Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Questionable Titles

Amazon.com lists Chronos and Memento as Bluray titles for preorder. Should I add them to the list with a footnote? Willy Arnold 05:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins is listed as a Blu-ray title but to this day it has never been released on Blu-ray, only HD-DVD. What's up with that. Weird considering there's even a picture displaying the Blu-Ray box for Batman Begins.--AtomicAge 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate sections.

The contents are the same as the section listed in this article., should there be a link to that article instead of listing the whole again/merge the section intothe article? 202.71.240.18 08:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewritable?

Will Blu-ray discs be re-writable? The article doesn;t seem to mention this. thanks, Madd4Max 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't explicitly say that it is, but it should; I believe it used to. BD-RE is mentioned a few times, which is the Blu-ray's rewritable disc format. --Kamasutra 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No SACD on PS3

I've removed the following from the article:

The Playstation 3 will not be able to output true SACD sound in the optimal 5.1 format, because SACD uses a special form of analog technology output that is not supported by the Playstation 3.

Besides having little to do with Blu-ray discs, as far as I can tell, since the HDMI 1.2 standard it has been possible to output SACD's DSD signal untampered via HDMI, which should be possible for the PlayStation 3 (which supports HDMI 1.3). A receiver can then decode the DSD signal. —Gabbe 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status?

How far off is this article? In fact, what is it that means it isn't a FA already? I just added a commons link, and it seems the article is damn close, a few more pictures and that should be it. Anyone agree? - Jack (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

nowhere near FA status, there are many inaccuracies, but I don't have the expertise or time to fix them --Windsok 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's not so close, but it's got considerable promise. And, it's an important topic so we ought to be working in that direction. What would seem to be indicated is to submit it to the peer review process leading to FA status, make the necessary changes, and put it in the FA candidate que. It takes someone willing to shepard it through, respond to comments on timely basis and such. Not me, unfortunately, as I'm already over Wiki-committed, and otherwise too. Perhaps you? ww 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates regarding VC-1 and MPEG-2 aling with Size Standards

I made a couple of minor updates to this Blu-ray page that point out the fact that every Blu-ray disc released so far has been on a 25GB single layer disc. This entire page compares Blu-ray to other formats, so I also mentioned that all HD-DVD movies released so far use dual-layer 30GB discs. I mentioned the fact that all Blu-ray movies released so far have chosen to use MPEG-2 compression technology used in standard DVDs. Similarly, I also pointed out that all HD-DVD discs currently use the much newer VC-1 compression technology. Sign: Mike_mgoblue

Partly wrong. "A View from Space with Heavenly Music" uses MPEG-2, and "U2: Rattle & Hum" uses AVC. Further, the hybrid DVD/HD-DVD combo discs have all been single-layered on the HD-DVD side to the best of my knowledge. —Gabbe 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, "Happy Gilmore" is a single-layered non-hybrid disc. —Gabbe 21:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered that all of the initial HD-DVDs releases in Japan are encoded using AVC too, see dvdtalk.com's review of the Finding Neverland HD DVD for example. —Gabbe 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad point to show how moronic studios can waste better technology. The blu ray discs have worse soundtrack and pictures because they are using 11 year old encoding. [1]. --gatoatigrado 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the majority of Blu-ray titles are 25 GB while almost all HD DVD movies are 30 GB. So I have added this back in the comparison section. Ray andrew 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One Update

I don't really feel like going through the trouble of looking everything up, but I will say this. The first part of the article ends with "The Blu-ray Disc Association unveiled their plans for a May 23, 2006 release date at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January 2006. Since then, Blu-ray was delayed, but finally shipped in the U.S. on June 20, 2006."

Just wanted to let the author know that the format was not shipped in the us on June 20, 2006, nor has it been shipped as of today, July 31, 2006. And it will, in fact, not be shipped until October 2006, according to Sony. I don't know the exact day, and I feel lazy. But you should certainly fix your error(s).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.143.174 (talk • contribs)

The Samsung BD-P1000 was officially released June 25, with some Blu-ray Discs having been released a bit earlier than that. See the BBCs newspage for example. Several websites such as highdefdigest and DVDtalk have started offering reviews of Blu-ray movies. As far as I know - Sony won't be releasing their own player until October, but that's of little importance. —Gabbe 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are most Blu-Ray DVDs "vanilla" releases?

