Talk:Comparison of high definition optical disc formats/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Removed claim

I have removed "Universal is rumored to include Blu-ray Disc support in the future." There is no evidence to support this claim. ~Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.141.239.117 (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2007

Dreamworks Animation

Dreamworks Animation is also supporting HD DVD exclusively, they are not listed in the studios216.141.239.249 00:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQ's Poll

I don't think a GameFAQ's poll should be used as a source for this article. There is no way GameFAQ's represents a random sample of the gaming community, and it isn't really a sizable chunk of the gaming community anyways. -ChewyLSB 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

eproduct wars

All of the rankings from the eproduct wars page, I believe, are a day-to-day sales ranking from amazon.com. Since day-to-day figures fluctuate erratically, I wonder if they should just all be removed from the article 4.18.224.165 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be replaced with an external link. Zojj 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


It should be updated, when possible, but make sure a date is included on the day you included the numbers. Like today, I will say that these numbers reflect records from 02/07/07, plus a note about how the numbers change daily. Fermentor 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Rights Restriction?

Is there a need for comparison in this article of the different copyright-enforcement strategies built in to each standard? Blu Ray is more restrictive on the rights available to media purchasers, via some measures that may be encyclopedically significant. Paul.w.bennett 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Title, etc

I've renamed/moved the page to a more encyclopedic-sounding name (it also allows for inclusion of other high def formats and not just HD DVD/BD). I'd been tempted to create an article like this for some time, but never did because I imagined it turning into a constant back and forth between proponents of both formats (just look at the AVS Forums for an example of format fanboyism gone wild). Here's hoping this article doesn't devolve into an edit war.

My advice to all who would consider editing this article: read up on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:CITE before editing too heavily. —Locke Coletc 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best bet would be to maintain a standard of simply sales figures and technological specification comparisons, plus VERIFIED!!! problems with either systems. Personally, I've been totting a "Stop the MPAA" pin I bought from 2600 magazine back in 2001/2002 on my bag ever since then (and have gotten probably two questions about it at the most :(...). The pin and sticker campaign was meant to draw attention to this ridiculous format-war we're facing with DVD players. Personally, I'm f**king insulted by the MPAA and manufacturing mafia's atrocious attempt to get as much money as they can by trying to force users to pick their "superior" technology and yet be limited to buying half of the DVDs on the market as opposed to the current DVD standard where very studio releases. Plus I have this feeling that the HD-DVD and in particular the Blu-Ray formats are really going to fuck over the small distributors. Who's going to want to put out Blu-Ray versions of small indie films that did about 2 mill art-house? Bullocks. Like I said, keep it to standard, tech-and-sale-specific models for comparisons. Nothing unfounded like "My buddy heard that a bunch of Blu-Ray discs blew up" or "HD-DVD is totally for wankers". Fermentor 06:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy and Paste?

The section on Total HD seems like it's practically identical to one I just read on X-Bit labs, a bit odd here. It seems like someone just cut it up, copied, and pasted it over here. 24.184.105.10 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I just read the whole thing and noticed that.. My bad 02:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it worried me a bit to have whole paragraphs cited from news sources without marking it more clearly. I'm looking up how to do just that thing right now. There are a couple of templates that should work. Paul.w.bennett 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Laser Availability?

I believe the section mentioning that Blu-ray has suffered from a shortage of the laser used to build the players should be removed; both HD DVD and Blu-ray use a 405nm, blue-violet, solid-state laser. A shortage of 405nm lasers should hurt both systems. Troy 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Studios signed

What studios have signed with BluRay and what with HDDVD? (separate for total) --Energman 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of article

I would think that people who come to this page are mainly looking for the differences between the two disks. What if we were to add a table at the top of the article listing all of the differing criteria? Ie:

Disc Type: Blu-ray HD DVD DVD (for comparison)
Standard capacity: 25 GB 30 GB 4.7 GB
Max one-side capacity: 50 GB 30 GB 8.5 GB
Avg. disc price[citation needed]: $18 $15 $1
Avg. player price[citation needed]: $800 $600 $60
Market Share[citation needed]: 50% 50% -
Developer: Sony Toshiba Toshiba & Sony

This table could be followed by another table listing all similarities. Additional article sections would follow, detailing each category. Zojj 08:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What does standard compacity mean? Most hd-dvd movies are released on 30GB disks. Standard should be 30. Daniel.Cardenas 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. "Standard" should be what 90% of the discs on the market use. If a standard size doesn't exist, lets word it another way. Zojj 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to show the price range of players? There can be a lot of cheap or expensive players but if you average out just raw number of models it can possible skew it higher or lower. -65.13.151.42
I agree, giving a range of prices is better than an average. Fermentor 06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I like average price, but perhaps add range also. I suggest you put it towards the beginning of the article. Thx - Daniel.Cardenas 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
what does average disk price mean? how much it costs to produce or how much it costs for the consumer, if it is the latter are you sure it is only 1 dollar? Tenio 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up Needed?

I just read this entire article and I found no reason for the "clean-up" tag. Should someone remove it?72.28.56.83 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, this article is still very disorganized and mostly argumentative. Ray andrew 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine. "Very disorganized" and "mostly argumentative" are overstatements. I'm removing the tag. 74.12.82.156 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MPEG Audio

WTF is MPEG audio? MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 3 audio? MPEG-1 part 3 layers 1-3 audio? MPEG-2/MPEG-4 AAC audio? --Tmh 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything its the MPEG-1 Audio Layer II that was mandatory for European DVD players. But honestly I don't think its part of the spec for either hi def format as I have never seen any other mention of it. Unless it can be verified it should be removed. Ray andrew 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited as a source

--Delirium 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Playstation 3

Should the 20 GB model be labeled under discontinued with a US only mark, or should it not be there since they are still being produced for Japan? Socby19 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Non specification benefits of either format

This page doesn't seem to take into account the non spec benefits, such as will Bluray be cheaper in the long term or will people be more likely to adapt to the household "DVD" name, which format the porn studios are ultimately choosing, which drives are likely to end up in peoples home computers, which format the "uneducated masses" find more comfortable etc. There are many web pages and sources there on research and essays on these things, it sort of feels a little, well, mechanical not to have them. It's like a page on a war between two countries and comapring what guns and hardware the soldiers are using, but ignoring the politics and support the two warring countries have, which are the things that ultimately decide a war. JayKeaton 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


New numbers

I just wanted to mention that on G4's the Feed they said that in the first quarter of 2007 blu-ray sold 70% of next-gen movies, while HD-DVD sold 30%. I'm not going to put it on the article just in case my numbers are wrong, but if anyone finds it true, go ahead and post it. Playstationdude 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes in PC Manufacturer section

I created notebook section under it. I moved acer. It manufactured laptop with both formats in UK. Added about HP.--w_tanoto 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Does WalMart support Blu-ray?

WalMart in Utah had only sold DVDs until a few weeks ago.

Now they have a sizable Blu-ray section but no HD DVDs as of yet.

Is this official policy? 71.219.94.15 00:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cost difference revert

I removed the following from the studio support section:

Movies in Blu-ray and HD DVD formats tend to cost about the same, following the HD DVD price cut by Universal Studios to be more competitive with Blu-ray on price.[1] Warner Bros., a studio that supports both formats used to issue HD DVD as combo HD DVD/Standard DVD discs, which cost around USD 5 more than the same titles on Blu-ray. For example, Academy Award best picture of 2006, The Departed is available on DVD for USD 28.98 (list price), on Blu-ray for USD 34.99 (list price), and on HD DVD for USD 39.99 (list price). In the United Kingdom, the suggested retail prices for Superman Returns are GBP 25.99 for Blu-ray format[2], GBP 27.99 for HD DVD format[3], and GBP 18.99 for DVD format[4].

