Talk:Blu-ray

Region Codes and artifical demand for Region A players

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

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

Format War

Removal of Blu-ray/HD DVD comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netflix chooses Blu-Ray over HD-DVD

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

Wal-Mart

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

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

Suggestion: Delete Corporate Support section

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

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

Blu-Ray wins the format war.

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

AACS in HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray

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

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

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

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

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

Universal Goes Blu-ray

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

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

Paramount and Universal back to Blu

• Engadget

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

PS3's contribution is most certainly only a part

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

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

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

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

Significance of the war was overrated

The significance of the format war was heavily overrated in mass media. DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray contain regular files that can be reused on various physical data mediums. This is much unlike Betamax, where the analogue data is inseparable of the tape (without losing much quality). -- J7n (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There were some important differences between Blu-ray and HD DVD though and not just in terms of disc structure. The video codec decoding parameters (Blu-ray supported a higher bitrate and longer GOP length) were different between the formats. As such it wasn't a copy and paste job to use encoded video on both formats unless the studio used the lowest common denominator for video encoding. Even if the studio did that they would have to redo the interactivity since the two formats used different interactive platforms (BD-J and HDi). The added cost of redoing the interactivity was one of the reasons why all of the studios eventually pushed for a single format to win. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BD9 versus AVCREC

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

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

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

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

Misspelt name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inconsistency in region code map

.png map

.svg map

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

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

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

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

blu-ray disc capacity

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

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

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

Move suggested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Blu-ray Disc to Blu-ray disc, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The D should not be capitalized in this articles name as it is not a proper noun. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The full trademark is "Blu-ray Disc". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose But "Blu-ray Disc", like Compact Disc, appears to be one. Evidence of contrary usage would be appreciated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose same reason as Locke Cole--w_tanoto (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Locke Cole stated, Sony officially calls it "Blu-Ray Disk" 64.113.88.165 (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reason stated above. If "Disc" weren't part of the official name, the article's title would be "Blu-ray." —David Levy 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The full name is "Blu-ray Disc", so it is a proper noun. TJ Spyke 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons stated above. "Blu-ray Disc" is a proper noun and should be capitalized thusly. PaleAqua (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Locke Cole. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - So I don't feel left out.(Just kidding. Same reasons as above.)--Playstationdude (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Unless the article is about the physical discs themselves rather than the format, the 'D' should be capitalized. However, with a nod to WP:COMMON (and WP:MOSTM, for those pointing to the "official" name), wouldn't the page be better at Blu-ray? A Google fight between "Blu ray" -disc and "Blu ray disc" went 3:1 in favour of the former (about 11.5m to 3.5m), and the article itself seems to default to "Blu ray" throughout. Also, the article's cited sources' headlines seem to favour "Blu-ray" by about 14 to 9 when referring to the format itself (my mental arithmetic may need double-checked on this though). --DeLarge (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the commonality has more to do with people simply preferring to type less ("Blu-ray" is easier to type than the full name, "Blu-ray Disc"). We do note variations in the article introduction ("Blu-ray" as well as the common acronym, "BD"). As to the most common name, using that rationale it makes more sense for Compact Disc to reside at "CD" than "Compact Disc" (because I really doubt people use the full name more than they do the acronym). For another example, see DVD. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to argue over an issue I don't really care about... I think the comparisons you provide aren't quite apples-to-apples. CD suffers from (a) requiring to be disambiguated from other possible meanings, and (b) adhering to the naming conventions at WP:ACRONYM which encourage spelling out abbreviations in full except when there's a compelling case to do otherwise. DVD... well, not sure what your case is there; that article is at the abbreviated version most people use, and would therefore seem to support the "Blu-ray" proposal. Were you using that as a counter-example to CD? --DeLarge (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you intended to link to WP:COMMONNAME, but this is an instance in which the application of common sense is helpful.

The purpose of WP:COMMONNAME is to present the subjects' most recognizable names. For example, we wouldn't change the Cat Stevens article's title to "Yusuf Islam" or "Steven Georgiou," as neither is nearly as recognizable.

Is "Blu-ray Disc" any less recognizable than "Blu-ray" is? No, it isn't. Anyone familiar with the latter will recognize the former.

What would we accomplish by renaming the article? Well, let's analyze the list of reasons cited within that guideline:

• We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. For example, the pagename is Jimmy Carter and not "James Earl Carter, Jr."; the string "Jimmy Carter" in the page title make it easier to find: search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often, and having that exact string in our page title will often mean our page shows up higher in other search engines.
  Given the fact that "Blu-ray Disc" contains the term "Blu-ray," this isn't an issue. Indeed, our article is the second Google hit (the first being blu-ray.com).

• We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication.
  A redirect is in place, so this isn't an issue.

• Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more.
  A redirect is in place, so this isn't an issue.

• We respect our readers and name our articles as they do, just formulating their collective needs.
  As Locke Cole noted (though I, too, don't understand all of his points), "Blu-ray" is an abbreviation of "Blu-ray Disc" used for the sake of convenience. No one is confused or alienated by the the latter's use.