Something this article does not answer and I'd like to see someone discuss is why virtually all Blu-Ray releases so far have been so-called "vanilla" releases. That is to say, releases with no (or virtually no) special features. And in some cases, the version released on BR is in fact inferior to that released on DVD. For example, when Ultraviolet was released, the DVD version was the extended directors cut, but BR only released the shorter theatrical version. Is there a particular reason for this? I definitely think it's a bad idea considering HD-DVD appears capable of including at least some special features (though that format also doesn't seem to have as many extras as the DVD releases). 23skidoo 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any reputable sources having stated any specific reason, but I can imagine any number of things being the cause for this disparity. One likely cause, as was pointed out previously, might be because the 25 GB single-layered Blu-ray discs so far issued all use the space-consuming MPEG-2 and often PCM codecs, which leave less room for extras than on 30 GB dual-layered HD-DVDs with VC-1. There might be other reasons such as prioritizing the highest image/sound quality (like the Superbit DVD editions) or problems with licensing of supplementary material. Another imaginable reason is that issuing a "vanilla" disc first means that more cash can be earned on special/collector's/ultimate editions later. I don't which (if any) of these is the main cause for the difference in extra content. When it comes to longer/shorter cuts of a film, I can't even begin to imagine why there would be a difference. The "double-dip" factor or even pure studio ignorance seem like likely culprits, but again - I don't know. I for one don't think this article would be improved by including wild speculation in the text. —Gabbe 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of is that because Blu-ray is still new, the studios don't want to spend too much time, money and effort into a format that could fail. Right now they're just testing the waters. They did the same with DVD back in the '90s. We were promised a new format which could do amazing things. A dvd will carry hours of extra features, multiple versions of a movie on one disc, multiple angles, etc. But when the first DVD releases came out, what did we get? Nada. Just the movie and a theatrical trailer. None of the cool stuff we were promised. But eventually when studios saw that DVD was catching on and they started releasing "special editions" with multiple discs and tons of extras for every movie, old and new. So, hopefully as Blu-ray becomes more successful we'll start seeing studios releasing some amazing content on Blu-ray discs. --AtomicAge 22:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Physical format"

Do you not think that the "Physical format" section should describe something abou the physical fornmat of the disc? Such as, say, its diameter? Daniel Barlow 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should, which is why it does. "The blue-violet laser's shorter wavelength makes it possible to store more information on a 12 cm CD/DVD sized disc." --Kamasutra 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

DRM section misleading

The DRM section states: "The lack of a dynamic encryption model is what has made DeCSS a disaster from the industry's perspective: once CSS was cracked, all DVDs from then on were open to unauthorized decryption (commonly known as "ripping")."

Unless I am misstaken the word "rip" in the context of DVD:s specifically refers to *copying* the data off the disk. An extremely important point to make in regards to CSS and similar DRM is that they prevent unauthorized decryption *FOR ANY PURPOSE*, including *WATCHING* the content. I would like to update this paragraph to reflect the fact that CSS (and the proposed DRM for Blue-Ray) hinders playback on unauthorized devices (or with unauthorized software).

Opinions?

User:scode

The DRM business is so tangled with legal, cryptographic engineering, ordinary implementational engineering, end user issues, economics, and the delusion/confusion of the lawyers who seem to be driving this stuff, leading to partial required crippling of hardware, an army of letters going out to end users who don't do what the holders (and their lawyers) want (even if explicitly legal by statute ....), as to defy any simple (or non-controversial) account. I think this sort of stuff needs to be the article, as it will be an important saspect of BD use in practice. But see Talk at digital rights management for the tangled web which is thereby woven. I've stayed mostly away from attempting to cover this here simply because I'm a coward. Can't be involved in too many controversies...

