Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

criticisms?

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?

Blu-Ray Layers

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

Either way, they will be on the market soon enough.Mbslrm 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

TDK is making it, not Sony.Mbslrm 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"The PS2 will have Toy Story graphic quality"

I agree with 70.251.197.67 (sign your posts, by the way) that listing unavailable capacities is inappropriate. I thought I had successfully purged both Blu-Ray and HD DVD of this speculative stuff. But it looks like 70.251.197.67 violated his own rule in this "in the future" edit [3] to HD DVD. What is the principle here? Spiel496 01:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to put your personal problems with Sony aside and ask yourself why you think they'd be the only ones in a position to (not) deliver those higher capacities. If you had even slightly researched the topic you'd see that TDK is the furthest along with research into those higher capacities, having already developed an experimental Blu-ray Disc capable of holding 200 GB. --Kamasutra 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Put up the triple layer capacity for HD DVD. What is it, anyways?Mbslrm 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Take that kind of discussion to the HD DVD article. The content of this article should not be dependent on the content of another. This is the Blu-ray article and discussion of changes should occur in each one's respective talk pages. --Kamasutra 09:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

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

Royalties

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.

Toshiba collected royalties with the DVD.Mbslrm 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't royalties colected by the Blu-ray Disc Association? And the codecs royalties collected by the MPEGLA?

Copy Protection

It would be nice to include a discussion on the copy protection, if any, that will be built into the standard.

See the Security section. --Wulf 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no security section. --neolex

That comment is seven months old. I'm fairly certain this is now covered by the Digital rights management section. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't region coding a type of content protection? Shouldn't be present in the comparatory chart?

Stand-alone recorders and games consoles

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)

What about a new size standard?

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.

• Um, not here in Japan, as they remain a profitable, if niche, product line. And besides, UMD discs are just small DVDs, just as the CD single size standard in Japan until a few years ago was just a small CD... Similarily Sony is sure to make identically sized small Blu-Ray discs, which would be more than adequate to hold a movie and could be used in more portable players, etc. Theoretically existing memory cards, very small, could contain massive amounts of data, even an entire movie, and be played in existing PSPs, digital media players, etc, and be sold as stand-alone media titles should the price to produce them drop.

I feel that as long as discs remain incredibly convenient and portable, as the standard CD is, the focus should be much more heavily placed on cost, reliability, capacity, and backwards compatibility. The last one is especially important, especially when looking at DVD play as a major factor in the game industry wars between the PS2, XBox, and Gamecube. The Gamecube's size never resulted in increased market share and only served to hinder its possibilities. I predict that as the next generation of consoles are released along with the release of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players, the sides chosen by the gaming companies show the importance of incorporating certain formats. The fact that Nintendo will abandon its smaller disc format should show you that it is less attractive to the manufacturer as well as the consumer, and this can be seen as a microcosm for the digital media industry as a whole. Smoove K 01:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Next generation?!

Wouldn't it be smarter to say something like "third generation" or something like it?

We don't even know if it will catch ;-)

• Next generation, while always subject to the times in terms of what console line they apply to, is something of a neccesity because it is so difficult to destinctly define 'generational' progressions before the pre-nes era.

• • as i brought up on the HD DVD page, it can't be called "next-generation" if it's already here. today i can go down to the best buy, grab a player and a few discs. next-generation now would refer to what will take its place. 68.35.201.102 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

UV-Ray?

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, and there is a company called Colossal Storage that is working on that format currently. 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).

Idiot?

---

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.

Blu-Ray's format is obsolete

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)

I would appreciate it if you had any documents or papers from 1995-1996 proving the existence of the final format back then and showing its design considerations (what it's "optimized" for) and its relation to what is currently being pushed forward under the "Blu-ray" name. I also question your analysis about Sony and Philips' intentions and in what part they were motivated by DVD licensing income. FWIW, the earliest mentions I can find about "DVR-Blue" are from late 2000, which was still in design phase at that time.

I don't deny that design on the format wasn't started when DVD was finalized in 1996, but that alone doesn't make the format ten-year-old.

I also resent your comment about my field of expertise. I come across and fix a typo during random browsing and suddenly I'm specializing in crisp bread? Come on. 130.233.16.105 23:57, 11 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)

Very well. I can accept the reasoning to the extent that the physical format was finalized by 1999 (definitely not 1995-1996 as it is currently in the article) except for the transition to blue laser (by which time it was called DVR-Blue, for example at ISOM 2000[5]), and that it is based on modulation and error correcting codes invented in 1995 and 1996. I don't think that still lets you claim that the format is "obsolete" (and the "some consider" way of putting it is fairly unencyclopedic since that way you can "find" support for just about any opinion). Anyway, the actual Blu-ray physical format, as it first appeared in the market in early 2003, wasn't finalized in that form before 2001. And the innards are still not fully finalized, as we all know..

Additionally, you did not provide any information supporting your claim about it being designed specifically for use in DV camcorders as a replacement to magnetic media. The article you linked repeatedly mentions it being designed for digital video recording (where, unsurprisingly, the name DVR comes from too), that is, recording HDTV signals in homes on rewritable discs. The editing of DV is mentioned, but the way I remember it was that it would allow editing and re-recording of DV streams with a tabletop device, with the DV streams being initially recorded on a magnetic media as usual.

The history&background section still needs clarification as to exactly what parts of the format are old (modulation & ecc), removal of the claim that the entire format is that old, adjustment of the claim about its design considerations, and show its design path (dvr (9 GB rewritable disc with red laser) to dvr-blue (22 GB rewritable disc with blue laser) to blu-ray (25 or 50 GB ROM/R/RW disc)) clearer, and information about what parts specifically are a hindrance to mass replication (more than just the thinner cover layer?). 130.233.16.105 12:42, 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 did read the article, thank you very much.

Labeling the system "obsolete" is POV (see the three points at [6] - you're the first I've seen to make such conclusions about the format). While I don't dispute the facts (the origins of the physical format), Wikipedia is still not a vehicle for original research[7] (that is, conclusions made by *you* unless there is wide support for such view in literature). Obsolete also implies that it already has a reasonable replacement in the market, which it doesn't. Of course better optical disc formats are introduced every year in research literature, but that doesn't make the current ones obsolete from the market's point of view. The articles about CD and DVD don't mention them being obsolete though they are based on even older technologies, so I guess you should go change them too.

I propose the following wording: "From a technological point of view, the physical format of Blu-ray can be considered outdated since it is based on modulation and error correction codes invented in 1995 and 1996". I don't completely agree with this though; I think it should just state the facts about the format's origin and leave the "outdated" or "obsolete" conclusion to the reader to make.

As for mass replication, I still question what in the physical format is an inherent hindrance to mass replication. Yes, there's the difference in the thickness of the cover layer, and the Durabis hard coating technology. I however can't see these as being inherently problematic for mass replication, merely as something that requires changes in production lines. If there's something else, please specify what.

