Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Fanboys (on either side of the aisle) disgust me.

I think we should take a vote to settle this issue once and for all. HK-48 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A vote wouldn't tell us anything we can't already determine from just reading the comments above: there's no consensus to include the 51 GB disc in articles or tables discussing disc capacity. Instead of talking it out though, a select few editors have taken it upon themselves to persistently re-add this information in the face of opposition. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no HD DVD player on the market than read 51GB then I think it should not be included. Andries (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But that is not the case, there has been no official word either way. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait... so now we need official word it won't be supported before we can safely assume it won't be supported (because, you know, the manuals don't mention support for it, and neither does Toshiba's own website)? I have a better idea. Why don't we err on the side of caution and not include it at all until something is announced/concrete? That makes slightly more sense than just blindly adding things without actually knowing to what extent it will actually work, be compatible, and be available. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What? That is crap! Now we have to wait until there is proof that it won't be used? What do you expect us to do? Wait until some company says it won't be!?! You sound like an HD DVD fanboy! Just because YOU want it to be added doesn't mean it can be! HK-48 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I can buy a HD-DVD unit that can play 51 gig discs. Otherwise, I will erase your contribution every time. - Theaveng (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I can buy a BD-Live compatable Blu-ray player or I will erase every mention of it... Do you seriously think thats the mature way to handle it? --Ray andrew (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Theaveng, 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, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked - http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-40GB-Spider-Man-Movie-Pack/dp/B000XGJH1O/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000VDG0UK/ 90.149.15.238 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry man, the PS3 just became BD 1.1 yesterday. It probably won't be BD 2.0 (Live) until at least Jan. 2008 and maybe even later than that Thingg (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I attempted to make the lead of the section in question more accurate and keep it NPOV (believe me, its fun...), and I think it now reflects the current picture (no pun intended) while also stating that HD DVD may pass Blu-ray in the future (at least as far as approved disc's capacity standards). Thingg (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Magma claim

Not only is the image inappropriate, but the caption for it is incorrect. The first adult movies for BD were released in 2006 in Japan:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=4221

I'd rather not try to explain Blu-ray related information to other people and then having them notice "interesting", but irrelevant pictures in an article related to home entertainment.

90.149.15.238 (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same: it should be removed as it is not appropriate for wikipedia to have such a picture--w_tanoto (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Capagris

I would add something about the SPGD in Blu ray.

SPGD (Self Protecting Digital Content) is a program which works like an small operative system in the reader of the player and prevents copying of films. This program will be complemented by technology AACS.

Its inclusion is controversial because it is an operating system. Therefore, it is sensitive to computer viruses if the player is connected to the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.210.219.236 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would just be FUD. The very nature of SPDC in BD+ is designed so that the system is fingerprinted and protected against run-time modification. It's thus very secure against viruses and the like, much more so than any other ordinary OS. What's next, adding to articles describing any CE device with an internet connection that it's vulnerable to viruses? Because you do realize that ALL CE devices have operating systems, right? 90.149.15.238 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Target Technology lawsuit section

Is there any reason that this section is still included? All it does is make the statement that they were sued and then says nothing about what became of the lawsuit. I could be wrong because I was not monitering this article in May, but I think it may have been put in when that whole thing with somebody trying to make Sony recall all their PS3s and stuff. Either way, I feel it is irrelevent and am removing it. If you feel it is worthy of inclusion, please find out some more info about it and then reinclude it. Please do not add it back in in its present form. Thingg (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been covered in many reliable sources, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included. The lawsuit was filed 6 months ago, so I think the wheels of the legal machinery have barely started turning. I think that's why I can't find any more information; there is no more information to be found. You can find the case at justia.com, which includes links to PACER documents. However, I'm not willing to register at PACER and pay to see those documents.

I think mentioning the lawsuit is relevant for the article. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definately agree it is relevant, but if all you say about it is that they were sued, than it is not relevant. I mean, people sue companies and each other all the time. (like the person who sued Starbucks for $215 million because the refused to give that person a free cup of coffee after an Internet coupon campaign got out of hand. btw, the case was dismissed.) anyway, if more info is included, I have absolutely no probalem with the suit being mentioned, but until that info is provided, I think we should leave it out of the article. Thingg (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Codec section

I removed this, because I didn't think it was very relevant:

The initial version of Sony's Blu-ray Disc-authoring software shipped with support for only 1 video-codec: MPEG-2. Consequently, all launch titles were encoded in MPEG-2 video. A subsequent update allowed the content producers to author titles in any of the 3 supported codecs: MPEG-2, VC-1, or H.264.

