![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
I've reverted a change made stating that managed copy had been approved for Blu-ray. The change summary claimed "hdbeat" had announced it, but so far my searches on hdbeat.com have only turned up this, which indicates it was a posting at the AVSForums that announced the feature being in. I don't think an anonymous forum posting is credible enough for Wikipedia... -- Locke Cole 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the security section is, in places, almost word for word taken from this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050810-5194.html
Should there be a citation? I'm a n00b and unsure how the process here works. 11/09/2005
Would like to add a reference to this article: "Matsushita lowers production costs for Blu-Ray discs" - http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/100, but was unsure of where to put it. Perhaps we need a section at least discussing what we do know about the cost issue (vs. DVD, HD-DVD, etc.). I know this is not set in stone yet, but is that not the nature of this entire article? -- Willy Arnold 5:17, January 09 2006 (EST)
That sounds like a good idea to me. I think the mention of higher cost to which you are referring is still in the article--the last sentence of the very first paragraph. Maybe that should be edited/removed as well?-- Willy Arnold 12:19, January 10 2006 (EST)
(Addition:Wasnt that bigger cost due to the blu ray caddy? or the toughness coat?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz ( talk • contribs) 09:36, March 1, 2006 (UTC)
TotalDiscsProduced
) will be negligble; pennies per disc over the costs of HD DVD. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)I think the section listing all the launch titles should be moved to it's own article. It seems out of place as is. the1physicist 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated. It contains outdated information and the tenses are also outdated - e.g. "Philips is scheduled to debut a Blu-ray computer drive in the second half of 2005" Saads 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I find these emerging storage technologies very disturbing. I have collected a vast number of DVDs and the thought of re-buying them all over again is a nightmare I dont want. I know new players must have backward compatibility but how long is that going to last? One of the most common tactics for forcing consumers to adopt technology they dont want is to withdraw support for the alternative. Instead of using the vastly expanded storage to store more standard resolution video, theyre using it to store about the same amount of hisher resolution video. That sets a dangerous precedent of both expansion of storage and parallel expansion of space consumed by the content so we are constantly re-inventing the wheel and running desperately short of space now matter how big things get. I see a future where 800 Terrabyte discs store pitiful 4 hours of 6400x4800 video (HHHHHHDVD) because we...as a species...technologically...cant keep our pants on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz ( talk • contribs) 23:51, February 28, 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the topic to feel confident making changes but I do see that the PS3 is listed that it will be the first Blu-ray player...this is incorrect...Samsung will be releasing the first player to coincide with the launch of the physical discs...Anyone want to take this on?...I have labled the page as needing major work. see: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-27-2006/0004307028&EDATE= thanks: KsprayDad 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Will I be able to convert my own home movies to Blu-Ray and then make a copy (this should be legal because: a)I don't intend to make money off of it as the Feds might break down my door; and b)it IS my own movie) for each person in my family? I have home movies on both DVD and VHS. They can't take that privaledge away can they?-- 209.12.51.206 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
this is relevant to my interests —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.92.22 ( talk) 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html <- Sony apparently changed its mind on down-sampling. Anyone else able to confirm this? Pvt Mahoney 14:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request a history of blu-ray technology (not just diodes) because everything about it seems to have been lost. I can swear talking about it years ago, particularly as used for a casino storage medium. Stoutpuppy 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
External links are not for any and every report on Blu-Ray. With a few exceptions (the forum included), they should only be stuff that explains things that this article does not, or not as well. This is also not the japanese or german wikipedia, so links to that stuff should go on the articles in other languages. I cut out like half of those links cause they were junk - including one that linked to a site one needed an account for... Fresheneesz 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, porn has been one of the key drivers of new technology (video tapes, DVD, internet, broadband?). I wonder if this is going to be the case again. Does anyone know which format, if there is a bias, the porn industry is leaning towards? This may be the key to victory or defeat... Nil Einne 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on how much of a demand there is for ultra-high-definition porn. In that market it sounds more like a gimmick than anything else, at least until the format's pricing drops to current DVD levels (at which point the format wars will be over, in all likelihood). Tapanageta 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The largest adult entertainment producer in the US, Vivid Video, is releasing its movies in both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. A smaller competitor, Digital Playground, made a stance to go Blu-Ray only. [1] The-bus 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well porn does exist... just about everywhere. No, it's not a driving force, like everything in the current war for High definition content neither side has anything greatly better than DVD, except for picture quality. As it goes into the fall it looks like HD-DVD might have a lead as it was out first and appears to be adapting quicker, the PS3 which should have closed the door on HD-DVD is turning into a huge problem for Sony. With the 360 getting HD-DVD and the PS3 having multiple problems, the advantage is about equal.
