User talk:Ray andrew

I deleted the post because this is no sandbox for the format war. Please respect that!

Please read my response in Talk:HD DVD. In general it is considered vandalism to delete others posts. --Ray andrew

................

ray can you please post a ref link in blu-ray that shows the pushed back date for profile 1.1 that you changed. thanks

sorry..my badCzarNick 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My DVD edit

I'm just wondering why you removed by 120/200 GB for HD DVD and BD as eight layers maximum. Socby19 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Socby19[reply]

Your revert on blu-ray

Hi!

Thanks for your message on my user page. However, I think your revert to Blu-ray was without grounds.

The page in its current state contains two contradictory statements:

"There is no impact on picture resolution or storage space as a result of this"

and

"it simply adds notational overhead"

Obviously, one cannot add an extra overhead (the Repeat Field Flags) without also causing some slight increase in the storage space used, all other things remaining equal. My edit to the page corrected it to read "minimal impact" which is, I hope you will agree, both correct and makes the first statement consistent with the second. So, I would kindly ask you to revert your revert.

Regards, --80.193.22.182 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But everything is not equal, there is also different "notational overheads" with blu-ray encoding, so the same encode with the proper notation for each format really does use almost the exact same amount of space. Thus it should be left as "no impact". --Ray andrew 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, we're taking one 24p stream and adding Repeat Field Flags to make a 60i stream. This is definitely adding something not present in the original stream. Barring any *cited* evidence that Blu-ray streams have a higher multiplexing overhead than HD-DVD streams, and that said multiplexing overhead is higher than the added Repeat Field Flags, then the original edit should stand.

Furthermore, assuming you find some evidence that this is true, which I doubt, the page is still contradictory and needs correction.--80.193.22.182 17:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous point, I noticed that the article originally states that there is no impact on bitrate as a result of the inclusion of Repeat Field Flags. So, the relative multiplexing overheads of Blu-ray and HD-DVD are quite irrelevant. There is simply no way to logically argue that adding something which takes some space to something else does not increase the amount of space used. I've fixed the page once more.

I know the difference is likely to be small, but I found it slightly misleading to say there was none, The real reason I edited it in the first place was just because I find it really jarring to read two directly contradictory statements within a couple of lines of each other. So, thanks for agreeing, take it easy & peace out... --80.193.22.182 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Blu-Ray has released more YTD comment-

hey ray, I do have a ref for blu ray releasing more movies. Its the link to the historical releases for blu-ray and hd dvd thats on all the pages.. I just didn't link it because its already in the ref's.. I just simply added up the releases for both real quick. blu-ray is up by over a dozen and thats without the help of MGM and FOX. let me know if If you think I should directly link the pages again. do you come up with something different? If so, I of course have no qualms with modifying my statement if its not factually accurate.. -Tracer9999 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray comparison Chart

Hi, I just wanted to know why you reverted my change (this) it's true that HD-DVD now has 3 layers, however so does Blu-Ray each layer can hold 25 GB's. I feel that the current information is misleading and hope to change it soon. -- Vdub49 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Thanks -- Vdub49 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-ray Project

Note that the Template for the blu-ray project says "or partly within the scope".--Playstationdude 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edits to Blu-ray Disc / HD DVD comparison section in Blu-ray Disc article

Hi Ray, just to let you know I changed back the text in the Blu-ray Disc / HD DVD comparison section in the Blu-ray Disc article that you reverted; if you read the article cited, I think my version more accurately conveys the nuances of the situation (I made sure to incorporate W Tanoto's clarification on the ownership of MGM). Until the specification is finalised, it doesn't seem to me to be accurate to say that HD DVD has a higher capacity; after all, four-layer and upwards versions of Blu-ray Discs (100 GB+) are under development (although granted not as far along the development track as these new 51 GB HD DVDs are). When the final specification is approved by the DVD Forum then obviously HD DVD will have the higher capacity and the Blu-ray Disc article can be updated to reflect that. -Paul1337 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray, thanks for your message. I still think it is important to include something along the lines of that sentence, because of this section in the reference:

"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." [1]

How about adding a sentence something like this: "Toshiba is currently testing the new "Trip-Layer" discs with existing HD DVD hardware to assess compatibility." -Paul1337 15:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Sorry I hadn't read the article closely enough, in fact the sentence I originally proposed was closer to being correct. The spokesman has said that they will begin the compatibility testing after the DVD Forum has approved the final specification, so maybe a better version would be: "Once the DVD Forum has approved the final specification, Toshiba will begin compatibility testing of the new "Trip-Layer" discs with existing HD DVD hardware." -Paul1337 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the revert; I'll add back in the sentence I proposed above. -Paul1337 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD/HD comparison

Which table do you mean?

I am not the one who added First Look Studios, I just add it over to BD (originally only appeared in HD DVD side), as they announced BD titles last week. If you talking about the table from talk/discussion, I just transferred information from Japanese Wikipedia, and will do some more as I saw a lot of imformation in there that is failed to be mentioned here.--w_tanoto 13:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just shocked why it was there while it's a small studio. Even the original japanese table did not show it. --w_tanoto 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--w_tanoto 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung BD-2400 cancelled

Could you do that to Blu-ray article as well, just add at this date, BD2400 is cancelled. I can't because I have no reference, and I don't follow closely standalone player.--w_tanoto 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Source in other language than english

done. --w_tanoto 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry. i found a better one (a japanese site). I'll add it as soon as I am done. Besides, articles in english will come up soon.--w_tanoto 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it an hour ago, and that japanese translator does not give a translated link, although the translation is good. If you are Neutral, why don't you help me? --w_tanoto 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I better wait for english source tomorrow. I read hiragana and katakana, but not kanji (which makes it difficult). In the meantime, I will try to look for a reliable translator that can give link to translated article--w_tanoto 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Blu-ray Disc

Edits like this are really counter productive, especially considering those stats were just updated today. Please stop making disruptive edits and please start contributing in a manner beneficial to the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers were current as of 10-15, the article text did not reflect this, but the numbers were correct (at least the reference pointed to an article dated 10-15). In any event, it's much more productive to actually update the numbers and fix the article than to simply remove the information outright. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it can look bad when data like that goes stale (especially a month or more). I was going to update it, but I see you did already. Thanks for that. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Released Titles

The subject is "released titles" not released titles minus discontinued ones. Regardless of what the "source" says, we shouldn't be copying verbatim anyway. The titles were released.. and people purchased them.. you can't just decide they never existed and take them from the total. Movies will be discontinued all the time Im sure..You can't just change the way we have done things for a year and a half now.. so that you can put HD DVD in a skewed light, because you are a fan boy. You should change your username to "however, but, keep in mind, or although".. well at least in relation to Blu-Ray...for HD DVD a rumor could be as slight as a fart in the wind, and you are all over it.... -Tracer9999 04:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would you prefer the 2-1 outsold info be placed in the comparison section of both HD DVD and Blu RAY. rather then in the overview of each? I would be agreeable to that.. however it should not be buried in the separate comparisons page. that is important info that a person should not have to click around searching for. When HD DVD outsells blu ray 2-1 Im more then happy to have you put that info wherever you wish. -Tracer9999 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Comparison of high definition optical disc formats. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HighDefMediaComparison

The table should list features from the specification, not features supported by most players. Going by the latter unnecessarily muddies the waters while the former is clear and more neutral. Noclip (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]