Jump to content

Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Amount of 50 gig releases on par with 25 gig

I added up the releases in the last 90 days and it seems there has been 35 25gig and 39 50gig releases. so its right around 50/50. the previous statement that 25gig is far more preferred by devlopers seems no longer accurate. the outlook on new releases looks about the same. Does anyone disagree? If you want to add in all the 25gig releases since blu-ray came out sure you come up with more. I think 90 days is a fair amount of time to go by and Its possible that since the first releases were in november for 50 gigs alot of the projects in the works were still based on the 25gig discs slowing the ramp up a bit. any thoughts? 71.107.48.182 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanations needed

1) What is PIP? 2) What is the significance of Region codes? Kdammers 02:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--PIP is 'picture in picture'. It used to be a popular thing in the 90's but I haven't seen a whole lot of it lately. On the television it was basically a small box in one corner of the screen that would show another channel or input source. I'm not really sure why it would be important for a DVD player to have PIP, but I'm sure they'll think of something interesting to do with it.

Region codes are significant because a player will generally only play discs from its own region. Manufacturers tend to state that this is to protect end users from device damage due to differences in display rates or voltages, but personally I think it's just a form of market control. So you get some info and my opinion as well... *BONUS!*  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New Compare table discussion

Hi all. We are discussing a new Compare table. Please come in and leave your opinion on the new tables here. --StarChild74 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard-coating technology

"Nonetheless, if a scratch does occur, there is no current way of removing the scratch without causing further irreparable damage. Abrasion cleaners used in video game stores to clean DVD game discs and movies (by removing plastic and thus the scratch) will not work. This is because the data layer is so close to the surface that even if the abrasion cleaner was able to remove the scratch, it would also remove the data layer destroying the disc."