Now if there was something where you could interact with the pornography, or that would definatly drive sales but as it stands, it looks like the only major advantage is Blu-ray's storaget capacity and HD-DVD's ease of production. Neithe technology assists pornography in any way which is one of the reason this war is so annoying. The only other major benefit is DRM, and unfortunatly that's not something that benefits the end user. Kinglink 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
An anon edited it to say that a single layer disc can hold two hours of HD video (it had previously said a single layer disc can hold four hours of HD video). I reverted it, but I do believe this section could be clarified. If using MPEG-2, then yes, a single layer (25 GB) disc would only hold about two hours of HD video. However, if using H.264, you could (conceivably) fit four hours of video. Note also the sentence after this that mentions the amount of video that can be held by a dual layer disc (the anon left this as saying "eight hours"). — Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What da hell is this "Complete list of announced BD launch releases"? What is BD? Keep the damn name full! Some people might not know what you are talking about? some might even be new to all this:/
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_historical.html
Warner Bros is listed as supporting Blu ray here and HDDVD on its page can someone find which it is they are backing
Using Blue-ray is bothering like hell. It is Blue-Ray.
What do you think?
Ed1t: My fault. Sony.com uses Blue-ray Disc. Bagga..
The ray praticaly stands for ultra violent ray light. Doesn't really stand for it, but that is the basic of the CD, using a ultra violent blue ray light.
So...the Ray means nothing.
The official website spells it "Blu-ray", the logo says "Blu-ray". No offer questions or answer, cuz that's the official name!
It is Blu-ray not Blue-ray, Bluray or ...
just Blu-ray
This replaces the previously titled section 'Blue Ray Facts'. I thought this was a rather out of place section, and incorrectly titled, that needed cleaning up, so I added some information about the reason it is called Blu-Ray and also included information from this above discussion. 134.219.171.36 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this article, whichs tells e.g. about a "self-destruct" function, still up to date? And if it is, should there be something about it in the article? – Mysid (t) 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence from Variations and sizes refers to a "table below", but there is no such table. The sentence appears to be taken verbally from theblu-rayshop.com. Copyright violation or not? At the very least it should be reworded, or someone should add the table it is referring to. -- 213.196.5.160 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I just saw a commercial for Underworld: Evolution which said, "Coming soon to DVD and Blu-Ray". On the main page, it's listed as releasing in late 2006. I obviously don't know what's going on here, but does anyone else? StealthHit06 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
CDs and DVDs use a single layer of lacquer over the reflective data backing (on the label side) and are more susceptible to damage than either HD-DVDs or Blu-ray discs.
If Blu-ray disks need a caddy, and Cd's don't, how the heck are CD's MORE susceptible to damage, especially since on blu-ray discs, the data is 'closer to the surface?' Also, what the heck does something being on the 'label' side matter? Does the article mean non-label side?
I removed the following although unfortunately forgot to mention why in the summary
As mentioned in the EVD page. I don't really see any point of discussing EVD as a competitor of BluRay. It was clearly intended as an alternative (that appears to have failed) to DVD based on the time frame and the design. No evidence it support HD content either. Therefore, would make as much sense to include DVD in the list... Nil Einne 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The region codes bit on this page used to be:
Region code | Area |
---|---|
1 | North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China) |
2 | Europe and Africa |
3 | India, China, Russia, and all other countries. |
and now it is:
Region code | Area |
---|---|
1 | The Americas, U.S. territories, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan |
2 | Europe and Africa |
3 | Asia (excluding Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and Oceania |
Anybody have any reliable source to justify this change? For the first grouping (which was on this page as recently as May 1, 2006) there are several online sources, whereas the current grouping has been changed by various anonymous users without explanation, such as 201.240.61.137 ( talk · contribs), 201.240.44.89 ( talk · contribs), 201.240.59.61 ( talk · contribs). Does anybody havbe more info? Where did India and Russia go? — Gabbe 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The first table seem better... Pretender2j 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no direct knowledge of region codes, but it seems odd that Australia (Oceania) is left off the first list. Eventually, there'll need to be a region list that includes Australia, India and Russia. (Sometimes in regioning Australia has been lumped with Europe, since we're a brittish nation, and other times with Asia, because of geographical proximity). — Snickkers 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Region code | Area |
---|---|
A | North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia |
B | Europe (EU), Africa, Middle East, New Zealand, Australia |
C | China, India, Russia, Rest of the world. |
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
I've reverted a change made stating that managed copy had been approved for Blu-ray. The change summary claimed "hdbeat" had announced it, but so far my searches on hdbeat.com have only turned up this, which indicates it was a posting at the AVSForums that announced the feature being in. I don't think an anonymous forum posting is credible enough for Wikipedia... -- Locke Cole 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the security section is, in places, almost word for word taken from this article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050810-5194.html
