Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Comprehensive list of Blu-ray movies?

Hello - I was just searching for a list of Blu-ray movies that links to the movie pages, or at least categorizes by production company (like Touchstone or Miramax, etc.). I'm curious what movies you're missing/getting by choosing Blu-ray vs. HD DVD, and figured this kind of list would make it easy. An HD DVD list page would be the natural counterpart to this kind of page. I saw in an earlier discussion topic that someone tried to get a cheap link for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies under the guise of this kind of list and rightfully had it deleted; if someone created a legit list - ie, at least 30 titles to start - not all the same company, then made an HD DVD page later, would that make it relevant enough to list an article? Or at least a section in the Blu-ray page? I just think it's worth an article to have that quick, easy reference. Is that a bad idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyglass27 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As nice as it might seem in theory, it would be a logistical and contentious nightmare, with a eventual lists which may become thousands or tens of thousands of titles long. And how would you source the facts? I am dubious about wikipedia being the right place for this.Pisomojado (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Can Blu Ray DVD Players play HD DVD discs?

Will my Blu Ray DVD player allow me to watch HD DVD discs? I can't seem to find this answer anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.78.155 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Blu-ray player will not play HD-DVDs. If you had one of those Blu-ray/HD DVD hybrid players, you could watch both; but a standalone blu ray player will not play HD DVDs. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Region Codes and artifical demand for Region A players

Maybe like the DVD region codes section, where it states that there was a huge influx of region 1 DVD's, this could be added for BD? I know many friends who have imported a region A player into Australia (region B). I have only known 2 people with region B Blu-ray players in Australia, I got a region A player. I'm pretty sure this has a negative sales effect on non-region A retailers as I sure can't go down to my local jbhifi and get a BD. Don't know if many people do this, but most of my friends do this and I'm not talking about just 1 or 2 around 80% of people I know with BD players do not have one with the region allocated for Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufffin man (talk • contribs) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution is to get a derestricted or region free blu-ray dvd player. My modified Sony BDP300 machine plays regions A + B (although not C) blu-ray and regions 1 + 2 standard DVD. I think it's pretty cheeky that the manufacturers make 'limitations' of their product and tell us when and what we can watch. If you want to de-regionalise, you can get a region free blu ray machine from Code-Free DVD admittedly at a fair premium on the single-region price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristo123 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Format War

Removal of Blu-ray/HD DVD comparison

I agree with the person who tried to remove the entire HD DVD comparison section. That section is no longer relevant to Blu-ray or for people looking for information on Blu-ray. There are other pages (Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats) that are a better place to put such information. Can we please remove all reference to HD DVD from the Blu-ray page now? --Sam (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely Seconded on this account. When I have a bit more time in the future I'll get to this. On my list to do. If I don't before someone else, much thanks to them. It's all superfluous data now Queso Loco (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I made the above comment when there was still a top-level section on it. A single-paragraph discussion of the HD DVD format war seems appropriate in the history section now... and that's largely where it's been relegated to. Yay Wikipedia. --Sam (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

okay it's widely accepted that Blu-Ray won the format war, why not include this?

or if you don't say it blatantly beat HD-DVD, why not include how it's prodigiously beating the HD-DVD format in the intro, SOMETHING. 66.154.192.101 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Because "it's widely accepted that..." isn't good enough for an encyclopedia. Check out WP:NOR Barte (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but with sites like EngadgetHD declaring HD DVD is on a "death watch", it seems kind of silly not to note that. Note also that while WP:NOR stops us from reaching our own conclusions, it doesn't stop us from including conclusions reached by our sources. The "death watch" thing is recent, of course, but just saying, if someone were to add such language now, I can't see why we'd remove/omit it. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One word BLOG. When the NYT and the like start reporting that HD DVD is dead then maybe. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this article: New York Times : Taps for HD DVD as Wal-Mart Backs Blu-ray PaleAqua (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How 'bout this: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL1627196120080216 --w_tanoto (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

EngadgetHD was just the first example to come to mind. There are, of course, many sites noting that HD DVD appears to be nearing (or in the case of the NY Times, at) death. On a side note, blogs aren't disallowed, just discouraged. So long as they're reliable, I don't see how they're all that different from other news outlets. See WP:V for further information. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

the war is officially over. please update both Blu-ray and HDDVD articles accordingly. 12.39.2.83 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Netflix chooses Blu-Ray over HD-DVD

Reuters is reporting that Netflix has chosen Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.94.51 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wal-Mart

See this article. 74.56.130.55 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Wal-Mart's decision on 16th February 2008 was a major turning point in this struggle [1] as the Toshiba announcement came only 4 days later on 20th February 2008 [2] This should be included in the article, in my opinion. NaGromOne (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Delete Corporate Support section

