Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Blu-ray Disc – HD DVD comparison (chart)

Mentioning single layer and dual layer capacity HD DVDs and Bluray discs is OK. We have established that Bluray has ~66% more data storage capacity than it's HD DVD counter part. However, mentioning triple and quadruple layer discs are unnecessary and possibly misleading. Information on more then dual-layer should be removed removed from the chart and possibly be put in its own section. Non-technical people may brag about 200GB being greater than 15GB, despite that more than 2 layers will most likely never be used for commercial or mass-market purposes, as with DVD. In addition, technical people who may in some way understand this data don't need a comparison chart to tell them that a 3 layer disc has three times the capacity.

Basicly, what I'm saying is, No shit, Sherlock Can Not 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What if they are used? Mbslrm 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It would still be redundant. A sentance or 2 could cover it, but it serves no purpose in the chart, other than misleading the ignorant. --Can Not 04:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Can Not. These quadruple-layer discs aren't in the spec, so they aren't Blu-Ray discs. Why not have a column for a 50 GB CD-ROM? You don't think 50GB will fit on a CD-ROM? All you have to do is make the marks smaller, make the cover layer thinner, add another data layer, and read it with a 405nm laser through a 0.85 NA lens. At what point does that cease to be a CD? Spiel496 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked to see if there was any objections. Glad to see it's already removed. --216.186.219.99 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

well it's back now soooo I changed the Blu-Ray side to actually show SOMETHING please feel free to remove the 3rd layer thing or change my thing... just not to N/A because they have a prototype going right now, I forget where I heard that though -- Vdub49 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

triple layer BD should read N/A as it is not part of the spec, but apparently as of now it is part of HD DVD's specs (I personally don't think it should be added until more sources confirm but hey). --Ray andrew 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the information is misleading, because it implise that there is no third layer for the Blu-Ray discs, yes HD-DVD has a third layer but Blu-Ray does too. I propose we eather get rid of the third layer row all together or put in an accual number instead of "N/A" -- Vdub49 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep this section simple. Technical comparison does not belong in this article. The Blu Ray Vs. HD-DVD article is great for technical info. Zojj (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The table was made specifically to simplify the section IIRC. Otherwise that section grew quite large with all the technical comparisons. I don't see the problem in having the table in all three articles as a sort of quick reference to what's the same and what's different between the two formats. As far as technicality goes, these articles are inherently technical in nature: look at DVD for example. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking at it from a reader's perspective. The reader comes to this section, reads a paragraph or 3, understands, and goes on to the next section. If the reader is more interested, he can go read the comparison article. If you put the table in, the reader will probably just skip the section with no grasp of how the formats compare. Zojj (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the text you're using (specifically what you've done with the HD DVD article) makes judgment calls. The table presents the data to the reader and allows them to make their own decision. The other alternative, inlining all the technical differences into the article text, grows the section considerably (and makes it harder to comprehend for the reader). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your right, it does. I tried my best to make it as unbiased as possible. =) Imagine going to wal-mart and seeing people looking at blu-ray and hd dvd. They don't know what the hell 32mbps means, they just want to quickly know what the difference is. Whatever you decide to do, many thanks for developing my table. Zojj (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

8 cm?

What does the "8 cm" mean in the "Physical Format" table? Could someone clarify for me what it exactly is? Is it another kind of Blu-ray disc or is it just for comparison? --Chaz 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The 8 cm size for a Blu-ray disc would look like a Gamecube game disc. Its a actually a standard size that has been applied to Compact Disc and DVD.--Kenn Caesius 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

update links in wikipedia

Could someone update the link to this page in artical "gigabyte", there is a HD-dvd link needin some edit too... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.130.216 (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Question about rom-mark

"The Blu-ray Disc Association intends to ensure that only disks that contain the ROM Mark will be playable on Blu-ray systems. The ROM-Mark is expected to prevent the casual copy from BD-ROM to recordable media. It is a mechanism aimed to protect against bit-by-bit data copy. The ROM-Mark requires a special machinery in the disc mastering process in order to be inserted on disc and thus, it prevents malicious replications."

That's from this article and the ROM-Mark article. I'm assuming home videos will be allowed to play, so how are they getting around the ROM-MARK? Maybe someone can clear that up in these articles?