With the word "finalization" I mean that there is a specification for the entire system (physical format *and* the data organization on the disc (that is: file systems, codecs, software)) available. Certainly there may have been working prototypes of the bare physical disc in 1999, but that alone does not a complete optical disc system make.

Lastly, I still do not see how you make the jump from the much-talked digital video recording (like a VHS, or a DVD recorder) to camcorders (video cameras). 130.233.16.105 18:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert

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)

Okay, no objections, revert completed :) --Wulf 05:58, 16 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)

Okay, I can agree with the latest version :) --Wulf 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Durabis makes what screwdriver resistant?

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.

Alternatives

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)

POV pushing

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)

Obviously the hard coat is an acknowledgement that there are robustness concerns. Equally obvious is that these concerns have not prevented BD from attracting broad industry support. How BD compares with CD/DVD/HD-DVD in practice remains to be seen. Mirror Vax 18:39, 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)

It is well known that BD has more replication challenges than HD-DVD. Every article about the subject mentions it. The rest is opinion. The article you cited says that the design is highly approproate for a "third generation" optical format. For some reason you think that supports your opinion that BD's design is inappropriate as a replacement for DVD (hint: DVD would be the "second generation" optical format). Mirror Vax 20:25, 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)

I wouldn't even call it "replication challenges". Those stories are marketing/PR spin from the HD DVD camp to try and make Blu-ray Disc look like the costlier solution. Anyone with even a minor inkling of economics will be familiar with the term Economies of Scale. While the equipment needed to ramp up production of Blu-ray Disc may be more expensive, after production is started those costs will very nearly disappear as far as the end user (consumer) is concerned. With regard to the physics issue, you cite one article in particular over and over again. Sadly the link is worthless because you must be a member/subscriber to view the actual article (your link only shows a summary and the author names). In any event, that the error correction technology was developed back in 1995 says nothing of the overall technology used in Blu-Ray Disc. If you could back up your edits/claims with verifiable sources I wouldn't have a problem. Locke Cole 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"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." Actually, your contributions are mostly opinion, and are not very technical. For example: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Here Dsc deliberately lies about BD/HD-DVD capacity:[13]

After reviewing the above, your statement that you are only interested in the facts is not credible. I would like to see an apology for past conduct before I give you the benefit of the doubt. Mirror Vax 22:36, 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 WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. It's mighty ironic you bring up Windows '95 and Windows 2000 though: it's the perfect example of "just because something is based on an older piece of technology doesn't instantly make it old too". Blu-ray being based upon DVR is an interesting bit of history that I am sure, when someone can put it in without violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, will be great for everyone to know. But your contributions have pushed a POV and reached a conclusion that simply isn't backed up by your "sources".

In so far as the physics are concerned, again, this is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Now, if you find a source that shares your conclusion (besides a press release from someone in the HD DVD camp), by all means, contribute it to this article. Just don't provide your own conclusions along with it. As for my opinion on your conclusions? I believe Sony and co. will overcome any technical issues you believe they'll run into. TDK's technology seems advanced, and unless you work for TDK or Sony, I don't see how you can know that it won't work. -Locke Cole 13:29, 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)

I did read it. I also noticed that it was authored in 1998. I then noticed that it didn't contain the term "Blu-ray" anywhere in it. Based upon the date of the article (1998 again), I can surmise that it had no way of knowing about advances in technology since that time (unless you're now saying the authors invented a time machine). Just as I'm sure nobody believed we'd have beams of light bouncing off of optical discs back in the early 1900s, I'm sure the authors of that 1998 article believed they were right in their conclusions. Now, I invite you again to go read WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you can find an independent and reliable source that will back up your assertions, you'll have my blessing about pointing out the (supposed) weakness in Blu-ray media. For the moment however, there's no reason to believe a word you say given your actions with this article so far and your lack of evidence with regard to your POV-Locke Cole 14:24, 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)

No, it's not absolutely irrelevant just because he's a physicist. Just as rantings of a scientist from 1899 are irrelevant if new technology/research has disproven his/her theories. Now, to your new article. First, let's start with the fact that it's from 2002. TDK announced Durabis in January of this year. [17] But ignoring that, you'll note that page 29 states that "If no cartridge is used, a hard coat is applied: disc cleaning will not cause any scratches". On page 30 they show images and results from tests on discs with two types of coating and no coat at all. At the bottom of the page he states "very hard organic coats are possible too". On page 31, the slide titled "Abrasion Resistance Test", they use a sand roll to attempt to damage the coated disc on the left and the uncoated disc on the right. The disc on the left has "A little damage but the symbol error rate remained below 4x10^-3". The uncoated disc, in "The area that looks like white is the damaged part and cannot be read". I'd say these are very impressive results considering that, in 2002, they didn't have TDK's hard coat technology "Durabis". Clearly the author doesn't believe there's a "big problem" or even a "little problem", except with uncoated discs (which any media without a coating of some sort would be prone to these same things). In any event, this is clearly WP:NPOV and WP:NOR territory. -Locke Cole 23:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

3D TV’s banned to prevent Piracy

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)

Resolution Limit

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)

Wavelength - Disk space

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)

"Six times more..."

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)

8-bit or 10-bit color depth

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)

A Blu-ray disc can store 10-bit color depth but it depends of the panel of your TV and your blu-ray player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.42.31 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the 12-bit per component so-called "deep colour" that's offered by many (even budget priced) Blu-Ray players around at the moment? I doubt that the information exists on the disc as the highest quality HD recording format I know of (HDCAM SR) only records with 10-bit precision and most of the lesser formats only record with 8-bits of precision, and that includes most of the file-based, as well as tape-based, recording systems. I suspect therefore that it's a bit of a con, rather like the 20-bit and 24-bit DACs used by some CD player manufacturers. MegaPedant (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on the DRM

"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)

Removed some un-cited marketing propaganda found in the article

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)

Greetings, and thanks for your contributions, I agree with your position on the marketing lingo in the article. However, you made about 10 consecutive edits in one day. I don't mean to be a dick, but Wikipedia policy discourages more than 3 edits per day so try to make up your mind on what you want to edit in the article and do it all in one edit, then if you forget something you edit again. Making too many minor edits is considered counterproductive and a waste of bandwidth.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 14:48, 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)

You are right. Obviously, these guys at the BluRay Disc Association are suffering from the "EA syndrome". EA Syndrome: The act of "improving" encyclopedic articles referring to your company, by removing the unfavorable parts, inserting marketing language full of ambiguous sentences and shoving trademarked buzzwords all over the place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 July 2009

Wrong URL

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)

Region code map errors / inconsistencies

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:

• Papua New Guinea: BDA map indicates Papua New Guinea is Region 'B' like its neighbor Australia, not Region 'A' like its neighbor Indonesia
• French Guiana: The BDA map indicates French Guiana is Region 'B', unlike its South American neighbors which are all Region 'A'
• Belarus: The BDA map indicates Belarus is Region 'B' not 'C'
• Ukraine: The BDA map indicates Ukraine is Region 'B' not 'C'

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:

• Although not unambiguously marked on the BDA map, the small, non-contiguous part of Russia (the part 'sandwiched' between Lithuania and Poland) presumably is Region 'C' (Russia), not 'B' (Rest-of-Europe)

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)

My apologies - either I was using an old link or the BDA has updated their map. The region code map at www.blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/Blu-rayDiscforVideo.html is not (no longer?) as I described above. I will revert the article map to the previous graphic.

