Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Managed Copy

I've reverted a change made stating that managed copy had been approved for Blu-ray. The change summary claimed "hdbeat" had announced it, but so far my searches on hdbeat.com have only turned up this, which indicates it was a posting at the AVSForums that announced the feature being in. I don't think an anonymous forum posting is credible enough for Wikipedia... --Locke Cole 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How about Reuters --Ctachme 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Security section needs a citation?

I noticed that the security section is, in places, almost word for word taken from this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050810-5194.html

Should there be a citation? I'm a n00b and unsure how the process here works. 11/09/2005

No, that's a copyvio and should probably be removed (or at least rewritten). --Locke Cole 03:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cost

Would like to add a reference to this article: "Matsushita lowers production costs for Blu-Ray discs" - http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/100, but was unsure of where to put it. Perhaps we need a section at least discussing what we do know about the cost issue (vs. DVD, HD-DVD, etc.). I know this is not set in stone yet, but is that not the nature of this entire article? --Willy Arnold 5:17, January 09 2006 (EST)

There had been a blurb in the article about the purported "higher cost" of Blu-ray manufacturing over HD DVD manufacturing, but I believe it was removed (by me) for being an obvious bit of POV. We could always add a passage discussing the initial claims that Blu-ray would cost more, and note that Matushita has devised methods to bring manufacturing costs down to the same level as standard DVD. Assuming this is OK with you, and there are no other objections, I'll write something up in a little bit. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I think the mention of higher cost to which you are referring is still in the article--the last sentence of the very first paragraph. Maybe that should be edited/removed as well?--Willy Arnold 12:19, January 10 2006 (EST)

(Addition:Wasnt that bigger cost due to the blu ray caddy? or the toughness coat?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz (talk • contribs) 09:36, March 1, 2006 (UTC)

The caddy might have been a factor with the Japanese units that were sold in Japan for awhile, but I believe the major issue with manufacturing costs was regarding the need for new equipment (HD DVD has, supposedly, an advantage in that duplication plants can use existing DVD equipment (with modifications) to create HD DVD discs). For what it's worth, any sane person knows the "higher cost" excuse is bogus. The reason? See: Economies of scale. The fact is if a duplicator has to pay $1,000,000 USD for equipment but they produce millions of discs, then the cost per disc ($1,000,000 USD ÷ TotalDiscsProduced) will be negligble; pennies per disc over the costs of HD DVD. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Launch Releases

I think the section listing all the launch titles should be moved to it's own article. It seems out of place as is.the1physicist 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It complements the same listing at HD DVD. It'll likely be removed a while after it launches, for what it's worth (and if not, I'd agree with breaking it out to something like List of Blu-ray Disc launch titles (probably should consult the WP:MoS to make sure the naming is right though)). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Page

This page needs to be updated. It contains outdated information and the tenses are also outdated - e.g. "Philips is scheduled to debut a Blu-ray computer drive in the second half of 2005" Saads 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrifying

I find these emerging storage technologies very disturbing. I have collected a vast number of DVDs and the thought of re-buying them all over again is a nightmare I dont want. I know new players must have backward compatibility but how long is that going to last? One of the most common tactics for forcing consumers to adopt technology they dont want is to withdraw support for the alternative. Instead of using the vastly expanded storage to store more standard resolution video, theyre using it to store about the same amount of hisher resolution video. That sets a dangerous precedent of both expansion of storage and parallel expansion of space consumed by the content so we are constantly re-inventing the wheel and running desperately short of space now matter how big things get. I see a future where 800 Terrabyte discs store pitiful 4 hours of 6400x4800 video (HHHHHHDVD) because we...as a species...technologically...cant keep our pants on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz (talk • contribs) 23:51, February 28, 2006 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility will likely last forever. DVD uses MPEG-2 data compression, and both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD mandate MPEG-2 as a required CODEC. Further, both require Dolby Digital and DTS sound formats. Finally, DVD shares nearly identical physical characteristics with Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD. The only issue is providing the extra hardware to read the older formats (and I'd like to think that those will be cheap forever; DVD players are down to like $40 or less at Wal*Mart for example). There's really no reason to drop backwards compatibility. By the way, the HDTV resolutions provided by these new formats really are a lot better than DVD; probably as big an improvement as we had going from VHS to DVD. I don't think we'll see another higher resolution format for quite awhile though.