Right now it's pretty much a wall of text, and it's not exactly useful. Maybe it should be placed in the comparison article instead? If you want, replace it with a simple description of the studio split and include the pie chart. Alternatively rename it history of the format war, and create a simplified graphical timeline representing the major events. 90.149.15.238 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Split off into History_of_HDDVD_vs_bluray_formats Mrdini (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Blu-Ray wins the format war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/tc_nm/toshiba_hd_dvd_dc;_ylt=ArJ95I41f58rnQMNELILPsMjtBAF --CrystalCypher (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AACS in HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray

Could someone please clarify the statement "Blu-ray requires AACS while HD-DVD does not." Does this mean that every Blu-ray disc, even BD-R and BD-RE home movies, needs AACS on it? What is the source of this requirement? I believe every player of both formats is required to support AACS, right?

I can't remember the exact details, but I think that any non-linear disc (BDMV or BD-J) needs to have AACS, even on recordable media. You can have AVC-HD discs (ie, stuff you record on a home video camera) but nothing that looks professionally produced. I could be mistaken though.Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't HD DVD require Managed Copy, which is a feature of AACS? I'm just going to add a "citation" tag to that sentence, I guess, since I can't find any evidence of its veracity. --Sam (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is from SlySoft: "HD DVD is much more consumer friendly (e.g., no region coding, AACS not mandatory)." --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SlySoft isn't exactly an authoritative source. I was hoping for a reference to one of the standards or an actual explanation of what is meant by that statement... --Sam (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Universal Goes Blu-ray

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Breaking:_Universal__Studios_Goes_Blu/1483
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1007

--w_tanoto (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramount and Universal back to Blu

• Engadget

New titles comming soon please update the article. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PS3's contribution is most certainly only a part

While there's a source at it, it reads alone as it's a vitally important reason. --Leladax (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I condsider the PS3 to be BRD's main savior. BRD disc sales jumped with the release of PS3, certainly, it is patently obvious that Sony put a BR drive in the PS3 to use as a consumer electronic 'Trojan Horse' to insert it's own tech into living rooms. Really, there was little need for the PS3 to have a BR drive to do what it was supposed to do, play games. Sony are cunning to do this, and they can't really be blamed, they are a business, after all.

I am all for changing the bit in the mention of PS3's influence in wording to use the phrase 'Trojan Horse'. Anyone agree?74.210.56.135 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering there's already a game on it that would take more than one DVD, I'd say that Blu-Ray will be increasingly key to the PS3's gaming experience over the next several years. It's certainly true that the PS3 was a major factor in Blu-Ray's success, but I disagree that the drive was a "Trojan Horse" component. It's more than a trophy to the PS3, it's a key part of its identity. --Sam (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Significance of the war was overrated

The significance of the format war was heavily overrated in mass media. DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray contain regular files that can be reused on various physical data mediums. This is much unlike Betamax, where the analogue data is inseparable of the tape (without losing much quality). -- J7n (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There were some important differences between Blu-ray and HD DVD though and not just in terms of disc structure. The video codec decoding parameters (Blu-ray supported a higher bitrate and longer GOP length) were different between the formats. As such it wasn't a copy and paste job to use encoded video on both formats unless the studio used the lowest common denominator for video encoding. Even if the studio did that they would have to redo the interactivity since the two formats used different interactive platforms (BD-J and HDi). The added cost of redoing the interactivity was one of the reasons why all of the studios eventually pushed for a single format to win. --GrandDrake (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

BD9 versus AVCREC

These sections are unclear. At first glance, they could be mistaken for the same technology. Some additional information on the formats, as well as their differences, is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinjiin (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know real differences between BD9, BD5, AVCREC and "AVCHD on DVD" for the lack of better term. From what I've searched, I found that:

• BD9 is similar to "normal" Blu-ray disk, but on regular DVDs. On the other hand, original spec says that BD9 disks musth be manufactured, not burned. Hence, self-made burned disks with AVC or MPEG-2 content cannot be called BD9 even if they have proper BD structure.
• BD5 is not a spec at all. Someone made this name up because they thought that as BD9 covers for DL disks, similar recording on a SL disks should be called BD5. But this is not an official spec, there is no BD5!
• AVCREC seems having AVC content on regular DVD disks, can be burned not just pressed. Can't say much about it as docs cost money, $250 at least. I hate closed standards, they charge you for the docs!
• AVCHD video from camcorders. Right not it seems that AVCREC and "AVCHD on DVD" is the same thing. But seems that AVCREC includes content protection, but AVCHD does not. Also, does AVCREC has BD file structure and naming? I checked several AVCHD camcorders and they have directory structure and naming different from BD, though similar. I've heard that this content can be played on new Panasonic HDTVs and BD players and PS3, but my oldish Samsung does not play it, so I have to rename files/directories to comply with BD.
• What about hi-def MPEG-2 on a burned DVD, what should this be called?