Mandatory audio support

I believe the table is wrong, TrueHD is not a mandatory codec for blu ray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.193.187 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I also believe the table is wrong in regards to HD DVD Dolby TrueHD. It seems it is not mandatory, see Paramount: Transformers HD-DVD doesn't have enough space for High-Res Audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.22.104 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What is 3X DVD ROM ?

It is mentioned in the comparison table. Nowhere else in the article does the string "3X" appear. xerces8 --90.157.129.176 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to ask exactly the same question... someone please tell us...:) 86.120.236.174 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3X DVD-ROM is explained here...[1] This page is a Googleified HTML version of a pdf document. Scroll down to where it says "page 4" on the left.J.delanoy 17:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Any plans on using this with Blu-Ray?--64.240.163.221 04:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. From the article I gathered that they were just trying to kick a DVD up to HD standard without manufacturing a new technology. So my guess would be that they will eventually go down the same path as CRT television sets are: the techonolgy works, but it is outdated.J.delanoy 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kernel drivers

Will Blu-Ray use the same Linux kernel drivers as CD and DVD? What filesystem does it use by default? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.253.13 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Comparison with HD DVD

In the "overview" section, the article spends a lot of time comparing blu-ray to HD DVD. In the HD DVD article, almost nothing is said about blu-ray besides mentioning that they are currently in a format war. If someone wants to know which standard is poised to win, they should draw their conclusion for themselves based on what they read about each format.(releases, support, sales, etc.) I think the first part of this article needs to be rewritten, but I want to see what other people think before I just lay into it. J.delanoy 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

it seems that Blu-ray is for the win, and is outselling HD-DVD by a margin of 9:2 [2] 66.98.94.171 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

it looks even more like Blu-Ray is for the win now that Warner has started backing it exclusively [3]88.73.242.236 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blu-ray movie experience?

I would like to see this article address the Blu-ray movie experience in a bit more depth than is given in the Java section. A suggested tack could be a comparison between it and the DVD movie experience since a majority of readers could readily use the DVD movie experience as a point of reference. 66.64.203.126 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) =====Just an update on the whole whats better and blue ray is prabably set to win if you look at the new selling rate of woolworths where they are out selling 10:1

Remove 3x DVD from comparison table

It should go, it is not a competing format, its just what you get when you put hd dvd formated data on a dvd. If no one objects I will remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ray andrew (talk • contribs) 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Dolby Digital Plus is not a mandatory codec for Blu ray

I have seen this added to the table too many times, please stop. Dolby Digital Plus is NOT a mandatory codec for Blu ray. I will continue to revert any BS. Ray andrew 15:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for the addition Ray, and thanks for the informational correction. Do you think it should be noted at the bottom of the table that DDS is not a mandatory codec, such that people don't make the same mistake? Oh, and in reply to your comment on the history page im not a PR for FOX, just in case you were wondering. Cheers. hemant tailor 16:39, 18 Feb 2007

Copy Protection

I see nothing here about the Movie Ice age 2, which i believe is the first movie to be cracked from the blu ray disc format with the dvd menus and eveything, and it is listed on the private tracker of Bit-dvd.com, if anyone is a member than you can confirm it.70.50.63.24 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Graffitti removed

--Robin Roberts 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray region codes

Are the three region codes 1,2,3 correct? On the back of PS3 games over here in New Zealand there is a number 4 which would make perfect sense if it were DVDs but there Blu-ray discs. It seems like they are using the same region encoding as DVDs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.236.182.226 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe region 4 means any region, as PS3 games are region-free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.112.22.104 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like more information about BD region codes. Is it entirely optional? Is it only the big Hollywood movies that are region locked? I know that 100% of all HD-DVD are region free. --72.202.150.92 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD / Blu-ray comparison

Hi. First of all, the numbers in the article is not up to date. Why don't u count them your self Ray? Second, these discs isn't representing all BD, and are therefor twisted facts, nether HD DVD. A better way to backup these numbers is to go to ex. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/ and count them there. The site listing ALL movies, and the size of the disc. This is not a forum for the format war so please keep wrong facts out of it. --85.228.237.186 10:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--What? Could you restate that in something resembling English, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs Disc Photo

This article needs a photo of an actual Blu-Ray disc. Cribcage 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Profile 1.1 mandatory date

Can someone please post a reference link for the 1.1 mandatory date? I can't find one for the july 2007 date much less the pushed back november 2007 date. Isnt 2.0 supposed to be out in november 2007. some kind of link would be nice.