My reasons for removing this are three fold. 1. Because it is original research and 2. Because the "evidence" presented is biased (a violation of NPOV), it ignores the higher price of blu-ray exclusive studio releases (ie, FOX MSRP $40), and ignores the the fact that non combo disks of the same title are the same price across formats. 3. Even if this was rewritten in a NPOV and without OR, it does not belong in the studio support section. Please discuss this here before reverting.--Ray andrew 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, first of all, please avoid plain reverts ([1]), in which the pricing issue was not the only one. A statement that "Blu-ray is supported by all major film studios, except one" is not my whim, but a statement coming from such reliable sources such as Wall Street Journal and CNN([2],[3]). There are different ways to describe the same things. Someone may claim that a glass is half empty, while the other could point out that the glass is half full. Out of such possiblities should not we go with the one supported by reliable sources?
Next, speaking of the pricing issues, by itself, the issue is not original, and it has been featured in media. For example, here is a telling title: HD DVD movies to see a price cut. Does it matter?. The price tags presented solely as an illustration. If something is ignored (such as higher price of blu-ray exclusive studio releases), please include it. Then, if you think the price issue does not belong to the studio support section, then please explain your reasoning, and point out a section where the material would fit the best. Thanks, Korpus6i44 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I will revert any edit that you make that does not convey a NPOV or violates any other Wikipedia policy. Do you think that a blanket statement like: "Blu-ray is supported by all major film studios, except one" is nuteral? I would say that without context, it sure sounds like it is trying to persuade the reader that Blu-ray has better support, without noting that both formats have an almost equal number of titles out there. As for the pricing issue, you point to one article about a price drop, and then the rest is original research, using a suggestive example. Why don't we try to resolve these issues HERE. --Ray andrew 00:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, the statement "Blu-ray is supported by all major film studios, except one" is given exactly as it's written in the articles in Wall Street Journal and CNN (two reliable U.S. media). But driven by your subjective views you are removing this statement, bringing instead a statement on the number of releases from engadgethd.com (amateurs' website). Contrary to you, I'm not removing the number of releases (the raw number of releases is not mentioned as an indicator of studio support in the reliable sources known to me (neither you brought any sources that indicate the connection), yet while not a primary indicator, it's a valuable info worth keeping). So, it looks like you are the one who need to review WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:DR.
Speaking on the issue of original research, I've not seen a source with the technical details that matches your table of comparison of the high-definition optical media formats. You did compile together technical details from different sources. And you didn't even bother citing the sources (if you did, people would not be consistently challenging it, and you would not need to call for math [4],[5]). Similarly, I have not seen reliable sources from where the statement "Warner has released over 20 more titles for HD DVD than for Blu-ray, including high profile titles like The Matrix Trilogy and Batman Begins" came. If you are sure that the reference to the Matrix and Batman is not original, and the price of the Departed is, then please explain your logic. The truth is that the pricing issue is real, not original research. But I agree that it needs better coverage closer to reliable sources. However it's not only the issue with the price of titles, but also with the price of players. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like an HD DVD supporter wants to mention that HD DVD players are cheaper (and there is a section in this article to illustrate that), but when it comes to discs that person does want any mentioning that discs (issued by studios which support both formats) in HD DVD cost at least as much or more than in Blu-ray format.
In general, the article is crude, and requires serious improvements. I agree that the part on disc prices may be moved into sales and rents section, if we act under the idea of splitting financial and other issues. But if so, the info on player's prices and promotions should be moved there as well. The table on players should rather give the key technical characteristics of the players, and so on. --Korpus6i44 01:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Source Quotation
CNN "All major studios except one are releasing films in Blu-ray, with several, including The Walt Disney Co., releasing exclusively in Blu-ray. Only Universal Studios, which is owned by General Electric Co., exclusively supports HD DVD." ([6])
Wall Street Journal "Blu-ray is supported by every major studio except NBC Universal's Universal Pictures, which is backing HD DVD exclusively." ([7])
WikiProposal 1 The North American film industry is split in its support for Blu-ray and HD DVD, with Blu-ray been supported by all major film studios, except one, and HD DVD being adopted by half of the Big Six studio corporations.
WikiProposal 2 The U.S. film industry is split in its support for Blu-ray and HD DVD, neither side has the support of all major studios.
I agree with Korpus6i44 to include the information on the above table. As for the price, after I wrote the price for the United Kingdom (GBP), I have actually discovered that Blood Diamond has the same list price for both BD and HD DVD, but most of the time, BD has lower price. As the price is not the same from studio to another, I agree for its removal.--w_tanoto 05:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After reviwing the new wording and placement in the article, I have removed the dispute tag. I still think the wording of both the studio support and disk cost could be better though, to avoid any suggestion of bias. But I will leave that to the future. --Ray andrew 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I think we might want to make note of the fact that Fox and MGM have effectively stopped supporting Blu-ray for the time being. Fox has not released a title since April 24th (almost 4 months) and has no titles with an announced release date. MGM has not released a title since March 13th (5 months today) and has no titles with an announced release date. I am posting this here first to try to avoid any controversy and get others input before this change is made. Refrences: [8] [9] --Ray andrew 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the addition, but disagree of its removal from the list (or rather, table) of studio supporting BD. You might want to add that Fox is planning "rejoined" the BD, which is expected to be soon. (I just quote it from an article). I believe it is due to BD+. We are expecting it to release new titles during holiday season. I post the link(s) if I managed to find it (considering to the fact that I'm on dial-up, it will be almost impossible)--202.148.21.96 / User:W Tanoto 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I never wanted to remove them from the table, just make note of the situation. I will draft a replacement for the introduction to that section. I don't think we should comment on what is rumored to happen for the holidays (as that would likely violate verifiability), but I am open to discuss that. --Ray andrew 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't exactly like the wording "effectifely stopped supporting for time being". They don't stop supporting, only stop releasing on BD. A lot of companies supporting BD (example: Fujitsu - who only released their BD-supporting product just recently, but never before that), does not necessarily release anything for it. I just can't find better wording to describe the situation. What I know is that Fox wanted to test BD-J (or BD+?? - i'm not an expert on this one) before go ahead re-releasing.--w_tanoto 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We can change the way it is worded if a better way is found. The reason for that wording though is because the only "real" way a film studio can support a format is to release titles for the format. Unlike other types of companies (like Fujitsu) they are not in the position to support the format on the back end with patents, research and other less noticeable things. Thus I would argue that if a film studio is not releasing titles on a given format, it is effectively not supporting it. --Ray andrew 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ray, maybe it's because you're an HD DVD fanboy that you can't help but put that caveat in there, but Fox is by no means neutral or not supporting Blu-ray. They release promotional materials for Blu-ray and are active members in the BDA. Their reasoning has to do with AACS being busted and wishing to release on BD+. You know this, everyone involded in HD knows this. It's intellectually dishonest at its core to say that they're not supporting blu-ray. Wiki is not about being dishonest through omission or clever phrasing.166.214.160.82 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets not start bashing here. I don't have a horse in this race, I just like HD in general. But I do like to keep the information accurate. I'm not the only one here though that thinks it would be dishonest not to mention it. I never intended to imply that they were not firmly in the Blu-ray camp, and I have no objection to adding the bit about them waiting for BD+. Chill --Ray andrew 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, stop this. I am admitting that I am BD fans, but I agree with addition of that then information, because IT IS THE TRUTH that Fox/MGM had not released anything since March 2007. Chill, they have announced titles.--w_tanoto 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Porn did NOT help HD-DVD beat Bluray

Why do major media outlets like CNN or MSNBC keep repeating this urban legend? They shouldn't be spreading this misinformation & I'm sick of hearing their reporters say it. Don't these talking heads do ANY kind of research? (At least here on wikipedia, we have the story debunked.) 162.58.0.64 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


The whole statement is irrelevent to the current situation. no format is preventing porn. Plus this is 2007. not the days of beta max. porn is major source of revenue on the internet and more people have been exposed to it. it is no longer a taboo to the degree it was back those days.. people expect the next format will have porn.. I think people would be outrages if it didn't and in 2007.. it prob WOULD have a disasterous effect on whoever decided not too. regardless of what I think.. from informationweek ...
(Sony dismissed the claims saying it has no control over the licensing of Blu-ray, and has no problem with the adult industry using the format. "There's no prohibition against adult content," Lisa Gephardt, a spokeswoman for Sony Corp. of America, said. "We don't tell people how they can use the licenses they get from the Blu-ray Disc Association." )
(Indeed, the BDA, which handles all licensing for Blu-ray technology, said in a statement that the group is "an open organization that welcomes the participation of all companies interested in using and supporting the format, including those that represent the full spectrum of genres in the content industry." The adult industry is seen as a major driver behind the use of technology in the entertainment industry. Hollywood studios, for example, have adopted innovations in Internet video developed by adult filmmakers.) this is a moot point.... heres the article http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196903070

`Tracer9999 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


>>>my understanding is both formats are allowing porn anyway.<<<
That's true. But wikipedia is not here for YOUR understanding; wikipedia is here to educate OTHER people that "both formats allow porn". You know that; I know that; but other people do not. Many of them are still stating publicly that "bluray bans porn". ------ Thus the information IS relevant and should remain to serve THEM and educate THEM about the truth (and debunk CNN reporters). The paragraph should STAY as relevant information for people to read & learn & understand. That is wikipedia's purpose. 162.58.0.64 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the paragraph needs to be in the comparison article, but if you insist on leaving it, I will move it to its own subsection and add stats on the number of adult titles released on each format. --Ray andrew 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I agree ray. good idea. It should be stated clearly that both companies support porn and I like the idea about listing the total vido's. only problem is that alot of porn releases are done by smaller companies and an accurate number would be difficult unless its playboy penthouse etc.. also I don't believe the state of the adult industry in the 70's is relevent today since both formats support porn there is no comparison to betamax anyway, Its arguing an issue that does not exist either way. more appropriate for the betamax,sony,cnn articles. -Tracer9999

I still refute the notion that pornography can affect the outcome of the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray war. It's ridiculous and like all urban legends it should be debunked. Hence the reference to the Forbes article (the most reliable piece of data I could find.) 162.58.0.64 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

--- It's not an issue of wether your right or wrong.. It has no relevnce to either format today as they both allow it. plus you are using data about how much money an industry makes. your not taking in account the millions of people who believe in the first amendment and even if they do not like porn they will choose not to support a format which limits there feedom of speech and expression. in short you are guessing what had an effect on a 30 year old technology that has nothing to do with todays social climate and putting it in a current wikipedia article on an unrelated format.. you may be right.. you may not. either way, a chatroom or blog is somewhere to discuss this not a wikipedia article. -Tracer9999 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you even bother to READ the Forbes article???? It's not talking about 30 years ago; it's talking about modern-day technology. It talks about high-def disks. It talks about internet downloads. It has relevance to today, and what's happening right now. That's why it should be included. 162.58.0.64 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

-- nothing is happening right now.. porn is allowed. are you missing that point. ITs a moot point about betamax. no one is prohibiting porn. your beating a dead horse. place the forbes article in the references if you like.. but the state of the adult industry in 1999 or in the betamax day is in no way applicable to the current issue or in this case non - issue.. has no place in the article. Id like to get a consensus of what others believe. anyone else feel free to chime in.

As long as I turn on CNN or MSNBC and I hear the talking heads saying, "Could porn help HD-DVD beat Blu-ray? It appears the answer is yes." blah, blah, blah..... then debunking that myth has relevance. Simply put porn is too small to affect the outcome of anything. ----- IMHO wikipedia (and all other encyclopedias) have a "duty" to debunk the myths uttered by CNN/MSNBC/and other media.
Now maybe if you could show an article from, say, 2005 that shows adult video is actually a $1 trillion dollar industry, and whatever standard they choose will determine which HD-disc wins the war..... fine. I would love to see it. (And we can include it in the wiki article.) 162.58.0.64 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

--


Beleive me I get what your saying. Its not the "adult industry" that would have any effect. They could be a $1.00 industry it doesn't matter. PEOPLE don't like to have there lives regulated by a muli national conglomerate.. that is what would kill it for the format that does not allow porn. People hold their rights dearly and do not want to be TOLD what they can watch ont thier brand new 700 dollar glorified DVD player.. It would be the same if sony or anyone prohibited violence on thier box.. thier is no VIOLENCE industry but people would say go to hell. so all the figures you produce make no difference. The article states porn is allowed..thats sufficient to debunk they myth..`Tracer9999 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

>>>people don't like their lives regulated<<<.
There's a certain irony there... I'm trying to post what I think is relevant information regarding the Blu-ray v. HD DVD battle, and you Tracer keep deleting it. I'm feeling censored; and I don't like it. Please stop censoring my contributions to wikipedia. (Step back and let some OTHER contributors review the article; don't just arbitrarily decide "that doesn't belong here" and press the delete button.) 162.58.0.64 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

--- your not being censored... get a consensus to add your off topic info (there is no controversy) and we will leave it.. until then . Ill check back regurly an revert as needed. also words like doubtful, some people say etc.. are weasle words.. we only allow facts on wikipedia.. not speculation... plus if anyone is really curious they can view this talk section and get your views... my last post on this topic. Ill let others give there opinion. Its like speaking to a wall.. Ill make points and you'll go ... yeah back in the betamax days.. like this one time.. at band camp... MOOT POINT -Tracer9999 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

If Playboy chooses to endorse HD-DVD (and ignore Bluray) will that have an effect or not? That's the question I am trying to answer. (Forbes says "no".) That is extremely relevant information. 162.58.0.64 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

btw.. although the amounts the adult industry makes is of no relevence..from fox news.. and from this decade.. 2006 to be exact

"Although the vagaries of entertainment accounting have become legendary, it is "universally" acknowledged that the U.S. adult-film industry, at around $12 billion in annual sales, rentals, and cable charges in 2006, is an even grander and more efficient moneymaking machine than legitimate mainstream American cinema (the latter's annual gross came in at $9 billion for 2006)." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 (talkcontribs) 01:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC).


