designed to continue to operate correctly with scratches. What is unique about blueray in this respect? Blueray discs have a thiner protective layer on top of the data but they also have much stronger EEC protection then the other formats. Nobody knows how scratches will end up effecting blueray usage in the real world. If in the future there are reports of statistically higher numbers of blueray discs being ruined because of unrepairable scratches, then of course something should be added to the article. But now it is way too early to do so.The Goat 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-mart high-def disc rumor

There's a rumor Wal-Mart has requested 20M high-def disc players--some reports say HD-DVD players, but it's not clear; they may be Blu-Ray. I don't think there's anything verifiable enough to be added to an article yet. Discussed at more length at Talk:HD_DVD#Wal-mart_HD-DVD_rumor. 67.180.140.96 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WalMarts in the Salt Lake area have began to sell blu-ray movies.

But no HD DVD titles yet. I speculate whether this is policy or a reflection of sales reality.

Anyone have a source? 71.219.94.15 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my rewrite of the DRM section

Tracer9999 undid my revision, saying "previous edit was fine. new edit adds less info".

That was precisely my intention, avoiding unnecessary duplication of content. Moving most of the AACS-specific parts to the relevant article. Then I expanded upon the parts that are Blu-ray specific.

What parts of the old revision (if any) do you think should be added to my version?

  • BD+ is covered in my version of Blu-ray
  • Mandatory Managed Copy is covered in my version of Blu-ray
  • CSS vs. AACS is covered in AACS
  • BD-ROM Mark is in my version of Blu-ray
  • The analog restrictions / ICT is in AACS
  • The "cracking" of AACS is covered in AACS

— Ksero 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

HITACHI announces 1000 GB Blu-Ray Recorder !!!


Focus on video storage

I believe this article has too much focus on commercial video discs rather than the physical medium itself. By reading the article it does not become clear which of the DRM restrictions apply to normal recorded data CDs and if its possible not to include DRM. ("The Blu-ray format employs several layers of DRM.")

-- 83.99.184.75 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (Not logged in: J7n)

BR is winning

Virgin Megastore Tower Records at Piccadilly Circus has 4 shelves of bluray and ONE of HDDVD. Bluray is winning. --81.105.251.160 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Same thing at my local Best Buy. Two weeks ago they rearranged the HDDVD/blueray sections. They doubled the blueray section and halved the HDDVD section. I think the retailers have already seen the future in their sales numbers.The Goat 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This so called format war is quite irrelevant. Because of the heavily crippled nature of both medias and files contained on them, an user is required to rip both discs in order to safely backup and watch the video recordings without restrictions. The resulting ripped files can be stored anywhere and only their quality matters, and not on what physical disc they were released by the commercial publisher. 83.99.184.75 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (Not loggen in: J7n)

AnyDVD HD

In the section DRM, AnyDVD HD: "..but they will release no details for obvious reasons". Call me a fool, but I don't know what the obvious reasons are, nor do I want to sit and think it over for a while. --ScarletSpiderDavE 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the AnyDVD HD section? It looks like an advertisement for an unrelated product. Jonabbey 13:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The point as far as I see it is that it allows consumers to exercise their fair-use rights and make a backup copy of movies they have legally bought and own. -Paul1337 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Paper Disc

I think it's time for the Blu-ray Disc#Paper based Blu-ray Disc section to go. The reference is three years old. I can't find any evidence that it's been commercialized. The motivation seems sort of weak: it's supposed to be environmentally friendly somehow, yet one could argue that a half-paper half-plastic disc would be difficult to recycle. I tried to find a diagram showing the structure, but failed. Does anyone object to dropping this section? Spiel496 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditch it.The Goat 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I notice that 64.128.200.78 added some good material on the disc structure. However, the reference is still three years old. The more I think about it, the more lousy the idea seems to be. The motivations for moving away from polycarbonate are:
  • Cost. However, CD-R discs are nearly all polycarbonate, and they are less than $1 each.
  • Recyclability. Can't polycarbonate be recycled?
  • Less material. So what? Are optical discs really a large fraction of household and business waste?

Maybe these points are over-thinking the issue. This disc looks like a PR stunt that was floated for whatever reason, and then dropped. Spiel496 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two alternative disc lists

I would like to propose that "Other optical data storage technologies" and "Alternative disc technologies" be merged together. They are near identical, with only one discrepancy (protein-coated disc) that can go in either. 212.32.73.18 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Other optical data storage technologies" heading is not referenced by any other page (as a wikipedia search confirms), so it can be safely removed while its contents is merged with "Alternative disc technologies" under "See also". The HD DVD page sets a precedent for this, as it has "alternative discs" laid out this way, and it seems to make more sense. 212.32.107.185 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Sided

Shouldn't double sided GB amounts be added? There on the DVD and HD DVD pages so shouldn't the be here?

They are listed for those formats because double sided disks are both part of the specification and feasible, but Blu-ray will likely never have double sided disks because they are not part of the specification nor is it feasible because of its extremely strict tolerances for the "flatness" of the data layer. --Ray andrew 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Problem

Why it is not mentioned that most (if not all) titles sold today on Blu-ray are in fact 720p and not true HD? 81.96.125.17 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh. Because it's not true? I have yet to see a Blu-Ray in my collection or in a store that wasn't 1080p. Googling reveals there apparently are some 720p Blu-Ray movies, but that seems to be uncommon. Perhaps these are the only movies you happened to buy? 24.23.231.54 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I came in here to post about this, and I'm glad someone else brought it up. There are clearly some Blu-ray discs that seemed to have been "upscaled" from an original DVD, not a fresh high-resolution recording directly from the film. So it's essentially a DVD in Blu-Ray format. I try to look out for them, but it's hard to tell the difference. Anyone find any references on this? I'll be looking around. This is important for people to know. Wikidan829 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally looking on the back of the disc's casing (box) will mention something about being mastered in high definition. If it says something other than mastered or remastered in high definition, you're probably getting a degraded picture as you mentioned. I'm not sure if this is relevant enough to make it into this particular article, so I'll leave that to the proverbial powers that be to add or not. Also, looking at the two BD movies I have right here, both are in "1920 x 1080p" ("Tears of the Sun" and "House of Flying Daggers", NA releases). 68.45.243.140 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

i haven't seen a single 720P blu-ray in europe, they are all 1080P Markthemac 04:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blu-Ray "Released Titles" list tainted

Despite the list's title being simply "Released Titles," it clearly states that it is listing Blu-Ray launch titles from June 20, 2006. However, the very short list includes Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, a May 22, 2007 release. This is wrong and very misleading. For instance, it would lead some to believe that the movie is encoded with the inferior MPEG2 format like other launch titles. Others in the list may also need to be verified (only that one stood out to me). Update: Yep. I noticed another: "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not released on BD *at all* according to this list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3112

I think the list likely needs to be scrapped. 72.15.73.29 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or just give an external link to an official listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Target Announcement

The Target announcement was rewritten in such a way that it seemed almost like it was trying to obscure and downplay that Target had decided to sell only Blu-ray stand alone players. I added text based on the article from Forbes to clarify the announcement. 24.23.231.54 05:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats not quite accurate, the facts are that Sony decided to pay Target for an endcap to sell their players. I would hardly call that a decision by Target to promote one format over another. I'm sure they would gladly sell HD DVD players too if Toshiba payed them for the shelf space. --Ray andrew 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what I wrote is quite accurate. Target will carry and promote stand alone Blu-Ray players in their stores. Meanwhile, they are not carrying stand alone HD DVD players in their stores. The article keeps being altered to try to obscure or spin these facts. I guess HD DVD supporters really want this to not be true. This is supposed to be NPOV, and I'm trying to edit the article to include all of the facts beneficial to both sides, but the parts which are good for Blu-ray keep being editted out. Please stop trying to spin it. 24.23.231.54 04:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the reference for this, and the article is perfectly accurate. According to the source, Target does not have HDDVD players for sale in their stores. There should be no mix up here. Wikidan829 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue ray's techincal features

I'm not here to argue about Blu-ray vs HD DVD. All I have to day about that is that the Blu-ray system seems to have some nice technical advntages, and that not using "DVD" in the name is likely to be an advantage. (There are people who will confuse HD DVD with standard DVD).

But what are the interesting technical features. The BD-J system sounds useful for allowing more interactive content. Depending on exactly what is supported, It could have some cool implications.