But I wish you luck and encourage you to have at it. Be bold, as were the troopers of the Light Brigade. ww 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the sad truth. And because of that I don't understand why you guys call it "Digital Right Managemant". Like ww already said, the only thing what DRM does in the case of Blu-ray (and the most other cases too) is taking away as much rights as possible from us. So is it really our "rights" which becomes managed there or rather the restrictions which they want enforce upon us? So if nobody complains I will rename this title to "Digital Restriction Management". --Wall unit 08:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll complain, since it's an incontrovertible fact that DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management" and "Digital Restrictions Management" is a tongue-in-cheek criticism. Replacing the first with the second is pure POV-pushing, and, no, I don't care if you're on the good guys' side. Readers can read objective information and decide for themselves whether they are enthusiastic about DRM (most are not).

One of the things that's always bothered me about wikipedia is that some of us are out to document information while others are out to defend their worldview (most of us probably wear both hats from time to time). And the reader can't always tell which type wrote the article in front of them. Snacky 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's considerable discussion on this very point at digital rights management talk page. Rather than rehashing it here, consult that long and exhaustive discussion. ww 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be involved with DRM and I can tell you that fellow engineers refer to it as Digital Restrictions Management. I don't know who decides what acronyms stand for but in the industry thats what we say. Maybe it wasn't intended to be called that but it is. I think I have a text book that sights it.

1080p60 (?)

I have a question....

Is Blu-Ray disc capable of displaying 1080p resolution movies at 60 frames a second, or just 30 frames a second?

I know that digital broadcast and cable/satellite can only broadcast 1080p30, (which is only 12% better resolution than 720p60 :P ), because of bandwidth limitations of approximately 19Mbps. There is, however, no such limit on rate transfer on Blu-Ray disc; it might, however, be unable to store an entire 1080p60 feature-film on its 25GB of space.

Does anybody familiar with the specs know if 1080p60 is possible on Blu-Ray, and if-and-when we could see films released at that resolution on Blu-Ray disc? Pine 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty good question, and a big part of the problem here is how everyone is so sloppy with terms like "1080p". In an ideal world, everybody'd say "1080p24" when that's what they mean...

Anyway, the short answer to your question is, no. "1080p" here actually means ONLY 1080p24 (and the NTSC-friendly 24000/1001 fps). Other allowed resolution/framerate combos include 1080i60 (actually 60000/1001) and 1080i50.

See this whitepaper for more details. I suppose you could also find this in the official spec, but I know of no (legal) way to get that for free.

And now, some answers to questions you didn't really ask, but which are raised by the words you wrote.

In ATSC (and most satellite that I've had a chance to analyze), 1080p30 isn't used anywhere I'm aware of; it's always coded as 1080i60 in NTSC-land. But repeat-field flags are usually used to give content that's effectively 1080p24 or (much less common) 1080p30. This is known as soft telecine. Bandwidth isn't really the issue IMVHO, and whether 1080i60 looks better than 720p60 depends on both the type of content, and the type of display being used - one isn't clearly always better than the other.

Max bitrate for Blu-ray is 40mbps, so, not unlimited as you suggested.

The above info, and some of the info in that PDF I linked to, should probably be included in this article by someone...Snacky 15:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that really is eye opening! So, in essence, digital broadcast and cable/satellite usually only broadcast what an end-user would experience as 1080p24, and only occassionally what said EU would experience as 1080p30.

As for Blu-ray Disc's bitrate of 40Mbps, it is slightly more than double the bitrate of what ATSC defines as one "high definition" channel, (19.9 Mbps).