(1) Tracer you are in violation of wiki rules which specifically state do NOT delete other people's contributions. Wiki rules state you may reword, rewrite, add citations, but you are NOT to delete whole paragraphs just because you "felt like it". "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate [such as the Forbes.com paragraph], improve the edit, rather than reverting it."
(2) As for the comparison about porn, I agree beta/vhs is irrelevant, but I like the Bluray/HD-DVD comparison and information from forbes.com. I vote to leave it there. It answers the question "What if a major adult studio (like playboy) chose one format over the other?" Could a major studio affect the outcome? I like the answer Forbes gives us. Theaveng 09:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, Its definitely NOT a violation of wiki rules to remove a contribution that is not relevant to the article. I would argue that this is the case, both formats have openly accepted porn, thus why do we need to debunk a hypothetical situation? --Ray andrew 15:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

-- lol your too funny theaveng.. want a tissue?. seriously though.. since when does wikipedia deal in hypothetical things that may or may not happen and then base them on stories from 6 years prior...with some of the info as far as 9 years prior. it makes no sense.. and playboy is not the porn industry... your talking playboy, vivid, penthouse, and hundreds of other companies release porn.. just silly. plus you can rest assured in the long run PORN will go with whoever wins..they are not going to give up there multi billion dollar industry because "there side lost".. so,, theaveng.. your violating tracer9999's rules for not using common sense.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracer9999 (talkcontribs) 16:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point in posting the pornography figures. If both studios are supporting it then what exectly is the debate here? Why are we guessing at what may happen? too many what if's. 68.104.25.75 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Various media are reporting that "porn will decide who wins the format war". That's not a hypothetical; they are actually uttering those words. It's a statement of fact.

STOP

Both of you need to cool down and STOP the revert war. You are both violating many rules (WP:3R, etc.) and pissing me off by having to look at all these damn edits on my watchlist. I vote that we do not include a comparison to the beta/vhs with porn. --Ray andrew 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting a Beta/VHS comparison. The paragraph in question is specifically about Bluray/HD-DVD and the impact a major adult studio (like playboy) would have if they chose one format over the other. I vote in favor of leaving it there, albeit rewriting it so it's easier to read. Theaveng 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ray andrew. Please stop this argument!--w_tanoto 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

I think the paragraph about what would happen if (hypothetically) a company like playboy took a side constitutes original research. I make this claim because all references just point to the size of the industry, and none make the claim that they would not have an effect. --Ray andrew 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The relative size of porn to other industries is relevant, because various media are reporting that "porn will decide who wins the format war". By showing how teeny-tiny porn is compared to other industries, the statement is debunked as nonsense. (Certainly porn will have *some* impact, just as a butterfly beating its wings can affect the weather, but that impact is so small as to be trivial.) - Theaveng 08:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You making that link though is original research, ie., porn is small and thus could not affect the format war. Find a source that makes that claim, or its original research. --Ray andrew 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


I didn't do the research. The author working for Forbes was the one who did the research and reached the conclusion that the adult industry is too small to effect the outcome of a format war. - Theaveng 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you can give me the quote where the author makes the conclusion that they would not have any effect on the format war? ;) You cant because the author makes no such conclusion. All that is discussed is the size, assuming that the size of the market is the only factor in determining the effect on a format war was your assumption. Thus the claim is original research. --Ray andrew 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:NOR puts it this way: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." See WP:SYN Barte 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"What pornography lacks in cultural resonance, it also lacks in financial clout," says the Forbes writer. An industry lacking clout is NOT going to determine the next HD disc winner. To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson: It is "self-evident"... as self-evident as the color of grass is green. (Or do I need a reference for that too?) - Theaveng 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think you've made a inferential leap not supported by the Forbes piece and inconsistent with WP:NOR guidelines. The Forbes article states that one researcher believes that the industry accounts for no more than 10% of total CD sales and rentals. But the article doesn't estimate what proportion - or influence - those customers will have in the early adopter market. Will they adopt earlier than the general audience? Will they serve as a tipping point toward one format or the other? In this column, Forbes doesn't go there and either should we. Barte 07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Unecessary Comment

Quote: "Even with the 6 month hiatus of FOX and MGM however, Blu-Ray has still managed to release more movies in 2007 so far than HD DVD." I think this is unecessary and not neutral. What do you think?--w_tanoto 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even if its true its not by much. The real comparison would be whats happened since they stopped releasing. --Ray andrew 15:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I think its just as relevent as mgm and fox stopping releasing.. lets remember they are still releasing 29 movies this year for the holidays. that a good amount.. so what if they bunched them up and released them at once. Personally I say remove the 6 month hiatus statement (as some would say thats nitpicking seeing as they are still releaseing alot of movies for the holidays and we prob shouldn't micromanage there release schedule..) the fact is even with the hiatus blu-ray has more movies out in 2007 and that puts the whole thing in context.. if we don't have the hiatus statement.. then we dont need the more movies released statement. It is neutral as it puts the other statement (which convey's the impression that they are not firmly in the blu ray camp and there hiatus somehow is a blow to blu-ray) and shows that it had little efect. readers can draw there own conclusions from those facts. The truth is if they were releasing all along.. well then HD DVD would likely be extremely far behind. personally Id like to see the hiatus statement gone. though we could reword both statments and blend it in together better to account for the tone of the statement. any ideas -Tracer9999 16:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The hiatus statement should stay until they actually release titles, as Fox/MGM have on numerous previous occasions not made good on their announcements. For the statement that more titles were released this year on blu-ray, not that I don't believe it, but I don't think its relevant to Fox/MGM situation, as Blu-ray got a later start and had to "catch up" no matter what. Sony worked its ass off releasing titles like crazy this year, I doubt they would have done as much if they were more comfortably in the lead with the help of Fox/MGM. --Ray andrew 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Raw transfer rate

What's this raw transfer rate in the comparison table? Including error correction data? If so, at what level? 88.154.247.49 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, it is the minimum rate that a player should be able to read information off the disc into the buffer. The reason its higher then the Audio+Video mux rate is so the player can recover from read errors without any interruption in playback. --Ray andrew 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

European Sales figure HD DVD/BD

I'd like to add the following to section of disc and player sales figure(applies to EU only):

HD DVD claimed 70% of stand-alone players (excluding PlayStation 3) - Gfk Figure
Blu-ray has 94% of hi-def players (including 1.3 million PS3 sold)
Blu-ray claimed 70% of software/title sales across the Europe (650,000 titles vs 332,000) - Gfk Figure
The attach rate of HD DVD disc is four per player
The attach rate of Blu-ray disc is half disc per player (Graffeo claims that European GfK data suggests that only one Blu-ray movie is sold for every two Sony PlayStation3 consoles)
http://www.current.com.au/2007/09/05/article/QDCYXBFYPL.html
please comment on any changes I should make on this--w_tanoto 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good except for the following:

  • Blu-ray has 94% of hi-def players (including 1.3 million PS3 sold)

The authors of the article seem to be neglecting the sales of the Xbox 360's HD DVD drive in the computation of this number, thus I don't think we can include it as it is not a fair comparison. --Ray andrew 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I thought the same, and I'll exclude the above (94% BD+PS3). About the attach rate, I might have to include that the attach rate is including PS3 machine, so what Graffeo said makes sense, or I think it is best to leave the attach rate alone. Let me know. --w_tanoto 05:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bit unclear whether or not to include the PS3 in sales figures. I'd say most of the people who buy PS3s aren't buying for its Blu-ray capabilities. I wouldn't make sense not to include the HD-DVD attachment for the Xbox though, because the only reason they would buy the attachment would be for it to be used as an HD-DVD player. 24.65.100.152 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese sales number

I think the Japanese market is important as it is the birthplace of both formats. I'll try to find more reliable neutral source.

BD has 90%+ share in Japan for disc and player

http://www.google.co.id/search?q=blu-ray+japan+90%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.n4g.com/News-64661.aspx--w_tanoto 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The japanese numbers would be more reliable if we could find a source other then the BDA. Also the Japanese market is a bet special, as they had had blu-ray STB burners (for recording HDTV) before any the actual ROM movie format launched. None of these early STB burners play BD-ROM movies, just the discs that they burned, as far as I know. So wee need to know if they are counted.--Ray andrew 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the news from January 2007 (I read katakana and hiragana, but can't read kanji. you might need a help from web translator):

http://bcnranking.jp/news/0701/070117_6575.html

It said Blu-ray has the lead of 94.7% for both Player and Disc As of March 2007, a new figure has been released (94.8%), but I lost track of the sites I used. I'll try to find it again tomorrow. Meanwhile, the March's 94.8% can be found at Japanese wikipedia. I could not find the most recent figure. These figure is according to BCN stats (I guess it's approx. Nielsen's equivalent and Gfk's equivalent for Japan).--w_tanoto 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposed entry: According to BCN, Blu-ray has the lead in both player and discs. As of January 2007, the figure was 94.7% for Blu-ray.--w_tanoto 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

51GB HD DVD discs are not in the finalized format yet

per Betanews:

In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD.