I hope that people don't feel that the system is useable only for HD content. SD content on the discs has some very nice properties. A single blueray disc can fit a full season of many SD television shows. It would certainly be nice to not need to include 5 or so discs in the box. Unfortunately it looks like many companies are not going to be willing to make discs where the main content is SD. They may make discs where the extra content is SD, which allows far more extra content to be included. (Although today, I find the problem is that studios have a lot of trouble figuring out what extra content to include, besides a commentary audio track. They simply often don't have anything worthwhile to include. Being able to include 9 hours of SD bonus content is not going to be useful).

Annother cool feature is the 2 overlay frames in HDMV mode. One is intended to be frame specific, and used for things like subtitles. The other can be used to overlay things like buttons. So it is possible to pop up a choice or menu without neededing a dedicated menu screen. The BD-J mode has more flexibilty here.

Also, what features of the DISCs will not get used? For example I suspect that very few discs will use the PIP feature of Blu-ray, which requires a whole second decoding chip. I know that the Multiple-angle feature of DVDs was almost never used. Similarly the seamless branching feature of DVDs was not used often.

67.77.22.80 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox and MGM's (lack of) support for Blu-ray

I think we might want to make note of the fact that Fox and MGM have effectively stopped supporting Blu-ray for the time being. Fox has not released a title since April 24th (almost 4 months) and has no titles with an announced release date. MGM has not released a title since March 13th (5 months today) and has no titles with an announced release date. I am posting this here first to try to avoid any controversy and get others input before this change is made. Refrences: [5] [6] --Ray andrew 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

lets not micro manage the studios release dates and wait for an announcement about these things in the future.. just my opinion. Tracer9999 00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really micro managing? Half (as of now in terms of the big six) of blu-ray's studio support has been MIA almost all year. Don't you think that at least deserves mention? --Ray andrew 03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

--- Ray..It is kinda interesting.. but who knows maybe the studios are just going to release a bunch for the christmas rush as more people get the players and they can sell more. esp with prices coming way down... lets let it play out. the real interesting thing though is that with half of thier studios "MIA" blu-ray has still managed to release more movies then Hd DVD this year according to my very quick count on the historical release dates pages...now Imagine if that other half of thier studios was not not MIA for "most" of the year... that would be Really scary for HD DVD... personally I can't wait for a good profile 2.0 universal player to come out so who releases on what is irrelevant.. I just want my HD..from whoever.. -Tracer9999 03:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

20th Century Fox is releasing The Simpsons Movie on Blu-Ray in December, so I think there are upcoming releases - just not many during the middle of the year. Like Tracer9999 said, there is a Christmas season coming up - and Blu-Ray's going to have to match HD DVD's Transformers/Shrek the Third - Universal and Paramount HD DVD exclusives. Remstar 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

-- cough cough james cough cough bond cough cough dis cough ney cough Markthemac 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--- I don't think there is any need for this change anymore since BR release dates from Fox and MGM have been confirmed. There is no lack of BR support from both studios. Just check out the new BR release date list. --Ckyle88 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, that is unless they don't make good on there release dates (hey thats how this whole thing started). --Ray andrew 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard, who removes it and why?

I am wondering if somebody removes HP from both Blu-ray Disc Association and this article from the list of supporting companies and Board of Director? Is this right as now (HP quit BDA)?--w_tanoto 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored HP in BDA article's list of Board of Director, but I should not bother to add it here, as HP support both formats.--w_tanoto 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to restore everything after discovering that a person removed HP from those mentioned above just based on because s/he bought a laptop with HP and received HD DVD, and make early conclusion that HP does not support BD. S/he should have consulted us.--w_tanoto 16:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

162.58.0.64's “lower cost” edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blu-ray_Disc&diff=152904892&oldid=152876357

  • Are the prices or the kinds mixed up?
  • The source requires Flash (that I cannot view).

--AVRS 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who added the price comparison. I'm not sure what you mean be "mixed up", but the prices are accurate. As for Flash, why do you not have Flash??? Just go download the plugin, and you'll be all set.  ;-) - Theaveng 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PC playback

It's not very clear on the article about how much support there is for playback on a pc.Is there alot of support for playback with the menus, and subtittles etc, on PC?.Seems like Powerdvd is only software available, not sure about VLC media player. Rodrigue 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


powerdvd, indeovideo, Nero showtime and some other less known decoders Markthemac 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Format Porn Edits

Please take a moment to view the discussion taking place regarding the addition of pornography industry statistics and its effect on vhs and betamax format war and subsequently the HD format war on pretty much every article related to the HD format war. It is my position that since both formats have stated on the record that they both ALLOW porn, it is a moot point. the fact that porn is allowed is all that needs to be posted. there is no controversy and therefore no comparison to the betamax era nor to the porn industry in 1998 or 2001 when the referenced article was posted. The submission makes guesses as to the cause of the downfall of a 30 year old technology and if anything confuses the reader as to the relevence of porn in the current climate. The editor wants to debunk the myth porn had anything to do with betamax losing to vhs. as this does not apply to the current situation I feel this material should be added to the betamax, vhs, sony, or one of those relevent articles. rather then repeat everything (I might have already though..lol). feel free to look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

In order to avoid an edit war I will honor whatever the consensus is. after a resonable amount of time to get responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs) 01:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC).


(1) Tracer you are in violation of wiki rules which specifically state do NOT delete other people's contributions. Wiki rules state you may reword, rewrite, add citations, but you are NOT to delete whole paragraphs just because you "felt like it". "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate [such as the Forbes.com paragraph], improve the edit, rather than reverting it."
(2) As for the comparison about porn, I agree beta/vhs is irrelevant, but I like the Bluray/HD-DVD comparison and information from forbes.com. I vote to leave it there. It answers the question "What if a major adult studio (like playboy) chose one format over the other?" Could a major studio affect the outcome? I like the answer Forbes gives us. Theaveng 09:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)



Double-sided Blurays exist. So too do Long Play (LP) videotapes.

Neither of these are part of the official Blu-ray or VHS specifications...... and yet they both exist in the real world. Therefore they should be discussed in their respective wiki entries. 162.58.0.64 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cite a source for double sided blu-ray discs and we can discuss them, until then its speculation --Ray andrew 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Profiles

The correct term for the pre-10/31/07 profile is "Profile 1 (Grace Period Profile)". People commonly refer to this profile as "Profile 1.0", but that is not the official terminology. Likewise, the proper term for the profile that takes effect 11/1/07 is "Profile 1 (Final Standard Profile)", but many people informally refer to it as "Profile 1.1". "Profile 2 (BD-Live)" is often called by the colloquial terms "Profile 2.0", "Profile 2.0 BD-Live", or simply "BD-Live". I changed the article to reflect the more proper terminology. Kelpie3483 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

European/Japanese Sales figure HD DVD/BD

I'd like to add the following (applies to EU only) to the article, also to comparison between HD DVD and BD:

HD DVD claimed 70% (83,000) of stand-alone players (excluding PlayStation 3) - Gfk Figure
Blu-ray has 94% of hi-def players (including 1.3 million PS3 sold)
Blu-ray claimed 70% of software/title sales across the Europe (650,000 titles vs 332,000) - Gfk Figure
The attach rate of HD DVD disc is four per player
The attach rate of Blu-ray disc is half disc per player (Graffeo claims that European GfK data suggests that only one Blu-ray movie is sold for every two Sony PlayStation3 consoles)
http://www.current.com.au/2007/09/05/article/QDCYXBFYPL.html

BD has 90%+ share in Japan http://www.google.co.id/search?q=blu-ray+japan+90%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a http://www.n4g.com/News-64661.aspx

please comment on any changes I should make on this--w_tanoto 14:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Triple layer 51GB HD DVD-ROM

The inclusion of this new HD-DVD technology in the BD/HD-DVD comparison article is not a good thing to do at the moment, since its not yet confirmed if it is compatible with all HD-DVD players currently on the market. This makes the information about HD-DVD having the storage advantage over BR a bit misleading at this time. I think this line should be removed from the article until more on this subject will become clear. --Ckyle88 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually its been pretty well confirmed by many news agencies directly with Toshiba. --Ray andrew 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.betanews.com/article/Toshiba_DVD_Forum_Hasnt_Yet_Approved_Final_51_GB_HD_DVD_After_All/1189716943

Toshiba: DVD Forum Hasn't Yet Approved Final 51 GB HD DVD After All By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews September 13, 2007, 4:55 PM In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD. As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9. "We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today. The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum." That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format. The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage." Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.