Does that mean that Blu-ray Disc has the ability to display 1080p60, (though not necessarily store a feature-length sample of it), or is there something else that I'm failing to take into account? Pine 14:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As Snacky already explained, Blu-ray does not support 1080p60. 720p60 is supported, though. Could they conceivably have chosen to implement 1080p60 given the bitrate and storage constraints? Yes. They chose not to. Mirror Vax 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

most films use motion blurs so 30 frames a second isn't a big deal. with video games, it obviously is, so sony's ps3 claims to be capable of displaying this (supposing the rsx and cell can keep up with whatever code, inefficient or unrealistically demanding, it is given). --gatoatigrado 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

infobox

I've made an infobox for media at {{infobox media}}. I don't know enough about Blue-ray to apply it here. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

go ahead and use it. --gatoatigrado 05:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

casing

i remember when blu ray was first shown it was easily scratched and was in a plastic case (like UMDs) should someone show that picture? i think its kinda interesting

New title with new encoding

Fox and Warner reported they will be releasing titles encoded with VC1, AVC and one in BD-50. http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Warner/Warner_to_Release_Record_Ten_High-Def_Titles_on_Sept_26/205 http://www.highdefdigest.com/pressrelease_foxbluraylaunch.html

Entry length

What value does publishing all 170 companies have? The majority of them don't even have valid Wikilinks. It's just wasted space and is visually unpleasing. I vote to reduce the list to the board of directors. --Navstar 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it's stupid, pointless, and not really informative. Snacky 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

right, integrate with the existing corporate lists also. and perhaps we can remove the date-based format; it's quite long-winded and boring. --gatoatigrado 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Navstar! It looks nicer now. Good idea just putting in the companies that make up the board of directors. Snacky 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NP! But this entry is still a Death Star of text. There's no reason for it to be this drawn out. --Navstar 04:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Still a Death Star, but the list of supporting content producers is useful, if not necessarily here. maybe in a list of Blu-ray producers? Shouldn't be just tossed. This is controversial stuff, and WP should cover it. ww 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blu Ray troubles with PS3

Ok i may not know much about algorithms and stuff like that but what i do know is this thansk to Blu-ray next gen consoles like the PS3 will have larger games, better graphics and brillient frame rates even if Sony have had a few troubles with The PS3 not being able to read the discs, but knowing how long its been in production im sure it will have been conquered by now

POV

I removed the comment "Sony has released a double sided disk which will end the hi-def war yadda yadda". This is not impartial nor are we remotely close to finding out which format will "win". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.140.102.238 (talk • contribs) .

What The Shit?

WTF How are we supposed to traffic these blu-ray discs through warez? 50GB that is some bs lol :D Who will make the first .BD-R Release? nobody knows :D

lol it's drm encrypted anyway. --gatoatigrado 03:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, that's right, the Blu-ray DRM will be the first copy-protection technology in all of history not to be broken/decrypted/hacked/mod-chipped repeatedly by end users -- Sony has somehow found the Holy Grail of DRM. Gimme a break. I've read how it works but I didn't even need to read how it works: there is NO SUCH THING as a DRM system which is immune to expoitation by pirates because such a system is mathematically impossible -- for exactly the same reason that there will never be an unbreakable encryption formula, there will never be an unpirated video format. Full-stop. Five years from now Blu-ray bootlegs will be almost as common as DVD rips are today.

1.33:1 Blu-ray Discs

I believe that there would be no 1.33:1 (full screen) Blu-ray discs of films originally represented in widescreen, because HDTVs are usually 1.78:1. There will probably be no open-matte Blu-ray versions of soft matte films. The Blu-ray releases of soft matte films will most likely be closed matte. The Blu-ray releases of Super 35 would probably be released as they were presented in widescreen. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever hear of pillarboxing?

4:3 (1.33:1) is full-screen? Why do I get black borders down the sides of my TV when I watch 4:3 sources then? :-P

(Just kidding about, but I've always disliked the misnomer "full screen", especially seeing as virtually all TVs sold since the late 90s have been 16:9 and you'd be hard pressed to find a square screen still operational) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree heavily. I personally own two 4:3 TVs are in full working order, and used on a daily basis. 24.205.34.217 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility

I think that Blu-ray burners could catch on if it was compatible with something usefull. Maybe if Norton Ghost was compatible - then people could really use these high capacity, rugged R/Rw disks and burners. For people in IT, this could cut costs of full system backups, and (inherent of compact disks) not break if dropped or temporarily exposed to moisture.