As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9.

"We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today.

The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum."

That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format.

The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage."

Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Toshiba_DVD_Forum_Hasnt_Yet_Approved_Final_51_GB_HD_DVD_After_All/1189716943 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.48 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I AGREE with the addition about preliminary approval, not FINAL approval. This is FACT and should be included in this article and HD DVD article. Another fact: http://www.hddvd.com/go.php/triple-layer-51gb-hd-dvd-disc-coming-less-soon/ --w_tanoto 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Major Movie Studio

Firsth thing first, I added Miramax, as it is unlike Touchstone Pictures/Hollywood Pictures, it was independent, while Touchstone/Hollywood are actually a "Walt Disney" brand in disguise for titles released for older audiences. Like Pixar (listed in original table), it was independent.

Second thing: MGM - Sony owns 20% of MGM's stake. This means Sony owned 20% of the company, but there are other owners as well who has larger share than Sony (i think there are two). If you listed it by distribution, not by company, MGM's name will appear under Sony and 20th Century Fox (mostly international, but also US) .So, I'm separating MGM and Sony (actually, I thought I already separated it long time ago).

Third, I'm adding Dimesion Films to the list. Most of its titles are distributed in HD DVD, but some of them are exclusive to BD - according to announced titles of a website.


Question is, is it better to list the studio per company as follows, or per distributor ? This will clarify things a bit.

Blu-ray Disc HD DVD

Sony Pictures

Buena Vista

MGM1

20th Century Fox

Time Warner

Lionsgate

NBC Universal

Paramount

DreamWorks Animation SKG

Time Warner

Weinstein Co.

or

Blu-ray Disc HD DVD

Sony Pictures

Buena Vista

20th Century Fox

  • MGM (International and some US distribution)

Time Warner

Lionsgate

Dimension Films (some titles only)

NBC Universal

Paramount

Time Warner

Weinstein Co.

--w_tanoto 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well were getting into the details here but I think we should be listing support by whether or not a company's current films are released on a format. There would be way to many exceptions if we listed a company just because one of its old films (that is now under different ownership) was released on a format, for instance we would have to list MGM under HD DVD since most of its old catalog is owned by warner --Ray andrew 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
i take it that you choose the first. well, the former position of MGM confused me, as it is under Sony (owner of 20% of MGM), so I thought it is listed by distribution. MGM can be listed under Sony, FOX and warner for BD, and warner for HD DVD. --w_tanoto 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese wikipedia article

I found some interesting information from japanese equivalent of this article, which IMO should be added to the English as well. If anyone managed to do the translation before me, please do so. Otherwise, I'll do it sometime.--w_tanoto 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This table is not complete

Blu-ray Disc Both HD DVD

Promoter

  • Blu-ray Disc Association
  • HD DVD Promotion Group

Electronic

Movie and music suppport

Information Technology

Media

Others


I agree --75.134.104.22 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it sometimes when there is more in the list. I updated the list from the original Japanes wikipedia. Will add some more supporter: China Hualu, and Adobe (recently announced exclusivity to BD http://www.pcretailmag.com/news/28750/Adobe-chooses-Blu-ray-compatibility ) --w_tanoto 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I might change Intel's position. Intel will be neutral. http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6479670 --w_tanoto 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a this is worthy of inclusion in the article, It could be mentioned and linked, but I really don't think it is helpful to have a "phone book" of what companies support what (besides studio support). Now that I think of it there actually already is an article just for members of the BDA, and I suspect there is something similar for the DVD Forum. --Ray andrew 21:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems fit to me for the article. Just make sure to format the article a little bit so it isn't just popped in there. Also check just in case there are some other companies that aren't well known Japan.--Playstationdude 21:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason Why not?? The Japanese (and it is the birthplace of both formats) article has it. There is no dirct comparison between HD DVD and BD in BDA/DVD forum article, isn't it? I will delete some of japan-exclusive (that is unknown in English speaking region).But I propose a new article instead, with a link and very short paragraph in this article. This list is for well-know companies.--w_tanoto 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a new article will be useless, as in Japanese wiki, it's incorporated with this article's equivalent in japanese. but what heading shoud it be under, considering that there is currently a table regarding major studio support--w_tanoto 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it significant enough. What is more significant is that dual format players are going to win the war. Daniel.Cardenas 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical Details -> [a] needs clarification

Playback times are quoted for single sided discs of each size starting with the largest at the stated average bitrate, higher or lower average bitrates would change the available playback time. The numbers represent video only and the choice of audio codec and extra content also affects playback time.

This fails to indicate what the two numbers are in the section. It appears they are dual-layer and single-layer capacities, but the footnote clearly says otherwise. Please correct or clarify. -- Adam Katz 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the revert war.....

could you all please stop the revert war. If you disagree, why don't you put it in the discussion for a vote?--w_tanoto 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Which revert war? Daniel.Cardenas 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
the porn one.--w_tanoto 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote for porn paragraph get deleted:

Aye: because it is irrelevant Daniel.Cardenas 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there is no urban legend. --Ray andrew 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. I don't care, but I want this reverts to this, BD, and HD DVD article to be stopped.--w_tanoto 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The only reason I can think to delete the list of adult studios is because someone feels, "God says we shouldn't look at porn," therefore we're not even allowed to talk about it. Well God should stay out of wiki, just as God stays out of the government (separation of church and state). Porn, no matter how much you might hate it, is a part of life and should be documented (including a list of which studios like Playboy that support HD DVD (or Blu-ray) exclusively). ------ Furthermore the paragraph is accurate. Various reliable sites (like Ars Technica) HAVE said porn will make HD DVD the winner and Blu-ray the loser. - Theaveng 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with God. Has to do with what is relevent information for an encyclopedic article. No, various reliable sites have not said porn will decide. Ars Technica is not a reliable site on the subject matter. They like other sites are just pushing headlines that will attract readers. The more reliable sites publish information that Sony is agnostic about porn and will help that industry along with others. If you search on Ars Technica for HD DVD you will see several dozen articles about the format war before you find something about porn. Shows that it was just a headline at one point to attract readers. Not notable enough for this article. Daniel.Cardenas 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Now see? That was a well-spoken, well-argued paragraph. You make some good points. ----- However, I did a search for HD-DVD and porn, and the second article that popped-up repeated that annoying urban legend about how VHS won because "the adult industry embraced it", and how they think the same will happen with HD-DVD. - Theaveng 14:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And for replication costs revert war, I found this:

I haven't read it fully, and its completely different study, but the cost stated there and here are nearly the same. That is for BD SL compared to HD DVD DL. Mind that I have not read it properly yet.--w_tanoto 18:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disc Cost

You said: "RAY: Although your comments are logical, that constitutes speculation & Original Research & is not allowed on wikipedia. You need to find a 2nd Source to backup your claim." Either the claim needs to go in, or the whole paragraph needs to be removed as it cannot be considered a reliable source if they do not even mention the types of discs being quoted. I'm going to remove the paragraph, but if you change your mind feel free to add it back with the note. --Ray andrew 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Baloney. It's not our job to decide how "reliable" a source it is; only to report what it says. Let the reader decide whether he/she believes what she reads. ----- If it will make you happy, I will add an additional sentence stating it is unclear which discs the magazine was using to compare. - 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Bull, it is the wiki editors job to evaluate the reliability of references. Also, its not unclear, clearly they compared the cheapest of each side ie, single layer. --Ray andrew 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably, but there's no way to know for certain. Thus the paragraph should stand as it is, not filled with random guesses. ----- Also I already asked you to provide a second source, which quotes specific costs from multiple vendors. Why have you not done that? - 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is there is no source for quotes on DL Blu-ray discs, you don't get to know unless you are a serious business and sign a NDA. So we are left with a bunch of speculation, like the blog below. --Ray andrew 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
An NDA? For a quote?!?!? I seriously doubt that. I've received quotes from all kinds of companies for various computer parts & pre-fabricated boards (as part of my job as a Defense Contractor), and never once did I have to sign an NDA. (The only time I had to sign an NDA was when I asked for "proprietary information" such as schematics and program code.) (The price of a commodity does not come anywhere near that level of secrecy.) - Theaveng 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disc replication cost

Theaveng, I noticed your argument regarding disc replication cost. This might be helpful, although it's completely different study.

--w_tanoto 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'll add it to the article. - Theaveng 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it it does not come even close to satisfying WP:V --Ray andrew 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The links provided by Tanoto ARE verifiable; just contact the plants the same way the blogger did. Furthermore, the results from the Blogger AGREE with the results from Home Media Magazine. ----- Don't knock Tanoto's references. At least he's TRYING to find sources. - Theaveng 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be involved in this, as this is not my area. I wanted to help, but can't be bothered to read the whole article. So, I gave it to you. Sorry--w_tanoto 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not angry at you Tanoto. No need to apologize. In fact THANK YOU, because I already added your two weblinks to the article. - Theaveng 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets see how is the authors "source" that says "The per disc cost of BD-ROM DL is approximately 15 cents more than the HD DVD DL cost" verifiable? I agree that the rest is verifiable, but the cost for DL Blu-ray is completely unverifiable, as no replication company (that I know of) quotes prices for these to the public. --Ray andrew 21:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We could delete the double-layer Bluray costs (which you say is unverifiable), and just leave the 15, 25, and 30 gig costs. - Theaveng 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me, along as we are comparing actual costs. --Ray andrew 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be verbiage that indicates that comparing double-layer Bluray discs is impossible because costs are unverifiable in the 'Disc Construction' section. It's a bit misleading and POV to talk about how 'cheap' Bluray discs are to make without addressing DL-Bluray. 69.2.124.11 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple Layer Compatibility

I re-read the article with the help of translator website from Japan. It does not state whether HD DVD TL will work or not, but it does state that double format (either it's HD DVD SL with DVD DL or HD DVD DL with DVD SL) does not work in current players due to BCA. Still not sure, that is why I removed the edit and dispute tag altogether.--w_tanoto 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats why translator websites suck, according to actual translations, all that was said is that they cant have a BCA for all three layers, but as BCA's are totally optional, its a bit of a mute point. --Ray andrew 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are Blogs not allowed for citations??