Oh, and just a quick friendly reminder: Wikipedia isn't a forum. I don't personally have an issue with your comment here, but it's something to keep in mind in case someone else does. =) Happy editing! —Locke Cole • t • c 09:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The hardware to read DVDs is actually mandated by the video spec, since "Blu-ray on DVD" is supported. Mirror Vax 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm half with you on that one, but I think it'll take the Nintendo DS approach, where the next generation of media (be it HVD or whatever) won't support VCD, and then the next generation won't support DVD etc...

Or it could take the jump, like we did from magnetic to optical, we could jump from optical to flash, and then screw everyone. PureLegend 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

PS3 not first

I don't know enough about the topic to feel confident making changes but I do see that the PS3 is listed that it will be the first Blu-ray player...this is incorrect...Samsung will be releasing the first player to coincide with the launch of the physical discs...Anyone want to take this on?...I have labled the page as needing major work. see: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-27-2006/0004307028&EDATE= thanks: KsprayDad 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He's right, there was an article on Slashdot a few weeks back about it, and it's also noted on the front page for Blu-ray:

http://www.blu-ray.com/, under "Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Targets May Launch" (Feb. 27th).

Hanzolot 00:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Converting from DVD to Blu-Ray, etc.

Will I be able to convert my own home movies to Blu-Ray and then make a copy (this should be legal because: a)I don't intend to make money off of it as the Feds might break down my door; and b)it IS my own movie) for each person in my family? I have home movies on both DVD and VHS. They can't take that privaledge away can they?--209.12.51.206 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about your own home movies (i.e. films made by you), why would there be a problem? From a copyright standpoint, you would be the copyright holder. If you want to make a copy of a film you made, then that's your right. Encryption shouldn't be a problem either since, if it's your own movie, the DVD surely wouldn't be encrypted in the first place. I can't imagine there being any technical restriction on you copying your own home movies (which do not employ any encryption) from VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray.

In legal terms, it depends on who owns the copyright to the home movie. Assuming it's shot by you or someone in your family, the copyright will be within your family so there is no issue. However if home movies includes professionally shot movies (e.g. wedding, school concerts etc) be aware depending on your contract, the person who taped it may still own the copyright. This won't affect your ability to produce copys but it will affect your legal right to produce copies (although it won't matter what format you use)

In feasibility terms, be aware that bluray has a form of watermark detection preventing reproduction of disks with said watermark. What this means is if your home movies happens to have a watermark, it can't be produced. No one knows how sensitive this watermark detection will be. HD DVD also has audio water mark detection which is probably of even greater concern which will stop playback of movies with this watermark. Both of these are of concern. Technically, it's possible if you record a home movie and a watermarked movie is playing in the background, you may be unable to produce the disk (for bluray) or you it may stop playing (for HD DVD) because the watermark is detected! Logically, the developers would make it so that if it's only for a few minutes, there is no problem. But in practice, they might not do so because movie studios are extremely paranoid and appear to care little about consumer rights. And of course, if it so happens that your home movie is fairly long, and the audio of some watermarked movie is extremely audible and was in the background most of the time, for HD DVD, you'll probably be screwed no matter what. This probably won't occur with old home movies since afaik the watermark is not yet being used but it may occur with new home movies.

I'm assuming that both formats allow you to playback unencrypted bluray/hd dvd disks (which I don't know for sure). If they don't you might need to get a key to encode your disk and your key could easily be disabled in the future.

Nil Einne 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well things are messier than suggested above. Blu-ray and HD-DVD both have DRM built in. They sahre a couple of schemes and differ in a couple. Those schemes, if designed and implemented correctly, have certain engineering behaviors. They reduce resolution of the video stream coming from the drive, prevent operation of the drive and so on. What triggers the engineering to do its protective thing is not directly connected with the legalities of copyright. So if something triggers the protection when it shouldn't have been... since this is software, and deterministic at that, even if buggy, content can be protected when there is no legal grounds to do so.