Scratch resistant: Baloney!!!!

I would like to say to the person who changed what I wrote about the DVD abrasion cleaners not be able to scratch the so-called scratch resistant surface that he is only listening to the makers propaganda. First let me explain: Current generation DVD's can easily be cleaned of nearly all scratches by using an abrasion cleaner.(CD's and DVD's can also be cleaned of some minor scratches by those chemicals you can buy yourself in stores, but they don't work very well.) Abrasion cleaners are the machines some video game stores and rental shops use to clean DVD's of deep scratches. They literally take off a layer of plastic (by scraping the surface with a mild sort of sandpaper) in order to take out the scratch. They can fix nearly all scratched DVD's. On Blu Ray Discs, the data layer is much too close to the surface. DVD ABRASION CLEANERS DO TAKE OFF THE ENTIRE DATA LAYER ON THESE BLU RAY DISCS EXPOSING THE CENTER REFLECTION LAYER, thus permanently destroying the disc. I know because I have seen it done. Now let me use some logic here. OBVIOUSLY, there already was a deep scratch in this disc (Resistance: Fall of Man), and it would not play. That's why someone tried to clean it. Maybe, you say, it didn't have the scratch resistant layer on it. Maybe, but I don't believe so. AGAIN, just because they say it is "scratch resistant" and some joker puts a steel wool video on You Tube that makes it so? This scratch "resistant" layer won't degrade or wear off? I bet they're saying it'll last 50 Years (remember when they said that about DVD's?) I'm betting that these blue ray discs (even with the "scratch resistant" layer) will be about as long lasting as chewing gum. And at 60 to 70 bucks per game, it's a true con game. But then it's all a plus for Sony, because they've finally found a way to "SCRATCH" out the used market!!! Sony must be learning from Microsoft since they've managed to make a defective product that guarantees them more future income. YEEE HAAWWW!!

hence the word resistant. they only said it was resistant to scratches. it is like bullet resistant glass, while they show it can take multiple hits to different locations, multiple hits to one location would probably make a hole. the same applies here, if enough effort is applied to one area, it would be quite easy to make a destructive scratch. --Alphamone 06:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From experience, I can tell you that Blu-ray discs are definitely more scratch resistant than HD-DVD. That protective layer is very hard. Most often, I've found those disc buffing procedures just cause more damage to a DVD than the already-present scratch. Also, most consumers don't know about disc buffing. Therefore a protective layer is a better solution than grinding off part of the plastic. As they say: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And here we have a pound of prevention.

Scratch resistant: not so much Baloney!!!

who uses those chemicals to clean DVD's at home? with scratch resistant they mean nails/keys screw drivers etc not chemicals since they don't cause scratches but change the structure of the material.

Who said anything about chemicals? --Ray andrew 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

what are: ABRASION CLEANERS?

Profile 1.1 makes 1.0 players obsolete

The use of the word obsolete is inappropriate here. The 1.1 profile no more makes 1.0 players obsolete than does the release of an Xbox 360 with HDMI support make the current Xbox 360 obsolete. Profile 1.0 players will still play the vast majority of content, including the primary feature (the movie). The ability to play back features reliant on secondary video in no way defines the overall value proposition of the Blu-ray Disc platform. Talkstr8t 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talkstr8t, I am assuming that you are the same Blu-ray insider (working for some secret company) that posts at AVS forum under the same name. If that is the case, I should remind you of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. I think the use of the word obsolete is appropriate. If you read the wiki on it one of the definitions is "when a new, more functional product or technology supersedes the old", and this is definitely the case here. I also would like to dispute the assertion you added a while back that some players could be upgradeable by firmware to 1.1, as no current player (besides the PS3) has the appropriate hardware to do dual stream decoding. I will leave profile section as it is for a few days to see if anyone else wants to chime in, but after that if there are no objections I will change it back. --Ray andrew 00:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ray, your HD DVD edits have consistently been biased toward painting that format in a better light, while your Blu-ray edits have painted it in a more negative light, suggesting a bias which would bring into question a conflict of interest on your part. I obviously have no problem with my edits being subject to community review.