In trying to verify the accuracy of the BDA map, I have had no luck finding alternate sources / references. There seems to be very little written about what the correct region code is for some "region-border" countries like Belarus, Ukraine, Papua New Guinea, etc. But since the BDA map is all we have, I will assume it is correct. Pugetbill (talk) 16:34, 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)

How to rip Blu-ray ？

<Comment has been removed>

This is an encyclopedia not a guide to pirating commercial recorded material. Also: the above comment is not a discussion of the article which is what this discussion page ism provided for. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is advertising not pirating.205.250.255.227 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the original comment to prevent search engines from picking up the name of the product that had been advertised. Mikus (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception

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)

See Blu-ray_Disc#End_of_the_format_war_and_future_prospects. Cochonfou (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Technical Specification

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/w/index.php?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)

Mandatory vs. optional codec support

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)

I have no way of answering that question for you correctly without knowing if the "low cost player" and/or disk are actually standards-compliant or not; Beware of knock offs. When you try and playback DTS-HD to a stereo audio output (ie a stereo headset) then you should hear stereo audio unless you somehow selected mono mode in an on-screen menu or via a setting on the player itself. I'd say the most like cause of hearing mono would be a faulty headset jack or plug. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cartridges?

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)

The original BD spec included cartridges similar to DVD-RAM or to PFD. Cartridges were dropped because they increased the price. Hardcoating is used instead to protect disc surface. Mikus (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cost of blank discs

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)

Storage Capacity in the Infobox

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:

• "Future 2010 afterwards" does not seem grammatically correct. Is it trying to say "Late 2010" maybe?
• "1 TB to 10 PB" seems very high to me. I know technology progresses very fast, but 10 petabytes? This year? That is a lot of data. I mean how is 10 PB or 10000 TB supposed to fit on a volume so small? Perhaps it meant 10 TB instead? I not changing because I'm truly iffy on the issue, so I'm looking for clarification to make the edit.

-- Melab±1 ☎ 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The limit for DVDs was 2 layers, but with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray companies are experimenting with having several layers. It would be good if there were a citation, but my assumption is that they would reach 10PB using extra layers. It doesn't seem likely that so many layers would be economically viable though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.243 (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like multi-layer is now more feasible than before. ("Blu-ray Disc Association Announces Additional Format Enhancements". BusinessWire. April 03, 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-04-07. {{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)

needs simple summary

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)

MakeMKV

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)

Bias for or against + vandalism on article

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)

Java support

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)

Suggestion: replace "Blu-ray Disc" with "BD" in the article

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)

Not acceptable. Not every link goes to the top of the article, thusn anyone linking into a sub section within the article would be forced to guess what 'BD' stands for. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't they be "forced" to do that with CD and DVD, too...? I don't get it. (And if this Wikipedia thing somehow isn't about facts – I sorta had the impression it was... – but popular belief, then we should scrap the term "Blu-ray Disc", too, because most people erroneously speak of "Blu-ray Players" and "Blu-rays" in the context of hard- and software, respectively) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Links can take the reader to part way through an article with no clue as to what the whole article is about - especially if that link comes from another article that may have no obvious relationship. For example: Try this link. Although Blu-ray is not abbreviated, 'DVD' is and anyone who didn't know what DVD actually stands for (and a surprising number of people don't) the article provides no clue. The same argument applies to any abbreviation that is scattered through any article. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This feels like talking to a wall. Did you even READ what I wrote? Four questions, before I give up:

1. Did you ever READ the article Blu-ray Disc? (please, do)
2. Did you ever look at the logo for the format "Blu-ray Disc" / "BD"? (hint: it consists of a "B" and a "D")
3. To be consistent, shouldn't you go here and exchange every instance of "CD" for "Compact Disc" (or rather "Compact", analogous to your insistence on using the wrong form "Blu-ray")?
4. If some people who don't know any better started using the word "cow" for what we (I assume you, too) today call "horse", would you then go here and exchange every instance of "horse" for "cow"?

(by the way, I did reply to the message you left on my talk page) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:47, 29 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)

"Nobody uses the acronym BD [...]" (68.194.226.80, 2011-05-18)

Not true – simply and patently not so... For Wikipedia to benefit from your contributions, you might want to learn the difference between personal opinions and facts as well as the terms quantity and quality. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Although 'BD' is the official abbreviation of 'blu-ray disc', nobody uses the abreviation in normal everyday speak, unlike 'DVD' or 'CD'. Everyone refers to a 'CD player' or a 'DVD player', but nobody talks about a 'BD player' prefering to call it a 'blu-ray player' (and seldom a 'blu-ray disc player' which would be more technically accurate). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just not true. Please don't claim things that are not factual but instead pulled out of thin air.

Often, player manufacturers even use the abbreviation in model names.

And you can call me nobody all you want, but there are many other people who use the term "BD", both among everyday consumers and industry professionals (Harris, for example, seems to have stopped using it, though).

It's obvious that they are in the minority, but since when is popular usage a criterion for encyclopædic articles? (again, quantity doesn't equal quality)

"Blu-ray" is informal – slang, if you want –, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean reference texts should employ it. If there's a certain usage threshold reached, a word – whatever its genesis – belongs in a dictionary, but that's it.

And, yes, "Blu-ray 3D" is a correct form, however, "Blu-ray" is not – or not yet: if common misuse persists (covers often read "BLU-RAY + DVD" – right below the "BD" logo –, fora write and commercials speak of "Blu-ray"), at some point in time, the BDA might give in and change the official definitions, but it's not Wikipedia's business to predict the future. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And just this very afternoon, I purchased a portable burner for use with my laptop (Samsumg SE-506). It is described on the box in 1 inch letters as a "Blu-ray writer". The only place 'disc' appears after 'blu-ray' anywhere on the box is in the Blu-ray disc logo. Everywhere else it is either 'BD' or just 'blu-ray'. The minority of people that you refer to, are a majority - at least here. No-one that I know of refers to the format as 'BD' (unless specifically to a BD-R or BD-RW blank disc). Even my brother-in-law (who works for 20th Century Fox marketing - and thus probably talks about them every waking hour of his working life) calls them 'blu-rays'. So I haven't pulled anything out of thin air. Oh yes, and in the 'model name' that you linked to, Panasonic have not used 'BD' in the model name, having spelt out "Full HD 3D Blu-ray Disc Player" in full. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you obviously couldn't be bothered to properly read what I wrote (assuming you would be able to), I don't think this warrants a response, but, oh well...