An analogy is piano rolls. When they were introduced various copyright holders objected. The statute which settled that conflict recognized a limit to the extent of copyright. As did similar decisions in regard to sound recording, Video tape recorders, and so on. The claim by the recording and movie industry that tyhey have complete control -- to the exclusion of existing rights of their customers -- would be legally over reaching even if the engineering did exactly what they intended it to do.

So it's possible, though probably not likely, that the DRM might very well do something it ought not to. And there would be no appeal to the software. ww 00:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

09-F9 11-02 . 9D-74 E3-5B . D8-41 56-C5 . 63-56 88-C0

this is relevant to my interests —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.92.22 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Down-sampling change

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html <- Sony apparently changed its mind on down-sampling. Anyone else able to confirm this? Pvt Mahoney 14:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, as far as I can tell. Downsampling is still a feature of Blu-ray, even if some titles don't use it. Mirror Vax 19:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why no mention of downsampling in the article? Nil Einne 19:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OOops realised it is, just not called downsampling Nil Einne 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

History of Blu-ray

I'd like to request a history of blu-ray technology (not just diodes) because everything about it seems to have been lost. I can swear talking about it years ago, particularly as used for a casino storage medium. Stoutpuppy 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

External links are not for any and every report on Blu-Ray. With a few exceptions (the forum included), they should only be stuff that explains things that this article does not, or not as well. This is also not the japanese or german wikipedia, so links to that stuff should go on the articles in other languages. I cut out like half of those links cause they were junk - including one that linked to a site one needed an account for... Fresheneesz 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn industry

AFAIK, porn has been one of the key drivers of new technology (video tapes, DVD, internet, broadband?). I wonder if this is going to be the case again. Does anyone know which format, if there is a bias, the porn industry is leaning towards? This may be the key to victory or defeat... Nil Einne 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how much of a demand there is for ultra-high-definition porn. In that market it sounds more like a gimmick than anything else, at least until the format's pricing drops to current DVD levels (at which point the format wars will be over, in all likelihood). Tapanageta 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there, little Wikipedian! It isn't Ultra High Definition Video yet...

Back on topic, I think HD-DVD will be favoured, despite what the Porn industry is using at the moment, because of it's cheapness. Oh, and there is a demand for HD Porn, try typing in "porn 720p" into Google. PureLegend 18:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The largest adult entertainment producer in the US, Vivid Video, is releasing its movies in both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. A smaller competitor, Digital Playground, made a stance to go Blu-Ray only. [1] The-bus 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well porn does exist... just about everywhere. No, it's not a driving force, like everything in the current war for High definition content neither side has anything greatly better than DVD, except for picture quality. As it goes into the fall it looks like HD-DVD might have a lead as it was out first and appears to be adapting quicker, the PS3 which should have closed the door on HD-DVD is turning into a huge problem for Sony. With the 360 getting HD-DVD and the PS3 having multiple problems, the advantage is about equal.

Now if there was something where you could interact with the pornography, or that would definatly drive sales but as it stands, it looks like the only major advantage is Blu-ray's storaget capacity and HD-DVD's ease of production. Neithe technology assists pornography in any way which is one of the reason this war is so annoying. The only other major benefit is DRM, and unfortunatly that's not something that benefits the end user.Kinglink 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Length (capacity)

An anon edited it to say that a single layer disc can hold two hours of HD video (it had previously said a single layer disc can hold four hours of HD video). I reverted it, but I do believe this section could be clarified. If using MPEG-2, then yes, a single layer (25 GB) disc would only hold about two hours of HD video. However, if using H.264, you could (conceivably) fit four hours of video. Note also the sentence after this that mentions the amount of video that can be held by a dual layer disc (the anon left this as saying "eight hours"). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to relate my personal feelings on this topic, which is that editors should be very careful with their wording when talking about "playback time". The fact is that there's almost no technical limit on playtime. Well, there is a theoretical limit, but: 1) this theoretical case will never actually happen and b) the theoretical limit is probably at least a few hundred times longer than the playback times we'll see in real use. Any mention about playback times should always make it clear that there's no hard limit. Comparisons about playback time should probably use ratios and not hard numbers, e.g., "newer codecs allow about twice the playback time as mpeg-2 video, assuming similar video quality" or (trivially) "a double-layer disc offers twice the playback time as a single-layer disc, assuming similar video quality". Words like "up to" should always be avoided when describing playback times. Any mention of playback times should make clear the tradeoff against quality, as well as source material.