My edit regarding "obsolete" takes a far more objective stance than the original text. The Wiki page on "obsolete" lists five definitions for technical or functional obsolescence. Four of the five clearly do not apply. The subset of text you quoted ignores the examples given, all of which demonstrate a change in format, not a change in feature within a format. By your very narrow definition virtually every CE product on the market today would be considered obsolete due to newer products with additional features. Does HDTV make standard def TV obsolete? Does the Video Ipod make non-video Ipods obsolete? Do mobile phones with Bluetooth make those without obsolete? Obviously not - all of the earlier products continue to perform the primary function for which it was intended, and continue to be developed, marketed, and sold. The ability of a profile 1.1 player to support secondary video in no way obsoletes the dominant feature of the format, playing back a feature title with high definition audio/video.

Regarding upgradeability to 1.1, both the PS3 and the now-released Samsung BDP-1200 are based on hardware capable of supporting profile 1.1 secondary video. Talkstr8t 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So will you address the question about your conflict of interest? Do you admit that you are a Blu-ray insider? Will you disclose your employer (I know you wont but I had to ask)? If you have no problem with being subject to review then you should suggest the edits on the talk page first to avoid potential conflicts of interest. As to your concerns about me, my contrib log speaks for itself. I revert BS, and make useful contributions to both articles.

Sorry I did not know that the new Samsung had bee released (after all the delays), and yes I see that it uses a new decoder chip. It still doesn't change the fact that that the other players (besides PS3) will not be upgradeable. Maybe the Samsung should be referenced specifically.--Ray andrew 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an insider. That also means I'm a subject matter expert here. I haven't contributed extensively to Wikipedia, so I apologize that I'm unaware of proper etiquette regarding process for making changes. As I said, however, the word "obsolete" is purely subjective in this context and isn't appropriate here.

The Samsung wasn't delayed; it was originally announced at CES for April, and made it easily.Talkstr8t 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Profile 1.1 will not make 1.0 obsolete. The blu-ray discs which have PiP will make them "obsolete," if that is the term you want to use. Profile 1.0 players will still be able to play Blu-ray movies, but they will not be able to take advantage of all of the extra features, ie. the IME (Interactive Movie Experience). So obsolete is correct in that they will be out-dated, but not unable to be used to watch new releases after Profile 1.1 becomes mandatory. They will be like the PS2 or Xbox after Sony and Microsoft, respectively, came out with their next-gen systems. Games were still made for both systems (look at God of War II), but the more advanced systems were, of course, the newer ones. By the way, I'm format neutral; you just need to clarify how you are using the word. By house_n

