This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
any? only seems to support bluray over hddvd. one i can think of is "vendor lock-in" potentials with blueray. obviously this applies to hddvd as well, but it is a reasonable point. pricing perhaps as well?
Why should Blu-Ray have capacities listed which currently are unavailable? Isn't that exagerrating the truth? Sure next year there might be 100 GB Blu-Ray discs, but they aren't available yet. That's like listing Notebook Harddrive capacity is 300 GBs, there are none available on the market, but it might be available next year. ~Michael
How do you know that? It took Sony a year to work out all of the kinks in the two layer BD. Now it looks like Sony is just grandstanding, overpromising and underdelivering like they usually do. ~Michael
"The PS2 will have Toy Story graphic quality"
I figured if the Blu-Ray people weren't going to remove the "future" capacities that the "future" capacities for HD DVD should of been added. I didn't want to edit the Blu-Ray one because some one would probably just revert it. And yes I should get a user name so people don't have to refer to me as my ip address, lol. Maybe in that intro box it should be divided up into separate sections. One titled Current Blu-Ray/HD DVD capacity and one titled Possible future Blu-Ray/HD DVD capacity. Since the HD DVD had the triple layer 45 GB removed I decided to remove the future capacities for blu-ray. I hope it doesn't get reverted ~Michael
Either leave the triple layer capacity for HD DVD up, or leave the future capacities for Blu-Ray down ~Mike
I removed the original blu-ray region coding map because it contradicts both http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-14003/Section-14006/Index.html and http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11760#ixa in putting Taiwan (R.O.C) in region C rather than region A
Why does no one mention that Sony is collecting royalties per disc? Why is there no criticism section? I hear/read loads of criticism daily.
It would be nice to include a discussion on the copy protection, if any, that will be built into the standard.
This section needs rewriting, is in the future tense when talking about 2004. Likely some progress updates needed, eg PS3. -- Sgkay 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
SMALLER discs please please somebody SMALLER discs. Remember, mini versions of formats are always very limited in available content. Nice try Sony but the "Universal" Media Disc is a joke.
Wouldn't it be smarter to say something like "third generation" or something like it?
We don't even know if it will catch ;-)
I'd like to recommend that in the paragraph regarding "next generation" technologies, something be mentioned about potential "UV-Ray" discs in the near future. Pioneer successfully tested a 500GB UV laser optical disc in 2004, [1] and there is a company called Colossal Storage that is working on that format currently. [2] In any event, if this technology follows its course for at least a little while longer, the next logical step after Blu-Ray (actually being in the violet end of the spectrum at about 405nm) would be ultraviolet (1-380nm). Wikicali00 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry for intervening in this topic, but i just noted that some idiot had writen, that Blue Ray is yet to be published in the last section on this site.
Note:
Laserdisc (1978) - VHD (1983) - Laserfilm (1984) - CD Video (198?) - VCD (1993) - DVD (1996) - MiniDVD (?) - SVCD (1998) - FMD (2000) - UMD (2005) - HD DVD (2006) - Blu-ray Disc (2006?)
Let me quote from the site: "The first Blu-ray recorder was unveiled by Sony on March 3, 2003, and was introduced to the Japanese market in April that year. On September 1, 2003, JVC and Samsung Electronics announced Blu-ray based products at IFA in Berlin, Germany. Both indicated that their products would be on the market in 2005."
seriously... someone correct that idiot who wrote that it havent been released yet, or someone shoot the guy who wrote that Sony had already released this product.
I would appreciate if the anonymous 130.233.16.105, who according to his user page specializes on 'crisp bread', would stop vandalizing my text regarding the obsoleteness of the Blu-Ray format. Sony and Philips finalized the DVR (now called Blu-ray) format in 1995-1996, which means it is 10 years old, and there is no other conclusion than that Blu-Ray's format, modulation code, error correction code, filing system etc, is obsolete. Dsc 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right: you also contributed to the Mickey Mouse article. By the way, there is a 1998 article by Philips/Sony employees on the DVR format (now BluRay), namely Optical disc system for digital video recording, T. Narahara, S. Kobayashi, M. Hattori, Y. Shimpuku, Sony Corp. (Japan); G. van den Enden, J. A. Kahlman, M. van Dijk, R. van Woudenberg, Philips Research Labs. (Netherlands) ODS Conference, July 1999 [4]. Note the remark on the year 1995 that "the parity preserve principle was first introduced by us in: J. Kahlman and K.A.S. Immink: U.S. Patent 5,477,222 (1995), where the principle was applied in a (d=1, k=8) RLL code." Also patent applications by Philips/Sony employees can easily be found to be first filed in 1997, see for example J.A.H. Kahlman, K.A. Schouhamer Immink, G. van den Enden, T. Nakagawa, Y. Shimpuku, T. Narahara, and K. Nakamura, 'Device for encoding/decoding n-bit source words into m-bit channel word, and vice versa', US Patent 6,225,921, May 2001, first filed in Oct. 1997. And probably invented and tested in 1996. Dsc 06:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
My dearest anonymous User:130.233.16.105, I just presented the requested literature and patents that clearly prove that Blu-Ray's physical layer was designed around 1995-96, just a few months after DVD's unification (Sept. 1995, after IBM's Lou Gerstner persuaded the electronics industry to accept EFMPlus). The 1995 DVR physical format, inclusive of 17PP channel code and 'picket' ECC code, address formats, wobble, headers, block structures, is exactly the same as that of Blu-Ray, and was never seriously modified. So I do not understand why you state that it was finalized in 1999 and updated in 2001. Please let me know what was finalized/changed in 2001? May be you can also explain why a physical layer technology designed around 1995 is not obsolete? Just think of Windows 95. No new insights since 1995? Higher efficiencies? May be User:130.233.16.105 also thinks that the 1979 CD format or 1985 CD-ROM format are not obsolete? Come on.
I have the impression that User:130.233.16.105 did not read the mentioned ODS2000 article. The authors of that article clearly state in the first sentence of Section 2 that their DVR format is intended for use in 'a' optical disc based digital video recorder . The authors fully explain the various design considerations, including address formats, wobble, headers, block structures etc, which were all designed in 1995-1996. They also explain which special measures had to be taken to construct a home recorder plus format requirements. I believe that someone with a normal skill in the art can understand that the designer of such a disk format has to trade various conflicting parameters, and when you opimize for home recording you cannot optimize for replication. Thus, I suggest that before User:130.233.16.105 vandalizes my texts again, that he/she studies the ODS article and tries to understand its implications, and tries to understand why it can be stated that Blu-Ray’s physical format is obsolete.
Therefore, I firmly conclude that, unless someone proves that Blu-Ray's physical format is not obsolete, i.e. no new insights/technologies were unveiled or added since 1995, the term 'obsoleteness' will be included again in the article. Dsc 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we revert this article to the "Revision as of 01:58, September 10, 2005". Looking at the changes, the only things that have been changed, are the inclusion of some weasel terms, the deletion of a useful image, and the addition of off-topic POV info about the DVD war... If nobody objects, I will revert day after tomorrow. -- Wulf 19:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Wulf, you are very quick with your conclusions and reverts. The loss of the DVD battle by Sony et al., leading to a) a small part of the royalty income and b) small influence in the DVD Forum, is essential to understand the history of Blu-ray, and must be part of the article. BD design started immediately after the conclusion of DVD in 1995-96. Since the engineers started so early and the standard was fixed, there was no opportunity to add new ideas to the format, and BD is therefore old-fashioned just like Windows95. This is not a POV, but a basic fact that can be checked (see above). So I am sorry but I will revert your reverts again. Dsc 07:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The article says that Durabis makes a BD resistant to a screwdriver attack, but the linked news article implies it the test was on a normal DVD. Of course, it's difficult to infer the meaning since they refer to BDs as next generation DVDs.
The second paragraph here seems heavily biased against Blu-ray to me. It seems to draw conclusions about what the outcome of HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc in the marketplace based upon marketing-speak from the HD DVD camp. Locke Cole 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the fact that this article has the "Alternatives" section, as it will hopefully serve to dissuade fanboys from cluttering up the *entire* article with HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray bickering.
Maybe it would be even better if there were an entire new article for comparing the two formats. Then we could enforce a policy of deleting all the POV edits and asking those editors to try to get their stuff into the separate format comparison article instead.
Frankly sometimes the arguing gets so bad, the article fills up with fanboy advocacy and it literally becomes difficult to extract any genuinely useful and on-topic info. Snacky 22:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that this article has attracted POV pushers, including some people who ought to know better (Dsc). Anything that smacks of opinion and isn't fully sourced should be deleted without hesitation. Mirror Vax 10:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that interesting, and with some effort tangible, sections of the article were removed by Mirror Vax. It is also unfortunate that some contributors to the article, such as Mirror Vax, apparently miss required physics background to understand the physics of optical recording as someone with that background could immediately understand that there are great difficulties in BD’s mass replication. I have just added a note regarding the reading of thin discs in the presence of dust, fingerprints, and other anomalies. If you wish, I can add the name of a good physics book. So please do not delete it this time by remarking it as a POV. Dsc 16:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
As explained, the hard coating will not solve the problem related to servo tracking. Polishing of BDs will be hard work. This difficulty was not mentioned by the previous 'coating' contributor, who apparently copied a brochure of a coating salesman. I added a note regarding the replication of BDs plus a reference (in order to make it non-POV) to the first paper published by Sony/Philips scientists on DVR, later called BD. It seems that some contributors to this article are mainly concerned in the fact that a commercial product such as BD attracts broad industry support, and less concerned in physics. Hopefully my additional note will not be too difficult to understand, otherwise please let me know, and I will forward additional references. Do not expect glossy brochures. Dsc 19:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Good. I just scanned the Blu-Ray article and the term 'replication', as you mentioned of great relevance in comparing various competitive formats, cannot be found except for my addition. Rather strange is it? An earlier contribution regarding replication was deleted for reasons of POV. To answer your question: I do not know whether BD is appropriate, but I am keen to see a fair and non-POV BD article, which is based on facts, but this seems to be difficult since some contributors do not have the required physics background. The moment they see a physics-based argument, it is deleted as 'POV' or 'NOR'. Dsc 21:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The DVR article, which details the premises of Blu-Ray is available from the website, is in my view public domain, but one has to pay a small fee. So Locke Cole is stretching the concept of 'public domain publication'. Yes, I admit, a system, built on a physical layer, which was designed in 1996, can work properly. Also Windows 95 works properly, but the moment you see an newer alternative like Windows 2000 you prefer the newer version. In ten years time interesting ideas has come to fruition that could not be implemented in Blu-Ray as the format was frozen.