This may sound overly complicated, but it's not. It's pointless to dwell overly much on playback time. Just make it clear that it varies, there are tradeoffs, and more storage space is always helpful. Snacky 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would make even more sense if, since we are fine with the video quality we are getting currently, why not use a BD to record standard quality video, but have say, 25-50-200 times as much content (based on the disc layers)? Try and see it from my perspective though, I see this whole oredal as a great way to get ahead on the "quantity over quality" level. You could comcievably have the entire LOTR series on one disc, just as an example... user:Kukuhri 12:43pm (MT) 27 September 2006

Complete list of announced BD launch releases

What da hell is this "Complete list of announced BD launch releases"? What is BD? Keep the damn name full! Some people might not know what you are talking about? some might even be new to all this:/

>x<ino 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

While I see no point in taking out the BD part, somewhere in the article it should explain that BD means Blu-Ray Disc (I seriously hope I didn't guess that wrongly...). Of course, if the article already does that, then just ignore me. Xgamer4 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It says that Blu-ray Disc is shortened to BD in the very first sentence. :/ BD is also used elsewhere in the article, though I'm not sure if it's appropriate as a section title. I'll change it over though. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the list of all avaliable titles, there are 4 missing. Should we add them or are the current enough?

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_historical.html

WB Support

Warner Bros is listed as supporting Blu ray here and HDDVD on its page can someone find which it is they are backing

They're releasing content for both. They have non-exclusive agreements. - User:rasd

Blue-ray or Blue-Ray?

Using Blue-ray is bothering like hell. It is Blue-Ray.

What do you think?

Ed1t: My fault. Sony.com uses Blue-ray Disc. Bagga..

Nordoelum 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The ray praticaly stands for ultra violent ray light. Doesn't really stand for it, but that is the basic of the CD, using a ultra violent blue ray light. So...the Ray means nothing. The official website spells it "Blu-ray", the logo says "Blu-ray". No offer questions or answer, cuz that's the official name!

>x<ino 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is Blu-ray not Blue-ray, Bluray or ...

just Blu-ray

Blu-ray Name

This replaces the previously titled section 'Blue Ray Facts'. I thought this was a rather out of place section, and incorrectly titled, that needed cleaning up, so I added some information about the reason it is called Blu-Ray and also included information from this above discussion. 134.219.171.36 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-destruct code

Is this article, whichs tells e.g. about a "self-destruct" function, still up to date? And if it is, should there be something about it in the article? –Mysid^(t) 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The self destruct business is not so much halting and catching fire, leaving a lump of charred plastic. Let's say someone finds a key for the cryptographic software implementing DRM for the drive, and the 'crack' becomes known. As the scheme seems to work (viewed from the outside), this will require a new key to access protected content. If you don't get that key... Instead, the self-destruct is a possible failure to supply new keys for the crytpgraphic algorithms which give access to the content of a protected Blu-ray disk. Without that key, controlled by the drive maker, the Blu-ray disk Alliance, the content producer, ... the drive can't manage protected disks. probably still be able to play other sorts: your own content, othe rproducers' content (maybe), unprotected content generally, ... Not the nicest behavior from a piece of equipment you expect to work, and which is functioning perfectly. Save for a failed update of needed crypto keys. 71.247.246.63 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

copyvio in "Variations and sizes"?