yes, it's confusing ATM, regarding the specs. Toshiba itself said triple layer has not been completed, and we don't know if it's compatible with current player --w_tanoto 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit premature to include it in the comparison table; I think we should take it out now and re-add it as soon as the DVD Forum approves the final specification. -Paul1337 00:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree we should take it out for now. -- Vdub49 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say take it out completely from tables on three articles (BD, HD DVD, and Comparison), and replace it with words instead, saying TL51 is approved (preliminary), but testing still needs to be done, etc--w_tanoto 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.. it should be removed until final and more info on compatability with existing players is available -Tracer9999 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody going to do it? or should I? There is risk: the HD DVD side won't agree. Should I also remove the triple layer from the table as well?--w_tanoto 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

-I reverted some.. I personally think its should be removed completly until a final standard.. they are not releasing disc's on the "preliminary" standard. until its final.. and the compatibility questions have been addressed its just talk and vapor. It should be mentioned in the HD DVD article but NOT as an official spec until its final.. Ray, be fair on this. you know if this was a blu ray prelim standard that the blu ray page would have already been reverted. Im cool on adding it to the article. but lets wait till even HD DVD knows whats going on before making it the official capacity of HD DVD that could take another 6 mo or who knows.. even longer to finalize... lets not push vaporware until its final -Tracer9999 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

i guess the job is done. i removed it from the table, but still think it deserve to be mentioned in the article. I think the triple layer should also be removed from HD DVD information box.--w_tanoto 13:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


So does Blu-ray have a triple layer standard?

I know the TDK labs have experimented with multiple layers, but have any of these larger discs moved beyond the lab & into official testing for consumer use? - Theaveng 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No. We don't know if it will make it to public and when.--w_tanoto 13:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

TDK has demonstrated 4 layer media on modified hardware with special optics. --Ray andrew 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Um yeah, I know, I just said "TDK labs have experimented with multiple layers". They've done 4-layer 100-gig and 6-layer 200-gig discs. I was just curious if a triple-layer Blu-ray is in the works, and if yes, will it be as easy as a firmware upgrade? (like with HD-DVD) - Theaveng 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No news regarding if BD TL is in work. Likely not. Nobody knows if HD DVD TL will work on current player. We'll just have to wait and see. If it does work, there might be a chance that possible future BD TL will work as well.--w_tanoto 19:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I've read in the HD DVD talk page, the tests are all done and proved to work with most units; it just needs final approval from the managers. ----- Also I'm not sure incompatibility would stop this development. When VCRs were released they only had one speed... then both JVC and Sony modified their machines to double the tape length. Then circa 1980 (5 years later), they introduced Beta-III and SLP to triple the tape length. The new speeds were not compatible with the older machines, such that someone buying a Beta-II or Beta-III tape could not play them, but neither JVC nor Sony seemed to care. ----- I doubt Toshiba's going to care either; they'll just see it as an opportunity to sell more units.


Theaveng, read what I said more carefully, the player they demonstrated it on has specially modified optics, ie. they physical change the the drive, so unless this was just an unnecessary modification then four layer BD wont work with just a firmware update on current players. --Ray andrew 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no place in the TDK References where it says "modified optics". I've deleted it from the article since it constitutes a random guess and/or original research without substantiation. And you've still not answered my original question Ray. - Theaveng 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ugg, I guess thats what happens when people switch real references for press releases. I dug up the original reference: "However, the company made some alterations to the firmware and the optical system inside the head, to make the player compatible with four-layer BD playback." [7] --Ray andrew 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"But in the current demonstation, Hitachi used a 'standard drive'." Thus opening the possibility of using 4-layer discs in standard Blu-ray players, and just doing a simple firmware upgrade as will be done with triple-layer HD-DVD players. - Theaveng 18:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep your right, I didn't read the article carefully, I just remembered that when they were originally demoed they were using modified optics. I wouldn't get your hopes up yet as they weren't actually reading data off the disk, the disk just had a different frequencies of the pits on each layer, and they showed that they could focus on each layer by looking at waveforms on the oscilloscope. --Ray andrew 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

History

Is there a reason why no history info? How did BD get started? Who started it? Why did Disney defect at the last minute? Why didn't Sony comply with the DVD Forum? What happened? The origins of Blu-ray, I want to know. Can we get something started? Swisspass 11:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I read that thet royalties on the CD would expire in 2007 and suspect that this is related to the history of the BD. Andries 06:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh... doubtful. Sony has a long, long, long history of developing new standards, and for no real reason other than because they wanted to. For whatever reason this company loves to do research and development. Here's a quick list: Umatic (~1968), Betamax (1975), Betacam (81), Compact Disc (82), Video8 (85), DAT (87), Hi8 (88), Minidisc (~90), Digital Betacam (~90), miniDV (92), Digital8 (99), PSP Universal Media Disc (~2004), HighDV (~2004), and on and on and on. Sony makes new standards "just because" they feel like it, and not because of losing the CD royalties. - Theaveng 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
They also seem to have a legacy of failures in regards to formats. I will work on getting some of the history behind BDA and adding to the article. I've come to the conclusion that it was not a favorable start, because this article lacks the origins. I think it's relevant and important for people to know, and quite frankly I am very curious to learn. I always wondered what happened, and why Sony defected from the DVD Forum to push BD. Swisspass 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) Many companies have failed standards. JVC created Wide-VHS and Digital-VHS, both of which flopped. Philips tried to upgrade CD to Super Audio CD, and Compact Cassettes to Digital Compact Cassettes, both of which failed. Microsoft tried to convert ordinary TVs to WebTVs and failed. And on and on and on. (2) Sony probably created Blu-ray for the same reason why JVC defected from the Umatic/Betamax consortium (which controlled near-100% of the market in 1975), and JVC went off to create VHS. They thought they could make more money with their own format (and it turns-out, JVC was correct). Point: I don't think there's any kind of hidden agenda; it's just business as usual for how modern corporations operate. I think you'll discover that yourself, as you do your research. - Theaveng 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD also uses blue laser

One very important information which should be near the top of the article is that the competing format HD DVD also uses a blue laser. This is something that not a lot of people would know and would also educate people as it would instantly clear up the misconception that Blu-ray uses a blue laser and the competing HD DVD uses a red laser. People should look at this article, see that fact, and be able to walk away with a "wikipedia taught me something that I did not know that I can tell my friends" sort of feeling. And it IS perfectly relevent that a competing format also uses a blue laser. JayKeaton 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That should probably go in the "Comparisons of HD discs" article. - Theaveng 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It probably should, but wouldn't it be an interesting thing to read that relates to Blu-ray in real terms? Plus the lead section already mentions that it uses a blue laser and it also mentions that it is in a format competition with HD DVD. It just makes sense JayKeaton 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Although it will probably get deleted by some other editor. - Theaveng 11:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why this keeps being reverted. Do we want people to think that only Blu Ray uses a blue laser? You can hardly even say Blu Ray without even mentioning that it is in format war with HD DVD, even the lead mentions it, so why should it not say that they both share a common technical trait? The only reason I can think of that people don't want that is that they believe it might damage Sony's image. JayKeaton 06:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because this is contained in the HD DVD article, as well as the high def comparison article. It is out of place in the lead for an article about Blu-ray Disc. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why even mention in the lead that Blu Ray is competing with HD DVD? JayKeaton 12:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that mentioning this in the laser and optics section is prominent enough — Ksero 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jay, it should be included in the lead when HD DVD is mentioned, it's a common misconception that we can help dispel. --Ray andrew 12:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, and it's already dispelled in the HD DVD article. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The overview is no longer part of the lead section. I don't understand why the laser thing keeps getting deleted. Are we trying to trick people into thinking that the 402 blue laser is unique to Blu Ray? JayKeaton 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because it is irrelevant in an article about Blu-ray Disc. HD DVD is mentioned, and a comparison occurs later in the article (as well as a link to a complete comparison). There's nothing "tricky" about that in the least. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I think it is very relevant considering the name "Blu Ray" and also considering that the format war is mentioned in the overview. JayKeaton 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and do not think this belongs anywhere in the lead of the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with what? The overview section is no longer in the lead, since this thread was started the overview was moved to its own section which is not in the lead. I am just saying that it is very relevant that for a technology called Blu Ray that it be mentioned that a blue laser is in fact the standard for all next generation discs and is the standard for Blu Rays primary competition. JayKeaton 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Too technical?