One can easily delete remarks regarding dust and fingerprints susceptibility of thin substrates in optical recording, but one cannot ignore the laws of physics. After a tedious search for a free or low-cost publication, preferably on the web, (otherwise some contributors like Locke Cole might complain it is not in the public domain) I found [14], where you can read about the severe difficulties associated with thin, 100 micron in BD, discs. For someone with a physics background this is obvious. Essentially it has to do with the size of the light spot on the substrate, where the light enters the substrate. The thinner the disc, the smaller the diameter of that spot. As a result, particles on a thin substrate will obscure a relatively larger portion of the spot than particles on a thicker disc. A particle with a diameter of around 100 micron will completely obscure the light of a BD disc, while in HD-DVD the same particle will only obscure 5% of the light spot area, causing a small, 5%, amplitude modulation of the read signal. So in the BD case we have a complete drop out, while in the HD-DVD case we can detect most of the read-out signal. Clearly, this will affect the read-out and servo tracking. One can improve the error correction to deal with longer burst errors, but the servo control will remain vulnerable as there is no way to solve that. Note that a special 'Durabis' coating can never mitigate these effects whatever the PR people may promise in their glossy brochures. That concludes my lecture for today. Dsc 12:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You desperately need to read the paper mentioned above [15]. This well-written survey paper, written by two authors affiliated with Philips, explains some laws of physics related to the choice of the disc thickness amongst others. The two Philips' authors explain them, though they do not mention that they can overcome these laws, but may be, as you claim, the Sony engineers can. May be in Tokyo there are different laws than in Eindhoven. Could this remark be against WP:NOR, since it is 'physics- based' and therefore against it? I know that things cannot work if they are not in line with the laws of physics. Probably also against WP:NOR. Dsc 14:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The Philips' authors explain the physics of optical recording in a general setting, i.e. the article does not deal with a specific system, and the year, 1998, when it is was written is absolutely irrelevant (for a physicist). It is a fine article written by excellent scientists. Anyway, I made another search for a free article on the web, and found [16], written by Heemskerk in 2002, an author affiliated with Philips. On page 27, you read that this Philips' author admits that BD is 'relative' sensitive for dust, fingerprints, etc. So if the Philips' camp, BD's founding father, admits there is a 'relative' problem, then I conclude and know there is a big problem. You may observe on page 27, at the left, a diagram showing the obscuring effects that I tried to explain above. In addition, Heemskerk gives three possible solutions to cure this 'relative' difficulty, namely hard coat, cartridge, and strong ECC. Strong ECC is always a good idea, but it does not give an answer to servo tracking loss. A hard coating is also a good idea as it prevents the accumulation of scratches over time. A cartridge is a good idea, but may be consumers will not like it (higher price, compatibility with DVD and CD, etc?). I think, POV, that a hard coat alone is insufficient so that a BD without cartridge will be very sensitive for sticky debris on the disc (polishing again like the old vinyl records!), and that servo tracking will be very difficult to maintain. Let us just wait and see what will happen in the future. As a last point: HD-DVD will not be 'relative sensitive' for dust etc as the disc thickness is the same as that of DVD. Dsc 15:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The article should list news sources that explain how the studios’s convinced TV manufacturers to cease production of 3D TV’s so that the 3D experience would be a cinema only exclusive and even people who pirated Blu-ray 3D releases would be unable to view them. 86.93.208.34 ( talk) 02:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Where do you guys get this resolution limit non-sense? There is no imaginary limit for resolution based on disk type. You can put a 4k video on a CD-R, you just can't fit a very long one based on space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.86.0.165 ( talk) 03:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a spec designating container and formats for hardware player compatibility, like Red Book for audio. You can put MP3 onto a CD-R but that doesn't mean it's CD format audio or that "80 minute CD" is a meaningless term. CD audio is 16bit 44.1KHz LPCM, and Blu-ray video is VC-1, MPEG-2, or H.264 at given encoding settings/bitrates/resolutions/frame rates in an m2ts container. 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If infrared has a wavelength of 650 nm and violet has 405 (60% shorter) then how would that permit 21 more gigabytes to fit? Shouldn't the number be 7.5? What am I miscalculating?-- Spectatorbot13 ( talk) 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You are calculating incorrectly. First, take 4-inch ruler that is long enough to hold four one-inch-long one-dimensional objects. How many half-inch-long one-dimensional objects can it hold? Now take 4-inch by 4-inch sheet of paper large enough to hold 16 one-inch-square two-dimensional objects. How many half-inch-square two-dimensional objects can it hold? (There are other changes as well, so the above is just a starting point for your calculations, but you do need to start with two-dimensional density calculations, not one-dimensional.) 72.251.90.229 ( talk) 21:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To put it more succinctly -- you're calculating by length, not area. A smaller laser spot makes possible not only more information along the track, but more-closely spaced tracks. The areal density of information varies roughly as the inverse square of the wavelength. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The introductory text says,
The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the "blue laser" used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD.
If it offers six times more, then it offers seven times as much; correct? "More than" means "in addition to what already exists"; true? I'm still in the early stages of learning about Blu-Ray, and don't yet know the numbers. "Times more" and "times less" seem to be a very popular, but logically-sloppy shorthand that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, where strict language is especially significant. For instance: A three-yard-wide fence (or, make that three meters long) is two yards/meters wider than a one-yard/meter fence, right? That would make it two times wider. (To lessen obfuscation, I'll use "yards" only from here on.)
When writing (or editing), in particular, please carefully avoid "times smaller" or the equivalent! It's appropriate for describing the smile of the Cheshire Cat, provided the numbers are right (two times smaller than the cat's face), but "times smaller" and such typically leads to logical absurdity. The one-yard fence is not three times smaller (or narrower) than the three yard fence. It is, however, one-third the width of the three-yard fence. In more detail, the narrow fence is two yards narrower. If you say it's three times narrower, then "times" implies multiplication. Multiplication of what? The width of the three-yard fence, of course. Three times that is nine yards. If it's nine yards smaller, it's minus six yards wide! This suggests that the fence has been obliterated, leaving a double-size negative ghost image.
Regards, Nikevich ( talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is Blu-Ray video 8-bit or 10-bit in color depth? I could not find this info anywhere. DORC ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"The first known attack relied on the trusted client problem. In addition, decryption keys have been extracted from a weakly protected player (WinDVD)". Please explain what an attack relying on the "trusted client problem" is, and what's the difference is between that and extracting keys from a PC software (WinDVD). Unless somebody can add more info I suggest we change this. Has any attack relied on something else than extracting single device keys from software or hardware players? -- LM, 6 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.57.46 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The program DumpHD, along with some supporting software is known to cirumvent versions of the BD+ protection. Read main article for more (citated) information! ("BD+" section)
From the BluRay article
". This technology enables content and service providers to offer value-added interactive features that can be initiated and managed by consumers via their disc player remote control directly from their living rooms "
Needless to say, this is un-necessary and un-cited marketing propganda (propably inserted there by the marketing dept of the BluRay Disc assosiation. Especially the "via their disc player remote control directly from their living rooms" part, is pure marketing language, full of misleading content (you don't have to have a remote control or to be in your living room, you can do it from a PC in your bedroom), and generally, it is not of encyclopedic content in any way. Improved with facts (someone to add a citation, too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, added some improvements to the "BD+" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of marketing propaganda, whats about the "PLAYSTATION®3", with registered trademark, all caps and everything, doesn't look too neutral to me. 62.107.158.115 ( talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When searching bluray disc in google or even in wikipedia's built in search this link is returned as the best result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc Also this very article's link points to this link. Sadly this link only shows a 404 not found error. Is there a way to make it redirect to this article?
The the correct URL seems to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray_Disc
-- 200.115.64.250 ( talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the world-map image for the "Region Codes" section from "Blu-ray regions with key.png" to "Blu-ray regions without key.png". The "...with key.png" image shows incorrect information for some countries according to the reference map on the Blu-ray Disc Association web site ( BDA FAQ link).
The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) web site provides only very general information on which countries "belong" to which BD region codes. However, the BDA does provide a low-resolution, color coded map of the world showing the three regions - A, B and C - and from this map one can identify the correct BD region for most countries.
A (previously used?) wikipedia map already exists in wiki commons that is more correct / more consistent with the BDA web site information so I have changed the article to link to that more correct image ("Blu-ray regions without key.png").
The areas of "Blu-ray regions with key.png" that were inconsistent with the BDA map include:
There appears to be one small error remaining in the new map but I don't have the graphic editing tools necessary to fix it:
This issue has been discussed before ( Talk:Blu-ray_Disc/Archive_9#Inconsistency_in_region_code_map) and there appear to be a lot of incorrect maps "out there". Of course it is possible that the BDA map itself is incorrect - but unless someone can find a more reliable / authoritative source for region-code information, this BDA map seems to be the best reference available. Pugetbill ( talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
According to BD spec (Region B: - Europe) Belarus and Ukraine are Region B. I think last update on this map which included them to C wasn't correct. -- DmitriyR ( talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
<Comment has been removed>
There is nothing about the reception of Blu-ray, either by the public or the industry. I have read an article by an independent film publisher slating the costs of working with the format and I have also read complaints by the public about the performance of the players and their concerns about DRM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.161.10 ( talk) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section under the above heading says that Bluray supports up to 25fps progressive at 1920x1080; the cited pdf only specifies up to 24fps and consensus elsewhere is that 24fps progressive is the correct limit. Is there any vaguely official source showing that 1080p25 is supported? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blu-ray_Disc&action=historysubmit&diff=327667159&oldid=327354568 is the change, any reason this hasn't been reverted? TNC ( talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand how all players have to support a minimum subset of the available codecs and I understand that all discs have to use one of the mandatory codecs for its primary audio tracks. However, the article doesn't explain how a low cost player that lacks support for, say, DTS-HD Master Audio manages to output analogue sound from its stereo audio phono connectors when playing a disc that only purports to have a DTS-HD Master Audio sound track. Is there a backup audio track in one of the mandatory formats that's hidden away and not selectable by the user or advertised on the packaging? MegaPedant ( talk) 09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Next to footnote 15, the article talks about cartridges no longer being necessary. What cartridges is the article refering to? I'm assuming that in the early days the discs had to be protected from scratches using some sort of cartridge but the article doesn't make that clear. Jimindc ( talk) 07:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is Blu-ray media so expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 ( talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the technology required to manufacture blank bluray's is expensive and relatively new. CD-Rs, DVD-Rs. DVD-R DLs were expensive too during the first years of their existence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox it says for storage capacity:
25 to 50 GB (single layer) 50 to 100 GB (dual layer) (1 TB to 10 PB) Future 2010 afterwards
My qualms:
-- Melab±1 ☎ 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)) --
205.233.8.190 (
talk)
15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)eg this webpage is a really good model for what a discussion of what types of BDs there are, and the nomenclature https://www.verbatim.com/subcat/optical-media/blu-ray/ this https://videobyte.cc/blu-ray-discs-type/
also has a lot of info that is lost in this very very long and wordy article, IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 17:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering what's about that one. It claims to circumvent any known BD+ and AACS protection. Due my lack of BluRay drives, I am unable to test it, but it's OpenSource [18] and runs on Windows, Linux and Mac. [19] -- Mewtu ( talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've discovered there's a certain bias for or against different companies who worked with this invention (and for that matter, the same is true for the CD & DVD articles here on Wikipedia), particularly Philips and Sony, who where the major contributors to both the CD, DVD and now the Blu-Ray, remain relatively under appreciated in the articles, and thus implying that instead of European and Asian companies, US and other American companies played the main roles in the inventions.
Point 2: There appears to be a great deal of vandalism going on on these articles and topics, this suggesting the need for at least a simi or partial lock on the articles. DaveFlash ( talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that we could see Java games played on Blu-Ray players? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 ( talk) 05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we make it very clear at the beginnig of the article what the official acronym is and that henceforth this will be used throughout the article?