• The first few sentences up to "The minority of people..." and the statement regarding your brother-in-law confirm, for example, what I wrote in the last paragraph in brackets.
• I agree, the people using the correct terms are in the minority. That's what I wrote. Reading helps. And yet, minority (even tiny friggin' minority) isn't the same as nobody as you so kindly call me and them (see also the quality vs. quantity argument, which... – gee, enough repetition already...).
• The linked model's name: "Panasonic DMP-BDT210 Full HD 3D Blu-ray Disc Player" (emphasis mine) – also, in the navigation bar above, they [unfortunately] write "Blu-ray & DVD".

You are against using the abbreviation "BD". Understood. I just kindly asked you not to pull things out of thin air (or your behind or wherever you get that stuff from). Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Don't be so condescending and abusive when replying to others on Wikipedia (doing so is good way to an editing block - See WP:CIV). Wikipedia requires that you treat others with respect and courtesy.

That you believe something to be true does not necessarily make it so. You seem to believe that a model number and a model name are the same thing. In the example that you cited, the model number is DMP-BDT120. No manufacturer spells out 'blu-ray' as part of their model number. The model name is "Full HD 3D Blu-ray Disc Player". Using the model number to bolster a claim that 'BD' is a much used abbreviation in everyday speak comes under the heading of lost causes. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serio..., well, let's make this easier: You win, I lose. [Good heavens! He disintegwated.] Happy holidays – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:53, 13 December 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)

Standard DVDs?

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)

Agreed. But then, it looks as if some people here seem to be all FOR reinforcement of misconceptions, if only they are common / widespread enough or even prevalent (see the previous paragraph), and in that "spirit", you probably should stop using the correct acronym for that technology and start calling it "Blu-ray" and "BR" as well... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although pre-mastered Blu-rays are close to standard DVD technology, they differ in many respects such as encryption and scripting not to mention interactive language. Recordable Blu-ray (both BD-R and BD-RE) are not standard DVD technology as they are really DVD+R and DVD+RW technology. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's "Blu-ray Discs" or "BDs", NOT "Blu-rays". Also, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray recordable and blu-ray rewritable discs are sold as "BD-R" and "BD-RE" respectively (says so on every manufacturers' packaging), thus "BD" would seem to be a legitimate abbreviation. Also most people seem to refer to the discs collectively as "blu-rays" avoiding the unnecessary mouthful of "blu-ray disc". 109.157.161.93 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2011 (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)

What is this supposed to mean ?

"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)

Criticism

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)

Title change

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)

Sounds good to me. PRRfan (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just the medium itself is called Blu-ray Disc, but THE WHOLE FORMAT as well, whereas the term Blu-ray DOESN'T EXIST IN ANY OF THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION; please check for yourself and also see this discussion – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the correct title (which covers the entire standard; codecs, DRM, Java, etc) is "Blu-ray Disc". —Locke Cole • t • c 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead section and scope of the article.

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)

Apologies for the late response. I see no reason to deviate from the standard opening set by CD and DVD, especially when the first sentence states that it's designed to supersede the DVD format. And the article does talk about the discs themselves and all its usages i.e. Section 2 - Physical Media. Msgohan (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact it was me who created that section in this edit. However, my argument stands. You can record Blu-ray movies (that is, movies compliant with the Blu-ray spec) in discs other than Blu-ray discs, so the article isn't really about Blu-ray discs. --uKER (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, uKER, get your facts straight (consult the corresponding white papers). What you write (your perceived distinction in usage of the terms Blu-ray Disc and Blu-ray) is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, and just repeating it time and again won't make it so. See also above and the initial discussion you started about this. I agree with you that the article is not just about the physical disc medium used, but the format as a whole, but BOTH are called Blu-ray Disc (with captial "D"). As for the proper lead sentence, it think yours looked good (and as of this writing, something similar is being used in the article), although I'm not sure the term "medium" couldn't be applied in such a broad sense that it would accommodate the meaning of "format" as well – but I'm happy not to get involved in that discussion. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should get your facts straight. uKER is quite correct. Blu-ray format high definition video can be recorded to other optical disc formats. In fact Panasonic's range of camcorders will record such video directly to a DVD burner. They do, of course, have to be played back in a Blu-ray video player (in that: they will not play in a standard DVD video player). In theory, such video format could also be written to a CD, but I know of no player that will actually recognise it but that is an omission rather than a limitation (the playing time would be rather short anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the original lead. Not mentioning the data storage usage of Blu-ray Disc in the opening seems like a rather large omission IMHO. While the format is primarily used as a medium for movie distribution, it also has a large usage for data storage (more so with BDXL being available for storage applications). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

U-Control??

Need some explain for U-Control in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.86.250 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• U-Control isn't a technology inherent to BD. It's just a branded type of software exclusive to Universal Pictures discs. It just covers a lot of different types of bonus feature-type interactivity for the feature (storyboards, picture in picture, etc). --Sujayt (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Community Screening

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)

If you could establish a foundation for the concept in the article, that would be great. Then it would be fine to proceed with a link to a list. Could you provide references for the proposed text? --Bsherr (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a better BD-Live(http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/bluray/bdlive.html) ref. imo, for the community screening part, i thought that the references within the list would be sufficent. --85.227.250.36 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The references in the list give specific examples, but it would be best to have a reference that explains what community screening is. --Bsherr (talk) 02:06, 20 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)

Picture quality: 2D vs. 3D?

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)

This would be better asked on a forum. From personal experience I can say that the quality thus far has been equivalent. For the most part 3D discs are lacking in special features, which frees up space for the 50%+ added bitrate needed for the MVC extension. Additionally, most 2D releases use 40GB or less of the 50GB available. As far as sources that could be added to the article, I can only think of disc reviews which mention comparing the two releases. Msgohan (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the left frame and right frame are placed side by side on a regular 1920x1080 field, the actual horizontal resolution of the combined 3D image is halved, so the image for each eye is 960x1080. I have always had a great interest in 3D technology and have a fairly extensive personal museum of 3D material. Having attended a major 3D television demonstration, I felt no desire whatsoever to obtain one. The poor resolution and flickering picture would drive me nuts. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Blu-ray 3D uses the full resolution and doubles the number of frames. It doesn't store images in side-by-side format. Since you have a great interest in the tech, research and you will find this to be true. Msgohan (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be confusing blu-ray 3D with some broadcast 3D (and I wonder if that is what you saw demonstrated). Broadcast TV is forever striving to keep the bandwidth within ridiculously narrow bands largely because their driving factor is maximising the number of channels broadcast not in providing the best picture quality. Blu-ray 3D does indeed store two full resolution (i.e. 1920x1080) frames per frame (if you see what I mean). Thus the data rate read from the disc for 3D material is (slightly greater than) double that for 2D material. This does provide a problem for PC based blu-ray drives connected via a USB2 interface (as most current portable drives are). The 3D data rate is pushing the USB2 interface to its limit and thus it only works (if at all) if the blu-ray drive is directly connected (i.e. not via a hub) and then if no other USB devices are connected (possibly mouse and keyboard excepted). Even then stuttering of the image is not unknown. Whether the picture flickers or not does depend on the actual manner in which the 3D is presented to the viewer. Early sets did have a tendency to flicker, but the best of the current sets seem to have eliminated that problem. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to be stricly accurate, there are three methods by which the 3D content can be stored, and Blu-ray supports all three.