Should there be a citation? I'm a n00b and unsure how the process here works. 11/09/2005
Would like to add a reference to this article: "Matsushita lowers production costs for Blu-Ray discs" - http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/100, but was unsure of where to put it. Perhaps we need a section at least discussing what we do know about the cost issue (vs. DVD, HD-DVD, etc.). I know this is not set in stone yet, but is that not the nature of this entire article? -- Willy Arnold 5:17, January 09 2006 (EST)
That sounds like a good idea to me. I think the mention of higher cost to which you are referring is still in the article--the last sentence of the very first paragraph. Maybe that should be edited/removed as well?-- Willy Arnold 12:19, January 10 2006 (EST)
(Addition:Wasnt that bigger cost due to the blu ray caddy? or the toughness coat?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz ( talk • contribs) 09:36, March 1, 2006 (UTC)
TotalDiscsProduced
) will be negligble; pennies per disc over the costs of HD DVD. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)I think the section listing all the launch titles should be moved to it's own article. It seems out of place as is. the1physicist 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated. It contains outdated information and the tenses are also outdated - e.g. "Philips is scheduled to debut a Blu-ray computer drive in the second half of 2005" Saads 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I find these emerging storage technologies very disturbing. I have collected a vast number of DVDs and the thought of re-buying them all over again is a nightmare I dont want. I know new players must have backward compatibility but how long is that going to last? One of the most common tactics for forcing consumers to adopt technology they dont want is to withdraw support for the alternative. Instead of using the vastly expanded storage to store more standard resolution video, theyre using it to store about the same amount of hisher resolution video. That sets a dangerous precedent of both expansion of storage and parallel expansion of space consumed by the content so we are constantly re-inventing the wheel and running desperately short of space now matter how big things get. I see a future where 800 Terrabyte discs store pitiful 4 hours of 6400x4800 video (HHHHHHDVD) because we...as a species...technologically...cant keep our pants on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwengoenitz ( talk • contribs) 23:51, February 28, 2006 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the topic to feel confident making changes but I do see that the PS3 is listed that it will be the first Blu-ray player...this is incorrect...Samsung will be releasing the first player to coincide with the launch of the physical discs...Anyone want to take this on?...I have labled the page as needing major work. see: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-27-2006/0004307028&EDATE= thanks: KsprayDad 05:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Will I be able to convert my own home movies to Blu-Ray and then make a copy (this should be legal because: a)I don't intend to make money off of it as the Feds might break down my door; and b)it IS my own movie) for each person in my family? I have home movies on both DVD and VHS. They can't take that privaledge away can they?-- 209.12.51.206 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
this is relevant to my interests —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.92.22 ( talk) 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html <- Sony apparently changed its mind on down-sampling. Anyone else able to confirm this? Pvt Mahoney 14:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request a history of blu-ray technology (not just diodes) because everything about it seems to have been lost. I can swear talking about it years ago, particularly as used for a casino storage medium. Stoutpuppy 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
External links are not for any and every report on Blu-Ray. With a few exceptions (the forum included), they should only be stuff that explains things that this article does not, or not as well. This is also not the japanese or german wikipedia, so links to that stuff should go on the articles in other languages. I cut out like half of those links cause they were junk - including one that linked to a site one needed an account for... Fresheneesz 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, porn has been one of the key drivers of new technology (video tapes, DVD, internet, broadband?). I wonder if this is going to be the case again. Does anyone know which format, if there is a bias, the porn industry is leaning towards? This may be the key to victory or defeat... Nil Einne 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on how much of a demand there is for ultra-high-definition porn. In that market it sounds more like a gimmick than anything else, at least until the format's pricing drops to current DVD levels (at which point the format wars will be over, in all likelihood). Tapanageta 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The largest adult entertainment producer in the US, Vivid Video, is releasing its movies in both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. A smaller competitor, Digital Playground, made a stance to go Blu-Ray only. [1] The-bus 16:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well porn does exist... just about everywhere. No, it's not a driving force, like everything in the current war for High definition content neither side has anything greatly better than DVD, except for picture quality. As it goes into the fall it looks like HD-DVD might have a lead as it was out first and appears to be adapting quicker, the PS3 which should have closed the door on HD-DVD is turning into a huge problem for Sony. With the 360 getting HD-DVD and the PS3 having multiple problems, the advantage is about equal.