Meaning we would replace every instance of "Blu-ray Disc" and "Blu-ray Discs" with "BD" and "BDs" – except where the written out form is necessary (like, when is explained what the acronym stands for, in official product names and such) –, in the same way "CD" / "CDs" and "DVD" / "DVDs" is used instead of the cumbersome "Compact Disc" / "Compact Discs" and "Digital Versatile Disc" / "Digital Versatile Discs", respectively?
That would save A LOT of space, would make the article more readable and do away with or at least clear up some of the confusion with regards to wrong forms such as "Blu-rays" und "BD discs".
What do you all think? – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is patently absurd. Nobody uses the acronym BD for any reason. CD and DVD are generally accepted abbreviations that everyone understands. Nobody uses BD. Seriously, this is absurd. We want WP to be generally understandable. We don't want to force anyone to read any particular section. But CD and DVD are generally understood, yet BD is simply not. Once again, this whole discussion is absurd. 68.194.226.80 ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
BD is a common term, I use it all the time. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree , it is a common Wikipedia practice to use shorthands whenever a name is too long and/or used frequently.-- Musaran ( talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the article, BD technology is compared to "standard DVD" technology. Why not just refer to DVD as DVD? The current wording carries the implication that a BD is a non-standard DVD. Considering how common the misconception is, the article should clarify the distinction, not reinforce it. A DVD is not a type of CD, and a BD is not a type of DVD, but it's common to hear people talk about Blu-ray DVDs. If the purpose of the phrase is to distinguish between DVD and HD DVD, it's not necessary. If you consider an HD DVD a non-standard DVD, the HD already makes that distinction. Is there any reason that anybody would think that "the ... system used on DVDs..." would be referring to a non standard DVD of some sort? I can't see why "standard DVDs" would be needed in such a phrase. Hagrinas ( talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"Standard DVD" may make some sense when discussed along with 8-cm DVDs ("MiniDVD") or DVD-video-on-CD. "Standard DVD" makes no sense in relation to BD.
On the other hand, there should be made a clear distinction between BD media and BD video standard. It does not help that the video spec is called Blu-ray Disc, or is it called Blu-ray Disc Video? It is a bit clearer with DVD, where media is called DVD, while the video on disc spec is called "DVD-Video". "DVD" by itself does not imply a disc with video programming and should not be used in this context.
I suggest splitting this article into two: one about media and another about video + media package. The article intro says: "Blu-ray Disc is an optical disc storage medium designed to supersede the standard DVD format". So, is this article about storage medium? If yes, then codecs, containers, DRM and other BD-video related stuff does not belong to this article. Mikus ( talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"In fact, there was no medium with the storage required to accommodate HD codecs, "
makes no sense. The "codec" is the piece of software which encodes and decodes the stored video data. The piece of software is small and it is in the player, not on the disk. Eregli bob ( talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the fact that Blu-ray means nothing on your standard TV set, or that you need a special player just to watch them, which costs a lot more than the best DVD player for sale today. - Some Dude You've Never Known ( talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah i was also surprised to see that there wasn't a criticism section in this article. Not saying that there has to be one but on a subject like this it is almost mandatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 ( talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No mention that grandma has no chance of having her blueray player just work. Perodic install of new keys is mandated by the frisbee manufacturers. That means no internet and your blueray player has 6 month lifetime max. Then buy a new player or try and find a, lol, repair man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.99.163 ( talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BlueRay came way too late and is way too expensive (media and players) and fragile. The future was not optical disks but flash memory. I am more than happy with the quality of my DVDs and VHS on my 37" 720p screen. Why is there this persuit of 'quality' when the MP3 and digital cameras has shown that 'quality' is NOT a big issue for Joe Public. Convenience is everything now and optical disks are not convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.30.130 ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a bunch of still-jaded HD DVD fanboys are on the Blu-ray talk page, lol. Blu-ray Disc players have been found for $49 at Wal*Mart. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the article be moved to Blu-ray. This article isn't limted to describing the optical media itself, but talks about the whole format specification (codecs, DRM, Java, BD-Live, BD-J, etc), and so it should be renamed accordingly. -- uKER ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
About this revert, I had changed the lead to say that Blu-ray is a high definition media format, and it was reverted to say it's a general purpose physical media. As the article stands, it talks about Blu-ray as a video standard, not the discs themselves, so I'd say the lead should be as it was before the revert. Blu-ray discs surely can be used to record whatever you want on them, and it can be made explicit if needed in the appropriate section (Physical Media) but this is not what whole the article is about. -- uKER ( talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Need some explain for U-Control in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.86.250 ( talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I were a bit fast to link to this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Articles_List_of_Blu-ray_Community_Screening_releases
But I really think it is an important part of the Bluray spec. That differentiate it from DVD very direct, interactive versus non-interactive.
Maybe it should be mentioned here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BD-Live
-- 85.227.250.36 ( talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something like this in the BD-Live section: "Community Screening" enables the film distributor to allow its customers an interactive movie experience, often by a live chat with the film director while watching the movie. This is currently only available on some films and require a Bluray player supporting the Bluray 2.0 Profile or greater.
-- 85.227.250.36 ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Community Screening allows a viewer(the host) to invite other viewers with the same film to watch it together via the internet. The host become a moderator and is the one controlling functions during the film like paus, fast forwarding or rewinding. The precipitants can also chat with each other. There is also a variant of Community Screening were the film distributor hosts a public event were anyone with a copy of the film can join the director hosting. http://wblive.warnerbros.com/registration/faq.html -- 85.227.249.2 ( talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention if there are any differences in picture quality between 2D Blu-ray and 3D Blu-ray. Is the bit rate for one eye in 3D Blu-ray as high as the bit rate in 2D Blu-ray? If it is, how can they manage to put a full length 3D movie in one disc? Urvabara ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, on product packaging, the region codes look like this: [20]. Is there a free version of this, or should we scan in some packaging? -- Beland ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the blue laser used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD. The term Blu was used instead of the correct Blue which is commonly used in English (and therefore not registrable as a trademark)."
But common English words are sometimes trademarked. Take Apple and Sandals for instance. Does this mean:
Incidentally, I just read on Compact Disc a mention of the "trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo". That's just as well using common English words with more or less the literal meaning. Do I rightly deduce the point here is that BDA did this in order to trademark the name and not just the logo? -- Smjg ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Much of the article applies only to 2D Blu-ray. Blu-ray 3D specifications have been published in section 6 of the specification at http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_Audio_Visual_Application_Format_Specifications-18780.pdf. These should be added, or added to a separate 3D-only article. The current article may need to be restructured to make it clear which parts apply only to 2D. It is difficult to integrate the 3D specifications into the existing structure. -- NPHope ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone who is technical and knowledgeable about BRD's please read the material and edit it for the many ambiguities and possibly mis-stated information? Here is an example: "Blu-ray recorders are not being sold in the U.S. due to fears of piracy. Personal computers with Blu-ray recorders are commonplace." Which is it? Also, the order of the presentation of material is so confusing and illogical that it is very difficult to follow. Wikipedia does not need to have this kind of poorly written article displayed. If you are interested in keeping this article, please clean it up 71.41.155.82 ( talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)jonathan ayres
Fully agree. The article is a mess. The text in the introduction to the History section is NOT a history of Blu-Ray technology, is is a fuzzy & unscientific tale about 'blue lasers', with no reference at all to Blu-Ray. If this article is ever to get serious, this text must be completely replaced by a knowledgeable account. -- AVM ( talk) 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The article should at least link to a list of software players. Or is there a reason there is not a single mention of the (un)availability of software players on various platforms? bng 90.179.239.97 ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for the compression ratio for Blu-ray codec; if it is in this article, it is not easy to find. This would be a useful thing to add. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because there is no default codec for Blu-ray, it supports MPEG2, AVC (h.264), and VC-1. look at those articles for the information you're looking for. Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 19:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the Blu-ray Disc photo in the infobox is a bit misleading... Most of the Blu-rays for sale today are a silver color that is very similar to a DVD or CD. The disc in the photo is probably either a BD-R or a BD-RE. The reason I think the photo is misleading is because somebody might go to Wikipedia to see what a Blu-ray disc looks like, and they'll get the impression that it's purple/blue, especially with the name of the standard being "Blu[e]-ray". — Alex Khristov 17:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In the first line (in parantheses) of this version, it reads
"[...] and official shortened name is Blu-ray"
I'd appreciate it if someone showed me an official source (something like a white paper by the BDA will do) for this, as don't think that's true. Blu-ray 3D is an official term, Blu-ray, as far as I'm aware, is NOT. If evidence can not be established, this should be changed back – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 20:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't say "official", it should say "correct" particularly if you're citing Blu-ray.com which doesn't say "official" at all. It's the corrent shortening vs. Blu-Ray or Blue-ray only in the sense that the other terms are incorrect. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The chart found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video does not contain any 1920x1280 resolutions over 30fps, so it's easy to think that BD does not support 1080/50i or 60i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.95.241 ( talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
From where does this chart originate? -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been 2 months since my 1st comment. Over half of this chart seems to be bogus, so before I attack it, I'd like to know from where it originates -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 22:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Extensive discussion of frame/field rate notation, involving confirmed sockpuppets
|
---|
::@
Uk55:: The official white paper does not use the correct designations as defined by the IEC. They state that the frame rate is the correct designation. This at least makes all the different standards consistently measured. Refering to the UK interlaced standard as '50i' is a bit like refering to the analogue standard from which it came as a 312+1⁄2 line system (i.e. the lines in a field). In each case you are only using half the complete frame to describe the system. This is an encyclopedia and as such it should follow any internationally established standards of expressing anything it describes. That some white paper has used a different system is not sufficient justification to use the wrong designations in an encyclopedia.
Your claim that, "the chart has listed field rates for the majority of its history on wikipedia" is untrue. Checking the edit history shows a number of important factors.
You have now engaged in what is clearly a pointy edit war where you seem to have unilaterally decided that the table must be in field rate. This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by co-operation and consensus. As for as your desire to have the table in the non standard practise of field rate, you are over-ruled by consensus. DSP, IBW and 85.255.233.161 have all objected to your continued reversion of the table to field rate, and I now add my vote of support to that objection because even in my industry (railways) we adopt the standard practice of identifying display systems by frame rate. If we include the editor who added the note that frame rate is the "industry standard practice" as several have worded it, that makes a consensus of five. I should probably include all others who have reverted back to frame rate, but I haven't got time to count them. But five plus is enough for a consensus. If this industry standard practice could be supported by a suitable reference, that would be desireable. But it is not necessary because consensus about industry practice carries the day. I would respectfully suggest that you walk away from this and find something you can make a positive contribution to. --LiveRail 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
|
I've collapsed the discussion above, as the other participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. Rather than simply reverting their changes, however, I've changed the formatting of the chart to more closely match its source. This should clear up any confusion caused by 'fps' referring to two different things, whilst remaining consistent with the citation and the rest of the article.
I think this is a good compromise, but given the history, I'd like to politely ask anyone who disagrees to continue the discussion here rather than reverting straight away. Uk55 ( talk) 20:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states each layer contains 25GB. Yet the triple layer disk contains 100GB and quadruple layer 128GB. The article should explain this anomaly. - 58.108.188.6 ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says - While a DVD uses a 650-nanometer red laser, Blu-ray Disc uses a 405 nm blue laser . This shorter wavelength allows for over five times more data storage per layer than allowed by a DVD. It is not described why and how this shorter wavelength allows for more data stoarage. It will be helpful if this technical information is provided. Thanks.