• Side by side as correctly described by 109.157.161.93 above. Usually the province of broadcasters, but Blu-ray 3D players are required to support it. Has half the horizontal resolution of regular HD material.
• Two full resolution frames stored one after the other as described by DieSwartzPunkt above. Obviously full resolution.
• The left frame stored above the right frame similar to the first option but split horizontally instead of vertically. Again Blu-ray 3D players are required to support it. Has half the vertical resolution of regular HD material.

I have not (so far) encountered any 3D discs that use anything other than the second option. 86.169.33.6 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Region code visual appearance

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)

If by free you mean libre, scanning in a cover doesn't make it public domain. The source of that image is [this PDF]. The BDA licenses its usage under the same agreement as the BD logo itself, which this article displays with a fair use notice. Msgohan (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue-ray not trademarkable?

"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:

• those two aren't registered trademarks?
• some difference in law between jurisdictions is in play here?
• the law has changed?
• the technology is too close to the literal English meaning of "blue ray" for its developers to be able to claim a trademark on it?

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)

In most jurisdictions you can trademark a common word (aka something you find in the dictionary) providing the context is not common. "Apple" is one of the most usual examples - you can't trademark it for fruit products because it's common but applied to computers it has no common meaning outside of the products it's TMed for. Bear in mind that trademark law contains a lot of uncertainties and also different companies take different levels of risk. I think "Blue-ray Disc" would have been defensible because it's a compound term that isn't likely to be in much generic use for anything other than this product, but by using a variant spelling the trademark is significantly stronger. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you cannot trademark or copyright a logo. You can only trademark the actual words. If you wish to claim intellectual property rights on a logo, then you need to register it as "a registered device". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Trademark: "A trademark is typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements." Msgohan (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I am talking about the situation in the UK. Other jurisdictions may vary. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

3D Specifications Should Be Added

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)

Poorly Written Article; Ambiguous in many areas

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

Instead of complaining, why not have a go yourself? 86.182.71.209 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Agree. I removed the detail pertaining to blue laser diodes - it's covered elsewhere, e.g. blue laser. Kbk (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Blu-ray (software) players

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)

Compression

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)

Blu-ray photo in the infobox

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)

It's a pressed single-layered movie disc; note the "BVSS" serial number. Part of the reason for the milkiness is likely light shining through the top label. You're welcome to improve the article by scanning a silver disc yourself, of course. Msgohan (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

status of term Blu-ray

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)

Yes, it is the official shortnened name. http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_name

Kokken Tor 12:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs)

The site you mention is a great place for information about the different BD editions of a film out there and a nifty collection management tool, but you do realize it has nothing to do with the BDA, do you? Actually, most likely they chose the domain name Blu-ray.com because it isn't official and therefore was obtainable (by the way, the same site – as of 2011-04-11 – at the top of its homepage carries as its introduction the following: "Welcome to Blu-ray.com, your source for everything related to Blu-ray Disc (BD), sometimes incorrectly referred to as Blue ray, Bluray or Blu-ray DVD"). So, I'm still waiting for any validation of the above claim. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from the official site of BDA. http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/general_bluraydiscformat-15263.pdf

Under their trademark it says Blu-ray.19:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Kokken Tor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs)

You are right, it is a trademark now and a term used several times throughout the paper you refer to, although I'd be curious about the history behind that, as I don't recall having seen it (not that that means much, but still) in any tech specs when the format was introduced (for example, it doesn't show up once here), and the fact that an independent company was able to secure the Blu-ray.com domain name also appears rather curious to me; maybe they just relented to incorrect popular usage? But then, by the look of it, in that document, Blu-ray doesn't seem to be used interchangeably and in the same sense as Blu-ray Disc: they now seem to be making (or have been making from the start?) a distinction between the format itself (Blu-ray Disc / BD) and the blue laser beam technology it is based upon (Blu-ray) – "seem" because I'm not in a position to really judge this, maybe someone else can clarify. If true, however, then referring to the format as Blu-ray and the movies as Blu-rays would still be wrong. Further, this then obviously might have implications for the way the article is to be worded and structured – maybe a separate article altogether should be created. What do you think? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don`t know but, i believe it`s the right shortened name. I say it should stay there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, duly noted. I'm on the opposite side of the argument, I think the wording should be reverted back to the way it was up until last month. Would anybody else like to chime in, maybe the people who started and made the first few edits to the article? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:20, 12 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)

Video resolution chart

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)

This is explained in the very first note to the table ([a]) which explains that the the rates are interlaced and denoted as frame rates rather than field rates. Msgohan (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"a All frame rates are properly listed in frames per second. Some manufacturers will list field rate for interlaced material, but this is incorrect industry practice. To avoid confusion, only FRAME rates should ever be listed." This is completely wrong, hence the confustion of the poster above. Interlaced frame-rates are always written as the number of fields per second. This article is the ONLY place where "30i" and "25i" are used. "60i" and "50i" are correct. 1080i/30 and 1080i/25 are also correct, though rarely used. Note the position of the i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcontra (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 May 2013 (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)