This article has been flagged as too technical. Why would someone think that? It seems perfectly clear to me. - Theaveng 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think people are getting confused with the numbers and MB/GB's in it, which is understandable if you don't know much about computers. But ya I'll look it over to see if it can be any clearer later. -- Vdub49 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold

Compare this to the previous version. I summarized all the "Stand-alone players and the PlayStation 3", "Recordable stand-alone players", "Portable players" and so on into the "List of Blu-ray devices" table. I found most of those sections to be too detailed for an encyclopedic article. I also moved some of the content around so the order makes more sens (at least to me ) and I started a "History" section.

Now... go forth and be bold yourself! Can you find a better way of organizing the article? — Ksero 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Profile 1.1 and user supplied memory

I noticed that it says to meet profile 1.1, user supplied memory such as memory sticks and usb drives can be used.. Thats all news to me and must be a recent addition to this article. the whole point of 1.1 is to set a standard. I don't think its the can be used with 1.1 if you buy your own memory standard...my understanding is it requires the memory to be included and BUILT in.. am I wrong? Is there something I missed, an announcement or something. I have added a citation needed tag however this info if untrue is detrimental to the article and I intend on removing it if not sourced in a relativly short period of time.. any objections? -Tracer9999 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll object ;)... Refer to [8] the requirement for 1.1 is to just be capable of handling 256MB of persistent memory, it need not be included with the player. Same for profile 2.0. --Ray andrew 21:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory." PCWORLD MAGAZINE.. not a blog. http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,128205/printable.html .. removing until source specified as PCWORLD is a major magazine and specifically states FLASH memory -Tracer9999 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well what can I say thats old information (heck it quotes a cutoff of June 2007), what's posted in the link I gave above is the latest and most accurate. --Ray andrew 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

lol.. the release date changed..not the profile -Tracer9999 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC) your post is a forum.. not a legitamite source

Well if you want to all the misinformation that was going on back then, what ever happened to HD PIP ? --Ray andrew 22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a dick, but the PC world FAQ doesn't even refer to profiles:

Do home-theater Blu-ray Disc players have any minimum storage requirements? The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory.

Also, it may have been true at some time that they were to include built in memory, but guess what the BDA got cheap and decided that "capability" was enough. --Ray andrew 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

both you and I know june was the orig release date.. now your just grasping at straws.. heres one from oct 11th..

http://www.hardcoreware.net/upcoming-ps3-firmware-to-add-blu-ray-profile-11-picture-in-picture-playback/

note the "onboard memory" . others refer to "local" memory. If you find an article from a major magaine or NEWS source. then I say put it back up. but as of now the only major source says FLASH based -Tracer9999 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray.. even the source after your revert (regarding the delay) says

"Additionally, after Oct. 31, all Blu-ray players must hold a minimum 256MB of persistent memory storage, which will help power the picture-in-picture feature. Also, any Blu-ray player that features an Internet connection is required to have 1GB of such memory, in order to hold whatever content users decide to download from the Web." a minimum... if you add it.. its not a minimum.. the minimum would be 64k plus whatever you add.. thats not a standard thats a suggestion.. it must come with 256MB..if you want to add more good for you. but 256MB is the minimum http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html -Tracer9999 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

HERE: [9] not a blog or forum, I'll take an apology now. Also it was pretty rude of you to go ahead and remove the information so shortly after I objected, hopefully you can be more patient in the future. --Ray andrew 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

lol.. my post was too old. so you pull one from june 2006... lastest source is still PCWORLD article sorry... get a recent source.-Tracer9999 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Now your really being difficult, clearly the FAQ has been updated since it was originally posted, just look at the list of players. --Ray andrew 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion.. leave it a capable of supporting 256MB. as there is obviously a blurry line at this point as to wether it is FLASH based or add-on. common sense would dictate its flash based but this is sony/blu ray group we are talking about so who knows. however the most RECENT source is PC world.. So I say in the interest of keeping the article accurate. we error on the side of caution. which is that it must be capable of supporting a minimum of 256MB.. let the consumer decide how or well update when these come out next month and we know more.. -Tracer9999 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No the PC world article is the oldest source, and it has been shown to be out of date, if you want proof that the FAQ I posted above has been recently updated, just go to www.emedialive.com and you will see:

EMedialive announces updates to The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ in the following categories: II. Physical, Logical, and Application Specifications; VI. Compatibility; IX. Industry Support, Prices, and Availability. Posted 12 Oct 2007

so its been updated less then a week ago, you still going to trust a many months old PCWorld article? Its a common misconception that 1.1 players will have 256MB built in, we would be doing a disservice to the community if we did not correct that misconception. --Ray andrew 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
in fact here is a list of updates to the above FAQ [10] --Ray andrew 23:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Ray Andrew appears to be pushing HD DVD

I always suspected he was HD DVD "favored" for the last several months, but was not certain. Now I KNOW that's what he's doing. He's going around to various articles and pasting that HD DVD has a "33 gig" capacity without any kind of valid reference. He's also made other revisions (over the last several months) to try to "promote HD" as the better format, and "demote Blu-ray" as the inferior format. He's trying to push a non-neutral POV in hopes of selling more of his favored format (HD DVD). - Theaveng 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on what constitutes a valid reference. I am not here to push any format, I just want to keep these pages as accurate as possible. Call me crazy, but that includes adding new information about what the actual disc capacities are. Please refrain from future personal attacks (see WP:ATTACK) when you have a dispute with another editor. --Ray andrew 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think that qualifies as a personal attack, neutral point of view is important, and if an editor is suspect of pushing a POV it's fair to call them out on that. But for the sake of getting this issue resolved, let's just deal with whether or not 33 GB is the real capacity and work on finding a credible source to back this up. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Theaveng, there's some discussion on this going on at Talk:HD DVD as well as at Template talk:HighDefMediaComparison. I don't agree with the assertion that Ray is pushing a POV though, but it does seem strange that given all the sources saying it's 15/30 GB he'd change articles en masse on the basis of this one FAQ. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Theaveng seems to have a moving definition of what constitutes a good reference. Back when we were having a dispute about disc cost, I had pointed out that these were the costs for single layer disc. He reverted me on the basis that the article did not say either way and when I started talking about reliable sources (like ones that state what kind of disc they are pricing), he said "Baloney. It's not our job to decide how "reliable" a source it is; only to report what it says. Let the reader decide whether he/she believes what she reads." (Theaveng's talk page 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) --Ray andrew 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is attacking. I know it's a sensitive issue for everyone but we really should focus on accurate information that transcends where our loyalties or preferences lie. Objective information is key. Swisspass 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of released titles

Considering the reference given for the count excludes the 32 discontinued, should we not report the numbers the same way. Are we not trying to over represent the release count by counting titles that may no longer be available? --Ray andrew 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The number should include the 32 Paramount titles because they were, in fact, released. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They Should be counted in the total because they were released and people purchased them... things are discontinued all the time doesn't make the copies in circulation or at peoples homes go poof..vanish as if they never existed. contrary to your statement.. excluding the 32 from the count is undercounting the movies that have been released to the public. regardless of the fact some have since been discontinued.. not to mention its going to be alot harder to track individual titles that may be discontinued..unless of course more companies take bribes to switch sides and discontinue a bunch at once.. hope that helps -Tracer9999 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ray, the count should be reported in the same manner. Swisspass 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

seems obvious to me. Like locke said, the number should be included in the the total because they were actually released ---24.253.46.31 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is the notice that it excludes the 32 titles previously available. On the Disney release article the list only includes existing titles with a note of discontinued titles. Swisspass 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Locke Cole, they were released so they should count. -- Vdub49 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We should also consider the source being cited reveals 319*, with some information revealing the 32 titles are excluded. The section could become overly complicated if we add the details of the 32 missing titles, etc. I think stating 319 titles is reflective of the information being reported in the source and a more accurate figure. Swisspass 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

351 is the accurate number of movies that HAVE BEEN RELEASED.. Im not sure how you get 319 is a more accurate number..regardless of how a source erroneously lists it. that baffles me. Thats like saying I bought a chicken sandwich for lunch but someone took a bite out of it so I really only bought 2/3 chicken sandwich...no.. you still bought the whole chicken sandwich.. the correct way would be I bought a chicken sandwich and someone took a bite of a third of it ... It should stay as it is ... accurate and clear... 351 "released" 32 have since been discontinued.. now Im hungry... -Tracer9999 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Blu-ray"

The current article says it comes from "blue array," but I can't easily find proof of this. Common understanding is that it is derived from "blue ray of light" (referring to the blue-violet laser)." I would imagine "Blue array" would refer to an array of blue-light sensors. Should this be deleted, or can anyone find proof? Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never noticed. It was added in this edit. It's probably just vandalism, so I removed it. — Ksero 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move more comparison info to the "Comparison" page

In an effort to reduce duplication of effort, I am proposing to move much of the comparison and history information about BD and HD DVD to the "Comparison" page. If you have ideas / concerns, please comment on the thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Making_better_use_of_this_page Thanks Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. the comparison info is very important to the article.. people generally want as much info in their article without having to jump from page to page.. they want to just look up blu ray or hd dvd.. see what it is and how its different, where it is in the format war. I think it should be a major part of the individual articles.. not to mention it will get updated more as a part of the articles rather then some other page that people are too lazy to click on. -Tracer9999 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BD+ hacked?

apparently someone has hacked BD+ and will have disc copying software by the end of the year..