Anish Viswa
08:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i believe that the blue ray is not actually a blue laser but it;s a violet beam am i right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando112p ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The number of available titles in the lead section uses the Now Available page of blu-ray.com as its source. However, the number of titles does not seem to be available directly on that page, which is a big list. By checking the number of pages of the list, we can have an assessment on the number of titles listed: I find 6300+ in the US, and 3700+ in the UK, which is quite different from what is currently written in the article. Am I missing something, or is this information outdated ? Thanks for your help. Cochonfou ( talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an HDTV or a fancy disk player but my laptop can show HD video if I download it.
The word "conceded" makes it sound like Toshiba gave in to Sony but the press release does not support this. The release indicates the HD disks are being discontinued to foster the adoption of IT-hard disk solutions. It seems fairly clear that Toshiba is saying all video-disks including theirs are obsolescent. 68.149.247.130 ( talk) 04:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure whether it should go here or as a standalone article in the "See also" section, but presumably Pocket Blu should be here somewhere? danno_ uk 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just read through most of the history section for this article. It looks like it was pulled from a C grade article found two years ago on some other random site.
I'll come back to it and clean everything up that I can, but anyone who actually knows anything about the BD history might want to go ahead and start fixing it.
SilvestertheCat ( talk) 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand that blu-ray has java support but I'm not sure it really falls under wikijava. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XphnX ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Under the section Software Standards > Media Format > Codecs > Video, it states,
"For video, all players are required to support H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10: AVC, and SMPTE VC-1.[115] MPEG-2 is the compression standard used on regular DVDs, which allows backwards compatibility."
This leads me to believe that all Blu-Ray players must support DVDs. However, under the Backward Compatibility section, it states,
"Though not compulsory, the Blu-ray Disc Association recommends that Blu-ray Disc drives be capable of reading standard DVDs and CDs, for backward compatibility."
This appears to contradict the earlier statement. Could someone with the appropriate knowledge clear this up?
Edrarsoric ( talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, The link to the source in the "Blu-ray Disc for Video" reference is marked as dead (and it certainly is). Please update the link with the following URL: http://blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/Blu-rayDiscforVideo.aspx 195.80.129.44 ( talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is listed as needing a photograph, but it appears to have plenty of them and there is no explanation in the template or here on the talk page. Does anyone know what was being requested specifically? Zell Faze ( talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The informal colloquial name of Blu-ray Disc is Br. You can have a look at torrents at The Pirate Bay or at home theater forums to see what name people use most for referring to Blu-ray. I try to find a good reference for this, but I didn't find a good enough one. Could you help by pointing to a reference if you know any? Sofia Lucifairy ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I being dim or or am missing something? The chart lists resolutions and frame rates (note 1 under the chart says so). However, the interlaced formats seem to be expressed in field rate which is double the frame rate. Surely, the 1920x1080 50i should be 1920x1080 25i (and similar for the others) if it is frame rate? 86.130.98.251 ( talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
... should be added to the DRM section. (Don't have time myself now.) W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead must discuss popularity of the format, trends, compared to DVD and threats from other formats. All this technical info in the lead could be trimmed. -- Inayity ( talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
"High-definition video may be stored on Blu-ray Discs with up to 1080p resolution (1920×1080 pixels), at up to 60 (59.94) fields or 24 frames per second. Older DVD discs had a maximum resolution of 480i, (NTSC, 720×480 pixels) or 576i, (PAL, 720×576 pixels)." Makes no sense, since any kind of file can be stored on any kind of disc that will hold it. Author was apparently speaking only of BD discs vs DVDs.
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the proposed name is both "correct" (it's a widely used and accepted short form), and more common in the sources. Cúchullain t/ c 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Blu-ray Disc →
Blu-ray – Per
WP:Commonname. I only ever hear it advertised as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray Disc. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
Andrewa (
talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Unreal7 (
talk)
21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why the name Blu-ray?
The name Blu-ray is derived from the underlying technology, which utilizes a blue-violet laser to read and write data. The name is a combination of "Blue" (blue-violet laser) and "Ray" (optical ray). According to the Blu-ray Disc Association the spelling of "Blu-ray" is not a mistake, the character "e" was intentionally left out so the term could be registered as a trademark.
The correct full name is Blu-ray Disc, not Blu-ray Disk (incorrect spelling)
The correct shortened name is Blu-ray, not Blu-Ray (incorrect capitalization) or Blue-ray (incorrect spelling)
The correct abbreviation is BD, not BR or BRD (wrong abbreviation)
In accordance to other sources ( [27]]) the maximum bitrate for the audio "Dolby Digital Plus" should be 1.7Mbit/s instead of 4.736 Mbit/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.163.18 ( talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This article talks about a storage format, but it also talks about an actual disc. One thing is the physical medium where the information is stored and another how the information is stored in said medium. This article is unclear about what is what.
It says thing like "The information density of the DVD format...", but information density is a property of a physical medium, not of a storage format.
It also says "It was designed to supersede the DVD format, in that it is capable of storing high-definition video resolution (1080p)", which implies that it's not possible to store HD video in a DVD. That is, of course, not true. You can store video of any definition either on a CD, DVD or BRD. Another thing, completely, is the standards for video players which use those disc in a certain way. Again, two different things. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hrgwea (
talk •
contribs)
18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears there's an edit war between people who think it will support 4:4:4 sub-sampling and others who think it will remain 4:2:0. Does anyone have direct access to the specs? Because a leak earlier this year suggested it will be limited to 4:2:0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.37.97 ( talk) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Section Variants lists:
while sections Variations lists:
I could see a distinction where the former are variations of the physical format while the latter are variations on data level but then Ultra HD Blu-ray is at least in the wrong section, as it's physical characteristics differ. It may be better to simply merge these two sections. Thoughts? The Seventh Taylor ( talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Ultra HD Blu-ray is now covered as a section of the Blu-ray Disc article. Arguably, it is a separate standard with different disc structure (triple layer disc), different density, different video formats and encoding supported, etc., even though it shares some physical characteristics with Blu-ray Disc such as wavelength and numerical aperture (unlike DVD and CD). So the question it whether a separate section might be justified. The Seventh Taylor ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that the format is out, I must concur. It is a new format, incompatible with the old (Just try playing an Ultra HD disc in a regular Blu-ray player.), and it seems odd for it to only be listed as a section in this article given all the separate articles for other formats and in this instance would be like making HD-DVD a section of DVD. The only similar precedent that comes to mind is the way MUSE LD is a section of the Laserdisc article, but that was understandable given MUSE's obscurity.
Thus far wikipedia in general is extremely scant on Ultra HD Blu-ray mentions, with it usually not included in article home media sections, and only a handful of links to the section/redirect from articles. (Even UMD appears to have more!) What will justify more mentions, links, and in time hopefully a separate article? Will there have to be a couple hundred discs on the market to before any of this can happen? At the rate the releases are happening and being announced, this will be the case within a year or so. [28] I’m not going to put it up right now, but I think the section should be flagged for an article split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.104.141 ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've performed the split. — ajf ( talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently the resolution chart still has UHD resolutions. This should be moved to the UHD article, since it's confusing to have UHD material suddenly inserted into what seems to be a pure BD article. I believe it's incomplete for UHD BD too, since if that supports 4k at 60p it should support 2k at 60p. (I don't feel like looking it up to check, though.) 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the current Blu-Ray article seems to be a bit conflicted, sometimes saying that Blu-Ray itself supports 4K UHD, aka 2160p (it doesn't) and 10-bit color depth (it doesn't), and other times pointing out that UHD Blu-Ray is a separate standard that supports these things (it is, and it does). Conflating the two makes it pretty confusing, as it suggests regular Blu-Ray can do these things, which would render UHD Blu-Ray unnecessary. It should be clearer that they're two separate formats. ZoeB ( talk) 10:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Two sub-sampling rates have bee edited in (4:4:4 and 4:2:0), both using unacceptable blogs to support them as references. I have also seen 4:2:2 quoted as the sub-sampling but using an equally dubious blog. Unless a truly authoritative source can be found to nail the sub-sampling rate down, any speculative guesses have no place in the article and I have removed the given rate accordingly. 85.255.234.45 ( talk) 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What that means is, as it stands, UHD Blu-rays will only support 4:2:0 streams, exactly the same as regular Blu-rays. There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'. So to conclude, I think it's best the section stays as it is, not mentioning subsampling at all. Uk55 ( talk) 02:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)chroma_format_idc shall be set to “1”.
Should the frame rates be 29.97 instead of 23.97? 29.97 is 1/2 of 59.94.
I have never heard of 23.97 being used as a frame rate.
Mark
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Nintendo optical discs#Wii U Optical Disc, while it's unclear if Wii U discs are based on Blu-ray technology, they are not actually Blu-rays. I've removed the mentions of Blu-ray being used for Wii U games. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Blu-Ray in the 'Controversial topics' category - I don't think the battle between Blu Ray and DVD can quite be compared to that between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, nor Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. Should this perhaps be removed. -- 92.25.88.162 ( talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Any objections?
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Supported video formats
[1]
[2]
|-
! Format !! style="width: 200px;" | Resolution and
frame rate !! style="width: 100px;" | Display aspect ratio
|-
| rowspan="6" | 4K UHD
[a]
| 3840×2160 60p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 50p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 25p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 24p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="4" | HD
[a]
| 1920×1080 60p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 50p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 25p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="12" | HD
| 1920×1080 29.97i || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 25i || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 24p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| 1440×1080 29.97i
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 25i
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 24p
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 23.976p
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1280×720 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 50p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 24p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="2" | SD
| 720×480 29.97i || 4:3 or 16:9
[c]
|-
| 720×576 25i || 4:3 or 16:9
[c]
|}
^ a Only supported on UltraHD Blu-ray with
HEVC video compression standard.
Paianni (
talk)
18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
^ b MPEG-2 at 1440×1080 was previously not included in a draft version of the specification from March 2005.
[3]
^ c These resolutions are stored
anamorphically, i.e. they are stretched to the display aspect ratio by the player or display.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit set by PhonoGraphLazer ( talk · contribs) as I don't see why two other VHS formats (W-VHS and D-VHS) were removed and two other non-HD formats- UMD and VideoNow were added.
VideoNow in particular is a short-lived (and borderline novelty) format used for a kids' media player of the early-to-mid 2000s, and I've no idea why that belongs when (e.g.) D-VHS doesn't.
Ubcule ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are going on about “HD” this should go under High-definition video, I placed UMD and VideoNow because they’re discs of the same timeline, what’s VHS going to do with the subject? PhonoGraphLazer ( talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The redirect List of released blu-ray discs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of released blu-ray discs until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect List of Blu-ray devices has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of Blu-ray devices until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
any? only seems to support bluray over hddvd. one i can think of is "vendor lock-in" potentials with blueray. obviously this applies to hddvd as well, but it is a reasonable point. pricing perhaps as well?