This comment hugely overstates the significance of the Profile 1.1 additions. Out of all the interactivity which has been shown across dozens of discs of both Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD, the only feature which profile 1.0 players won't support is PiP as implemented by secondary video. This is nothing like comparing PS2 to PS3, where an entirely different hardware and software platform is provided.Talkstr8t 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, theres also the question of real time audio mixing, (ie, mixing in the commentary track to the original, etc). Also both camps have demonstrated interactive features that require an Internet connection, profile 1.1 definitely cant do that ;) (all HD DVD players and profile 2.0 Blu-ray players can). But still this is a large amount of the "next gen" interactivity here that profile 1.0 players just cant do (playing static Java games is so last gen).--Ray andrew 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what word is used as long as the article clearly states that upon the release of profile 1.1 systems. That the functionality of all previous profile 1.0 systems will be substantially less then current models that are available and unable to utilize the full functionality of future discs. a very limited amount "may" be upgradable but most just do not have the hardware installed.. to me a 1.0 system is more like a beta test that people paid 1200 to be part of... with profile 2.0 being the actual real "standard" to come.. and in my opinion will obselete both profiles in the long run. leaving 1.0 players with the equivilent of a low end no frills dvd (sorry I mean blu-ray) player...call it obsolete call it limited functionality.. whatever. At ces blu-ray was not showing off the wonderful features of blu-ray.. they were showing off the wonderful features of blu-ray...2.0. Im not anti blu-ray and if anything I think the tech is better (storage ect..)... as for Ray supporting hd-dvd. we all have our preferences. all his edits seemed to me to be accurate and timely.. he deletes bogus anti-bluray info as well. keep up the good work Ray. -Tracer9999 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a Network Engineer and part-time sales person at Tweeter. Talkstr8t is correct. The word obsolete in this case is misleading to people. They might think their Blu-ray player will not be able to play future Blu-ray discs. This, of course, is not true. This should be corrected. This will make Wikipedia lose credibility in the eye of the users if this persists. This issue has been made known on several forums.Ascended_Saiyan24.99.191.203 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record the removed wording was: "It is possible that some profile 1.0 players may be upgradeable via firmware update to profile 1.1. However any player that is not upgradeable will be considered obsolete after November 2007, when profile 1.1 becomes mandatory, since they will be unable to handle all interactive features that new discs released after this date will contain. They will still however be able to play the main feature of the disc as they do now." So I don't think it could mislead people to thinking what you are saying. As to the credibility of wikipedia, I personally think it would be improper to downplay this. Because it is really something that every person looking to buy a Blu-ray player should be aware of. --Ray andrew 12:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still a couple of issues I have with the sentence "However any player that is not upgradeable will be considered obsolete after November 2007, when profile 1.1 becomes mandatory, since they will be unable to handle all interactive features that new discs released after this date will contain." Even though new player models released after Oct 31st must conform to the BD-Video "1.1" profile (note that the spec never actually refers to a 1.1 profile), there is no requirement that content will, and in fact it's unlikely much content will be released supporting the new features until a number of players are in the market. Further, looking at the full library of HD DVD titles, only something on the order of 10-15% of them actually feature content which makes use of features introduced by BD-Video 1.1 (i.e. secondary video), even though all HD DVD players are capable of supporting them. From this data one can reasonably surmise that only a minority of future Blu-ray titles will make use of these features (i.e. high-profile titles), especially given the production costs required to support such content, which further dilutes the notion that current Blu-ray players will be "obsoleted" by the "BD-Video 1.1" profile.

Regarding realtime audio mixing, currently available players must support several levels of realtime audio mixing. "Profile 1.1" players must support a greater number of channels and secondary audio. It's also possible that existing players fully support secondary audio, as the current chipsets are fully capable of doing so.

Ray, you've apparently been a stickler in your Wikipedia edits for factual, objective information. The word "obsolete" is not only pejorative, but purely subjective. One consumer's definition of what makes a player obsolete will clearly differ from the next, and for the foreseeable future the overwhelming majority of available content (i.e. all existing titles, all future main features, most future bonus features) will be strictly unaffected when played back on "Profile 1.0" players, and even for that content which does rely on "Profile 1.1" features much of it will be downgraded (i.e. audio but no video) rather than unavailable. The use of the word "obsolete" here clearly degrades the quality of this article.

I will concede that 'obsolete' may be a bit strong, but I still feel that the current article may paint an unrealistic picture of the future prospects of current 1.0 players. Also I was under the impression that current Blu-ray players did not support any real-time audio mixing (ie mixing two streams together), could you give further information about this. --Ray andrew 04:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't copy from the spec verbatim since it's only available under license, but if you have access to the spec you'll find details in section 8.10 of BD-ROM Part 3: Audio Visual Basic Specifications (3-1 Core Specifications). Interactive audio, primary audio, and secondary audio are defined. Secondary audio is optional in 1G players, but mixer support for primary and interactive audio must be provided. If it weren't supported you wouldn't hear button and other menu sounds.Talkstr8t 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We will see what labelling is applied to discs using Profile 1.1 or 2.0 features. If it does not say, in large letters, 'this feature won't play on Profile 1.0 machines, such as those released before Month/Year', then consumers will use nastier words than 'obselete'! When DVDs such as The Matrix came out with features that, while part of the DVD spec, were not supported by some players, such players had to either update their firmware to play it properly or face consumer wrath. Here, the existence of the better profiles was known, and various makers have chosen not to support them, either directly or via a simple upgrade. The usual phrase for such marketing decisions is 'planned obselence'. Lovingboth (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Title: Blu-ray: Early adopters knew what they were getting into by Nate Mook January 8, 2008, 8:16 PM

Blu-ray may have taken a commanding lead in the next-generation format war, but the group has a big problem looming: early supporters of the format will be left out in the cold when the Blu-ray Disc Association introduces BD Profile 2.0

Link: http://www.betanews.com/article/Bluray_Early_adopters_knew_what_they_were_getting_into/1199841379 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.25.49 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)