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/30/blu-ray-bd-cracked -Tracer9999 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If one were to start cracking the BD+, then one keyword, where to stat is the "Aspect-oriented programming". An illustrative idea: in CPU-s sometimes a behaviour of a CPU instruction is changed so that if the given instruction is subject to execution, the CPU excecutes some other instruction or does something other than the original CPU instruction has been specified to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.21.216 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

warner considering going blu ray only?

from home media magazine...Also there was Dan Silverberg, VP of high-definition media for Warner Home Video, which since Paramount’s move to the HD DVD camp is the only studio to support both next-generation formats.

That may not be for long, Silverberg said. “One thing that may be changing is our strategy,” he said. “When both formats launched and hardware prices were high, we made a decision to support both formats and let the consumer decide. But now that hardware pricing is affordable for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, it appears consumers no longer want to decide — so the notion of staying in two formats for the duration is something we are re-evaluating now that we are in the fourth quarter.”

Silverberg noted that Warner has the top-selling Blu-ray title of all time with 300 and is consistently No. 1 or No. 2 in both Blu-ray sales market share and in number of Blu-ray titles in the market.

“We can definitely talk Blu-ray,” he said. “We are committed to the format.” -Tracer9999 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or do you just want to spread rumors? (Funny thing is thats not the rumor people are really talking about ;) )--Ray andrew 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As a counter-point, Warner also said they are looking at the sub-$200 HD DVD players to see if they make a difference in sales. This was a big PR event with a lot of rhetoric and is non-news right now. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ic868cb7073298c93e702dbdc92804c43?imw=Y Peter Torr (MSFT) 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow Peter, it didn't take long for a representative from Microsoft to respond. Don't you have some Wikipedia articles to taint, errr.... ahh clean up? The president of Warner video did in fact say he was committed to Blu-ray. He didn't say the same about HD DVD.... Uh oh.... looks like you need to work up another bribe for a friend  ;-)--Kibbled bits 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Kibbled, remember WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. If you think that some of Peter's edits are inappropriate, you can discuss them on the relevant talk pages, just like any other edit. — Ksero 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read NPA and there's nothing personal in my comment. Invoking someone's name or 'calling them out' is seriously not a personal attack I think we're getting a little too sensitive here. I find that Peter and people like him that work for his employer spread disinformation and are bad for Wikipedia. That being said to say what a president within Warner said is Non-news? Note the several threads in http://forums.highdefdigest.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6 also http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=blu-ray+warner&btnG=Search Yes this is non-news my friend... Peter  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.128.198 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I welcome your improvements to my Wikipedia edits! Just for fun, here's an article stating that Warner has a release date for Twister on both formats for May next year. Couple that with the Hollywood Reporter article I referenced above that says Warner may consider either side, and I come to the conclusion that it is non-news right now. Other people made some very bold statements at that PR event -- people working for the same companies that didn't support DVD when it first came out, and look how things changed there. If you have anything to say to me personally, I have a Talk page and a blog :-) Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's how I sum up the Warner stuff. Warner is going to look at Q4 sales data and in there isn't a significant spike they will go Blu-ray. If there is they will probably wait on the sidelines a little more so see if it was just a fluke or not. If HD DVDs sales continue to climb then they might jump on board exclusively there.--Kibbled bits 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed today that Warner will go BlueRay only after May 2008. Adeas (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the secondary audio and video section be changed on the chart?

Now that it is November 1st, 2007, all future Blu-Ray players must have a secondary audio and video decoder. Should the chart be changed from optional to mandatory, or something like Mandatory as of November 1st, 2007? 75.52.174.191 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering there is not a single player out yet that supports it, I think that would be down right deceptive. Also I think it's alredy well noted that it is mandatory for 1.1 players. --Ray andrew 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cars

I read somewhere that someone was in development for a in dash blu-ray player for cars and that it was in a car at a motor show. I can't remember where or who though.--Playstationdude 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


BD+ Officially cracked

Slysofts latest anydvd beta cracks BD+

AnyDVD beta forum post

So far, it hasn't been determined the severity of the crack. BD+ was designed to fix security flaws that might be discovered. Slysoft may have cracked the current version, but Fox and the other studios may be able to identify the flaw that was cracked and fix it for the releases of future movies. Or it may be completely cracked, but we will have to wait and see. 68.23.85.184 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The crack is flawed however in that it only allows the user to copy the disc contents to the HDD and play it back from there. It does not allow the user to write the data to a BD-RE disc for playback in a set top player, nor does it allow the user to transcode or otherwise manipulate the data in any way. The BD+ entry also needs to be updated as it indirectly implies that BD+ was the reason for the playback problems with the first titles, while in reality it was other parts of unrelated BD-J code on the discs. These issues have also since been fixed by firmware updates from the player manufacturers. 90.149.15.238 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Panasonic in history section?

Panasonic is the major stakeholder in Blu-ray, they hold more IP in Blu-ray than Sony (though not by that much). I remember reading somewhere that in the beginning, when Sony and Panasonic discovered that they were both doing research into 405nm laser discs, that they decided to join their efforts into a common format. My knowledge was mostly gleaned from reading message boards and news reports that I can no longer find, so I don't feel confident in editing the History section. Surely there is someone reading this who has better knowledge of the initial development of Blu-ray?--66.8.194.25 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BD/HD-DVD contentious fans

No mention of the insane devotion fans of each format? I think the fact that a newsgroup got shut down due to physical threats of the opposing side is notable. --24.249.108.133 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some news outlets reported it, if you want to find a reference it could be added :) ---- Ray andrew (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something in Neilsen on it if you need a reference. 68.74.220.65 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Juvenile. As juvenile as the old "Commodore 64 is better than Atari XL" debates I used to partake in. That debate proved to be irrelevant (they both are in the obsolete pile), and the current HD v. Bluray debate is also irrelevant (they will eventually be replaced by something better). Intellectual debate is fun, but there's no point making threats over something so unimportant. ----- Oh, and yes, I would like to see that article reference. It would make for a good laugh. - Theaveng (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Modest Proposal (Delete list of devices)

Coming from the perspective of someone who knows little about this subject, far too much of the main article is taken up by matters that should be in other articles, such as the list of devices: in a couple of years, this is either going to be much longer or irrelevant (there's no list of Betamax devices, is there?) Much the same applies to most of the content on the different formats / the format war, which should be off in the comparision article. It is indeed noteworthy and fascinating that the various sides are bribing various people to support their format 'exclusively', but this isn't the place for it, beyond saying that it has happened and is not in the consumer's interest. Lovingboth (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list of studios should also be shortened. And the price list eliminated. And other junk that, in five years, will be irrelevant. If people need that information about devices/prices/movie available, they can go search amazon or walmart.com. - Theaveng (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Making_better_use_of_this_page (referenced above on this page as well) -- that was intended to reduce copy-and-paste jobs between the three pages (HD, BD, and Comparison) but as part of that maybe you can splinter off the soon-to-be-irrelevant information. My personal feeling is that yes, 5 years from now nobody will care about most of these things, but there will be one or two key "turning points" that will determine the outcome of the format war (0, 1, or both formats survive), and we probably won't know what they are until long after they have happened. Trying to find news references after-the-fact is very hard. I also think general trends are more important than day-by-day stats, but Wikipedia doesn't really help there (yes, you have edit history, but it's too hard to follow all the edits). Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay well, let me give an example then. What's the point of listing "Studio X supports both formats". Is Studio X going to have any influence on the outcome of the battle? Nope. It's just a waste of space (and reader's time) to list that information. So don't list it... only list the Bluray-exclusive formats & clean-up the appearance of the article. - Theaveng (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disc capacity comparison