I tried to search wiki's rules, but did not find anything. Thanks, troy :-) - Theaveng 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" see WP:V --Ray andrew 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The term "largely not acceptable" speaks to a point. A few blogs are written by notable experts in a field. Some are also published by notable print sources--witness the blogs found on the New York Times. I would argue that a blog written by, say, an MIT professor following the HD format issue would be an acceptable resource, while a blog written by me, an interested generalist, would not. But, as with many things Wikipedian, it's all up for discussion. Barte 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The rule you're looking for is WP:SPS: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It does allow limited exceptions. Oren0 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant pages are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The funny thing about blogs are that usually they're repeating something contained in a reliable source (a news magazine/website) and sometimes they have links to the websites that back up their statements. HighDefDigest, for example, usually links to articles in Variety/Home Media Magzine/etc which would be valid citations on Wikipedia (but only if they're reporting news, opinion pieces would be less useful I'd think). —Locke Coletc 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

POV edits and weasel words

It would appear Petertorr (talk · contribs), an employee with Microsoft, has opted to edit on Wikipedia. While I welcome accurate knowledge of either format (remembering that we can't have original research, and that claims must be verifiable and backed up with credible sources), I do not welcome POV pushing which seems to be what some of his edits contain. Specifically, these four edits. I've tagged the page until these are corrected/cited properly, and until weasel words have been removed (or exchanged for more even handed language). —Locke Coletc 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I deleted what I thought were the weasel words and POV edits. If you feel there is still more, please let us know. I untagged the article. Daniel.Cardenas 04:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up and keeping the quality of Wikipedia up. I understand why the Disney comment may be removed (although it can be backed up by public sources, such as http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060313-6374.html). Nevertheless I don't know why the section about interactivity being an important differentiator was deleted. This is clearly articulated in the referenced article as a major reason why (some) studios believe consumers will upgrade from SD to HD (in either format). Peter Torr (MSFT) 08:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In the Video Business article you cite, interactivity is mentioned (by my count, at least) twice, at the end of the piece--one pro, one con. From that foundation of evidence, I'm unclear how you conclude that "interactivity is the major differentiator in the High Definition marketplace -- not just between the two HD formats, but between HD DVD / Blu-ray and standard DVD." I do think your second sentence comes closer to saying what the article infers: "Although some format supporters downplay the importance if [sic] interactivity, others believe it is critical to compete with the 'good enough' audio and video quality of standard DVDs[5]." But if you really want to make a point about interactivity, I think you'd be better off citing a source whose subject is interactivity and so covers this topic in more depth.Barte 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear from reading the rest of the article that the Audio and Video on both formats is roughly equivalent (same codecs; sometimes different bitrates), however BD-J and HDi are different. As for being a differentiator from SD DVD, that is even more evident from the table since it lists DVD as "N/A" (even though that is technically not true; SD DVD has rudimentary interactivity). Perhaps if we add a reference for at least one title in both formats that illustrates special features not found on DVD that would be sufficient? I suggest Transformers for HD DVD (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html) and Dead Man's Chest for BD (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html). Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I still take issue with the following passage:
Nevertheless, capacity is not as important as many people first believed, mainly due to the advanced codecs being used on discs. For example, King Kong is over three hours long, has reference-quality video, near-reference quality audio, includes a picture-in-picture bonus track, and fits everything on a single 30Gb HD DVD disc.
It reaches a conclusion that isn't really supported by the reference given. I suggest excising the entire passage until something objective and neutral can be found to replace it. —Locke Coletc 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I reworded to how capacity is put to use:
An example of how capacity is put to use is King Kong: the film is over three hours long, has reference-quality video, near-reference quality audio, includes a picture-in-picture bonus track, and fits everything on a single 30Gb HD DVD disc[1].
I don't like it much because what does "reference quality video" mean? But I think it is better than previous version. Daniel.Cardenas 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
King Kong scores 5 stars on a 5-star rating system; that means it is as good as it can get. The A/V crowd likes to talk of such content as being "reference quality" -- ie, it can be used as a yardstick against which other things can be judged. The referenced article even says "Nothing less than a five-star, reference-quality presentation will do [...] I can confidently say that at least in terms of the video, 'Kong' is indeed King" (my emphasis) Peter Torr (MSFT) 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with someone working on the HD DVD team in microsft editing blu ray articles.. I mean when your make a living off a competitor.. there is an inherint conflict of interest -Tracer9999 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, Do you make extra money if hd dvd sales sky rocket and blu-ray sinks? Daniel.Cardenas 04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder to resist the ad hominems and keep this a welcoming place. Thanks. Barte 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem. Peter has followed protocol by saying who he is. His entries will receive the same scrutiny and must meet the same standards in terms of sourcing as anyone else.Barte 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
While I distrust MS as much as anyone, I think the danger occurs when people edit without declaring a potential conflict of interests. This article is being watched by enough zealots on both sides for POV edits to stand little chance of survival anyway. --Harumphy 11:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I welcome any feedback on how to contribute better to Wikipedia. As others have noted, my username and my talk page all mention quite clearly who I work for. My edits have typically provided references, and when they haven't they have been (rightfully) removed. Unfortunately, when you work so closely in a particular area you get used to things being taken for granted by others in the industry, so you forget to back them up with sources (and sometimes getting reliable public references is hard -- stupid example, but where do you find a reference that "the sun is yellow", or "ice is cold"?). For the record, I get paid no matter who wins or loses the format war; that's the great thing about working for a company like Microsoft :-) Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
References to notable sources are the key, particularly here on a page attempting to cover a controversy, but increasingly, eveywhere on Wikipedia as well. They are the best answer to the perennial question: "How do you know it's true?" The winner (if there is one) of this format war won't be determined here. It will be reported elsewhere and reflected here, along with the appropriate attributions.Barte 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Tracer, I don't believe my comments are overly important but:
  1. I don't understand what you mean by "...when your make a living off a competitor..". Where you assuming Peter gets paid money based on HD DVD sales?
  2. "there is an inherint conflict of interest". Is the conflict of interest worse than someone who has purchased an HD DVD system and wants to enthusiastically support it, ie fanboy? On the plus side this type of person may have special insights into the subject matter.
Just my two cents. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas 00:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


differentiator

If we talk to ten people who have some knowledge about the subject, what percent do you think will mention interactivity? People will mention things like: price, movie availability, general popularity (what their neighbors have and what is at blockbuster), etc... Those are the important differentiators. I'd be really surprised if anyone mentions interactivity. The vast majority of people want to sit back relax and enjoy a movie, not interact with it. That's my opinion. Daniel.Cardenas 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing--it's all opinion unless a notable source says it. Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source, relying on verifiable secondary sources for its content. So if, say, the Wall Street Journal (a secondary source) interviews five industry analysts (primary sources) who have concluded that interactivity (or price, movie availability, et.al.) is the most important differentiator between formats, then the article here can make that claim. Otherwise, it's just synthesis. Barte 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Now he wants everything on the comparisons page rather then in the articles..hmm could it be because just about every comparison is in Blu-rays favor? from 2 to 1 sales of blu ray to storage capacity, to amount of released tiles..and so on and son. yep lets bury it on another page so people have to click around.. well at least till/if HD DVD catches up then well hear.. ya know.. on second thought it should be on the main article pages after all.. keep the comparison sections on the individual format pages. easier to find.. most people are lazy and don't want to click article to article.. -Tracer9999 23:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not worried about which format any given comparison favours; I am worried about (i) keeping the pages readable, and (ii) keeping them both up-to-date. Things are changing fast and having to edit three (different) pages every time something happens is a pain. Please try and keep the discussion to the thread (below). Thanks. Peter Torr (MSFT) 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Making better use of this page

In an effort to reduce clutter and avoid double- (or triple-) maintenance issues, I would like to suggest moving all (or most) comparison statements from the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc pages to the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats page. The BD and HD pages would be modified to remove any superfluous comparison, instead having a link to the comparison article for more information (with any unique information being ported over at the same time). This avoids duplication and keeps the format-specific pages focused on that format. Do others believe this is a good idea? I would be happy to do it myself (as time permits), but it may be better if someone else with less perceived bias did it. I was considering cross-posting this to the HD and BD talk page as well (to get everyone involved), but I don't know if that counts as spam or not. Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good idea, but I wouldn't post it to the other talk pages yet as having discussions about the same thing on 3 pages is an even larger pain in the ass. --Ray andrew 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So make a note stating that discussion should take place on this page and only this page. If anyone posts a comment on one of the other pages, simply move it here and leave a note on the affected users talk page (linking them here again).
As to the idea itself, I'm not sure. I know there's some overlap in coverage amongst these articles, but I think that's inevitable (it's nearly impossible to discuss one without at least mentioning the other). Obviously if the comparison sections in both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc could be trimmed down to the minimum possible with the helpful See also note at the top pointing here, then that'd be about as good as we can expect it to get. Much more than that and I think we'd be doing people a disservice by omitting information that may be relevant. —Locke Coletc 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes Locke, that was my thought (just post a "go see the discussion over here" message to the other boards). And agreed that some stuff should stay in the articles. I'll post the pointers on the other pages, and if there are no strong objections after ~week (and if I have some spare time! :-) ) I will look into it Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I disagree. the comparison info is very important to the article.. people generally want as much info in their article without having to jump from page to page.. they want to just look up blu ray or hd dvd.. see what it is and how its different, where it is in the format war. I think it should be a major part of the individual articles.. not to mention it will get updated more as a part of the articles rather then some other page that people are too lazy to click on. -Tracer9999 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) (moved here from Talk:Blu-ray DiscKsero 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) )

I think the idea of cutting down on information duplication is good, but I don't think we should move everything to the Comparison of... article. How about making a template for the comparison sections in HD DVD and Blu-ray (ie. so both the comparison sections would just consist of the trancluded template)? I think about two or three paragraphs and the table would suffice. — Ksero 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Template idea is a good one... now I just have to figure out how to do it (and find some spare time...) Peter Torr (MSFT) 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Street Prices

