Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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. [1] all links below are listed by amazon as region 1, if i found one listed region free, i noted only the name. [http://www.amazon.com/16-Blocks-Blu-ray-Cylk-Cozart/dp/B000IXZ7MA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204507415&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/Million-Miles-Earth-Anniversary-Blu-ray/dp/B000U5MVXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204507710&sr=1-1] 2001 a space odyssey [http://www.amazon.com/300-Blu-ray-Gerard-Butler/dp/B000Q6GX5Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204507956&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/3-Yuma-Blu-ray-Christian-Bale/dp/B000XRO3MQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204508035&sr=1-1] [http://www.amazon.com/First-Dates-Blu-ray-Adam-Sandler/dp/B000EZ7ZXQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204508095&sr=1-1] 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 [2]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[3] 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)

"BD+" is now a circular link to the "BD" disambiguation page. SpaceToast (talk) 18:28, 13 December 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)

And don't forget that Bill Gates was famous for claiming in 1981 that 640 KB of RAM should be enough for anyone. I got 1 gig and I'm not satisfied... Just because Bill Gates is a public figure doesn't grant him immunity to the rules of Wikipedia. Unless he can explain in a scientific context exactly why Blu-ray will be the last format, his claim is as meaningless as his 640K opinion.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2009 (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)

All PS3 games do have a region code on box though it is not same as the one found on BD video discs. They are also mentioned in PS3 safety and support manual. While all games are playable on every PS3 console there may be some issues with downloadable psn content (like known problem with COD map packs) and online play (i.e. region-specific servers, where region is determined by disc). Presumably PS3 BD-ROM regions are the same as DVD regions but to my knowledge there is no confirmation from sony. 89.255.68.16 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (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)

yes but inphase isn't compatible with anything, the former call/recall is. Markthemac (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (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)

There will be no multi wavelength laser unless someone can come up with a way of altering the physical size of the lasing cavity.

The lasers for Blu-ray and HD DVD are of identical wavelength (405 nm), but the optics are different. Blu-ray has a higher numeric aperture allowing the laser to be focused into a smaller spot. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (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)

For the most part they use the same procedures for Blu-ray but the tolerances are higher than DVD and the data layer is closer to the read surface (which is why hard coating is used). Here is a link to a Blu-ray replication machine: http://www.singulus.de/produkte/optical-disc/replikationslinien/bluline-ii-introduction.html --GrandDrake (talk) 00:57, 3 December 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)

it's a very high quality form of evaporated super glue basically, it's as tough as concrete but it is possible to scratch but it's much much harder than regular dvd coatings Markthemac (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

This page has been on my watchlist for a while now and it seems that every day some has blanked the page or vandized it in some other way. I was thinking of requesting semi Page protection but i decided to discuss it on this page firt knowing that will prevent all ip's from editing. Does anyone have any thoughts? hda3ku (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this page gets vandalized frequently enough to warrant semi-protection. There are no specific rules for semi-protection but the guide to semi-protection does mention that the chance of an edit being vandalism is on average 5% and this page is getting a lot more vandalism than that. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Porn or useful?

Was the site explaining the adult use of blu-ray really necessary? I removed the link, but I believe it shouldn't be posted on Wikipedia. It claims as the first site using it.

Aspect ratios

The Technical specifications section states that the aspect ratio of 1440x1080 displays is 16:9, but simple arithmetic shows that it should be 4:3. Is this an error? | Loadmaster (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That is accurate and 1440x1080 on Blu-ray doesn't have square pixels. I believe that 1440x1080 can be used in AVREC and some HD camcorder formats. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an anamorphic format IIRC, similar to how anamorphic DVD works. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It says that warner bros will only release in bluray

i think that it should say that the only hd form released is in bluray, because it is kind of missleading saying that they wont release in dvds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.149.113 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Article looks like one-sided industry propaganda. Does not meet wikipedia neutrality standards.

Article looks more like industry propaganda to favor the adoption of this technology. It does not mention anything about the criticisms that many informed people have voiced against the restrictive features of Blu Ray discs.

An editor attempted to remove a link to a site voicing these criticisms saying it was "SPAM"?? This article needs serious revision to make it meet Wikipedia Neutrality Standards. The negative as well as the positive features of this type of disc ought to be mentioned. --Grandscribe (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it was an inappropriate link per WP:EL, the other link I removed was spam; and this link does not belong in this (or any) article on Wikipedia. As to your concerns with the article, if you can find reliable sources which verify your claims while maintaining a neutral point of view, by all means, edit the article to address your concerns. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack of criticism in the article should be addressed by writing proper content, not by advertising someone's protest web site. This is Wikipedia -- we're here to do the former, not the latter. Warren -talk- 11:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. And writing headlines all in capitals doesn't meet Wikipedia (or common decency) standards either. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Grandscribe, the website you linked to was a blog and blogs are not usually considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also you may want to take a glance at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). --GrandDrake (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Main criticism is that the higher prices of the players and disc is not worth the improvement in quality and other benefits over DVD. This should be mentioned. Andries (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone for the replies. I am sorry I put all caps in the header of my message. It was not meant to be shouting to the discussion. Just forgot I had the all caps key on when I wrote that. I think that you will agree that this article is written almost like a technical brochure which tries to influence the adoption of this type of disc. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel. --Grandscribe (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Technical information is inherently neutral so it tends to be easier to add to articles where people have strong differences of opinion. There is though some technical information that could make the Blu-ray Disc article more balanced such as MSRP of stand alone Blu-ray players since launch, the MSRP cost difference between DVD and Blu-ray discs, and information on the DVD and Blu-ray market share for player/disc sales. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree, at all, with your assertion that the article is written like a "technical brochure which tries to influence the adoption of this type of disc". In fact I very strongly disagree. I'll confess the matter of DRM may need expansion, but we already link to the DRM article, which has lengthy coverage of the issues and concerns about DRM in mass media. Repeating that information here seems unnecessary unless there are specific concerns regarding Blu-ray Disc as a format.