I also thought about including this table, but all this detail doesn't really seem necessary.

Blu-ray audio codecs

Codec	Linear PCM	Dolby Digital AC-3	Dolby Digital Plus	Dolby TrueHD	DTS digital surround	DTS HD
mandatory?	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No
type of compression	lossless	lossy	lossy	lossless	lossy	lossless
max bitrate	27.648 Mbps	640 kbps	4.736 Mbps	18.64 Mbps	1.524 Mbps	24.5 Mbps
max channels	8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz)	5.1	7.1	8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz)	5.1	8 (48 kHz, 96 KhZ). 6 (192 kHz)
bits/sample	16, 20, 24	16-24	16-24	16-24	16, 20, 24	16-24
Sampling frequency (kHz)	48, 96, 192	48	48	48, 96, 192	48	48, 96, 192

— Ksero (talk | contribs) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The max bitrate for DD+ is 1.7Mbit/s not 4.7. --Ray andrew (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more wrong than that, including sample rates and bit depth for the different codecs. Where'd you find it Ksero?90.149.15.238 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

remove the picture

that picture should be removed. the picture showing an adult bluray title is irelevant and inapropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.99.8 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairseeder - Keep the adult image out of this

Your history shows that you edit adult content into wiki pages. As according to WIKI policy, I am giving you warning that if you continue to keep adding the adult image to the Blu-ray page, WIKI will be notified. This can lead to your account being revoked.

Keep it relevant!

Will someone that has rights please undo Fairseeder's last edit to this page.

Thanks,

OnlyTheFactsPlease (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image edit war

ok, this image is becoming quite a big deal, so I'll be concise. This article is about an optical disc format, not pornographic movies released on that format. Please see List of Blu-ray pornographic movies to place that picture. (If it doesn't exist, by all means create it and put that picture in it, it is relevant there.) Lets be honest here, does that picture really aid in you in learning about Blu-ray Disc's corporate support? Does seeing a picture advertising a type of movie that is stated in the section NOT to be a factor in this format war help you understand the implications of which companies support Blu-ray? I have notified an admin about this edit war and regardless of what he does, I am going to remove the pic because, as I have said before, it is not at all relevant to this article. Thingg (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The section the picture is in is about corporate support of the format, not the format itself. The image is relevant as it shows the pornography industry's support for the nex-gen discs. The picture is not of some random blu ray porn, but the first porn movie released on blu ray. If you wish to remove that picture, then remove the paragraph about the porn industry, or why not remove the whole section about corporate support since you say "This article is about the optical disc format" not corporate support for it. Please read WP:OWN. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S, actually, I don't really care. Heh heh :p Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to try to open another argument, but I have read that the first porn Blu-ray movies were released in Japan, not Germany. Also, I am not under any illusions that I own this article. I just strongly feel that that pic is not relevant, and at least two other people have expressed similar opinions above. Thingg (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Japan was indeed first out (see my link above when I earlier raised an objection to it). In addition "Debbie Does Dallas Again" was released in the US on July 12th (http://adult.dvdempire.com/itempage.aspx?&item_id=1294867&userid=99366108410593) followed by other adult releases, which is several months before the alleged German release in question. The text is simply incorrect and the image largely irrelevant to the BD article. Anyone with 2 minutes of time can verify this by googling. The image's only function seems to be to either as an advertisement for Magma's movie, or to slander/hurt BD's reputation as part of the format war.90.149.15.238 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this page because of the edit war regarding the DVD cover. Please discuss on the talk page to determine consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the picture because it lacks relevance to the article. --Ray andrew (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above. This image does not have any relavance to the article, and subsequently should be left out of Blu-ray Disc. Remstar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me when this page will be unprotected so I can continue editing? Thanks. Remstar (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

--- I agree. the picture is irrelevant and shouldn't be included. it looks like this page is protected into january remstar.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio Incomprehensible

The Audio paragraphs of the Comparison section is near incomprenhensible to anyone who is not an audiophile. Could this be changed to be a little more understandable in normal language usage?