I have a suggestion, I believe we should not have street prices in the comparison article for several reasons. 1) as linking to a sales location and item is basically advertising for that company. 2)alot of these comparisons are amazon. They update there prices sometimes four or 5 times a day..and the difference can be sometimes as much as $80-100. I know this because I have most brands in my shopping cart and see the updated prices 3) some of the smaller electronics companies have very low sales prices.. however, they either charge a huge delivery charge, sell grey market items, sell items without included accessories, sell items at very low prices but call you to "verify" your order then try to upsell you to a warrenty, the accessories they didn't include or other higher priced items and if you don't buy tell you.. ooops they don't have it in stock after all. thats not a "real" price. not to mention attempting to keep up on these can be daunting. I think we should just state the MSRP in the article and state that street prices may be found for less. and update the MSRP as the manufacturer does. We really should not be a "pricing engine" for the product.. blu ray or HD DVD. as a last resort we should list "one reputable pricing engine for all products' so people are not looking for the lowest price they can find even if a whitebox or not a real price just to make there prefered format look good.. plus with holiday blowout sales coming up.. theres going to be some very low "street prices" that are really not that available to the public and are nothing but marketing ploys. what does everyone think? -Tracer9999 18:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree (especially wrt specials) since prices will be going bananas in the lead-up to Christmas. A reasonable source may be something like http://www.pricegrabber.com, since it includes shipping and a rating system. I think it would be more interesting (from a historical / reference perspective) to see the price changing over time; sure you can do that by looking at edit histories, but it won't be easy. I think capturing that would be useful (perhaps in the talk section). Five years from now nobody will care about the day-to-day pricing, but they may care that (eg) the $98 Wal-Mart HD DVD player or the $399 PlayStation 3 effectively finished the war. Peter Torr (MSFT) 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you think of best buy and Walmart selling the HD DVD player for $99? Its plastered over various tech and deal news sites. Daniel.Cardenas 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its awesome if you can get one.. bestbuy has them for $99 too.. unfortunatly the only store to actually have one is in a little town in vermont. but Ill grab one if I can get it..if you can still get the 5 free movies -Tracer9999 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My local walmart had about 25 and a line of people. the others I called ranged from 5 to a dozen. so it is pretty limited sale. I picked one up..so know that I own an HD DVD player.. I don't want to hear any more blu ray fan boy comments..lol. they came in the regular box so the 5 free movies deal still applies. full 90 day return policy. blu ray next year I guess..-Tracer9999 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand not wanting to give free advertising or link people to a bad business, I think there are still ways we can list street prices without doing either... more later. Congrats Tracer. --Ray andrew 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I will say one thing that doesn't bode well for HD DVD though. As my new A2 is the most inexpensive HD DVD player avail and you would think would be the most popular one out there this year...it was manufactured in January 2007... that means it sat in storage in a wharehouse for 10 months. I never purchased an electronics product that had not been manufactured within the last 1 - 2 months. maybe it has to do with the whole industry and the uptake right now.. who knows.. but I found that rather odd. I tell you one thing.. HD DVD is going to have a field day in CES 2008.. I can see it now. dear audience.. In Q4 of 2007 ALONE we sold XXXXXX amount of HD DVD players... this proves by far that HD DVD is way more popular and will be the winner. CES is gonna be a blast this year I think from both sides..-Tracer9999 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea it looks like they intentionally mad more then they could sell (at the old price), and have been stockpiling them all year... But back to the topic:
We could pick some place as a reference for street price (like amazon), and just post the prices they have without giving a link. Its still verifiable, since one just needs to do a search on amazon, and we are not providing any free advertising. What does everyone think? --Ray andrew 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey ray. that would be great but unfortunatly amazons constantly changes thier price. I mean just today the a2 was 197 then 104 for an hour back up to 229 then back down to 197. other times they only go up like 10 cents..then down 3cents.. they are all over the place..part of the reason I think is when they sell out they just use another supplier and go to there price. wierd company... but amazon IS at least not tiny shady outfit. too bad there was not some kind of amazon price auto update bot... -Tracer9999 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think today is a bit of an exception, usually the prices are a lot more stable.... --Ray andrew 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to discuss this further. The original poster brings up some great points and I think that posting prices and links adds a slight POV as you have to assume legitimacy to the e-tailer. For instance, there's many sites out which advertise players, PS3s, and XBoxs at a hugely below cost price. Do we list those prices based upon an unbiased good faith in the e-tailer? I think that we would be best to eliminate the street listings as it's not encyclopedic.209.183.34.49 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, leave them in. Most of the prices are fairly stable. If any particular street price looks iffy, by all means question it, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Or, if the problem relates mainly to games console stuff rather than standalones, lose just those. --Harumphy (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
But street prices aren't stable. They're getting updated every week and the price varies wildly from retailer to retailer. I don't see street prices in other wikis discussing popular products. And I think there's good reason for that. I see the street price section as something that only exists so fans of one side or the other can search out for deals and try and act as a wedge against the others. I don't think that helps the NPOV or reference quality of the wiki.65.13.151.42 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

MGM/Sony

MGM while only partially owned, is a subsidiary of Sony and is not one of the big six, please see List of film production companies, MGM and Major film studio for further information. Based on this, I have changed the article to reflect this information. Swisspass 10:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

just realised that after watching several MGM/Sony Blu-rays. the list is right, the table in the page is ok, but I think the note should stay to indicate the ownership of MGM (while a subs of Sony, it is also owned by other companies).--w_tanoto 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. yeah the note. I just added the sup, thank you. Swisspass 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

K-mart

I think this part is safe to delete. Toshiba falsely reportedly that K-mart was exclusively supporting HD DVD and K-mart later retorted that they are neutral and carry both PS3 Blu-ray, HD DVD players and movies for both. I don't think a chronological soap opera of this 'War' is necessary in this page. If nobody rebuts then I will remove.--129.230.244.1 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Soap operas aside, I think having some historical context is good. Having said that, if you remove Kmart will you also remove Target and Blockbuster? What about the exclusive studios? It's a slippery slope.Peter Torr (MSFT) 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Problem there is that the details are valuable, because it's not black & white, Blockbuster isn't necessarily exclusively Blu-ray, they still have the initial 250 stores & online & target sells both media. I saw this problem with Walmart too people were jumping the gun saying Wal-mart went HD DVD. Well no that wasn't the case. We don't have a K-mart near us so I don't know if they ever even sold a Blu-ray player to begin with. Toys R Us sells the PS3, but I'm not about to say that they are exclusively Blu-ray. Just because a store doesn't sell the other player doesn't mean they are exclusive.--Kibbled bits 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's a proposed criteria: We should be reporting stated policy and changes to that policy, not rumors that are quickly denied. So if, for example, Warner Bros. were to drop its dual-format policy, that history should be recorded here. Whereas, with K-Mart, the policy of supporting both formats appears unchanged (and thus not worth noting)--only the initial reports appear to have been wrong. (As for Blockbuster, my eyes are crossed.) Barte 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, I agree with this. Many of these websites do not confirm their information from two or more sources and information can escalate for days before it's brought to the ground.--Kibbled bits 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case you need to remove Blockbuster, since they did not change their stance either. They are not "exclusively" Blu-ray (although some press releases tried to spin it that way); instead they simply decided to start stocking BD in more stores than HD DVD. This is just like Kmart in that they are stocking one format in stores that previously had neither format, but they are not officially endorsing or exclusively backing either one (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6452855.html). So, are we going to kill Kmart and Blockbuster, or are we going to keep both? Peter Torr (MSFT) 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed and rewritten the K-mart paragraph citing the press statement--just giving the retailer's statement of policy without the Toshiba mention. See what you think. Looking at the Blockbuster paragraph, it seems a clear statement of policy as Peter has described above.Barte
I disagree, it's important to note that they are only carrying HD DVD standalone players. That is newsworthy information. Swisspass 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"They" = Kmart? Source, please. Barte 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kmart. Visit http://www.cnbc.com/id/21598441 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisspass (talkcontribs) 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Someone reverted your original, objecting that the source is a blog. But the blogger is a CNBC reporter--I think that's credible enough. I rewrote the entry, though--boiling it down to the basic facts Barte 20:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And it's borne out by Kmart's web site, which lists two Toshiba HD DVD players and the PS3 only. --Harumphy 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

99 dollar HD DVD player

[[10]] JayKeaton 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult studio support

This sentence:

HD DVD is exclusively backed by several adult-movie studios/publishers[citation needed], including Wicked Pictures, Pink Visual, Bang Bros, Digital Playground Inc. and ClubJenna Inc. (which on 22 June 2006 was acquired by Playboy Enterprises).[citation needed] Vivid Entertainment supports both formats.[citation needed]

has been {fact} tagged since October. Can we agree on an expiration date? How about another month? Barte 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think its good to go now considering some of them don't even sell HD DVD's... -Tracer9999 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It could use some revision and a source but its relevant information, that deserves to stay. Not that it's a great reference, but here is the master adult hd dvd release list at AVS Forum. --Ray andrew 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

unfortunatly none of the reference is about exclusivity..how long should we keep up unreferenced info of which some of the companies don't even sell HD DVD's.. Ive looked for links about exclusivity before on this and to no avail..-Tracer9999 01:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons: "The company will not allow its disc replicating subsidiary, Sony DADC, to handle adult film titles, it said this week. "-- [11] Also states "Still, several other adult film companies interviewed said the industry as a whole plans to use HD DVD, because of the problems of working with Blu-ray Disc. Wicked Pictures chose HD DVD for the first ever high-definition adult film released this month at the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. Several other companies plan to release high definition movies this year, including Digital Playground, which is releasing its first HD DVD title this week." --Ray andrew 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reference is a bit dated--1/07--and does nothing to back up the exclusivity claim of the paragraph (although it does support the dual-support of Vivid). This is not "relevant information" if it is untrue, and a without a better source, we can't assume otherwise. Barte 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As we all agree that the section needs a better source, I've rewritten the section based on a more recent one--October 2007--which is nine months later than what it replaced. I would argue that a shorter, but solid section is better than a {fact} tagged one and suggest we build from there--although there does not seem to be much recent reporting on the topic. Probably because, at the source notes, comparatively few adult titles have yet been released in either format. In fact, that itself may be the trend. I noticed, for example that Criterion is sitting on the fence in terms of HD releases, saying it wants the format war to be resolved before it commits. I'd like to add that to the article, but not sure where it fits. Barte 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Good job! :-) Daniel.Cardenas 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criterion collection

Unclear why the Criterion Collection mention is not notable for this article. The company produces DVDs and has an influential customer base. It is sitting on the fence in terms of HD support because, it says, of the format war. Why isn't that relevant? Barte 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be relevant to a section of the title "Negative impact of the format war" :)... --Ray andrew 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
There's something to that, actually. Barte 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of 100 paragraphs about DVD publishers that don't publish in high def format. Daniel.Cardenas 04:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<waving white flag> Barte 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move Total HD section?