As it stands now, the article contains historical information on the development of the format, its competition with HD DVD, and it's eventual success in that format war. It provides technical details on the format itself, including information about region coding and DRM (though perhaps not as detailed as you may like, it's all we have as far as I know that's verifiable and reliably sourced). The article further details additional technical information (profiles), compatibility and finally variants and advances made since the formats release. I'll note the DRM section has three subections detailing the various protection methods in use which, IMO, almost seems overboard given how little coverage there is of those issues in mainstream media or reliable sources... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the replies. You confess that the article needs further expansion on the topic of DRM. Using the word DRM with a link a couple of times without not even a paragraph being more descriptive about the relationship between DRM and Blu Ray discs is not sufficient. The article should aim to give the reader a complete idea of the technology behind this type of Disc.The increased storage capacity and other details are ok. But it should also explain how DRM will work when using this disc. As written now it gives too lengthy details about the technical "advantages" of this disc and barely mentioning how DRM works especifically with Blu Ray. It gives the impression of trying to minimize the importance of this fact.--Grandscribe (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's trying to minimize anything. Look at DVD-Video and the Restrictions section in that article: compared to the rest of the article it's actually a small section. Further, I confessed it may need expansion, but not to an extent that it unnecessarily highlights something that our sources don't highlight to the same degree. That would introduce undue weight of the subject to the article. Unless there's some security mechanism that's not covered in the article that you'd like to draw our attention to I believe our coverage of format restrictions/security/DRM is as complete as it needs to be without going overboard. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Faster adoption than DVD? That's a lie. Astroturfing warning, copyright violation

"After the end of the war Blu-Ray began making real progress. In fact it was, and still is, being adopted faster than DVDs were at the same period of development. Now, as of December 2008 more than 1200 Blu-Ray titles have been released."

This is a total lie. You can see tons of sources explaining the opposite, telling digital distribution competing with BluRay and adoption being a lot slower than DVD.

But it's not just that, but also copypastes an article and it's obviously a copyright violation Timofonic (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the statement would require a more reliable source and that it was copy and pasted. As such I have removed it. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Challenge the facts rather than accuse the editor of "lying" (a word which accuses the other person of nefarious intent). Just for the record, the statement that Blu-ray is taking off faster than DVD is probably true. Here are a number of other references to back it up: #1, #2, #3. There are hundreds of similar references, but that should be enough. The words in this article just need reworking to avoid copyright problems due to the cut & paste. --Lester 02:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal - BD-Live

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think BD-Live should be merged into this article. Also this article doesn't have enough information about BD-Live. ---Majestic- (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, considering it is only 3 sentences long and has no references there is no current need to have a separate BD-Live article. --GrandDrake (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - too short for an article, and I doubt the article will grow more than what already stated here and in that article w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, for the moment. More could be written about BD-Live, but currently there is not enough to justify an article. Because none of it is referenced, I think you could just replace the BD-Live page with create a quick re-direct to the main article. Then, in the future, if someone wants to write a detailed article about BD-Live, they would be free to do that later on.--Lester 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still no criticisms

I think only in the most egregious cases an article should have a whole Criticisms section (it's usually better couched in fact as Controversy rather than in judgement as Criticism) but a few sections really should have some mention of dissenting views; the BD+ section in particular could use an inline link to the Digital rights management article to put that link in context rather than just tack it on in the See also. .froth. (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a good first shot at it. .froth. (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Blu-ray Audio Disc (Profile 3.0) section is inaccurate

Hey, could someone please edit the section referencing the Blu-ray Audio disc releases to reflect that there has been more than one Blu-ray Audio Disc released to date? Everyone tends to point to the DIVERTIMENTI release from Lyndberg Lyd as the first Blu-ray Audio album, but that is just successful marketing on their part. There is the Nine Inch Nails -- Ghosts Vol. I - IV Blu-ray audio Disc, which preceded it: http://ghosts.nin.com/main/order_options and several Blu-ray Audio Disc releases from Surround Records, which also preceded it. Their website seems to be down at the moment, but you can see their releases here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tchaikovsky-Concertos-Acoustic-Reality-Experience/dp/B0019HSQ68/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1235498496&sr=8-1

There is also a new release entitled Sonar from Lyndberg Lyd, so, in total, there are something like, what, nine or ten Blu-ray Audio-only releases on the market right now? I haven't done a complete count of the Surround Records releases because, as I said, their website is down. :-)

Cheers Locution (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverse backward compatibility

The current section about it only refers to those with Blu-ray devices who want to play regular DVDs. That's only half the equation. In other words, what happens when you put a Blu-ray disc inside a regular DVD player? Can those with regular devices still buy Blu-ray discs (some films already come out only in it)? Is there a reliable source about it? -82.81.228.66 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can't

Diegovb (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blu-ray discs operating on normal DVD players ?

i want to know if Blu-ray discs can be played on normal DVD players or it has special hard drives to operate them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.72.219.39 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only does it take a Blu-ray drive it also requires far more complicated processing hardware as well. It is vastly more difficult to decode a 40 Mbps MPEG-4 AVC HP video stream at 1920x1080 than it is to decode a 10 Mbps MPEG-2 stream at 720x480. Also even if you stuck a Blu-ray drive in a DVD player it wouldn't do any good since the entire hardware system of the player has to meet the requirements for Blu-ray. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)