I suggest you follow the citation (inline after the chart's title). It will take you to the official white paper. Skip to page 14 for relevant info. Uk55 (talk) 01:28, 25 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. I would go one step further and point out that the white paper on which you are trying to rely does not claim that their designations are recognised by any authority or derived from any authority. Thus your attempts to use their designations in the face of the internationally agreed standards is WP:SYNTHESIS because you are using the paper to support designations that it does not specifically claim as conforming to any recognised standard. I B Wright (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @I B Wright:: If you could link to that specific IEC standard, that would be great. The citation DieSchwartzPunk added contained nothing relevant when I looked. I've seen a lot of people get angry about this, but no one's been able to demonstrate so far that any agreed standard exists, whereas there are countless examples of both notations being used (though I would say field rate is far more common). For now, I maintain it's not sensible to overrule the Blu-ray specification in an article about Blu-ray, and therefore the chart should be copied verbatim.Uk55 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) The cited IEC standards do not list the various systems as such, but both use the established frame rates for interlaced systems where they refer to them. There has been a long standing general consensus to use frame rates only. The article used to contain a note that that this was correct industry pracice (and as noted this encyclopedia should follow that practice). I also note that it was yourself that removed that note in persuance of your apparent agenda of using the incorrect notation. This notation occasionally gets changed by some well meaning editor and it is always quickly changed back by various editors (establishing that consensus). The Blu-ray white paper like so many similar documents does not follow the accepted industry practice. Curiously, it is frequently documents that originate from America that seem to be unable to follow internationl standards unlike the rest of the world who seem to have no problem. 85.255.233.161 (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Finding online specifications to use as references in articles such as this is extremely difficult. Because there is money to be made out of selling these specifications, attempts to find online versions invariably hit a paywall where you have to part with cash to view the standard (any complete copies found are usually copyright violations). Even if the text were to be accessed by paying the exorbitant fees demanded, WP:ELNO prevents their use as a citation. I believe I may have been on the trail of a couple of standards that would potentially address this issue, one from the IEC and one from the EBU, but I cannot verify that they do because of the ever present paywall (so I couldn't use them here anyway). The two IEC standards that I provided, because they are international standards, have to follow international standards on terminology and designations. ISO/IEC 13818-2 specifically refers to the US interlaced system as "interlace(30Hz)" (correctly using the frame rate) and IEC 60512-25-9:20 specifically describes the rest of the world interlaced system as "25i" (again using the frame rate). I failed to find any international standard that used the incorrect field rate. As noted above by Mr Wright, the Blu-ray white paper is not a standard on video formats or their designations. Throughout my working life in video and display systems, all systems have been described using the frame rate and not the field rate. Just as the European analogue TV system was described as "625 line 25 fps", its digital replacement was described as "720x576/25i" or as "576/25i" (as one pixel value usually implies the other, though there are exceptions). For some reason, a description of using the field rate sprung up in some quarters, but there is little evidence of why, how or by whom - and certainly no evidence of any official standard supporting it. And now a thought: is it necesary to list the frame rates to four significant figures? The industry practice (and the IEC practice) is to use the nominal frame rates for the US systems (i.e. "30i" instead of "29.97i"). I don't believe the average reader of this article cares about the exact timings. Anyone in the industry who might care knows that 30 fps is really 29.57 fps (though it was originally 30.00 fps). I leave that one open. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @85.255.233.161:@DieSwartzPunkt:IEC 13818-2 and 60512-25-9:20 may well refer to frame rates (albeit differently), but IEC 61834 and 62247-2 refer to field rates. Clearly there is no standard. The entire chart is lifted from the Blu-ray specifications, so if it's genuinely the consensus that it's not a reliable source, the whole chart needs to go. Your attempts to 'improve' it without proper citation can only be considered original research, which is not allowed. The lack of standardisation in frame rates and their notation has been a source of confusion for decades, and don't get me wrong, I hate that as much as you do, but those are the rules. Uk55 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @Uk55:The only copies of IEC 61834 and 62247 that are downloadable are very old copies dating from 1998 (the -4 and -2 editions respectively). They have been considerably revised several times and one of the revisions to IEC 61838 is to change the field rates that they give into frame rates (I don't know when this change occurred but it is in the IEC 61834-11 edition dated 2008 which I believe is the latest). I don't have access to IEC 62247-10 which as it is a deleted standard is not too surprising. As the standards had some relationship (as they both addressed helical scan recording systems), it is not an unreasonable assumption that it too had been similarly updated before deletion as it did make the -10 revision. The industry exclusively uses frame rate for all visual media systems as it is the only means by which the temporal resolution (at the full spatial resolution) of one system can be compared with another. Further, if two systems coexist in the industry side by side then no one knows what is being defined without it being specified (and the two old IEC specs that you quoted had to specify what they were describing). There is no confusion within the video industry as to what the accepted and used notation means. No one seems to be questioning the blue ray white paper as a source of the available video formats supported. What is questioned (and I, along with several others, am questioning it) is the way in which those formats are expressed in an encyclopedia. A 50 field per second rate is exactly equivalent to a 25 frame per second rate. No one has challenged that and so the table can easily be expressed in the industry accepted format without issue. Thus the blu-ray white paper supports the table once the formats are expressed in the correct manner. That is unless you have a reliable source that the frame rate is not half the field rate for two field interlaced formats. I was not 'improving' the table as you claim but (at least partially) restoring it to the format that it used to be in that had been accepted by consensus for some considerable time before you changed it. Not everything on Wikipedia requires references particularly if it is generally accepted by consensus. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) As far as i can see, these two specifications that Uk55 has introduced are pertinent to HDV video systems only and have no connection with Blu-ray. These are obsolete so it is not surprising that the second spec is deleted. i am surprised the first is still available (a snip at 280 Swiss Francs). 85.255.235.162 (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @85.255.235.162:Neither of the documents DieSwartzPunkt linked to are to do with Blu-ray either, what's your point?Uk55 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @DieSwartzPunkt:What you've said is simply wrong, this is a direct quote from IEC 61834-11: 1125-line interlace with a field frequency of 50 Hz (hereinafter referred to as 1080i/50 system) These are just examples I was able to find in 5 minutes to demonstrate that no standard exists, a point which I stand by. Also, the chart has listed field rates for the majority of its history on wikipedia. I edited it chart a few months ago because it was incomplete and lacked a citation. I noted there had been some squabbling about this previously, and as no consensus had ever been reached, I stuck with the formatting of the source, which I maintain is the right decision. I feel like by implying there is a prescribed standard when there clearly isn't, you may be trying to paint your own preference as fact. Uk55 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC) 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. The chart has shown frame rates for the majority of is history since the chart was first made into frame rates with the (now removed) added note that frame rate is the normal practice. When some (presumably) well intentioned editor has changed it to field rate, it has usually been quickly reverted, and importantly, the editor that changed it has not questioned the restoration meaning that they have accepted the consensus. There was a period of a few months at the beginning of last year where an editor changed the table and it went unreverted for those few months but as the editor who changed it did not leave an edit summary, it probably went un-noticed. In any case, once again he did not challenge the reversion. 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) @LiveRail: You are more than welcome to 'add your voice' to the discussion, but please do it by reading and responding to the points made here rather than attacking me personally. You'll find everything I've said is supported by reliable evidence, and I completely reject your suggestion I should walk away from the discussion simply because a small handful of users have decided to jump down my throat at once. To respond to the points you did make: This repeated claim of an 'industry standard practice' is completely without merit, field rate notation is used by the much of the industry, including the BluRay Disk Association, Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Canon and Blackmagic Design. I'm not going to argue with you about wikipedia history, because it's not consequential, but would like to point out I'm the only one here who has contributed positively to this chart, so please direct your insults elsewhere. Uk55 (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have not gone out of my way to attack anyone. I was drawn here simply because this article is on my watch list and I am simply calling it as I see it - and I stand by my view that you are pursuing a unilateral agenda against consensus only because that is what you appear to be doing. You are certainly on your own (that's what unilateral means). No one else has supported your viewpoint - no one. You have provided no reliable evidence to support your view that the chart should go against the industry standard norms. You have provided no reliable evidence that field rate is the industry standard practice - which it is not. Your main plank of the white paper from the Blu-ray association is exactly what it says it is - a white paper. It is not a standard and makes no claim that their nomenclature follows any recognised standard or practice. The same can be said for your introduction of Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Canon and Blackmagic Design into the mix as you have produced nothing from them claiming that any nomenclature based on field rate is standard practice. So why are you so insistent that the table should use field rate when everyone else supports frame rate especially given that the (note a) to the table clearly explains the means of getting from one to the other? The 'small band of users' to which you allude are not 'jumping down your throat'. They are just telling you that you are wrong in this context. Perhaps the problem is that you just can't admit that you have not won the argument and believe that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong? Your last post certainly reinforces that viewpoint. Did you take the trouble of reading WP:DROPTHESTICK (bullet point 2 applies here methinks)? This is Wikipedia. It is a co-operative effort. Not always getting your way goes with the territory. If you want 'my voice' then: it makes perfect sense to use frame rate exclusively, partly because it is the normal practice, but principally because two different units of measurement in a table column with the reader having to refer to a footnote to find which units applies to any particular entry is not good encyclopeadic practice (or good practice anywhere - white papers included). To draw a facetious allusion: it is a bit like producing a table of cars and giving the fuel consumption of US produced cars in miles/US gallon and the rest of the world's cars in kilometres/litre (with a footnote explaining which units of measurement apply to any particular entry). How long do you think that would survive in an article? --LiveRail 15:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @LiveRail: Rather than get into an essay-writing contest with you, I'm going to ask you a simple question with the hope of forwarding this discussion: What do you think constitutes an "industry standard practice"? Uk55 (talk) 16:43, 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)