Should the Total HD and multiple format "super discs" be made (with some copy editing) a subsection of Major studio support? Barte 16:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

since they have been delayed indefinatly. Im not sure they are even relevant to the article anymore until something changes. unless its staing something like.. "although there once was a TOTAL HD disc planned, it has since been delayed indefinatly due to a lack of multiple format content providers." -Tracer9999 17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved and trimmed the section. Not sure I've got this right, though: is Warner Bros. "the only major studio in both camps"? Barte 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

MGM drops 5 out of 6 Blu-ray titles

I attempted to add what I think is an interesting report:

During October and November 2007, MGM abandoned plans to release five titles on Blu-ray, leaving just one for the rest of the year.[5]

Tracer9999 has reverted that contribution twice. Rather than getting into a silly revert war, what does anyone else think about this entry? --Harumphy 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

release schedules get changed for a number of reasons.. whats silly is putting it into corporate support. -Tracer9999 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is that silly? Where should it go? --Harumphy 23:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

honestly I don't think it should go anywhere.. there not cancelled its a schedule change.. it goes were it belongs in the total number of released blu ray films..its factored in.. when mgm says they have switched sides.. then we should mention that.. but because they delay a few movies with only a month and a half left in the year anyway..not to mention the fact is..blu ray is outselling 2 to 1 on titles anyway so it really doesn't make that much difference in the big scheme of things...its not even worth mentioning -Tracer9999 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

also.. If you look at the movies they are delaying.. 3 are from the 60's and 70's and the other is reddawn..what was that 80's? they are mere catalog releases.. films that were not filmed in HD.. transferring these to "HD" isn't going to do much more then piss people off that they paid HD DVD prices for DVD filmed at VHS equivilents on old equipment and made HD size..the only "real" delay is ronin and even that is 9 years old. I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of "support". -Tracer9999 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno--I thought it was interesting info, at least as interesting as new player models and nuances over street prices. The only thing I'm unclear on is where this story came from and how broadly it has been picked up--both signs of notability. Presumably, Hi-Def Digest digests from other sources. But what's the source? Google News doesn't pull up anything obvious Barte 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It does bring into question whether MGM should even be listed as a major supporter, so far this year they have only released 3 titles, and with these delays they will only be releasing one more this year for a grand total of 4 titles for the whole year. Plenty of studios that are not listed have put out more titles then that. --Ray andrew 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but have those studios released titles with those kinds of box office figures (adjusted for inflation)? Doubtful. At any rate, I don't see what's relevant about MGM delaying a handful of titles, and as to their year-total releases, being owned/controlled by Fox, it's kind of obvious isn't it? They were waiting for BD+ like Fox was (Fox was also largely absent this year). —Locke Coletc 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets see... Rescue Dawn $5.5M Gross (Budget $10M), Mr. Brooks $29.9 Gross, RoboCop $53.4 Gross, Hoosiers $28.6 Gross. PS: they are not owned by fox, they are owned (partialy) by sony and distributed by fox. --Ray andrew 05:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I had read 'delayed' as a euphemism for 'abandoned'. If it really is only a delay then I would agree it's less significant. One other point - although film stocks have improved over the years, most things shot decades ago on 35mm will have ample resolution to benefit from HD - especially if the negatives are re-scanned at 4k. One rule of thumb (albeit a simplification) is that 35mm is equivalent to HD, and 16mm is equivalent to SD. --Harumphy 08:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
According to this (first delay news) - my take is they just simply delay it: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/MGM/Street_Date_Delays/MGM_Bumps_Battle_of_Britain,_Bridge_Too_Far_Blu-ray_Releases/1141
Though MGM has not yet announced new dates for either title, the studio did tell us that 'Battle of Britain' and 'Bridge Too Far' are now expected to arrive "sometime around Father's Day 2008," likely as a part of a holiday-themed promotion..
Now, weinstein is completely different, and I think this instead should be given a note. They went missing from 5 months ago. They refused to comment. Here's the link: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Weinstein_Co./HD_DVD_Backer_Weinstein_Goes_MIA_Speculation_Mounts/1105 --w_tanoto 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sony CEO

I hadn't noticed the nicely placed blurb about the CEO of Sony's comments lately.. I wonder, would it have been okay with everyone here if I'd added a nice blurb at the top about the $150,000,000 payoff Paramount/Dreamworks received to support HD DVD? I doubt it. Let's try and keep this article from degenerating into a doom and gloom article on either format and instead try to keep it as neutral and objective as it can be. The page isn't a forum, you don't get to inject opinion and pass it off as fact: find a source that supports what you think should be said (and the source should, in fact, say it, if at all possible) and then add in the information. But don't just toss crap in there because you think it's relevant. An encyclopedia is a collection of pre-existing human knowledge: it is not a place for original research or skewed points of view. Can we try and remember that? —Locke Coletc 02:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about placement in the article--it's too high and prominent. And given that this article about comparing HD formats, the Sony statement may or may not be relevant here. But your characterization of the point itself as "crap" and OR is overstated. Stringer's "stalemate" comment is documented in this AP story. And that this is a retreat from the BDA's 's earlier position is noted by Thomas Ricker, Engadget senior contributing editor, here Barte 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The OR I was referring to was the first sentence of the section I removed (the one stating that the format war had held back adoption, amongst other things). In so far as Stringer's comments goes, I don't see the relationship between the BDA and Sony that the section was trying to make. If someone from the BDA had said this were a stalemate I might see the point, but Sony is not the BDA. There is no reversal on the part of the BDA that I am aware of, and certainly such claims should be well sourced. —Locke Coletc 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article needs a content/background section, and that Stringer's "stalemate" comment--even if just confined to the AP report--is a good candidate for inclusion, given his prominence here. (It was Ricker who juxtaposed the quote with earlier BDA statements and who called Stringer the BDA's "figure-head" Do figureheads speak on behalf of the organizations they figuratively head?) As for the contention that the format war has held up adoption, that's easy to back up. For example, from an August '07 NYT story: "Retailers would also like [consumers] to buy a new high-definition DVD player that makes movies on an HDTV especially vibrant — though the format war between companies making Blu-ray and HD DVD players has stymied sales, said James L. McQuivey, principal analyst at Forrester Research."
I agree its placement was poor but its notable information that is extremely relevant to this article, thus it belongs in here somewhere. PS try to keep your own contributions up to those standards and stop adding the junk pricing numbers from eproduct wars. --Ray andrew 06:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Poor doesn't begin to describe the placement nor the "context"-- it was flat out bias. As for the eProductWars "junk pricing", I'm sorry, but I was trying to put some objectivity into the slanted view presented (basically that BD titles cost more than HD DVD titles, when in fact the opposite is generally more accurate). It's ironic that eProductWars is mentioned elsewhere in the article, but in this context it's "junk". Also, I'd hardly call the site linked to for price information the most reliable of sources; it appears to be some random page on the internet that's no more reliable than eProductWars. —Locke Coletc 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The eProductWars site is a joke. It attempts to auto-analyse Amazon data, which frequently categorises discs as being BD or HD DVD when they aren't. Last time I checked, the data from Amazon UK was months out of date. It's OK to mention that eProductWars exists (possibly with a health warning) but I don't think we should use it as a source. The site that shows BD 5% higher does at least tabulate its data in a way that makes it verifiable. If you believe that HD DVD is more expensive, all you need to do is find a credible source that supports that. --Harumphy 10:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of the auto analysis being inaccurate until your comment here. Are you absolutely certain it's inaccurate? I've checked the site every so often and never seen a title miscategorized as you describe. Considering the only proposed use for this source is to determine actual average retail prices, I don't see the problem here. —Locke Coletc 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Chill out, yes eproduct wars is mentioned once in the article, but its with the disclaimer that what they do has no correlation to actual sales. :) --Ray andrew 13:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine, that may be true, but the retail pricing information would seem to be accurate. —Locke Coletc 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
NO they would be verifiable wrong just look at the wild swings it makes, right now it stands at Blu: 22.20, HD: 41.00. [removed] notice that $41 is considerably higher then the average MSRP of an HD DVD title, and we all know Amazon.com sells for less then MSRP all the time. Now try adding up the price for the top 10 HD DVD's as the list them, guess what price you get $410. --Ray andrew 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Has the $150 million ever been confirmed? Serious question. Everything seems to be based on the anonymous tip-off to the NYT or other statements about incentives but without a dollar figure. With the big push for verifiability, I think we should make this transparently clear or else provide a concrete reference. The cited reference (the Viacom press release) certainly doesn't mention the money. Peter Torr (MSFT) 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times is about as reputable/reliable a source as you're going to get. As for the current citation (the Viacom press release), I have no idea when that was changed: I recall it linked to the NY times article, and I suspect someone changed it to the Viacom press release at some point since then (which is unfortunate; as far as I'm concerned, the more citations the merrier; put two or three refs if you have them, that way if one goes stale the others may still be available). At any rate, you may find the appropriate ref in the Blu-ray Disc article (or at worst, in the article history here). If it hasn't been placed in the article by tomorrow afternoon, I'll go find it and put it in myself.. —Locke Coletc 05:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the $150m reference while Locke Cole was commenting here, as the current citation doesn't back up the number. The clause is welcome back, as far as I'm concerned, when we have a source that confirms it. I can't actually recall reading anything definitive, but will check out the NYT. btw, the Viacom release uses the phrase "market-ready technology" in relation to HD DVD, with no further elaboration. I have no idea what that means. Barte 05:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Found the NYT reference--it sites two unnamed Viacom execs. That's good enough for me, too. I'm adding it back in with a footnote.Barte 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't Sony done worse with their format? I can't find the sources... I vaguely recall something in Popular Mechanics or Maximum PC or something, but I'm pretty sure Sony has done some pretty nasty "buyouts" themselves. (24.98.235.224 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Regarding statements about the average price of HD releases

I think all those statements should be removed from the article, since those statistics are misleading. For example, television show seasons are generally released in boxes with multiple HD discs, at higher cost. If one format has more support in the television industry, more TV show HD releases can be expected for that format, driving up the average cost. Also, those listings don't take into account how many items were sold. I could drive up the price of the average HD DVD release personally if I released some very exclusive $1 000 000 discs (even if I never sold one disc).