There are some contradicting points in this article that need to be resolved. The most prominent (for me) is that the second sentence of the comparison section states that HD DVD currently has greater capacity than Blu-ray. Now does that mean discs that are actually in circulation in the market or overall? I'm asking because in that very same section it goes on to say that the ultimate maximum capacity for Blu-ray discs exceeds that of HD DVDs. And the layer-by-layer capacity analysis shows that if they are compared equally, Blu-ray has more capacity than HD DVD. Can someone clarify this for me? Rajrajmarley (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The DVD Forum has approved 3x17Gb (51Gb) discs as part of the official spec, but none have shipped yet. Common practice has been to report on things that are "in spec" even if they haven't shipped yet (eg, Blu-rays "Live" feature, which hasn't shipped). The reports of 100Gb or 200Gb Blu-ray discs are just lab prototypes (not approved specs), and if memory serves me correctly they tend to be recordable formats, not pre-recorded formats.Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but as I recall, Profile 1.1/Bonus View/whatever features weren't prominently listed until the breakoff point for older hardware to be released. Heck, the listing in the comparison table (the template) still contains a blurb about it being only for newer players). IMO, until an actual title or playback device is announced that will support these new discs, they have no reason to be included in any discussion about the current situation between both formats. See paper launch. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison chart makes it look like HD DVD currently has a greater storage capacity, which is untrue, and I think it is deceptive. We should remove the 51GB from the chart until they are actually released. (Just because it is approved does not mean it is going to be used) HK-48 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Template:HighDefMediaComparison. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it should be listed if it's final, but I don't think the current spec is final. Note the "part" bit. Until I see another "part", I think it should be removed. --w_tanoto (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My thinking is we shouldn't include it until they've announced an actual title that will be released on the format. I expect that, assuming this is real and not just vaporware, they'll announce a title at CES in January. If it's vaporware, then we won't see any announcements. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with listing TL51 as long as its noted that nothing has been released for it yet. After all it IS part of the spec now and that IS how we handled BD50. --Ray andrew (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if that's the case than everything on Profile 1.1 on the chart needs to be changed to mandatory. It isn't official until a 51GB disc is released. Plus more people here agree that it should not be 30/51. HK-48 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prifile 1.1 is a different issue, it is mandatory for new players, but the table covers all players. Thus it is properly noted that it is an optional feature that new players are required to have. I see no inconsistency. PS: Just because you (or anyone else) don't want it included thats not reliant, the only thing that matters is whats in the specs. We include everything that is part of the spec, the end. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Wikipedia reports what is widely known and understood as true (and where relevant, the opposite opinion is also presented). Right now it is widely understood that the highest capacity HD DVD supports is 30 GB. That will change once discs and players are released that support this new format, but until that time comes, we're stuck with the reality that the highest capacity supportable by HD DVD is 30 GB. It's the exact same thing with Profile 1.1/2.0; we didn't (or shouldn't have if we did) report on advanced interactivity in Blu-ray Disc until it was something that was widely understood to be imminent or available. As that benchmark has passed (numerous titles are announced for late December/early January that utilize Profile 1.1, and playback devices are also available or soon to be available (via firmware updates or new hardware) as well). The same cannot be said of 51 GB HD DVD discs which are, as of now, merely paper launched (and even that's a lie; they're included in a specification that nobody is, at present, using to anyones knowledge, which makes them slightly more real than the 100 GB and 200 GB Blu-ray Discs shown by TDK and Hitachi).
I will reiterate: 51 GB discs have not (and so far will not) be released any time soon. Including them is a mistake at best, and dishonest and biased at worst. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
How on earth is it dishonest? We clearly state that it is not being used at present and that current players may or may not support it. I think you are stretching the truth to push your POV. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's dishonest because there are no titles, expected or announced, that utilize this new capacity. The article text mentions that the format isn't available yet, but listing it in the table as if it's currently available is dishonest. And the only ones pushing a POV here are you and Harumphy (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
For a good part of last year there was no titles expected or announced for BD50 did that stop us from listing it? I do agree that the table needs a footnote (which I just noticed it is now missing) but other then that it would be a clear violation of NPOV if you decided to exclude something that is part of the spec from inclusion in the table. Excluding HD51 would be like removing BD-Live (profile 2.0) from the table for blu-ray because it has yet to materialize. --Ray andrew (talk)
You miss the point that every playback device was announced to be compatible with BD50. So far there's been no public announcement from Toshiba indicating that current players will play these back (there have been rumors spread on forums, but nothing substantive like a press release). That's the difference here. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea players were announced to be compatible with BD50, thats why there was no note indicating that that it might not be compatible. Thats about the end of the differences. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, and this is from very foggy memory, but I recall manuals for the initial players indicating support for single and dual layer BD media. Again, this is far different from HD51 (where they're introducing a new layer scheme after the format has launched). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess this is a touchy subject but I have to agree with HK-48 because when I was reading this article it definitely seemed to try to assert that HD DVD had greater ultimate capacity that Blu-ray. This makes the article more difficult to read and interpret than it should be. Rajrajmarley (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only touchy because there appears to be a lot of AVS Forum influence here. I really wish people could be objective and check their bias/POV at the door, but a lot of these folks lately seem intent on pushing HD DVD on any point they can even mildly argue it on (just take a look at Comparison of high definition optical disc formats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) where, in the US sales data section, they've convinced themselves it's more accurate to show the aggregate sales data than the actual sales data). I've tried really hard to assume good faith with Ray and Harumphy, but with Microsoft editors like Peter Torr involving themselves, it's hard to keep hoping everyone isn't pushing their own personal agenda. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume you prefer blu-ray.com then ;). I don't think we can make much headway if you think that AVS of all places is biased. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't prefer forums at all. One need only read through AVS for an hour or two to witness the bias there (and witness the not one, but I believe three Microsoft employees routinely steering discussion in their favor). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
At least everyone knows who I work for; I think that kind of transparency is valuable. As for this discussion, why don't we agree to pull BD-Live and 51Gb at the same time? Easy: Because both of them are in the specs even though neither of them exist as products yet. Why does Apple get listed as a BD supporter even though the only next-gen product they have released is for HD DVD? Again: Because that's what the official word is. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Couple of things: how did this become a discussion of BD-Live? And what, exactly, is the problem with BD-Live? I'm failing to see how the two are interrelated, at any rate. That's a separate issue, one that no doubt needs it's own discussion. As to Apple, as I recall, isn't it mentioned somewhere that they've released software that supports HD DVD but have yet to actually release anything BD related? I know it was at some point, though this is a wiki, so obviously things change. As to this being about the specs, I'm fine with specs. But I'm not fine with taking something that only exists in the specification (HD51) and using it as a point of comparison to something that's actually available on store shelves (BD50). That reeks of bias. Now if you want to specify what it is you have a problem with re: BD-Live, we can have a productive (hopefully) discussion about that somewhere else. At the moment though, this discussion is about disc capacities between these two formats. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fanboys (on either side of the aisle) disgust me.