Why should Blu-Ray have capacities listed which currently are unavailable? Isn't that exagerrating the truth? Sure next year there might be 100 GB Blu-Ray discs, but they aren't available yet. That's like listing Notebook Harddrive capacity is 300 GBs, there are none available on the market, but it might be available next year. ~Michael
How do you know that? It took Sony a year to work out all of the kinks in the two layer BD. Now it looks like Sony is just grandstanding, overpromising and underdelivering like they usually do. ~Michael
"The PS2 will have Toy Story graphic quality"
I figured if the Blu-Ray people weren't going to remove the "future" capacities that the "future" capacities for HD DVD should of been added. I didn't want to edit the Blu-Ray one because some one would probably just revert it. And yes I should get a user name so people don't have to refer to me as my ip address, lol. Maybe in that intro box it should be divided up into separate sections. One titled Current Blu-Ray/HD DVD capacity and one titled Possible future Blu-Ray/HD DVD capacity. Since the HD DVD had the triple layer 45 GB removed I decided to remove the future capacities for blu-ray. I hope it doesn't get reverted ~Michael
Either leave the triple layer capacity for HD DVD up, or leave the future capacities for Blu-Ray down ~Mike
I removed the original blu-ray region coding map because it contradicts both http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-13470/Section-14003/Section-14006/Index.html and http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11760#ixa in putting Taiwan (R.O.C) in region C rather than region A
Why does no one mention that Sony is collecting royalties per disc? Why is there no criticism section? I hear/read loads of criticism daily.
It would be nice to include a discussion on the copy protection, if any, that will be built into the standard.
This section needs rewriting, is in the future tense when talking about 2004. Likely some progress updates needed, eg PS3. -- Sgkay 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
SMALLER discs please please somebody SMALLER discs. Remember, mini versions of formats are always very limited in available content. Nice try Sony but the "Universal" Media Disc is a joke.
Wouldn't it be smarter to say something like "third generation" or something like it?
We don't even know if it will catch ;-)
I'd like to recommend that in the paragraph regarding "next generation" technologies, something be mentioned about potential "UV-Ray" discs in the near future. Pioneer successfully tested a 500GB UV laser optical disc in 2004, [1] and there is a company called Colossal Storage that is working on that format currently. [2] In any event, if this technology follows its course for at least a little while longer, the next logical step after Blu-Ray (actually being in the violet end of the spectrum at about 405nm) would be ultraviolet (1-380nm). Wikicali00 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry for intervening in this topic, but i just noted that some idiot had writen, that Blue Ray is yet to be published in the last section on this site.
Note:
Laserdisc (1978) - VHD (1983) - Laserfilm (1984) - CD Video (198?) - VCD (1993) - DVD (1996) - MiniDVD (?) - SVCD (1998) - FMD (2000) - UMD (2005) - HD DVD (2006) - Blu-ray Disc (2006?)
Let me quote from the site: "The first Blu-ray recorder was unveiled by Sony on March 3, 2003, and was introduced to the Japanese market in April that year. On September 1, 2003, JVC and Samsung Electronics announced Blu-ray based products at IFA in Berlin, Germany. Both indicated that their products would be on the market in 2005."
seriously... someone correct that idiot who wrote that it havent been released yet, or someone shoot the guy who wrote that Sony had already released this product.
I would appreciate if the anonymous 130.233.16.105, who according to his user page specializes on 'crisp bread', would stop vandalizing my text regarding the obsoleteness of the Blu-Ray format. Sony and Philips finalized the DVR (now called Blu-ray) format in 1995-1996, which means it is 10 years old, and there is no other conclusion than that Blu-Ray's format, modulation code, error correction code, filing system etc, is obsolete. Dsc 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
You are right: you also contributed to the Mickey Mouse article. By the way, there is a 1998 article by Philips/Sony employees on the DVR format (now BluRay), namely Optical disc system for digital video recording, T. Narahara, S. Kobayashi, M. Hattori, Y. Shimpuku, Sony Corp. (Japan); G. van den Enden, J. A. Kahlman, M. van Dijk, R. van Woudenberg, Philips Research Labs. (Netherlands) ODS Conference, July 1999 [4]. Note the remark on the year 1995 that "the parity preserve principle was first introduced by us in: J. Kahlman and K.A.S. Immink: U.S. Patent 5,477,222 (1995), where the principle was applied in a (d=1, k=8) RLL code." Also patent applications by Philips/Sony employees can easily be found to be first filed in 1997, see for example J.A.H. Kahlman, K.A. Schouhamer Immink, G. van den Enden, T. Nakagawa, Y. Shimpuku, T. Narahara, and K. Nakamura, 'Device for encoding/decoding n-bit source words into m-bit channel word, and vice versa', US Patent 6,225,921, May 2001, first filed in Oct. 1997. And probably invented and tested in 1996. Dsc 06:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
My dearest anonymous User:130.233.16.105, I just presented the requested literature and patents that clearly prove that Blu-Ray's physical layer was designed around 1995-96, just a few months after DVD's unification (Sept. 1995, after IBM's Lou Gerstner persuaded the electronics industry to accept EFMPlus). The 1995 DVR physical format, inclusive of 17PP channel code and 'picket' ECC code, address formats, wobble, headers, block structures, is exactly the same as that of Blu-Ray, and was never seriously modified. So I do not understand why you state that it was finalized in 1999 and updated in 2001. Please let me know what was finalized/changed in 2001? May be you can also explain why a physical layer technology designed around 1995 is not obsolete? Just think of Windows 95. No new insights since 1995? Higher efficiencies? May be User:130.233.16.105 also thinks that the 1979 CD format or 1985 CD-ROM format are not obsolete? Come on.
I have the impression that User:130.233.16.105 did not read the mentioned ODS2000 article. The authors of that article clearly state in the first sentence of Section 2 that their DVR format is intended for use in 'a' optical disc based digital video recorder . The authors fully explain the various design considerations, including address formats, wobble, headers, block structures etc, which were all designed in 1995-1996. They also explain which special measures had to be taken to construct a home recorder plus format requirements. I believe that someone with a normal skill in the art can understand that the designer of such a disk format has to trade various conflicting parameters, and when you opimize for home recording you cannot optimize for replication. Thus, I suggest that before User:130.233.16.105 vandalizes my texts again, that he/she studies the ODS article and tries to understand its implications, and tries to understand why it can be stated that Blu-Ray’s physical format is obsolete.
Therefore, I firmly conclude that, unless someone proves that Blu-Ray's physical format is not obsolete, i.e. no new insights/technologies were unveiled or added since 1995, the term 'obsoleteness' will be included again in the article. Dsc 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we revert this article to the "Revision as of 01:58, September 10, 2005". Looking at the changes, the only things that have been changed, are the inclusion of some weasel terms, the deletion of a useful image, and the addition of off-topic POV info about the DVD war... If nobody objects, I will revert day after tomorrow. -- Wulf 19:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Wulf, you are very quick with your conclusions and reverts. The loss of the DVD battle by Sony et al., leading to a) a small part of the royalty income and b) small influence in the DVD Forum, is essential to understand the history of Blu-ray, and must be part of the article. BD design started immediately after the conclusion of DVD in 1995-96. Since the engineers started so early and the standard was fixed, there was no opportunity to add new ideas to the format, and BD is therefore old-fashioned just like Windows95. This is not a POV, but a basic fact that can be checked (see above). So I am sorry but I will revert your reverts again. Dsc 07:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The article says that Durabis makes a BD resistant to a screwdriver attack, but the linked news article implies it the test was on a normal DVD. Of course, it's difficult to infer the meaning since they refer to BDs as next generation DVDs.
The second paragraph here seems heavily biased against Blu-ray to me. It seems to draw conclusions about what the outcome of HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc in the marketplace based upon marketing-speak from the HD DVD camp. Locke Cole 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the fact that this article has the "Alternatives" section, as it will hopefully serve to dissuade fanboys from cluttering up the *entire* article with HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray bickering.
Maybe it would be even better if there were an entire new article for comparing the two formats. Then we could enforce a policy of deleting all the POV edits and asking those editors to try to get their stuff into the separate format comparison article instead.
Frankly sometimes the arguing gets so bad, the article fills up with fanboy advocacy and it literally becomes difficult to extract any genuinely useful and on-topic info. Snacky 22:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that this article has attracted POV pushers, including some people who ought to know better (Dsc). Anything that smacks of opinion and isn't fully sourced should be deleted without hesitation. Mirror Vax 10:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that interesting, and with some effort tangible, sections of the article were removed by Mirror Vax. It is also unfortunate that some contributors to the article, such as Mirror Vax, apparently miss required physics background to understand the physics of optical recording as someone with that background could immediately understand that there are great difficulties in BD’s mass replication. I have just added a note regarding the reading of thin discs in the presence of dust, fingerprints, and other anomalies. If you wish, I can add the name of a good physics book. So please do not delete it this time by remarking it as a POV. Dsc 16:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
As explained, the hard coating will not solve the problem related to servo tracking. Polishing of BDs will be hard work. This difficulty was not mentioned by the previous 'coating' contributor, who apparently copied a brochure of a coating salesman. I added a note regarding the replication of BDs plus a reference (in order to make it non-POV) to the first paper published by Sony/Philips scientists on DVR, later called BD. It seems that some contributors to this article are mainly concerned in the fact that a commercial product such as BD attracts broad industry support, and less concerned in physics. Hopefully my additional note will not be too difficult to understand, otherwise please let me know, and I will forward additional references. Do not expect glossy brochures. Dsc 19:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Good. I just scanned the Blu-Ray article and the term 'replication', as you mentioned of great relevance in comparing various competitive formats, cannot be found except for my addition. Rather strange is it? An earlier contribution regarding replication was deleted for reasons of POV. To answer your question: I do not know whether BD is appropriate, but I am keen to see a fair and non-POV BD article, which is based on facts, but this seems to be difficult since some contributors do not have the required physics background. The moment they see a physics-based argument, it is deleted as 'POV' or 'NOR'. Dsc 21:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The DVR article, which details the premises of Blu-Ray is available from the website, is in my view public domain, but one has to pay a small fee. So Locke Cole is stretching the concept of 'public domain publication'. Yes, I admit, a system, built on a physical layer, which was designed in 1996, can work properly. Also Windows 95 works properly, but the moment you see an newer alternative like Windows 2000 you prefer the newer version. In ten years time interesting ideas has come to fruition that could not be implemented in Blu-Ray as the format was frozen.