Eproductwars is misleading for the same reason. In addition, it only looks at amazon.com. There could be differences in habits between online shoppers and those who go to video stores.

Finally, I think that www.hddvdstats.com and it's blu-ray counterpart are self-published primary sources. Concluding that "Blu-ray titles cost 5% more than HD DVD on average" is a synthetic claim and original research. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 11:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There are several 'sectors' - major Hollywood studios, minor ditto, foreign film companies, TV companies, music companies, porn etc. An average applies to everything that's in the lists. Both formats gets treated the same way, and we've been offered no evidence that one format has more boxed sets than the other.
www.hddvdstats.com and its Blu-ray counterpart are personal web sites by an individual who has collected and tabulated data in a completely open and transparent way. He appears to have no connection with the industry, so it is not a primary source at all. On the contrary, it looks as credible a secondary source as we are ever likely to find. Citing his two average figures is not original research, and observing that one of them is 5% more than the other isn't either. --Harumphy 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Eproduct wars is clearly misleading, as it only averages the price of the top 10 titles for each format. But the HD/BD stats sites seem fine to me, they are a verifiable secondary source. Perhaps the correct conclusion should have been "the average suggested retail of Blu-ray titles in 5% higher then HD DVD titles" --Ray andrew 13:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You say eProductWars is misleading without providing any proof. How do you know it only averages the price of the top 10 titles? I disagree with your assertion that the HD/BD stats sites are verifiable secondary source(s). I think it's important in any discussion of MSRP that a discussion of actual retail prices also be available. As you seem unable (or unwilling) to let discussion of actual retail prices stand, and given the fact that you think the source for that information (which is just as credible, if not more so, than the stats sites), I think it's only fair that we excise the entire discussion until such time as a credible/reliable source is found for said discussion.
Also, please stop going against consensus and re-adding that passage back in. There is no consensus for adding that back in at this time (and before you say it: no, it doesn't really matter if you disagree here; clearly from this discussion here there's at least two editors who disagree with your interpretation of things). —Locke Coletc 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't notice this above, I will repost.... "NO they would be verifiable wrong just look at the wild swings it makes, right now it stands at Blu: 22.20, HD: 41.00. [removed] notice that $41 is considerably higher then the average MSRP of an HD DVD title, and we all know Amazon.com sells for less then MSRP all the time. Now try adding up the price for the top 10 HD DVD's as the list them, guess what price you get $410."
While we are at it can you explain in any more detail why you think the "stat site" is not verifiable? They clearly tabulate all their information in an easy to verify manor, I don't see how it could be more verifiable??? Further I am fine with actual retail price but, if we can find a good source.--Ray andrew 02:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ray, so long as you remain incivil I will cease responding to all comments from/by you. I'll leave it at no consensus, and if you find an alternate source (a more reliable source), feel free to roll the dice and add it back in. But I am done communicating with you while you go the personal attack route. Good luck with that. —Locke Coletc 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that was rude of me but from my perspective you are pushing a pov that is not backed by the facts. --Ray andrew 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pushing any POV by removing the passage until something more reliable than the HD/BD stats page is found. —Locke Coletc 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me but were you not trying to add the bogus claims about the average retail price? Only after they were disputed (by others besides me) did you decide we should just remove everything. Try giving direct answers to my questions above. --Ray andrew 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
They're not "bogus claims". Unfortunately the eProduct Wars cite is all I can find at the moment, but it's easy enough to go and see the prices at Amazon (for example) and note that BD is either equal to or cheaper than HD DVD. Very rarely is BD more expensive (Fox titles) and that's usually offset by the increased combo disc pricing from Warner and Universal. At any rate, I agree with Ksero's comments at the top of this section: the BD/HD stats page isn't a reliable source. I'm sure there are other sources out there that discuss the pricing differences (if any) between HD and BD, we just need to find them. —Locke Coletc 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ksero doesn't say that the BD/HD stats page are unreliable - he says they're self-published primary sources. I've already responded above, and in any case either accusation could equally well be made against eProductWars. You say that there's no consensus, but you are the only one challenging BD/HD's reliability, and you're the only one defending eProductWars reliability. So there is a consensus, it's just that you're not part of it yet. :-) --Harumphy 11:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly he is ignoring the evidence that eproduct wars numbers are completely wrong (sorry but there is no way hd dvd costs twice as much on average), but then he is also disputing the easily verifiable BD/HD stat sites claim for average msrp. Quite frustrating. --Ray andrew 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
eProductWars is no longer an issue. Move along. —Locke Coletc 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Self published sources are unreliable sources. You'll note I've not added eProductWars since the issue of inaccuracy was brought up (and clarified). Now we're down to deciding whether another site with even less reliability is a valid source, and I still say no. —Locke Coletc 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Also note that the HD/BD stats site is used extensively in the Blu-ray article to back up the number of titles with lossless, etc... ---Ray andrew 14:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypotheticals aside, the number of titles they list that cost over $50 for blu-ray is 19, for hd dvd is 18 (and there is a similar distribution in this range). So thats not throwing off any average. The only things that are really weighting either side down is Fox's $40 msrp and hd dvd combos at $35-$40. I think the difference in suggested retail is negligible, but still the averages them selves are worthy of mention as to substantiate the claim that hi def media is more expensive then dvd. --Ray andrew 14:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the japan only players

While I understand that wikipedia is an international website, I cant help but notice how these "japan only" players are taking over both lists. Should we perhaps make a separate section for BD/HD recorders (as all of these happen to be)? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Ray andrew 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

japan only should be put it separate section. as this is english wikipedia, it should covers all from english-speaking countries. but i think if it covers more than english-speaking countries, then it is best to put it in separate section--w_tanoto 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it should stay as it's an important part of the history. BD has been in Japan for many years as a recordable format, and the "player" market in Japan is skewed far more towards "player / recorder" combos than the US (I don't have a reference, but this is the talk section :-) ). BD dominates this market right now which may end up having an effect globally. Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
it should stay, but in my opinion, should be separated (in separate table, or whatever)--w_tanoto 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that (a) the Japan-only players are likely to be of relatively minor interest to English-speaking readers, (b) the article is quite long, and (c) these players are not especially significant in relation to a comparison between the formats, I think we could just mention that these player/recorders exist without listing them all. --Harumphy 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Relative sales table

Locke Cole reverted [12] the improvements of other authors on the table for relative sales with the edit summary "rv, table now contains original research and is actually, yes, inaccurate". I dont think that is the case, what do you all think? --Ray andrew 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: it appears the table as modified contains aggregate data, and not individual title data. I think in a comparison article it's more valuable to have the actual top ten list (by format, not aggregate) than to have the aggregate data. At the very least the modified table needs to state that this is aggregated across both formats (though I strongly object to only including the aggregate data; I think the top ten (by format) is mandatory in this type of discussion. —Locke Coletc 06:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Both the old and the new tables were based on one of the four tables published each week in Home Media Magazine, but expanded by incorporating data (where available) from some of the other three tables. If this counts as original research, the new table is no worse than the old. IMHO the new table is better because it shows on a single line the ratio of sales between the two formats for a title published on both, which is surely what a comparison article is all about. I don't think the new table is in any way inaccurate or misleading. --Harumphy 11:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It's misleading because the ordering is based on aggregate sales, yet you've so far insisted on not allowing that fact to be stated in the table itself. The actual rankings are different from the aggregate rankings. In order to show the actual comparative rankings, I've added a second table including just that.
On a side note, how did you determine the sales info for the Planet Earth series? I'm sure there's some mathematical means of deriving it from the individual formats top seller lists, but I was just curious what method you used. —Locke Coletc 01:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed your second table, its all the same information and just makes the article look totally cluttered. --Ray andrew (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll be reverting you shortly: the table I've added is the actual top ten best sellers (not aggregate as is currently being shown). —Locke Coletc 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the sales for each title are broken down by format in the two right-hand columns makes it obvious that it's an aggregate. I suppose we could make it even more obvious by including a third 'total' column. Is that really necessary?
The Planet Earth figures can be derived from two tables, by using index value for the top HD DVD seller ("Transformers", 26.04) to 'weight' the figures in the HD DVD table by multiplying them by (26.04 / 100) so that all the values in our table use the same index value.
Ray Andrew is right. Your table just adds pointless clutter. I've removed it. Please do not put it back unless a consensus to do so has been reached here first. --Harumphy (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on how you determined the index for the additional titles. I still strongly disagree with presenting the data this way, as I think it introduces POV by only presenting the aggregate data (when the actual top sellers list is far different). I honestly don't see the harm in showing both listings as they're both valuable in their own way. —Locke Coletc 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No source given for videoscan pie chart

The videoscan pie chart offers no checkable source. Someone just put "Source: Nielsen VideoScan" in the caption of the pie chart. Why even mention the source if you are not going to provide citation for it? You could just make up any old numbers without an actual source for the average reader to check. JayKeaton (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the same source as mentioned in the body text, but I agree it could be clearer. I'll add the citation next time I update the chart. --Harumphy (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome JayKeaton (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Business Week format story

Is there anything to weave into the article from this Business Week story, which gives the edge to Blu-ray and and speculates (emphasis on the term) that Warner, being heavily wooed by the Blu-ray side, could abandon its agnostic stance. The story is by the magazine's LA bureau chief and a Silicon Valley correspondent. Barte (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It's rubbish. The correspondent is citing a Lionsgate VP saying there's a rumor about Warner. That's all - a rumor from someone with a vested interest in spreading them. --Harumphy (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)