I think we should take a vote to settle this issue once and for all. HK-48 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A vote wouldn't tell us anything we can't already determine from just reading the comments above: there's no consensus to include the 51 GB disc in articles or tables discussing disc capacity. Instead of talking it out though, a select few editors have taken it upon themselves to persistently re-add this information in the face of opposition. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is no HD DVD player on the market than read 51GB then I think it should not be included. Andries (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
But that is not the case, there has been no official word either way. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait... so now we need official word it won't be supported before we can safely assume it won't be supported (because, you know, the manuals don't mention support for it, and neither does Toshiba's own website)? I have a better idea. Why don't we err on the side of caution and not include it at all until something is announced/concrete? That makes slightly more sense than just blindly adding things without actually knowing to what extent it will actually work, be compatible, and be available. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What? That is crap! Now we have to wait until there is proof that it won't be used? What do you expect us to do? Wait until some company says it won't be!?! You sound like an HD DVD fanboy! Just because YOU want it to be added doesn't mean it can be! HK-48 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I can buy a HD-DVD unit that can play 51 gig discs. Otherwise, I will erase your contribution every time. - Theaveng (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I can buy a BD-Live compatable Blu-ray player or I will erase every mention of it... Do you seriously think thats the mature way to handle it? --Ray andrew (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Theaveng, you are in violation of wiki rules which specifically state do NOT delete other people's contributions. Wiki rules state you may reword, rewrite, add citations, but you are NOT to delete whole paragraphs just because you "felt like it". "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked - http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-40GB-Spider-Man-Movie-Pack/dp/B000XGJH1O/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000VDG0UK/ 90.149.15.238 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
sorry man, the PS3 just became BD 1.1 yesterday. It probably won't be BD 2.0 (Live) until at least Jan. 2008 and maybe even later than that Thingg (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, I attempted to make the lead of the section in question more accurate and keep it NPOV (believe me, its fun...), and I think it now reflects the current picture (no pun intended) while also stating that HD DVD may pass Blu-ray in the future (at least as far as approved disc's capacity standards). Thingg (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Magma claim

Not only is the image inappropriate, but the caption for it is incorrect. The first adult movies for BD were released in 2006 in Japan:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4221

I'd rather not try to explain Blu-ray related information to other people and then having them notice "interesting", but irrelevant pictures in an article related to home entertainment.

90.149.15.238 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same: it should be removed as it is not appropriate for wikipedia to have such a picture--w_tanoto (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Capagris

I would add something about the SPGD in Blu ray.

SPGD (Self Protecting Digital Content) is a program which works like an small operative system in the reader of the player and prevents copying of films. This program will be complemented by technology AACS.

Its inclusion is controversial because it is an operating system. Therefore, it is sensitive to computer viruses if the player is connected to the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.210.219.236 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would just be FUD. The very nature of SPDC in BD+ is designed so that the system is fingerprinted and protected against run-time modification. It's thus very secure against viruses and the like, much more so than any other ordinary OS. What's next, adding to articles describing any CE device with an internet connection that it's vulnerable to viruses? Because you do realize that ALL CE devices have operating systems, right? 90.149.15.238 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Target Technology lawsuit section

Is there any reason that this section is still included? All it does is make the statement that they were sued and then says nothing about what became of the lawsuit. I could be wrong because I was not monitering this article in May, but I think it may have been put in when that whole thing with somebody trying to make Sony recall all their PS3s and stuff. Either way, I feel it is irrelevent and am removing it. If you feel it is worthy of inclusion, please find out some more info about it and then reinclude it. Please do not add it back in in its present form. Thingg (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been covered in many reliable sources, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included. The lawsuit was filed 6 months ago, so I think the wheels of the legal machinery have barely started turning. I think that's why I can't find any more information; there is no more information to be found. You can find the case at justia.com, which includes links to PACER documents. However, I'm not willing to register at PACER and pay to see those documents.
I think mentioning the lawsuit is relevant for the article. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I definately agree it is relevant, but if all you say about it is that they were sued, than it is not relevant. I mean, people sue companies and each other all the time. (like the person who sued Starbucks for $215 million because the refused to give that person a free cup of coffee after an Internet coupon campaign got out of hand. btw, the case was dismissed.) anyway, if more info is included, I have absolutely no probalem with the suit being mentioned, but until that info is provided, I think we should leave it out of the article. Thingg (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Codec section

I removed this, because I didn't think it was very relevant:

The initial version of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software shipped with support for only 1 video-codec: MPEG-2.[citation needed] Consequently, all launch titles were encoded in MPEG-2 video.[citation needed] A subsequent update allowed the content producers to author titles in any of the 3 supported codecs: MPEG-2, VC-1, or H.264.[citation needed]

I also thought about including this table, but all this detail doesn't really seem necessary.

Blu-ray audio codecs[1]
Codec Linear PCM Dolby Digital AC-3 Dolby Digital Plus Dolby TrueHD DTS digital surround DTS HD
mandatory? Yes Yes No No Yes No
type of compression lossless lossy lossy lossless lossy lossless
max bitrate 27.648 Mbps 640 kbps 4.736 Mbps 18.64 Mbps 1.524 Mbps 24.5 Mbps
max channels 8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz) 5.1 7.1 8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz) 5.1 8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz)
bits/sample 16, 20, 24 16-24 16-24 16-24 16, 20, 24 16-24
Sampling frequency (kHz) 48, 96, 192 48 48 48, 96, 192 48 48, 96, 192

— Ksero (talk | contribs) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The max bitrate for DD+ is 1.7Mbit/s not 4.7. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot more wrong than that, including sample rates and bit depth for the different codecs. Where'd you find it Ksero?90.149.15.238 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

remove the picture

that picture should be removed. the picture showing an adult bluray title is irelevant and inapropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.99.8 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairseeder - Keep the adult image out of this

Your history shows that you edit adult content into wiki pages. As according to WIKI policy, I am giving you warning that if you continue to keep adding the adult image to the Blu-ray page, WIKI will be notified. This can lead to your account being revoked.

Keep it relevant!

Will someone that has rights please undo Fairseeder's last edit to this page.

Thanks,

OnlyTheFactsPlease (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image edit war

ok, this image is becoming quite a big deal, so I'll be concise. This article is about an optical disc format, not pornographic movies released on that format. Please see List of Blu-ray pornographic movies to place that picture. (If it doesn't exist, by all means create it and put that picture in it, it is relevant there.) Lets be honest here, does that picture really aid in you in learning about Blu-ray Disc's corporate support? Does seeing a picture advertising a type of movie that is stated in the section NOT to be a factor in this format war help you understand the implications of which companies support Blu-ray? I have notified an admin about this edit war and regardless of what he does, I am going to remove the pic because, as I have said before, it is not at all relevant to this article. Thingg (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The section the picture is in is about corporate support of the format, not the format itself. The image is relevant as it shows the pornography industry's support for the nex-gen discs. The picture is not of some random blu ray porn, but the first porn movie released on blu ray. If you wish to remove that picture, then remove the paragraph about the porn industry, or why not remove the whole section about corporate support since you say "This article is about the optical disc format" not corporate support for it. Please read WP:OWN. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S, actually, I don't really care. Heh heh :p Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to try to open another argument, but I have read that the first porn Blu-ray movies were released in Japan, not Germany. Also, I am not under any illusions that I own this article. I just strongly feel that that pic is not relevant, and at least two other people have expressed similar opinions above. Thingg (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Japan was indeed first out (see my link above when I earlier raised an objection to it). In addition "Debbie Does Dallas Again" was released in the US on July 12th (http://adult.dvdempire.com/itempage.aspx?&item_id=1294867&userid=99366108410593) followed by other adult releases, which is several months before the alleged German release in question. The text is simply incorrect and the image largely irrelevant to the BD article. Anyone with 2 minutes of time can verify this by googling. The image's only function seems to be to either as an advertisement for Magma's movie, or to slander/hurt BD's reputation as part of the format war.90.149.15.238 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page because of the edit war regarding the DVD cover. Please discuss on the talk page to determine consensus. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the picture because it lacks relevance to the article. --Ray andrew (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above. This image does not have any relavance to the article, and subsequently should be left out of Blu-ray Disc. Remstar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me when this page will be unprotected so I can continue editing? Thanks. Remstar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

--- I agree. the picture is irrelevant and shouldn't be included. it looks like this page is protected into january remstar.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio Incomprehensible

The Audio paragraphs of the Comparison section is near incomprenhensible to anyone who is not an audiophile. Could this be changed to be a little more understandable in normal language usage?

Avanent (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Clean up?

The ongoing development section could also use some clean up, it repeats some of the information across the four paragraphs.

Avanent (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Warner Blu-Ray Exclusive?

According to reuters Warner will soon be releasing high definition movies only on blu-ray disks. Worth mentioning or are more sources required? reuters --82.19.102.213 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to wait a day for the official press release. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't even need to wait an hour :) link to PR --Ray andrew (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Blogs are covering it now too, someone really needs to update the article - maybe add something addressing the current studio support for each format (blu-ray/hd-dvd) as it seems blu-ray has much more support now . http://gizmodo.com/340809/confirmed-warner-going-100-blu+ray-is-this-hd-dvds-deathblow 60.234.223.209 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner and New Line Cinema are now Blu-ray exclusive. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978461.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.32.233 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The graph needs updating too, as it shows Warner as "Both". 212.159.61.22 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramount to back blu-ray again?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

--w_tanoto (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this in a few places. It will be something to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

HBO and clean up

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/HBO/Industry_Trends/HBO_Confirms_Switch_to_Blu-ray_Exclusivity/1357

HBO has officially stated that they too will follow New Line and Warner Brothers and go Blu-ray exclusive. They have yet to give any details on how this change will affect their existing HD DVD catalogue.