The question I am asking, is "AVCHD on DVD" or "AVCHD on SDHC card" or "AVCHD on Memory stick" the same as AVCREC or not? Can someone give the definite answer? If these are different things (as it now stated in the article) should we make a separate entry for "AVCHD on DVD/memory card"? Should someone come up with the name? All this AVCHD/BD cross-pollinating is very confusing. Mikus (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Misspelt name

Why is "Blu Ray" not "Blue Ray"? It seems to be a trademarking issue, but I am having trouble finding references. Mojo-chan (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the unique spelling makes "Blu-Ray" easy to trademark. "Blue Ray" would have been harder to protect because "Blue" and "Ray" are commonly used words.Pisomojado (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note it is "Blu-ray" (with a hyphen and a lower-case 'r').

Actually, it's "Blu-ray Disc" --Sam (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your question was anwsered on [bda's webpage]http://www.blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/HistoryandAssociation.html, and explains the reason for this ""Blu" is intentionally spelled without an "e" to allow for a distinctive registration of the trademark name." 209.253.20.25 (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the best reference is the disc itself, it sais blu-ray on it.Bnvdarklord (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"GEM is the world-wide version of the Multimedia Home Platform standard"

Is this really the case? I think the "Global" in GEM points to the standard working on physical media, while standard MHP was designed for apps transmitted over airwaves. It is the removal of this restriction that makes it global across devices, not across the Earth. 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BD9 / Mini-Blu-ray Disc - article suggests they are the same, but aren't they completely different things?

The article makes the impression that a BD9 disc and a mini Blu-Ray disc are synonymous. However, Verbatim is manufacturing a miniaturized recordable read/write Blu-Ray disc that is only 8cm (~3in) in diameter with a capacity of ~7.5GB.

Ideas on how we should incorporate this? Maybe we should have a section cataloging all variations in Blu-Ray media? Dinjiin (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in region code map

.png map

.svg map

The map of region codes and the table of same are inconsistent with each other. For example, Ukraine and Belarus appear as Region C in the table, but as region B in the map.

90.185.46.103 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Lars Peter Thomsen

The .png "Region Code" map (Image:Blu-ray regions without key.png) does not correctly identify the non-contiguous region of Russia between Poland and Lithuania as being part of Russia (i.e. region C). The .svg version of this map (Image:Blu-ray regions without key.svg) does correctly identify this section of Russia as being part of region C / part of Russia. However, both maps (incorrectly?) include Belarus, Ukraine and Azerbaijan in Region B whereas some/most/all(?) sources put those countries in Region C. see www.astrakan.ca and . I have not been able to find any more definitive sources for BD Region code BY COUNTRY but the current maps appear to be inaccurate in this area. Can someone supply a corrected map with Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine colored as part of Region C (or a more authoritative reference that identifies Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine as Region B and not Region C)?

Pugetbill (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

blu-ray disc capacity

the capacity section only mentions 25 gig single layer and 50 gig dual layer but doesnt mention the 100 gig quad layer or the special BD with ~33 gig per single layer, or the 6 layer versions of those which have 200 gig.

http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2006/08/tdk_claim_200gb.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ultimate samurai (talk • contribs) 16:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think specific BD stats should be posted somewhere viable. Can this be put up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.185.20 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Move suggested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Blu-ray Disc to Blu-ray disc, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The D should not be capitalized in this articles name as it is not a proper noun. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The full trademark is "Blu-ray Disc". —Locke Cole • t • c 14:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose But "Blu-ray Disc", like Compact Disc, appears to be one. Evidence of contrary usage would be appreciated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose same reason as Locke Cole--w_tanoto (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - As Locke Cole stated, Sony officially calls it "Blu-Ray Disk" 64.113.88.165 (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reason stated above. If "Disc" weren't part of the official name, the article's title would be "Blu-ray." —David Levy 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The full name is "Blu-ray Disc", so it is a proper noun. TJ Spyke 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons stated above. "Blu-ray Disc" is a proper noun and should be capitalized thusly. PaleAqua (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Locke Cole. --Ciao 90 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - So I don't feel left out.(Just kidding. Same reasons as above.)--Playstationdude (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Unless the article is about the physical discs themselves rather than the format, the 'D' should be capitalized. However, with a nod to WP:COMMON (and WP:MOSTM, for those pointing to the "official" name), wouldn't the page be better at Blu-ray? A Google fight between "Blu ray" -disc and "Blu ray disc" went 3:1 in favour of the former (about 11.5m to 3.5m), and the article itself seems to default to "Blu ray" throughout. Also, the article's cited sources' headlines seem to favour "Blu-ray" by about 14 to 9 when referring to the format itself (my mental arithmetic may need double-checked on this though). --DeLarge (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the commonality has more to do with people simply preferring to type less ("Blu-ray" is easier to type than the full name, "Blu-ray Disc"). We do note variations in the article introduction ("Blu-ray" as well as the common acronym, "BD"). As to the most common name, using that rationale it makes more sense for Compact Disc to reside at "CD" than "Compact Disc" (because I really doubt people use the full name more than they do the acronym). For another example, see DVD. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to argue over an issue I don't really care about... I think the comparisons you provide aren't quite apples-to-apples. CD suffers from (a) requiring to be disambiguated from other possible meanings, and (b) adhering to the naming conventions at WP:ACRONYM which encourage spelling out abbreviations in full except when there's a compelling case to do otherwise. DVD... well, not sure what your case is there; that article is at the abbreviated version most people use, and would therefore seem to support the "Blu-ray" proposal. Were you using that as a counter-example to CD? --DeLarge (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you intended to link to WP:COMMONNAME, but this is an instance in which the application of common sense is helpful.