One can easily delete remarks regarding dust and fingerprints susceptibility of thin substrates in optical recording, but one cannot ignore the laws of physics. After a tedious search for a free or low-cost publication, preferably on the web, (otherwise some contributors like Locke Cole might complain it is not in the public domain) I found [14], where you can read about the severe difficulties associated with thin, 100 micron in BD, discs. For someone with a physics background this is obvious. Essentially it has to do with the size of the light spot on the substrate, where the light enters the substrate. The thinner the disc, the smaller the diameter of that spot. As a result, particles on a thin substrate will obscure a relatively larger portion of the spot than particles on a thicker disc. A particle with a diameter of around 100 micron will completely obscure the light of a BD disc, while in HD-DVD the same particle will only obscure 5% of the light spot area, causing a small, 5%, amplitude modulation of the read signal. So in the BD case we have a complete drop out, while in the HD-DVD case we can detect most of the read-out signal. Clearly, this will affect the read-out and servo tracking. One can improve the error correction to deal with longer burst errors, but the servo control will remain vulnerable as there is no way to solve that. Note that a special 'Durabis' coating can never mitigate these effects whatever the PR people may promise in their glossy brochures. That concludes my lecture for today. Dsc 12:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You desperately need to read the paper mentioned above [15]. This well-written survey paper, written by two authors affiliated with Philips, explains some laws of physics related to the choice of the disc thickness amongst others. The two Philips' authors explain them, though they do not mention that they can overcome these laws, but may be, as you claim, the Sony engineers can. May be in Tokyo there are different laws than in Eindhoven. Could this remark be against WP:NOR, since it is 'physics- based' and therefore against it? I know that things cannot work if they are not in line with the laws of physics. Probably also against WP:NOR. Dsc 14:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The Philips' authors explain the physics of optical recording in a general setting, i.e. the article does not deal with a specific system, and the year, 1998, when it is was written is absolutely irrelevant (for a physicist). It is a fine article written by excellent scientists. Anyway, I made another search for a free article on the web, and found [16], written by Heemskerk in 2002, an author affiliated with Philips. On page 27, you read that this Philips' author admits that BD is 'relative' sensitive for dust, fingerprints, etc. So if the Philips' camp, BD's founding father, admits there is a 'relative' problem, then I conclude and know there is a big problem. You may observe on page 27, at the left, a diagram showing the obscuring effects that I tried to explain above. In addition, Heemskerk gives three possible solutions to cure this 'relative' difficulty, namely hard coat, cartridge, and strong ECC. Strong ECC is always a good idea, but it does not give an answer to servo tracking loss. A hard coating is also a good idea as it prevents the accumulation of scratches over time. A cartridge is a good idea, but may be consumers will not like it (higher price, compatibility with DVD and CD, etc?). I think, POV, that a hard coat alone is insufficient so that a BD without cartridge will be very sensitive for sticky debris on the disc (polishing again like the old vinyl records!), and that servo tracking will be very difficult to maintain. Let us just wait and see what will happen in the future. As a last point: HD-DVD will not be 'relative sensitive' for dust etc as the disc thickness is the same as that of DVD. Dsc 15:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The article should list news sources that explain how the studios’s convinced TV manufacturers to cease production of 3D TV’s so that the 3D experience would be a cinema only exclusive and even people who pirated Blu-ray 3D releases would be unable to view them. 86.93.208.34 ( talk) 02:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Where do you guys get this resolution limit non-sense? There is no imaginary limit for resolution based on disk type. You can put a 4k video on a CD-R, you just can't fit a very long one based on space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.86.0.165 ( talk) 03:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a spec designating container and formats for hardware player compatibility, like Red Book for audio. You can put MP3 onto a CD-R but that doesn't mean it's CD format audio or that "80 minute CD" is a meaningless term. CD audio is 16bit 44.1KHz LPCM, and Blu-ray video is VC-1, MPEG-2, or H.264 at given encoding settings/bitrates/resolutions/frame rates in an m2ts container. 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If infrared has a wavelength of 650 nm and violet has 405 (60% shorter) then how would that permit 21 more gigabytes to fit? Shouldn't the number be 7.5? What am I miscalculating?-- Spectatorbot13 ( talk) 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You are calculating incorrectly. First, take 4-inch ruler that is long enough to hold four one-inch-long one-dimensional objects. How many half-inch-long one-dimensional objects can it hold? Now take 4-inch by 4-inch sheet of paper large enough to hold 16 one-inch-square two-dimensional objects. How many half-inch-square two-dimensional objects can it hold? (There are other changes as well, so the above is just a starting point for your calculations, but you do need to start with two-dimensional density calculations, not one-dimensional.) 72.251.90.229 ( talk) 21:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To put it more succinctly -- you're calculating by length, not area. A smaller laser spot makes possible not only more information along the track, but more-closely spaced tracks. The areal density of information varies roughly as the inverse square of the wavelength. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 23:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The introductory text says,
The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the "blue laser" used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD.
If it offers six times more, then it offers seven times as much; correct? "More than" means "in addition to what already exists"; true? I'm still in the early stages of learning about Blu-Ray, and don't yet know the numbers. "Times more" and "times less" seem to be a very popular, but logically-sloppy shorthand that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, where strict language is especially significant. For instance: A three-yard-wide fence (or, make that three meters long) is two yards/meters wider than a one-yard/meter fence, right? That would make it two times wider. (To lessen obfuscation, I'll use "yards" only from here on.)
When writing (or editing), in particular, please carefully avoid "times smaller" or the equivalent! It's appropriate for describing the smile of the Cheshire Cat, provided the numbers are right (two times smaller than the cat's face), but "times smaller" and such typically leads to logical absurdity. The one-yard fence is not three times smaller (or narrower) than the three yard fence. It is, however, one-third the width of the three-yard fence. In more detail, the narrow fence is two yards narrower. If you say it's three times narrower, then "times" implies multiplication. Multiplication of what? The width of the three-yard fence, of course. Three times that is nine yards. If it's nine yards smaller, it's minus six yards wide! This suggests that the fence has been obliterated, leaving a double-size negative ghost image.
Regards, Nikevich ( talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is Blu-Ray video 8-bit or 10-bit in color depth? I could not find this info anywhere. DORC ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"The first known attack relied on the trusted client problem. In addition, decryption keys have been extracted from a weakly protected player (WinDVD)". Please explain what an attack relying on the "trusted client problem" is, and what's the difference is between that and extracting keys from a PC software (WinDVD). Unless somebody can add more info I suggest we change this. Has any attack relied on something else than extracting single device keys from software or hardware players? -- LM, 6 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.57.46 ( talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The program DumpHD, along with some supporting software is known to cirumvent versions of the BD+ protection. Read main article for more (citated) information! ("BD+" section)
From the BluRay article
". This technology enables content and service providers to offer value-added interactive features that can be initiated and managed by consumers via their disc player remote control directly from their living rooms "
Needless to say, this is un-necessary and un-cited marketing propganda (propably inserted there by the marketing dept of the BluRay Disc assosiation. Especially the "via their disc player remote control directly from their living rooms" part, is pure marketing language, full of misleading content (you don't have to have a remote control or to be in your living room, you can do it from a PC in your bedroom), and generally, it is not of encyclopedic content in any way. Improved with facts (someone to add a citation, too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, added some improvements to the "BD+" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 07:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of marketing propaganda, whats about the "PLAYSTATION®3", with registered trademark, all caps and everything, doesn't look too neutral to me. 62.107.158.115 ( talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When searching bluray disc in google or even in wikipedia's built in search this link is returned as the best result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc Also this very article's link points to this link. Sadly this link only shows a 404 not found error. Is there a way to make it redirect to this article?
The the correct URL seems to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray_Disc
-- 200.115.64.250 ( talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I changed the world-map image for the "Region Codes" section from "Blu-ray regions with key.png" to "Blu-ray regions without key.png". The "...with key.png" image shows incorrect information for some countries according to the reference map on the Blu-ray Disc Association web site ( BDA FAQ link).
The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) web site provides only very general information on which countries "belong" to which BD region codes. However, the BDA does provide a low-resolution, color coded map of the world showing the three regions - A, B and C - and from this map one can identify the correct BD region for most countries.
A (previously used?) wikipedia map already exists in wiki commons that is more correct / more consistent with the BDA web site information so I have changed the article to link to that more correct image ("Blu-ray regions without key.png").
The areas of "Blu-ray regions with key.png" that were inconsistent with the BDA map include:
There appears to be one small error remaining in the new map but I don't have the graphic editing tools necessary to fix it:
This issue has been discussed before ( Talk:Blu-ray_Disc/Archive_9#Inconsistency_in_region_code_map) and there appear to be a lot of incorrect maps "out there". Of course it is possible that the BDA map itself is incorrect - but unless someone can find a more reliable / authoritative source for region-code information, this BDA map seems to be the best reference available. Pugetbill ( talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
According to BD spec (Region B: - Europe) Belarus and Ukraine are Region B. I think last update on this map which included them to C wasn't correct. -- DmitriyR ( talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
<Comment has been removed>
There is nothing about the reception of Blu-ray, either by the public or the industry. I have read an article by an independent film publisher slating the costs of working with the format and I have also read complaints by the public about the performance of the players and their concerns about DRM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.161.10 ( talk) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The section under the above heading says that Bluray supports up to 25fps progressive at 1920x1080; the cited pdf only specifies up to 24fps and consensus elsewhere is that 24fps progressive is the correct limit. Is there any vaguely official source showing that 1080p25 is supported? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blu-ray_Disc&action=historysubmit&diff=327667159&oldid=327354568 is the change, any reason this hasn't been reverted? TNC ( talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand how all players have to support a minimum subset of the available codecs and I understand that all discs have to use one of the mandatory codecs for its primary audio tracks. However, the article doesn't explain how a low cost player that lacks support for, say, DTS-HD Master Audio manages to output analogue sound from its stereo audio phono connectors when playing a disc that only purports to have a DTS-HD Master Audio sound track. Is there a backup audio track in one of the mandatory formats that's hidden away and not selectable by the user or advertised on the packaging? MegaPedant ( talk) 09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Next to footnote 15, the article talks about cartridges no longer being necessary. What cartridges is the article refering to? I'm assuming that in the early days the discs had to be protected from scratches using some sort of cartridge but the article doesn't make that clear. Jimindc ( talk) 07:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is Blu-ray media so expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 ( talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the technology required to manufacture blank bluray's is expensive and relatively new. CD-Rs, DVD-Rs. DVD-R DLs were expensive too during the first years of their existence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 ( talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox it says for storage capacity:
25 to 50 GB (single layer) 50 to 100 GB (dual layer) (1 TB to 10 PB) Future 2010 afterwards
My qualms:
-- Melab±1 ☎ 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)) --
205.233.8.190 (
talk)
15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)eg this webpage is a really good model for what a discussion of what types of BDs there are, and the nomenclature https://www.verbatim.com/subcat/optical-media/blu-ray/ this https://videobyte.cc/blu-ray-discs-type/
also has a lot of info that is lost in this very very long and wordy article, IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 17:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering what's about that one. It claims to circumvent any known BD+ and AACS protection. Due my lack of BluRay drives, I am unable to test it, but it's OpenSource [18] and runs on Windows, Linux and Mac. [19] -- Mewtu ( talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I've discovered there's a certain bias for or against different companies who worked with this invention (and for that matter, the same is true for the CD & DVD articles here on Wikipedia), particularly Philips and Sony, who where the major contributors to both the CD, DVD and now the Blu-Ray, remain relatively under appreciated in the articles, and thus implying that instead of European and Asian companies, US and other American companies played the main roles in the inventions.
Point 2: There appears to be a great deal of vandalism going on on these articles and topics, this suggesting the need for at least a simi or partial lock on the articles. DaveFlash ( talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that we could see Java games played on Blu-Ray players? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 ( talk) 05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we make it very clear at the beginnig of the article what the official acronym is and that henceforth this will be used throughout the article?
Meaning we would replace every instance of "Blu-ray Disc" and "Blu-ray Discs" with "BD" and "BDs" – except where the written out form is necessary (like, when is explained what the acronym stands for, in official product names and such) –, in the same way "CD" / "CDs" and "DVD" / "DVDs" is used instead of the cumbersome "Compact Disc" / "Compact Discs" and "Digital Versatile Disc" / "Digital Versatile Discs", respectively?