Now if there was something where you could interact with the pornography, or that would definatly drive sales but as it stands, it looks like the only major advantage is Blu-ray's storaget capacity and HD-DVD's ease of production. Neithe technology assists pornography in any way which is one of the reason this war is so annoying. The only other major benefit is DRM, and unfortunatly that's not something that benefits the end user. Kinglink 06:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
An anon edited it to say that a single layer disc can hold two hours of HD video (it had previously said a single layer disc can hold four hours of HD video). I reverted it, but I do believe this section could be clarified. If using MPEG-2, then yes, a single layer (25 GB) disc would only hold about two hours of HD video. However, if using H.264, you could (conceivably) fit four hours of video. Note also the sentence after this that mentions the amount of video that can be held by a dual layer disc (the anon left this as saying "eight hours"). — Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
What da hell is this "Complete list of announced BD launch releases"? What is BD? Keep the damn name full! Some people might not know what you are talking about? some might even be new to all this:/
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_historical.html
Warner Bros is listed as supporting Blu ray here and HDDVD on its page can someone find which it is they are backing
Using Blue-ray is bothering like hell. It is Blue-Ray.
What do you think?
Ed1t: My fault. Sony.com uses Blue-ray Disc. Bagga..
The ray praticaly stands for ultra violent ray light. Doesn't really stand for it, but that is the basic of the CD, using a ultra violent blue ray light.
So...the Ray means nothing.
The official website spells it "Blu-ray", the logo says "Blu-ray". No offer questions or answer, cuz that's the official name!
It is Blu-ray not Blue-ray, Bluray or ...
just Blu-ray
This replaces the previously titled section 'Blue Ray Facts'. I thought this was a rather out of place section, and incorrectly titled, that needed cleaning up, so I added some information about the reason it is called Blu-Ray and also included information from this above discussion. 134.219.171.36 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this article, whichs tells e.g. about a "self-destruct" function, still up to date? And if it is, should there be something about it in the article? – Mysid (t) 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The last sentence from Variations and sizes refers to a "table below", but there is no such table. The sentence appears to be taken verbally from theblu-rayshop.com. Copyright violation or not? At the very least it should be reworded, or someone should add the table it is referring to. -- 213.196.5.160 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I just saw a commercial for Underworld: Evolution which said, "Coming soon to DVD and Blu-Ray". On the main page, it's listed as releasing in late 2006. I obviously don't know what's going on here, but does anyone else? StealthHit06 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
CDs and DVDs use a single layer of lacquer over the reflective data backing (on the label side) and are more susceptible to damage than either HD-DVDs or Blu-ray discs.
If Blu-ray disks need a caddy, and Cd's don't, how the heck are CD's MORE susceptible to damage, especially since on blu-ray discs, the data is 'closer to the surface?' Also, what the heck does something being on the 'label' side matter? Does the article mean non-label side?
I removed the following although unfortunately forgot to mention why in the summary
As mentioned in the EVD page. I don't really see any point of discussing EVD as a competitor of BluRay. It was clearly intended as an alternative (that appears to have failed) to DVD based on the time frame and the design. No evidence it support HD content either. Therefore, would make as much sense to include DVD in the list... Nil Einne 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The region codes bit on this page used to be:
Region code | Area |
---|---|
1 | North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China) |
2 | Europe and Africa |
3 | India, China, Russia, and all other countries. |
and now it is:
Region code | Area |
---|---|
1 | The Americas, U.S. territories, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan |
2 | Europe and Africa |
3 | Asia (excluding Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and Oceania |
Anybody have any reliable source to justify this change? For the first grouping (which was on this page as recently as May 1, 2006) there are several online sources, whereas the current grouping has been changed by various anonymous users without explanation, such as 201.240.61.137 ( talk · contribs), 201.240.44.89 ( talk · contribs), 201.240.59.61 ( talk · contribs). Does anybody havbe more info? Where did India and Russia go? — Gabbe 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The first table seem better... Pretender2j 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have no direct knowledge of region codes, but it seems odd that Australia (Oceania) is left off the first list. Eventually, there'll need to be a region list that includes Australia, India and Russia. (Sometimes in regioning Australia has been lumped with Europe, since we're a brittish nation, and other times with Asia, because of geographical proximity). — Snickkers 00:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Region code | Area |
---|---|
A | North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia |
B | Europe (EU), Africa, Middle East, New Zealand, Australia |
C | China, India, Russia, Rest of the world. |