Capacity versus Layers

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)

See http://www.hitachi.com/rd/yrl/people/bdxl/01.html

The capacity of 25GB per layer apparently applies to standard Blu-ray, which allows only two layers. BDXL apparently increases the capacity by a factor of (about) 1.3, as well as permitting 4 layers. 3 layers have a capacity of about 100 GB (so I presume the stated factor of 1.3 is rounded down). 4 layers have a capacity of only 128 GB. I have not yet found a reason for the reduced capacity of the 4th layer. Because of the figure 128, I suspect it may be an addressing limitation or a compatability issue. The sentence giving a capacity of 25GB probably needs revising to indicate that it does not apply to BDXL. --Boson (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I found the following information, which seems plausible (but I don't think my source would count as a reliable source by Wikipedia rules):

• Minimum mark width / pit length:
  • for 2 layers: 149 nm
  • for 3 layers: 112 nm
  • for 4 layers: 117 nm
• Capacity per layer
  • for 2 layers: 25 GB
  • for 3 layers: 33.4 GB
  • for 4 layers: 32 GB

This would mean that the section Blu-ray Disc#Laser and optics is outdated.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable has a more reliable source.

--Boson (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength and Storage space

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)

Storage capacity is proportional to the square of the laser's focussed spot size (itself proportional to the wavelength of the light). Remember that not only can you get more data along any track, you can also space the adjacent tracks closer together. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blu-Ray

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)

Clearly stated in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Laser_and_optics Msgohan (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of available titles

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)

Using a blank search with my site preferences set to US only and unchecked "show all Region Free titles", I get 7552 US titles. But this counts things like "Africa 3-pack Blu-ray" separately from its constituent releases, collector's editions separate from regular, etc. I don't know how you would filter those out. Msgohan (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is "conceded" the right word.

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)

Probably a case of 'sour grapes'. If 'conceded' is not the right word, it's probably pretty close. The movie studios were rapidly moving toward Blu-ray before Toshiba threw in the towel. It was not helped by the fact that Toshiba (in order to address the smaller capacity of HD-DVD) announced a triple layer version with 55GB capacity and introduced the fear that early adopters of (dual layer) HD-DVD players would be unable to play the triple layer discs. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Pocket Blu

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)

History section in serious need of work

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)

WikiProject java?

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)

Backwards compatibility confusion

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)

I edited the statement about MPEG-2 to make it more accurate. MPEG-2 is required for Blu-ray players but to play a DVD-Video disc requires a lot more than that. There are many requirements for DVD-Video and the Wikipedia article on DVD-Video only gives a basic overview of what is needed. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it's still suggestive, because the reason for its inclusion is unclear otherwise. It should either carry an explicit caveat explaining that MPEG-2's inclusion does not by itself mean backwards-compatibility (with an advisory to read the appropriate section in this article for more information), or be removed entirely along with the rest of the expository information on the mandatory CODECs. I'm inclined towards the latter, as it seems superfluous, especially given that the various CODECs are linked to their respective articles. I'm also not sure that they add anything relevant to the article itself: I mean, does it matter (within the context of this article) who developed AVC or VC-1, or that MPEG-2 is also used on DVDs? I'd suggest going from the mention of the three CODECs directly into the line beginning, "BD-ROM titles with video must…".Edrarsoric (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Since those statements aren't directly related to the Blu-ray Disc format I have removed them. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

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)

Done. Thanks! LittleMountain5 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Image Request?

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)

Hm, where is it listed as such? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Where it is usually listed - at the top of this talk page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ups, sorry, I didn't pay enough attention. That seems to be an old tag, so it's now deleted; there are already enough pictures. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Br as the informal a name of Blu-ray

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)

Hello there! Already tried searching, but found nothing usable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Table of resolutions and frame rates.

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)

You are entirely correct. It would appear that some editor changed the table late last year, but did not leave an edit summary as to what they had done. It therefore did not get noticed until you spotted it. This demonstrates the importance of leaving an edit summary as to what has been done. It's all fixed now. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not quite :

• True interlaced is expressed in field rate, where 2 successive fields are each a different half of successive frames, the other half being lost.
• 1 frame to 2 fields pulldown is expressed "480i60 is 480i/30, 576i50 is 576i/25, and 1080i50 is 1080i/25."
• 3:2 or other pulldowns don't fit a clean "rate".

Since the article (and supposedly the format) do not specify how the fields are used, it seems best to stick to "true" interlaced, others being derivative.

Fortunately this has since been clarified in the article. --Musaran (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Cinavia

... 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 trends,

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)

sorry if this already covered in the litany of complaints

"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.

Requested move 12 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Oppose – What you hear is not a form of evidence that's useful here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Although perhaps I can be convinced to change my mind. First look at what the Blu-ray Disc Association says:

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)

So, Blu-ray Disc and Blu-ray are trademarks; either might work for the article title. In either case, since it is never appropriate to pluralize trademarks, when we speak about the items instead of the format it should be Blu-ray discs, not Blu-ray Discs, right? Dicklyon (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE, which is evident, and less so per WP:COMMONNAME, which is only speculation. Red Slash 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I should be Blu-ray disc or ideally blue-ray disc. Vlādis Mānisqā (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Except that MOS:TM suggests we capitalize trademarks. Look at the box above, from the Blu-ray Disc Association. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: There seems consensus that the current name is wrong, can we agree on a new name? Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: The proposed name seems inaccurate, as it would seem to refer to the type of ray used to read the disc, rather than the disc and disc format itself. In the phrase "Blu-ray disc", "Blu-ray" functions as an adjective to identify the type of disc, and we generally prefer nouns as Wikipedia article titles. The current article name, especially when capitalized as noted by Dicklyon, also helps introduce the abbreviation "BD", which is used universally and consistently for things related to this disc format (e.g., search the article for "BD" and you'll find more than 100 matches). Retaining the "D" also helps provide symmetry with the terms and abbreviations for the earlier "CD" and "DVD" disc format names, which are universally used. No actual evidence has been provided that dropping "disc" is more common. I don't personally see how Andrew can perceive a consensus that the current name is wrong, given Dicklyon's extensive comments above (and very little said from anyone else). The stylized logo for the format (seen in the infobox, and on the cover art of the discs) includes the "D" in the abbreviation (in stylized form) and includes the full phrase with the word "Disc" (with the capitalization and spelling used in the current article title), and it seems to appear prominently on every disc, on the spine of every disc's box, near the top of the front cover of every disc's box, and in other places on every disc's box. Although "Blu-ray" by itself also appears to be a separately trademarked term and also appears on the cover art, I personally think the current title is more proper and probably more common. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh well, we did once have consensus that the current name is wrong. We move on! Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