That would save A LOT of space, would make the article more readable and do away with or at least clear up some of the confusion with regards to wrong forms such as "Blu-rays" und "BD discs".
What do you all think? – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 16:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This is patently absurd. Nobody uses the acronym BD for any reason. CD and DVD are generally accepted abbreviations that everyone understands. Nobody uses BD. Seriously, this is absurd. We want WP to be generally understandable. We don't want to force anyone to read any particular section. But CD and DVD are generally understood, yet BD is simply not. Once again, this whole discussion is absurd. 68.194.226.80 ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
BD is a common term, I use it all the time. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree , it is a common Wikipedia practice to use shorthands whenever a name is too long and/or used frequently.-- Musaran ( talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Throughout the article, BD technology is compared to "standard DVD" technology. Why not just refer to DVD as DVD? The current wording carries the implication that a BD is a non-standard DVD. Considering how common the misconception is, the article should clarify the distinction, not reinforce it. A DVD is not a type of CD, and a BD is not a type of DVD, but it's common to hear people talk about Blu-ray DVDs. If the purpose of the phrase is to distinguish between DVD and HD DVD, it's not necessary. If you consider an HD DVD a non-standard DVD, the HD already makes that distinction. Is there any reason that anybody would think that "the ... system used on DVDs..." would be referring to a non standard DVD of some sort? I can't see why "standard DVDs" would be needed in such a phrase. Hagrinas ( talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
"Standard DVD" may make some sense when discussed along with 8-cm DVDs ("MiniDVD") or DVD-video-on-CD. "Standard DVD" makes no sense in relation to BD.
On the other hand, there should be made a clear distinction between BD media and BD video standard. It does not help that the video spec is called Blu-ray Disc, or is it called Blu-ray Disc Video? It is a bit clearer with DVD, where media is called DVD, while the video on disc spec is called "DVD-Video". "DVD" by itself does not imply a disc with video programming and should not be used in this context.
I suggest splitting this article into two: one about media and another about video + media package. The article intro says: "Blu-ray Disc is an optical disc storage medium designed to supersede the standard DVD format". So, is this article about storage medium? If yes, then codecs, containers, DRM and other BD-video related stuff does not belong to this article. Mikus ( talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
"In fact, there was no medium with the storage required to accommodate HD codecs, "
makes no sense. The "codec" is the piece of software which encodes and decodes the stored video data. The piece of software is small and it is in the player, not on the disk. Eregli bob ( talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the fact that Blu-ray means nothing on your standard TV set, or that you need a special player just to watch them, which costs a lot more than the best DVD player for sale today. - Some Dude You've Never Known ( talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah i was also surprised to see that there wasn't a criticism section in this article. Not saying that there has to be one but on a subject like this it is almost mandatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.178.64 ( talk) 05:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No mention that grandma has no chance of having her blueray player just work. Perodic install of new keys is mandated by the frisbee manufacturers. That means no internet and your blueray player has 6 month lifetime max. Then buy a new player or try and find a, lol, repair man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.99.163 ( talk) 05:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
BlueRay came way too late and is way too expensive (media and players) and fragile. The future was not optical disks but flash memory. I am more than happy with the quality of my DVDs and VHS on my 37" 720p screen. Why is there this persuit of 'quality' when the MP3 and digital cameras has shown that 'quality' is NOT a big issue for Joe Public. Convenience is everything now and optical disks are not convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.30.130 ( talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a bunch of still-jaded HD DVD fanboys are on the Blu-ray talk page, lol. Blu-ray Disc players have been found for $49 at Wal*Mart. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the article be moved to Blu-ray. This article isn't limted to describing the optical media itself, but talks about the whole format specification (codecs, DRM, Java, BD-Live, BD-J, etc), and so it should be renamed accordingly. -- uKER ( talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
About this revert, I had changed the lead to say that Blu-ray is a high definition media format, and it was reverted to say it's a general purpose physical media. As the article stands, it talks about Blu-ray as a video standard, not the discs themselves, so I'd say the lead should be as it was before the revert. Blu-ray discs surely can be used to record whatever you want on them, and it can be made explicit if needed in the appropriate section (Physical Media) but this is not what whole the article is about. -- uKER ( talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Need some explain for U-Control in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.86.250 ( talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I were a bit fast to link to this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Articles_List_of_Blu-ray_Community_Screening_releases
But I really think it is an important part of the Bluray spec. That differentiate it from DVD very direct, interactive versus non-interactive.
Maybe it should be mentioned here as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BD-Live
-- 85.227.250.36 ( talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something like this in the BD-Live section: "Community Screening" enables the film distributor to allow its customers an interactive movie experience, often by a live chat with the film director while watching the movie. This is currently only available on some films and require a Bluray player supporting the Bluray 2.0 Profile or greater.
-- 85.227.250.36 ( talk) 11:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Community Screening allows a viewer(the host) to invite other viewers with the same film to watch it together via the internet. The host become a moderator and is the one controlling functions during the film like paus, fast forwarding or rewinding. The precipitants can also chat with each other. There is also a variant of Community Screening were the film distributor hosts a public event were anyone with a copy of the film can join the director hosting. http://wblive.warnerbros.com/registration/faq.html -- 85.227.249.2 ( talk) 23:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention if there are any differences in picture quality between 2D Blu-ray and 3D Blu-ray. Is the bit rate for one eye in 3D Blu-ray as high as the bit rate in 2D Blu-ray? If it is, how can they manage to put a full length 3D movie in one disc? Urvabara ( talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, on product packaging, the region codes look like this: [20]. Is there a free version of this, or should we scan in some packaging? -- Beland ( talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
"The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the blue laser used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD. The term Blu was used instead of the correct Blue which is commonly used in English (and therefore not registrable as a trademark)."
But common English words are sometimes trademarked. Take Apple and Sandals for instance. Does this mean:
Incidentally, I just read on Compact Disc a mention of the "trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo". That's just as well using common English words with more or less the literal meaning. Do I rightly deduce the point here is that BDA did this in order to trademark the name and not just the logo? -- Smjg ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Much of the article applies only to 2D Blu-ray. Blu-ray 3D specifications have been published in section 6 of the specification at http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_Audio_Visual_Application_Format_Specifications-18780.pdf. These should be added, or added to a separate 3D-only article. The current article may need to be restructured to make it clear which parts apply only to 2D. It is difficult to integrate the 3D specifications into the existing structure. -- NPHope ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone who is technical and knowledgeable about BRD's please read the material and edit it for the many ambiguities and possibly mis-stated information? Here is an example: "Blu-ray recorders are not being sold in the U.S. due to fears of piracy. Personal computers with Blu-ray recorders are commonplace." Which is it? Also, the order of the presentation of material is so confusing and illogical that it is very difficult to follow. Wikipedia does not need to have this kind of poorly written article displayed. If you are interested in keeping this article, please clean it up 71.41.155.82 ( talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)jonathan ayres
Fully agree. The article is a mess. The text in the introduction to the History section is NOT a history of Blu-Ray technology, is is a fuzzy & unscientific tale about 'blue lasers', with no reference at all to Blu-Ray. If this article is ever to get serious, this text must be completely replaced by a knowledgeable account. -- AVM ( talk) 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The article should at least link to a list of software players. Or is there a reason there is not a single mention of the (un)availability of software players on various platforms? bng 90.179.239.97 ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for the compression ratio for Blu-ray codec; if it is in this article, it is not easy to find. This would be a useful thing to add. Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because there is no default codec for Blu-ray, it supports MPEG2, AVC (h.264), and VC-1. look at those articles for the information you're looking for. Bumblebritches57 ( talk) 19:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the Blu-ray Disc photo in the infobox is a bit misleading... Most of the Blu-rays for sale today are a silver color that is very similar to a DVD or CD. The disc in the photo is probably either a BD-R or a BD-RE. The reason I think the photo is misleading is because somebody might go to Wikipedia to see what a Blu-ray disc looks like, and they'll get the impression that it's purple/blue, especially with the name of the standard being "Blu[e]-ray". — Alex Khristov 17:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In the first line (in parantheses) of this version, it reads
"[...] and official shortened name is Blu-ray"
I'd appreciate it if someone showed me an official source (something like a white paper by the BDA will do) for this, as don't think that's true. Blu-ray 3D is an official term, Blu-ray, as far as I'm aware, is NOT. If evidence can not be established, this should be changed back – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 20:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't say "official", it should say "correct" particularly if you're citing Blu-ray.com which doesn't say "official" at all. It's the corrent shortening vs. Blu-Ray or Blue-ray only in the sense that the other terms are incorrect. Dobyblue ( talk) 18:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The chart found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video does not contain any 1920x1280 resolutions over 30fps, so it's easy to think that BD does not support 1080/50i or 60i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.95.241 ( talk) 10:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
From where does this chart originate? -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 03:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been 2 months since my 1st comment. Over half of this chart seems to be bogus, so before I attack it, I'd like to know from where it originates -- MarkFilipak ( talk) 22:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Extensive discussion of frame/field rate notation, involving confirmed sockpuppets
|
---|
::@
Uk55:: The official white paper does not use the correct designations as defined by the IEC. They state that the frame rate is the correct designation. This at least makes all the different standards consistently measured. Refering to the UK interlaced standard as '50i' is a bit like refering to the analogue standard from which it came as a 312+1⁄2 line system (i.e. the lines in a field). In each case you are only using half the complete frame to describe the system. This is an encyclopedia and as such it should follow any internationally established standards of expressing anything it describes. That some white paper has used a different system is not sufficient justification to use the wrong designations in an encyclopedia.
Your claim that, "the chart has listed field rates for the majority of its history on wikipedia" is untrue. Checking the edit history shows a number of important factors.
You have now engaged in what is clearly a pointy edit war where you seem to have unilaterally decided that the table must be in field rate. This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by co-operation and consensus. As for as your desire to have the table in the non standard practise of field rate, you are over-ruled by consensus. DSP, IBW and 85.255.233.161 have all objected to your continued reversion of the table to field rate, and I now add my vote of support to that objection because even in my industry (railways) we adopt the standard practice of identifying display systems by frame rate. If we include the editor who added the note that frame rate is the "industry standard practice" as several have worded it, that makes a consensus of five. I should probably include all others who have reverted back to frame rate, but I haven't got time to count them. But five plus is enough for a consensus. If this industry standard practice could be supported by a suitable reference, that would be desireable. But it is not necessary because consensus about industry practice carries the day. I would respectfully suggest that you walk away from this and find something you can make a positive contribution to. --LiveRail 09:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
|
I've collapsed the discussion above, as the other participants have been blocked as sockpuppets. Rather than simply reverting their changes, however, I've changed the formatting of the chart to more closely match its source. This should clear up any confusion caused by 'fps' referring to two different things, whilst remaining consistent with the citation and the rest of the article.
I think this is a good compromise, but given the history, I'd like to politely ask anyone who disagrees to continue the discussion here rather than reverting straight away. Uk55 ( talk) 20:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states each layer contains 25GB. Yet the triple layer disk contains 100GB and quadruple layer 128GB. The article should explain this anomaly. - 58.108.188.6 ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says - While a DVD uses a 650-nanometer red laser, Blu-ray Disc uses a 405 nm blue laser . This shorter wavelength allows for over five times more data storage per layer than allowed by a DVD. It is not described why and how this shorter wavelength allows for more data stoarage. It will be helpful if this technical information is provided. Thanks.