Likewise I am afraid that this site is getting filled with too much format war talk. There is no need to post the responses of the HD DVD executive to a Blu-ray action when it does not affect Blu-ray at all. Please go through the entire article and trim out the non-essential format war talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.136.32.222 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the Blu-Ray article reads like it is trying to present two sides of an argument rather than just present facts about Blu-Ray cdiasoh: Cdiasoh (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart update

Theaveng updated this image. How would this chart be? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a COMPARISON chart belongs in a disc-specific article. A comparison chart belongs in the comparison article. (Common sense IMHO.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the graph wouldn't be beneficial to the article? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the chart is only beneficial in the context of comparison, which is not the purpose of this article. In fact we have a whole article dedicated just to that. No need to duplicate that here. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The context it's used in is studio support, in which the graph is highly valuable. Otherwise one must dig through a bunch of text to figure out where the industry stands. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The chart does not belong in Comparison of high definition optical disc formats because the chart does not compare the formats. The chart is a clear illustration of the state of "Studio Alliances", which is the section that it's in. If the section belongs there (which no one is arguing), then it logically follows that the chart also belongs there. How hard is that? Pisomojado (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Pisomojado (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
They're arguing it on the HD DVD side. As long as there are two hi-def media formats competing in the market, I believe it's important to the article to clearly see where they both stand. It serves to eliminate consumer confusion. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So they don't like the chart because the facts it reflects make HD DVD look bad? I couldn't care less. I have zero vested interest in either format. I just want an article which is encyclopedic and easy to understand. I like the chart because it clearly illustrates what's going on in the article, whether that's good, bad, or indifferent for HD DVD. The chart haters make the same claim, but I keep feeling they are being disingenuous because their arguments make no sense to me. The section is titled "Studio Alliances". If I wonder, "Say how much of the market do each of these studios in this article control? What do the alliances look like in graphical form?" Boom, I have an answer.Pisomojado (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please try to have good faith in the objections of others. As I stated above I think it is a comparison, thus if it belongs in the article anywhere it would be in the comparison section, not the sections about studio support (dont take to much from the title of the section, it can and has been changed). I understand your goal of reducing consumer confusion about the format war, however the appropriate article for that is the comparison article. The articles about BD and HD are abut the formats themselves, with the war as a minor point. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated with the version currently used in the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats article. There doesn't seem to be any good argument against its use if there's a section on Studio Alliances. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Current and announced release formats v. 2007 US box office share
Current and announced release formats v. 2007 US box office share[2]

The dispute over the chart appears to be over as is the case with HD DVD, so this article can be unprotected. The chart is tied to the Studio Alliances section. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Template disabled, no specific edit requested. For unprotection, see WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how there's no argument over the chart here. Go figure. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NBC Universal, Paramount, and Warner go Blu-ray

According the the New York Times, NBC Universal and Paramount have both ended their exclusive commitments to HD DVD. This came after Warner Bros. decided to go exclusively with Blu-ray.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/hd-dvds-fall-like-dominoes/?ref=technology 24.250.164.27 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It says nothing of the kind. It says, "Nothing has been announced..." which mean it is still just rumor. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Pure rumour. It's just said that the contract is already ended for universal, while paramount has an out clause. but neither has announced anything (to go blu exclusive or to go neutral). So, they're still in HD DVD camp--w_tanoto (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany's 'Constantin Film AG' goes from Blu-ray & HD Dvd Neutral to Blu-ray Exclusive

"BERLIN — Constantin Film, Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib, is following suit in the wake of Warner Bros. decision to go with the Blu-ray format.

Up until now, Constantin had supported both HD DVD and the Blu-ray technology, but as of March 1, new releases will be appearing solely in Blu-ray."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978808.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/101667

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/11/germanys-constantin-film-ag-drops-hd-dvd-goes-blu-ray-only/

Denzelio (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc Website

on the wiki page the Blu-ray site points to www.blu-raydisc.com when it should actually point to www.bluraydisc.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmeyers (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Different "profiles"

I propose that the introduction should discuss the fact there are three different versions of the Blu-ray software: 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0.

And mention that 1.0 owners (purchased more than three months ago) could be potentially locked out from accessing future discs! Talk about shafting!

Essentially, either buy the player inside the PS3, or live in uncertainty!

Instead of explaining what I'm talking about, I'll let BBC News do it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7187179.stm

BD+ not yet hacked

{{editprotected}}

These two talk entries suggest BD+ has been hacked: [11] and [12]

The entry itself says "BD+ has been circumvented by the developers of the program AnyDVD as of version 6.1.9.6 beta.[58]" The citation is [13]

There are a number of reasons this is inaccurate. The same source as [58], EnGadget, recently published an article claiming it is not hacked [14]. AnyDVD doesn't do anything to circumvent BD+ yet. Instead, the only workaround is that Cyberlink PowerDVD versions 3104 and 3319a will play BD+-protected content from the hard disk. More recent versions of PowerDVD do not allow this. This was possible because the BD+ code on the first discs does not check if it plays from original media.

I suggest the following replacement for the sentence listed above:

"The first BD+ discs can be played from a hard drive by using Cyberlink PowerDVD version 3319a or older.[15][16] More recent versions have hard drive playback disabled. Burning a copy of the disc or playing it with other players fails since the BD+ protection is still present. SlySoft is continuing to work on methods to remove BD+ protection completely.[17]"

N Edit declined. Press releases, blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources on the matter, all information pertaining to it should be removed completely. Sandstein (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the offending text should be removed from the article. Whatever standard you apply to determining reliable sources must be applied uniformly. Since I am referencing the exact same source (EnGadget) but it contradicts the article text, the text should be removed or updated to match the newest EnGadget article. Re-submitting this edit request to remove the text.
The article has been unprotected. Please be sure to work collaboratively to find a consensus version of the text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Carl, thanks. Sandstein, any thoughts on this? I think the text in the article on BD+ [18] is much more accurate. I am ok with just deleting the text from the Blu-ray Disc article if you don't like the text in the BD+ article.

Keep BD+ separate article

Macrovision acquired the BD+ (SPDC) technology from Cryptography Research, Inc. Although MVSN has been inconsistent, they have said during analyst conference calls that they expect the BD+ technologies to be used in other environments. [19]

Also, BD+ spec is licensing from a different entity than the Blu-ray disc specs and intellectual property, namely [www.bdplusllc.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberbob (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

The text says that Blu-ray is currently exclusively supported by Warner. I think we all know that this is not the case, as they will still be supporting HD DVD for several months. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Horsepucky.Pisomojado (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

12 layers?

Wow, I was just going to ask about removing the 12-layer claim. I went to recheck the article so that I could quote it exactly but could not find the quote anymore. Thanks, Petertorr :) Mancomb (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive list of Blu-ray movies?

Hello - I was just searching for a list of Blu-ray movies that links to the movie pages, or at least categorizes by production company (like Touchstone or Miramax, etc.). I'm curious what movies you're missing/getting by choosing Blu-ray vs. HD DVD, and figured this kind of list would make it easy. An HD DVD list page would be the natural counterpart to this kind of page. I saw in an earlier discussion topic that someone tried to get a cheap link for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies under the guise of this kind of list and rightfully had it deleted; if someone created a legit list - ie, at least 30 titles to start - not all the same company, then made an HD DVD page later, would that make it relevant enough to list an article? Or at least a section in the Blu-ray page? I just think it's worth an article to have that quick, easy reference. Is that a bad idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyglass27 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As nice as it might seem in theory, it would be a logistical and contentious nightmare, with a eventual lists which may become thousands or tens of thousands of titles long. And how would you source the facts? I am dubious about wikipedia being the right place for this.Pisomojado (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can Blu Ray DVD Players play HD DVD discs?

Will my Blu Ray DVD player allow me to watch HD DVD discs? I can't seem to find this answer anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.78.155 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Blu-ray player will not play HD-DVDs. If you had one of those Blu-ray/HD DVD hybrid players, you could watch both; but a standalone blu ray player will not play HD DVDs. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)