    I don't think we did have such a consensus then. Dick had posted an extensive argument saying the move was a bad idea, Red Slash had pointed out that there was no evidence provided for the common name argument, and Vlādis Mānisqā's off-topic suggestion for lowercasing had been clearly shot down by Dick. That's not a consensus to do anything. Slash put forth a conciseness suggestion, but that didn't outweigh Dick's extensive commentary. Yes, time to move on, and sorry for dredging the "water under the bridge". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Blu-ray is the common name. Calidum T|C 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The issue for me here is whether we're talking about the technology (Blu-ray) or the storage media (Blu-ray Disc). Since the article seems to cover the storage media as an aspect of the technology as a whole, I'd say the article should be moved to Blu-ray. – PeeJay 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support as WP:COMMONNAME. The discs themselves are almost always referred to as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray disc: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], etc. and Google Books results [26]. Zarcadia (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Dicklyon's evidence shows that both forms are correct, and I don't think there is any confusion that the proposed title will be confused with the laser itself. kennethaw88 • talk 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Tempted to close but as my assessment of consensus above has been questioned, better to leave to others. The case has been well argued above. Let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Dolby Digital Plus maximum bitrate

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)

Storage medium vs Storage format

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)

I concur, there is ambiguity between the disc and the AV standard. "Obviously" video claims refer to the AV standard, but users should not have to guess.

I think they should be split, as both are fairly long. --Musaran (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

UltraHD BluRay: 4:4:4 chroma sub-sampling

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)

Suggest to merge sections 'Variants' and 'Variations'

Section Variants lists:

• Mini Blu-ray Disc
• Blu-ray Disc recordable
• BD9 and BD5
• BDXL
• IH-BD

while sections Variations lists:

• High Fidelity Pure Audio (BD-A)
• AVCHD
• AVCREC
• Blu-ray 3D
• Ultra HD Blu-ray

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)

Separate article for Ultra HD Blu-ray?

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)

Colour sub-sampling for 4K

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)

This is interesting... 4:4:4 was reported, among others, by Trusted Reviews (the source I put back) and Techradar, which certainly are not blogs, and should be reliable sources. However, out of curiosity, I went and read the actual specification from BDA. It doesn't mention subsampling at all, so I figured it must be a feature of HEVC rather than Blu-ray itself. So off I went to the HEVC specs, and sure enough it supports 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4. But, I then went back to the UHD Blu-ray spec and found the following unassuming line:

chroma_format_idc shall be set to “1”.

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)

Now that is remarkably interesting and better researched than my (admittedly) quick effort. I have seen manufacturer claims before that claim their product supports some standard when it only does so by conversion. In one case a Blu-Ray player supporting 1080/50p and 1080/60p when in fact it would not play such discs but it did upscale 25i and 30i discs to 50p and 60p respectively - a similar situation to the example you gave. 85.255.234.45 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"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'." That would indeed be a stretch. Until recently, HDMI didn't even support chroma sub-sampling, i.e. every DVD and BluRay player upsampled to 4:4:4. Personally, with all the information gathered (and the good source from the BluRay Disc Association) I think it is save to put "4:2:0" back into the article. Most people expected this anyways, because UHD BluRay is also limited to 10 bit and not 12 bit. HEVC v1 is limited to 10 bit and 4:2:0, so this is probably no coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.51.147 (talk • contribs)

I disagree. Why add something that hasn't changed to a list of improvements? Uk55 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is not titled "improvements". I would add it because the misconception about 4k BluRay having sub-sampling 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 seems to exist, in part because Wikipedia helped spreading wrong information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.161.191 (talk • contribs)

If you look at the original context, it's clearly outlining ways UHD Blu-ray differs from regular Blu-ray. I do take your point, but if we start listing details that are the same we're going to end up rewriting half the article. I think it's best just to leave it until UHD Blu-ray gets its own article. (Side note: please sign your comments) Uk55 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo in the supported video chart 23.97?

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

No, 23.976 is correct. It is basically the NTSC version of 24 Hz (24000 / 1001 ~= 23.976, 60000 / 1001 ~= 59,940). If you buy a BluRay in the US with a Hollywood type cinema/blockbuster movie it will have this frame rate 99% of the time. (59.94 Hz is the field rate of 29.97 Hz interlaced. BluRay was not designed for progressive 29.97 fps.)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226094151/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090409074432/http://www.twice.com:80/article/CA6323699.html to http://www.twice.com/article/CA6323699.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828181018/http://www.watch.impress.co.jp:80/av/docs/bdhdship/ to http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/bdhdship/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX48JmH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afterdawn.com%2Fglossary%2Fterms%2Fbd-mv.cfm to http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/bd-mv.cfm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5idsN03Hs?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blu-raydisc.com%2FAssets%2FDownloadablefile%2FBD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf to http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/BD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317015922/http://blu-raydisc.info:80/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php to http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed Wii U mentions

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)

Controversial topic

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)

• It was because HD DVD fanboys kept inserting bullshit criticisms of Blu ray non stop back when the format war was going on, almost 15 years ago. I'll remove it. MightyArms (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822172353/http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html to http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102222432/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69559 to http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/69559
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/bdhdship/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2008%2F02%2F23%2Fdlclaud123.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bluray20feb20%2C0%2C5286548.story?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041009144100/http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm to http://www.optware.co.jp/english/what_040823.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130711015752/http://the/ to http://the/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701055209/http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format-spec/re1-spec.php to http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format-spec/re1-spec.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.videohelp.com/hd
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106054231/http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers to http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Change interlaced entries in Supported Video Formats table to show frame rate instead of field rate and remove respective note

Any objections?

{| class="wikitable" |+ Supported video formats |- ! 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.
^ b MPEG-2 at 1440×1080 was previously not included in a draft version of the specification from March 2005.
^ c These resolutions are stored anamorphically, i.e. they are stretched to the display aspect ratio by the player or display. Paianni (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 4K Blu Ray early Best Buy release.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted change to "See also"

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)

"List of released blu-ray discs" listed at Redirects for discussion

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"List of Blu-ray devices" listed at Redirects for discussion

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. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)