The last sentence from Variations and sizes refers to a "table below", but there is no such table. The sentence appears to be taken verbally from theblu-rayshop.com. Copyright violation or not? At the very least it should be reworded, or someone should add the table it is referring to. --213.196.5.160 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Underworld: Evolution

I just saw a commercial for Underworld: Evolution which said, "Coming soon to DVD and Blu-Ray". On the main page, it's listed as releasing in late 2006. I obviously don't know what's going on here, but does anyone else? StealthHit06 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Highdefdigest.com lists [2] its street date on Blu-ray as June 20, 2006. This is also backed up by Sony [3]. I'm unaware of what "main page" you're refering to. —Gabbe 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By Main Page, I mean the Blu-ray page, in the section that lists the launch titles. It listed Underworld: Evolution as coming out in late 2006. StealthHit06 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense

CDs and DVDs use a single layer of lacquer over the reflective data backing (on the label side) and are more susceptible to damage than either HD-DVDs or Blu-ray discs.

If Blu-ray disks need a caddy, and Cd's don't, how the heck are CD's MORE susceptible to damage, especially since on blu-ray discs, the data is 'closer to the surface?' Also, what the heck does something being on the 'label' side matter? Does the article mean non-label side?

I agree the whole paragraph is poorly worded. The above quote is also WRONG. It sounds like it was written by someone who has never even used or seen a DVD. The DVD reflective layer is sandwiched between two layers of polycarbonate (as I believe bluray is) and enables double-sided DVDs to be easily made. The CD is on the top with a thin layer of lacquer. There are two sides to every single sided DVD and CD. In CDs, most people think the bottom side needs greater protection. This is not strictly true. If you scratch the bottom side, it may have reading problems but this depends on the drive and you can also try polishing the surface. If you scratch the top side (label side), your CD is well and truly dead. To be fair, the data is still there and some data recovery companies may be able to recover it (altho this is also true for damage to the bottom side) but you have absolutely no hope of recovering any data (that is contained in the part where the scratch is) with a normal drive. It is rather unlikely you an fix it either. With DVDs, it's a different matter. The bottom surface is most definitely the more susceptible side. Damage to the top surface (within reason) doesn't affect the DVD... Nil Einne 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

EVD

I removed the following although unfortunately forgot to mention why in the summary

• Enhanced Versatile Disc – a Chinese optical disc system developed as a response to high DVD licensing costs

As mentioned in the EVD page. I don't really see any point of discussing EVD as a competitor of BluRay. It was clearly intended as an alternative (that appears to have failed) to DVD based on the time frame and the design. No evidence it support HD content either. Therefore, would make as much sense to include DVD in the list... Nil Einne 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably deserved to be mentioned here, for completeness at least. perhaps with the addition of the points you make here. And probably also at the DVD article. ww 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Region codes?

The region codes bit on this page used to be:

Region code	Area
1	North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China)
2	Europe and Africa
3	India, China, Russia, and all other countries.

and now it is:

Region code	Area
1	The Americas, U.S. territories, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan
2	Europe and Africa
3	Asia (excluding Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and Oceania

Anybody have any reliable source to justify this change? For the first grouping (which was on this page as recently as May 1, 2006) there are several online sources, whereas the current grouping has been changed by various anonymous users without explanation, such as 201.240.61.137 (talk · contribs), 201.240.44.89 (talk · contribs), 201.240.59.61 (talk · contribs). Does anybody havbe more info? Where did India and Russia go? —Gabbe 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The first table seem better... Pretender2j 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The manual for the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player[4] lists its region code as "A", implying an "A", "B" and "C" division of region codes. Anybody has any more info on this? —Gabbe 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The back cover of the newly released Blu-ray discs features an "A" in a circle inside a hexagonal box. Is this the region code marking, perhaps? Or is it the logo for some other feature or other? —Gabbe 10:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no direct knowledge of region codes, but it seems odd that Australia (Oceania) is left off the first list. Eventually, there'll need to be a region list that includes Australia, India and Russia. (Sometimes in regioning Australia has been lumped with Europe, since we're a brittish nation, and other times with Asia, because of geographical proximity). —Snickkers 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Quickly checking the citation (9) listed in the current article (www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11760#ixa) I've found the following table. I'm not confident enought to edit the actual article - I'm supposed to be working at the moment and can't invest enough time to verify the information.

Region code	Area
A	North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia
B	Europe (EU), Africa, Middle East, New Zealand, Australia
C	China, India, Russia, Rest of the world.

—Snickkers 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)