Avanent (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up?

The ongoing development section could also use some clean up, it repeats some of the information across the four paragraphs.

Avanent (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Warner Blu-Ray Exclusive?

According to reuters Warner will soon be releasing high definition movies only on blu-ray disks. Worth mentioning or are more sources required? reuters --82.19.102.213 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to wait a day for the official press release. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't even need to wait an hour :) link to PR --Ray andrew (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are covering it now too, someone really needs to update the article - maybe add something addressing the current studio support for each format (blu-ray/hd-dvd) as it seems blu-ray has much more support now . http://gizmodo.com/340809/confirmed-warner-going-100-blu+ray-is-this-hd-dvds-deathblow 60.234.223.209 (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Warner and New Line Cinema are now Blu-ray exclusive. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978461.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.32.233 (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The graph needs updating too, as it shows Warner as "Both". 212.159.61.22 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramount to back blu-ray again?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1

--w_tanoto (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this in a few places. It will be something to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

HBO and clean up

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/HBO/Industry_Trends/HBO_Confirms_Switch_to_Blu-ray_Exclusivity/1357

HBO has officially stated that they too will follow New Line and Warner Brothers and go Blu-ray exclusive. They have yet to give any details on how this change will affect their existing HD DVD catalogue.

Likewise I am afraid that this site is getting filled with too much format war talk. There is no need to post the responses of the HD DVD executive to a Blu-ray action when it does not affect Blu-ray at all. Please go through the entire article and trim out the non-essential format war talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.136.32.222 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the Blu-Ray article reads like it is trying to present two sides of an argument rather than just present facts about Blu-Ray cdiasoh: Cdiasoh (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart update

Theaveng updated this image. How would this chart be? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a COMPARISON chart belongs in a disc-specific article. A comparison chart belongs in the comparison article. (Common sense IMHO.) ---- Theaveng (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the graph wouldn't be beneficial to the article? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the chart is only beneficial in the context of comparison, which is not the purpose of this article. In fact we have a whole article dedicated just to that. No need to duplicate that here. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The context it's used in is studio support, in which the graph is highly valuable. Otherwise one must dig through a bunch of text to figure out where the industry stands. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart does not belong in Comparison of high definition optical disc formats because the chart does not compare the formats. The chart is a clear illustration of the state of "Studio Alliances", which is the section that it's in. If the section belongs there (which no one is arguing), then it logically follows that the chart also belongs there. How hard is that? Pisomojado (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Pisomojado (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They're arguing it on the HD DVD side. As long as there are two hi-def media formats competing in the market, I believe it's important to the article to clearly see where they both stand. It serves to eliminate consumer confusion. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So they don't like the chart because the facts it reflects make HD DVD look bad? I couldn't care less. I have zero vested interest in either format. I just want an article which is encyclopedic and easy to understand. I like the chart because it clearly illustrates what's going on in the article, whether that's good, bad, or indifferent for HD DVD. The chart haters make the same claim, but I keep feeling they are being disingenuous because their arguments make no sense to me. The section is titled "Studio Alliances". If I wonder, "Say how much of the market do each of these studios in this article control? What do the alliances look like in graphical form?" Boom, I have an answer.Pisomojado (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try to have good faith in the objections of others. As I stated above I think it is a comparison, thus if it belongs in the article anywhere it would be in the comparison section, not the sections about studio support (dont take to much from the title of the section, it can and has been changed). I understand your goal of reducing consumer confusion about the format war, however the appropriate article for that is the comparison article. The articles about BD and HD are abut the formats themselves, with the war as a minor point. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated with the version currently used in the Comparison of high definition optical disc formats article. There doesn't seem to be any good argument against its use if there's a section on Studio Alliances. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Current and announced release formats v. 2007 US box office share

The dispute over the chart appears to be over as is the case with HD DVD, so this article can be unprotected. The chart is tied to the Studio Alliances section. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Template disabled, no specific edit requested. For unprotection, see WP:RPP. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how there's no argument over the chart here. Go figure. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NBC Universal, Paramount, and Warner go Blu-ray