The purpose of WP:COMMONNAME is to present the subjects' most recognizable names. For example, we wouldn't change the Cat Stevens article's title to "Yusuf Islam" or "Steven Georgiou," as neither is nearly as recognizable.

Is "Blu-ray Disc" any less recognizable than "Blu-ray" is? No, it isn't. Anyone familiar with the latter will recognize the former.

What would we accomplish by renaming the article? Well, let's analyze the list of reasons cited within that guideline:

• We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. For example, the pagename is Jimmy Carter and not "James Earl Carter, Jr."; the string "Jimmy Carter" in the page title make it easier to find: search engines will often give greater weight to the contents of the title than to the body of the page. Since "Jimmy Carter" is the most common form of the name, it will be searched on more often, and having that exact string in our page title will often mean our page shows up higher in other search engines.
  Given the fact that "Blu-ray Disc" contains the term "Blu-ray," this isn't an issue. Indeed, our article is the second Google hit (the first being blu-ray.com).

• We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication.
  A redirect is in place, so this isn't an issue.

• Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more.
  A redirect is in place, so this isn't an issue.

• We respect our readers and name our articles as they do, just formulating their collective needs.
  As Locke Cole noted (though I, too, don't understand all of his points), "Blu-ray" is an abbreviation of "Blu-ray Disc" used for the sake of convenience. No one is confused or alienated by the the latter's use.

• Redirects help, but give a slightly ugly "redirected from" announcement at the top of the page.
  This "slightly ugly" business is news to me, and I seriously doubt that there's consensus for that. We aren't even supposed to waste time and system resources by editing articles to bypass most redirects.

• On the other hand, if someone reads or hears "Elizabeth II", and wonders who might be meant by that, the "(Redirected from Elizabeth II)" at the top of the page describing the monarch in question puts the reader at ease that this was the intended queen: the "redirect" message indicates that the system hasn't been playing tricks, and that this was the page to which you were supposed to be led.
  That's more like it.

With the above in mind, what do we stand to gain by switching to "Blu-ray" (a less correct title)? —David Levy 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Using "BD"

I think that the articles about Blu-ray Disc would look better if we started using the abbreviation "BD" instead of the full name of the format. Would this be a good idea? (It would look better alongside CD, DVD, and HD DVD.) Nick 8 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good idea, because most people that read this just heard blu-ray mentioned somewhere and decided to find out what it was, meaning they don't know what the abbreviation is. (They may think it is BR or BRD)--Playstationdude (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be a great idea to make it clear that BD is the proper acronym for Blu-ray. It has been commonly mistaken for something like "Blu-ray DVD" and other similar things that make it relate to DVD when in fact it's a completely different media. In the FAQ section of the Blu-ray web site or even going to Sony's Blu-ray web site, the correct acronym for Blu-ray is simply "BD." Information on this can also be found on the Blu-ray Disc Association web site. (blu-raydisc.com) Just to make a better case they have referred to the different discs as BD-ROM, BD-R, and BD-RE. So to conclude, to avoid confusion between Digital Versatile Disc and Blu-ray, it is really as different as DVD and BD. Since it's one less letter, it's even quicker to say. LOL  :-) Dchagwood (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that explaining that BD-r and such are the correct shorthand form is better, when i searched an online merchant for blank blu-ray discs with 'blu-ray' instead of finding media, i found the burners and even some BD-roms, but no blank media came up in the search. Later when i realized it was called bd-r or bd-re I searched again an immediately found blank media. the best way to help people learn the correct abbreviation is to use it, and explain it early in the article. eg: BD-ROM (Blu-Ray Read Only Memory) and such.Kesuki (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)