banana

It's always the way... CD burners started becoming affordable for the home user when a typical hard-drive was a few GB at most. You could back up everything onto one or two CDs, excellent. DVD burners were the same, now BD burners are following suit. 50GB discs to back up a couple of hundred GBs of hard-drive.

reference list wrongly formatted

The two column arrangement in this section is nice, but some text is failing to wrap at the right end of the left column. Someone who understands markup here ought to take a look. Filing that, we should go back to a single column scheme. ww 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blu-ray = beta max

should some of the compairisons between the two be mentioned? Shinigami Josh 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike BetaMax, Blu-Ray has a lot of support from hundreds of companies, so no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.96.231.117 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Blu-Ray's history?

why is sony making it seem like Blu-Ray is a new technology? Is it a market tactic to sell more players, because they fear that if people find out that blu-ray is really over 10 years old, they will see it at a failing technology for it now finally getting big?--Indiearmy 05:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Vandalism to this page is getting out of hand. Should we protect it?--WW79 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

International releases

There doesn't seem to be any information on when Blu-ray will be released in Europe and the rest of the world, would be nice to know.--Yuri Elite

cyclic redundancy?

Isn't the info on the Laser and optics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Laser_and_optics) already discussed in the overview? Basicly the same information making it somewhat redundant? I think that it should be either reviewed, expanded or just deleted maybe...

The information as seen in the overview:

A Blu-ray Disc can store substantially more data than the common DVD format, because of the shorter wavelength (405 nm) of the blue-violet laser (DVDs use a 650-nm-wavelength red laser and CDs use an infrared 780 nm laser), which allows more information to be stored digitally in the same amount of space.

The information as seen in the Laser and optics topic:

The Blu-ray Disc system uses a blue-violet laser operating at a wavelength of 405 nm, similar to the one used for HD DVD, to read and write data. Conventional DVDs and CDs use red and infrared lasers at 650 nm and 780 nm respectively.

P.S. If the title seemed misleading, I was just trying to be funny... sorry.

Quad layer discs in the spec?

I haven't been able to find a good summary of the spec, but somewhere out there is a specification of what a Blu-ray disc is, because the engineers designing a player must know exactly what it is supposed to be able to read. Can someone verify that quad-layer discs are part of that spec? If not, then the mention of such discs should be removed from the article, because they're not Blu-ray discs. These phrases like "up to 200 GB" are meaningless. Even a CD-ROM could have 200 GB capacity, if you allow its structure to deviate from the CD spec. Spiel496 19:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm fairly certain 100 GB and 200 GB discs are not part of the first specification, it's a known fact (and sourced here in the article) that engineers have developed (or are developing) quad and octo layer discs. In other words, it's very likely these 4 and 8 layer discs will become part of a future specification (though they won't be backwards compatible). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm more convinced than ever that 4- and 6-layer discs are research topics, and they don't belong on a page describing a current standard format. I understand that it sounds like a minor tweak -- just add more layers -- but there are two important points to make. One, it's very possible that 4-layer discs will never be mass-produced. Two, if they are released at some future date, they will be called something different (let's pray it's not "Blu+ray"). If it doesn't play on a Blu-ray player, it's not a Blu-ray disc. Spiel496 06:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am fully aware that 4 and 6-layer (for some reason I thought they were using 8 layers) discs are not "minor tweaks". They'll likely never work in existing playback devices, and read-only software releases are highly unlikely (except, perhaps, for computer use). The issue I see is that the article is blurring the lines between what is out now (and what is part of the specifications used to create playback and recording devices out right now), and what is possible at some later date as an upgrade or expanded format. I would be happy with seeing references to 100 GB and 200 GB media being moved into some "Future Directions" section (obviously the name needs), or with disclaimers being added that such high capacity formats are unlikely to be backwards compatible. But simply removing them, is IMO, unacceptable. There are sources provided for the statements, and I can't see how a whole article on 100-200 GB Blu-ray media would be anything more than a stub. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. Moving the new research to a separate, forward-looking section would solve the confusion, without having to cut out the content. Spiel496 03:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)