According the the New York Times, NBC Universal and Paramount have both ended their exclusive commitments to HD DVD. This came after Warner Bros. decided to go exclusively with Blu-ray.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/hd-dvds-fall-like-dominoes/?ref=technology 24.250.164.27 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It says nothing of the kind. It says, "Nothing has been announced..." which mean it is still just rumor. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pure rumour. It's just said that the contract is already ended for universal, while paramount has an out clause. but neither has announced anything (to go blu exclusive or to go neutral). So, they're still in HD DVD camp--w_tanoto (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Germany's 'Constantin Film AG' goes from Blu-ray & HD Dvd Neutral to Blu-ray Exclusive

"BERLIN — Constantin Film, Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib, is following suit in the wake of Warner Bros. decision to go with the Blu-ray format.

Up until now, Constantin had supported both HD DVD and the Blu-ray technology, but as of March 1, new releases will be appearing solely in Blu-ray."

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978808.html?categoryid=19&cs=1

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/101667

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/11/germanys-constantin-film-ag-drops-hd-dvd-goes-blu-ray-only/

Denzelio (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc Website

on the wiki page the Blu-ray site points to www.blu-raydisc.com when it should actually point to www.bluraydisc.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmeyers (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Different "profiles"

I propose that the introduction should discuss the fact there are three different versions of the Blu-ray software: 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0.

And mention that 1.0 owners (purchased more than three months ago) could be potentially locked out from accessing future discs! Talk about shafting!

Essentially, either buy the player inside the PS3, or live in uncertainty!

Instead of explaining what I'm talking about, I'll let BBC News do it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7187179.stm

BD+ not yet hacked

{{editprotected}}

These two talk entries suggest BD+ has been hacked: [1] and [2]

The entry itself says "BD+ has been circumvented by the developers of the program AnyDVD as of version 6.1.9.6 beta.[58]" The citation is [3]

There are a number of reasons this is inaccurate. The same source as [58], EnGadget, recently published an article claiming it is not hacked [4]. AnyDVD doesn't do anything to circumvent BD+ yet. Instead, the only workaround is that Cyberlink PowerDVD versions 3104 and 3319a will play BD+-protected content from the hard disk. More recent versions of PowerDVD do not allow this. This was possible because the BD+ code on the first discs does not check if it plays from original media.

I suggest the following replacement for the sentence listed above:

"The first BD+ discs can be played from a hard drive by using Cyberlink PowerDVD version 3319a or older.[5][6] More recent versions have hard drive playback disabled. Burning a copy of the disc or playing it with other players fails since the BD+ protection is still present. SlySoft is continuing to work on methods to remove BD+ protection completely.[7]"

N Edit declined. Press releases, blogs and forum posts are not reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources on the matter, all information pertaining to it should be removed completely. Sandstein (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the offending text should be removed from the article. Whatever standard you apply to determining reliable sources must be applied uniformly. Since I am referencing the exact same source (EnGadget) but it contradicts the article text, the text should be removed or updated to match the newest EnGadget article. Re-submitting this edit request to remove the text.

The article has been unprotected. Please be sure to work collaboratively to find a consensus version of the text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl, thanks. Sandstein, any thoughts on this? I think the text in the article on BD+ [8] is much more accurate. I am ok with just deleting the text from the Blu-ray Disc article if you don't like the text in the BD+ article.

Keep BD+ separate article

Macrovision acquired the BD+ (SPDC) technology from Cryptography Research, Inc. Although MVSN has been inconsistent, they have said during analyst conference calls that they expect the BD+ technologies to be used in other environments. [9]

Also, BD+ spec is licensing from a different entity than the Blu-ray disc specs and intellectual property, namely [www.bdplusllc.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberbob (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

The text says that Blu-ray is currently exclusively supported by Warner. I think we all know that this is not the case, as they will still be supporting HD DVD for several months. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Horsepucky.Pisomojado (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

12 layers?

Wow, I was just going to ask about removing the 12-layer claim. I went to recheck the article so that I could quote it exactly but could not find the quote anymore. Thanks, Petertorr :) Mancomb (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)