• Redirects help, but give a slightly ugly "redirected from" announcement at the top of the page.
  This "slightly ugly" business is news to me, and I seriously doubt that there's consensus for that. We aren't even supposed to waste time and system resources by editing articles to bypass most redirects.

• On the other hand, if someone reads or hears "Elizabeth II", and wonders who might be meant by that, the "(Redirected from Elizabeth II)" at the top of the page describing the monarch in question puts the reader at ease that this was the intended queen: the "redirect" message indicates that the system hasn't been playing tricks, and that this was the page to which you were supposed to be led.
  That's more like it.

With the above in mind, what do we stand to gain by switching to "Blu-ray" (a less correct title)? —David Levy 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Using "BD"

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

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

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

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

how much is actually region free?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

redirected here from BD+ with suggestion of a merge

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

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

last physical format

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

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

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

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

I also would disagree with the inclusion of that remark since besides being personal speculation Bill Gates has good reason to say that and as such is not a third party source. That would be like a company that promotes office data networks claiming that the paperless office is a decade away and using that quotation in the wikipedia article on paper. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do Blu-ray Regions Apply to PS3 Games?

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

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

Short program HD content on recordable DVD?

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

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

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

Resolutions?

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

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

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

Blu Ray is the name of the lazers in Burning Rangers!

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

Blu-ray Disc authoring

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

What about Blue-Ray Profile 2.0?

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

The USA Today article states that "Current Blu-ray owners — except for those with PS3s — won't be able to access Sleeping Beauty's online features". As such the movie will play on any Blu-ray Disc player it is just that certain features will only work on a Profile 2.0 Blu-ray Disc player. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BD optical pickup

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

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

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

Profiles

What is BD-Live, Bonus View, &c? It simply explains in the article that they are different profiles, but what does that mean? What do they do? What are they for? --163.191.255.254 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Profile 3.0

Profile 3.0 is a disc profile, the article suggests. This is incorrect: it's a player profile. It defines a limited player that need not be capable of decoding video (though graphics decoding and output is still required). The Seventh Taylor (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray profiles

It may be that Blu-ray won the HD disc war, but it is still a somewhat unfinished technolgy. I was just reading the article on the GadgetGuy site, and thought the admins of this page might like to include some mention of what Blu-ray profiles are. Here's the link for your reference:

http://www.gadgetguy.com.au/raising-your-profile-what-you-need-to-know-about-profiles-before-you-buy-a-blu-ray-player-article-2620-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.140.255 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Information About First Blu-ray Audio Disc

The article says that Divertimenti from Norwegian label 2L was the first Blu-ray "record" released, but this is false. At least two Blu-ray Audio Disc recordings preceded it: Grieg's Piano Concerto" from Surround Records http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Music_on_High-Def/Surround_Records/Griegs_Piano_Concerto_Multichannel_Audio_Blu-ray_Announced/1633 and Nine Inch Nails' Ghosts Vol. I - IV http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options

24.29.155.251 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bluray bandwidth/bitrate

The technical section might address bitrate clearly?

As of now, the page seems to contradict itself in that : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray#Recording_speed 1x recording speed is quotet as 36 mbit/s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray#BD9.2FBD5_Blu-ray_Disc "Blu-ray Discs are assumed to have a minimum transfer rate of 30.25 Mbit/s"

So what is the maximum bitrate of a pre-recorded BD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.70.2.252 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Blu-ray recording format has a 36 Mbps bandwidth while the BD-Video format has a bandwidth 1.5 times higher (54 Mbps). From what I have read BD-Video has a maximum AV bitrate of 48 Mbps. Some technical information for Blu-ray, HD DVD, and DVD can be found in Comparison of high definition optical disc formats. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heros Series

I have been able to play all my DVD's and every Blu-Ray disk that has come out, on my Blu-Ray player. It is one of the first that has come out. The quality has been OUTSTANDING IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. Now this TV series comes out on Blu-Ray and my son purchases it and lones it to me to watch and it doesn't play on my player. What is the gig with that?? When I put the disk in I notice it says BD-ROM. Is that something new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.26.146 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This question would better be asked on an AV forum but it is always a good idea to see if there has been a firmware update for the player. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

article could use a picture of blu-ray disc in cartridge

there are a few mentions of it in the article but no pictures. --Tehw1k1 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

dvd and blueray

Can you put a Blue Ray disk in a regular DVD player and work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.211.154 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the laser wavelength, modulation system, file structure, audio/video codecs, and interactive system are different between Blu-ray and DVD. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Royal Digital Media is not related to Blu-ray Disc

The Royal Digital Media company is making a lot of promotional claims but their video format is not going to come out until next year. Unless their video format sells well compared to Blu-ray Disc there is no reason to mention it in the Blu-ray Disc article. --GrandDrake (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Blu-ray manufactured?

Do they use the same stamping procedures as in DVD manufacturing. What machines can you use to create Blu-ray? I thought I saw something about Blu-ray manufacturing in a science journal and can't remember the magazine. Also is the plastic regular poly carbonate plastic or a new type of plastic --Mnoon (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard Coating Technology

What is the hard coating made from? Is it a lacquer or a hard coated candy? How resistant to scratches is the hard coating, and how was it developed, and by who? --Mnoon (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)