Anish Viswa
08:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i believe that the blue ray is not actually a blue laser but it;s a violet beam am i right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando112p ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The number of available titles in the lead section uses the Now Available page of blu-ray.com as its source. However, the number of titles does not seem to be available directly on that page, which is a big list. By checking the number of pages of the list, we can have an assessment on the number of titles listed: I find 6300+ in the US, and 3700+ in the UK, which is quite different from what is currently written in the article. Am I missing something, or is this information outdated ? Thanks for your help. Cochonfou ( talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an HDTV or a fancy disk player but my laptop can show HD video if I download it.
The word "conceded" makes it sound like Toshiba gave in to Sony but the press release does not support this. The release indicates the HD disks are being discontinued to foster the adoption of IT-hard disk solutions. It seems fairly clear that Toshiba is saying all video-disks including theirs are obsolescent. 68.149.247.130 ( talk) 04:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure whether it should go here or as a standalone article in the "See also" section, but presumably Pocket Blu should be here somewhere? danno_ uk 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've just read through most of the history section for this article. It looks like it was pulled from a C grade article found two years ago on some other random site.
I'll come back to it and clean everything up that I can, but anyone who actually knows anything about the BD history might want to go ahead and start fixing it.
SilvestertheCat ( talk) 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand that blu-ray has java support but I'm not sure it really falls under wikijava. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XphnX ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Under the section Software Standards > Media Format > Codecs > Video, it states,
"For video, all players are required to support H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10: AVC, and SMPTE VC-1.[115] MPEG-2 is the compression standard used on regular DVDs, which allows backwards compatibility."
This leads me to believe that all Blu-Ray players must support DVDs. However, under the Backward Compatibility section, it states,
"Though not compulsory, the Blu-ray Disc Association recommends that Blu-ray Disc drives be capable of reading standard DVDs and CDs, for backward compatibility."
This appears to contradict the earlier statement. Could someone with the appropriate knowledge clear this up?
Edrarsoric ( talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, The link to the source in the "Blu-ray Disc for Video" reference is marked as dead (and it certainly is). Please update the link with the following URL: http://blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/Blu-rayDiscforVideo.aspx 195.80.129.44 ( talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is listed as needing a photograph, but it appears to have plenty of them and there is no explanation in the template or here on the talk page. Does anyone know what was being requested specifically? Zell Faze ( talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The informal colloquial name of Blu-ray Disc is Br. You can have a look at torrents at The Pirate Bay or at home theater forums to see what name people use most for referring to Blu-ray. I try to find a good reference for this, but I didn't find a good enough one. Could you help by pointing to a reference if you know any? Sofia Lucifairy ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Am I being dim or or am missing something? The chart lists resolutions and frame rates (note 1 under the chart says so). However, the interlaced formats seem to be expressed in field rate which is double the frame rate. Surely, the 1920x1080 50i should be 1920x1080 25i (and similar for the others) if it is frame rate? 86.130.98.251 ( talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
... should be added to the DRM section. (Don't have time myself now.) W\|/haledad ( Talk to me) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Lead must discuss popularity of the format, trends, compared to DVD and threats from other formats. All this technical info in the lead could be trimmed. -- Inayity ( talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
"High-definition video may be stored on Blu-ray Discs with up to 1080p resolution (1920×1080 pixels), at up to 60 (59.94) fields or 24 frames per second. Older DVD discs had a maximum resolution of 480i, (NTSC, 720×480 pixels) or 576i, (PAL, 720×576 pixels)." Makes no sense, since any kind of file can be stored on any kind of disc that will hold it. Author was apparently speaking only of BD discs vs DVDs.
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the proposed name is both "correct" (it's a widely used and accepted short form), and more common in the sources. Cúchullain t/ c 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Blu-ray Disc →
Blu-ray – Per
WP:Commonname. I only ever hear it advertised as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray Disc. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted.
Andrewa (
talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Unreal7 (
talk)
21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Why the name Blu-ray?
The name Blu-ray is derived from the underlying technology, which utilizes a blue-violet laser to read and write data. The name is a combination of "Blue" (blue-violet laser) and "Ray" (optical ray). According to the Blu-ray Disc Association the spelling of "Blu-ray" is not a mistake, the character "e" was intentionally left out so the term could be registered as a trademark.
The correct full name is Blu-ray Disc, not Blu-ray Disk (incorrect spelling)
The correct shortened name is Blu-ray, not Blu-Ray (incorrect capitalization) or Blue-ray (incorrect spelling)
The correct abbreviation is BD, not BR or BRD (wrong abbreviation)
In accordance to other sources ( [27]]) the maximum bitrate for the audio "Dolby Digital Plus" should be 1.7Mbit/s instead of 4.736 Mbit/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.163.18 ( talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This article talks about a storage format, but it also talks about an actual disc. One thing is the physical medium where the information is stored and another how the information is stored in said medium. This article is unclear about what is what.
It says thing like "The information density of the DVD format...", but information density is a property of a physical medium, not of a storage format.
It also says "It was designed to supersede the DVD format, in that it is capable of storing high-definition video resolution (1080p)", which implies that it's not possible to store HD video in a DVD. That is, of course, not true. You can store video of any definition either on a CD, DVD or BRD. Another thing, completely, is the standards for video players which use those disc in a certain way. Again, two different things. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hrgwea (
talk •
contribs)
18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears there's an edit war between people who think it will support 4:4:4 sub-sampling and others who think it will remain 4:2:0. Does anyone have direct access to the specs? Because a leak earlier this year suggested it will be limited to 4:2:0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.37.97 ( talk) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Section Variants lists:
while sections Variations lists:
I could see a distinction where the former are variations of the physical format while the latter are variations on data level but then Ultra HD Blu-ray is at least in the wrong section, as it's physical characteristics differ. It may be better to simply merge these two sections. Thoughts? The Seventh Taylor ( talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Ultra HD Blu-ray is now covered as a section of the Blu-ray Disc article. Arguably, it is a separate standard with different disc structure (triple layer disc), different density, different video formats and encoding supported, etc., even though it shares some physical characteristics with Blu-ray Disc such as wavelength and numerical aperture (unlike DVD and CD). So the question it whether a separate section might be justified. The Seventh Taylor ( talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that the format is out, I must concur. It is a new format, incompatible with the old (Just try playing an Ultra HD disc in a regular Blu-ray player.), and it seems odd for it to only be listed as a section in this article given all the separate articles for other formats and in this instance would be like making HD-DVD a section of DVD. The only similar precedent that comes to mind is the way MUSE LD is a section of the Laserdisc article, but that was understandable given MUSE's obscurity.
Thus far wikipedia in general is extremely scant on Ultra HD Blu-ray mentions, with it usually not included in article home media sections, and only a handful of links to the section/redirect from articles. (Even UMD appears to have more!) What will justify more mentions, links, and in time hopefully a separate article? Will there have to be a couple hundred discs on the market to before any of this can happen? At the rate the releases are happening and being announced, this will be the case within a year or so. [28] I’m not going to put it up right now, but I think the section should be flagged for an article split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.104.141 ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've performed the split. — ajf ( talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Currently the resolution chart still has UHD resolutions. This should be moved to the UHD article, since it's confusing to have UHD material suddenly inserted into what seems to be a pure BD article. I believe it's incomplete for UHD BD too, since if that supports 4k at 60p it should support 2k at 60p. (I don't feel like looking it up to check, though.) 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 ( talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the current Blu-Ray article seems to be a bit conflicted, sometimes saying that Blu-Ray itself supports 4K UHD, aka 2160p (it doesn't) and 10-bit color depth (it doesn't), and other times pointing out that UHD Blu-Ray is a separate standard that supports these things (it is, and it does). Conflating the two makes it pretty confusing, as it suggests regular Blu-Ray can do these things, which would render UHD Blu-Ray unnecessary. It should be clearer that they're two separate formats. ZoeB ( talk) 10:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Two sub-sampling rates have bee edited in (4:4:4 and 4:2:0), both using unacceptable blogs to support them as references. I have also seen 4:2:2 quoted as the sub-sampling but using an equally dubious blog. Unless a truly authoritative source can be found to nail the sub-sampling rate down, any speculative guesses have no place in the article and I have removed the given rate accordingly. 85.255.234.45 ( talk) 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
What that means is, as it stands, UHD Blu-rays will only support 4:2:0 streams, exactly the same as regular Blu-rays. There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'. So to conclude, I think it's best the section stays as it is, not mentioning subsampling at all. Uk55 ( talk) 02:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)chroma_format_idc shall be set to “1”.
Should the frame rates be 29.97 instead of 23.97? 29.97 is 1/2 of 59.94.
I have never heard of 23.97 being used as a frame rate.
Mark
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Nintendo optical discs#Wii U Optical Disc, while it's unclear if Wii U discs are based on Blu-ray technology, they are not actually Blu-rays. I've removed the mentions of Blu-ray being used for Wii U games. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Blu-Ray in the 'Controversial topics' category - I don't think the battle between Blu Ray and DVD can quite be compared to that between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, nor Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. Should this perhaps be removed. -- 92.25.88.162 ( talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Any objections?
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Supported video formats
[1]
[2]
|-
! Format !! style="width: 200px;" | Resolution and
frame rate !! style="width: 100px;" | Display aspect ratio
|-
| rowspan="6" | 4K UHD
[a]
| 3840×2160 60p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 50p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 25p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 24p || 16:9
|-
| 3840×2160 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="4" | HD
[a]
| 1920×1080 60p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 50p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 25p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="12" | HD
| 1920×1080 29.97i || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 25i || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 24p || 16:9
|-
| 1920×1080 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| 1440×1080 29.97i
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 25i
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 24p
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1440×1080 23.976p
[b] || 16:9
[c]
|-
| 1280×720 59.94p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 50p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 24p || 16:9
|-
| 1280×720 23.976p || 16:9
|-
| rowspan="2" | SD
| 720×480 29.97i || 4:3 or 16:9
[c]
|-
| 720×576 25i || 4:3 or 16:9
[c]
|}
^ a Only supported on UltraHD Blu-ray with
HEVC video compression standard.
Paianni (
talk)
18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
^ b MPEG-2 at 1440×1080 was previously not included in a draft version of the specification from March 2005.
[3]
^ c These resolutions are stored
anamorphically, i.e. they are stretched to the display aspect ratio by the player or display.
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted this edit set by PhonoGraphLazer ( talk · contribs) as I don't see why two other VHS formats (W-VHS and D-VHS) were removed and two other non-HD formats- UMD and VideoNow were added.
VideoNow in particular is a short-lived (and borderline novelty) format used for a kids' media player of the early-to-mid 2000s, and I've no idea why that belongs when (e.g.) D-VHS doesn't.
Ubcule ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
If you are going on about “HD” this should go under High-definition video, I placed UMD and VideoNow because they’re discs of the same timeline, what’s VHS going to do with the subject? PhonoGraphLazer ( talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The redirect List of released blu-ray discs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of released blu-ray discs until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect List of Blu-ray devices has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of Blu-ray devices until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)