Does someone have a link of a reliable test that confirms this? Until then I see this as speculation. Ray Andrew say that it is fact. So I guess that you have some proof to show that then, as you know that it's fact? The last part is even written as speculations; '"...close to the surface that even if the abrasion cleaner was able to remove the scratch...". My personal believes is that this is right information, bocouse it sounds right, but should this wiki base on persons believes and speculation? If this is right, then it should be a test somewhere. Until then I will continue deleting this part. And when someone comes up with some reliable proof I gladly put it back myself. --StarChild74 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If everything in this article had to have good references, we would not have an article. So if you think its true, then why don't you assume good faith and just tag it {{cn}}. --Ray andrew 12:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That section doesn't contain any relevant information to the article. Does any other consumer product include a section that basically says "It is possible for the owner to damage this product beyond repair." Every product you could ever buy can be damaged beyond repair. Laserdiscs can be scratched beyond repair, CD's can be scratched beyond repair, DVD's can be scratched beyond repair, HD-DVD's can be scratched beyond repair. Heck even your car can be scratched beyond repair (yes a collision with a brick wall at 50mph could be considered a scratch). Why does blueray need a special section about scratches? Just like CD's, DVD's and HD-DVD's, Blueray includes robust EEC algorithms to protect against scratches ruining the disc.The Goat 15:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't think its relevant that unlike CD's and DVD's scratches cannot be repaired? I would consider that relevant information, as it is an important difference from the technology that it is seeking to replace. ECC is nothing new either and it can only do so much. --Ray andrew 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
So you, Ray andrew, basicly say that it is free to anyone to just put something in articles without any backup and then it's not okey to delete it. Shouldn't it be the one who wrote it that going to have some proof. Thats something new for me. --StarChild74 15:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't let your inner fanboy bias your editing. If you dispute the facts then do so, if not then answer the question: Do you think its relevant that unlike CD's and DVD's scratches cannot be repaired? --Ray andrew 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Ray there is no difference with scratches on CD's/DVD's and scratches on Blueray discs. Shallow CD/DVD scratches can repaired. Deep CD/DVD scratches can not be repaired. How is that any different to scratches on blueray discs? Are you claiming that any scratch at all ruins a blueray disc? That is clearly not the case. Unless you can show an actual study that has some evidence that blueray discs are ruined by scratches at a significantly higher rate then CD's and DVD's I will continue to remove this section from the article. CD's are much easier to ruin with unrepairable scratches. Scratching the label side of a CD can leave the disc unusable with no hope of repair. That is much easier to do then scratching a blueray disc.The Goat 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I would go with removing the wording. only because I don't think 99% of the population has a home DVD repair kit in thier home. Most I bet just buy a new dvd. If I added up the number of dvd's and cd's I had that are now coasters due to scratches (which I had to re-buy) I would be pretty pissed. the whole "virtually indestructable" line when we switched from cassettes was a riot.. lets not do anything to make that format look any better then it really is..lol You scratch a cd or dvd its just as useless if you don't have a repair kit and if you do have one (at an extra expense I might add) then it "may" work after repairing it but it prob wont a second time.. At least blu-ray added a hardcoating.. and one that seems fairly robust and stands up to quite a bit of abuse.. I give them that much (the hardcoating IS thier abrasion cleaner by preventing as much as possible before they happen. some scratches on dvd's are just too deep to be fixed as well.). I mean if you take the pizza cutter and steel wool to it then find out that doesnt break it so you decide to run over the disc with your car. sure you may need to buy a new one ;). seriously though.. if you don't take care of it.. it breaks.. seems pretty self explanatory to me. has anyone done a test on how different an HD DVD is to blu-ray in the scratch catagory? maybe we should add a note on that article that unlike blu-ray which has a protective coating and is not susceptiple to damage even from steel wool and pizza cutters, a slight scratch on your disk may render it useless causing you to need go out and purchase a home abrasian cleaner which may or may not work... thats just as bad I think. -71.107.48.182 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ray: I'm the fanboy? Thats something new to. It's obviously you who is the fanboy. You say: When we going to discuss "remove Hard-coating info" that are a minus to Blu-ray we don't need a source. But when we discuss "adding Sample frequency" in HighDefMediaComparison Table, that is a minus to HD DVD, then we need a source (as Blu-ray's white-paper weren't sufficient for you). So I wonder who's the fanboy around here, and I suggest that you think outside the box in the future. I try to be as neutral as possible when I write in this wiki. If I aren't you are welcome to notice me instead of just calling me a fanboy without any explanation. If that is the case I suggest we take that discussion in a PM as it don't belongs here. And for your notice I'm not convince to any of the two sides, I'm just allergic to unneutralized information and fanboys behaviour.
I suggests that we leave this information out of the wiki as we are tree against one. IF you can show us some reliable proof, I'm on your side! --StarChild74 19:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You all are a tough crowd :). It looks like a quick Google search solves everything. From this information it looks like there two options, if its a light scratch (ie does not go through the 0.05mm hard coat) then buffing may be able to remove it without totally removing the hard coat. But if its bigger, then the whole hard coat must be removed (which they admit is dangerous as the data layer is so close), but then the disk has no protection and could easily be damaged. So a rewording is in order, but the topic is still relevant. I'm sorry if I offended anyone earlier, that was not my intent. --Ray andrew 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of those sources you linked to actually say scratches on blueray discs are repairable with the current machines. They also state that early experiments show it is much more difficult to scratch a blueray disc then a CD/DVD. They also hypothesize that repairing a scratch will be more difficult on a blueray disc because of the thin plastic layer on top of the data layer. But they note there lack of experience in the subject when making this statement. There is no actual real world evidence either way yet. Blueray is too young to make a statement about its repairability. The article already makes a clear statement about the thin plastic layer over the data layer, and the possibility of scratches affecting the disc's data layer.The Goat 20:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that at odds with the way I rewrote it: "However if the hard-coat is scratched it is harder to repair then other optical media. If the scratch does not penetrate the hard-coat (less then 0.05mm) then some of the hard-coat can be removed to repair the disk. If the scratch is deeper then the entire hard coat must be removed, leaving the disk vulnerable to further damage."??? This issue needs some mention, so If your going to take issue with my verbiage, you better come up with some replacement. --Ray andrew 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ok... a few things. source one states they have not been able to repair to many because its very hard to find damaged discs in circulation (thats good for blu-ray)and that they were impressed at how difficult it was to actually damage the disc.. even when personally trying to. (I breathe on my dvd and its scratched) source 2 states that the coating gives them a "much better" scratch protection then dvd's (and I imagine hd dvd's as they are made the same). also according to the sources the scratches within the hardcoating come out with what amounts to a "good cleaning" with a buffing machine..the buffing process does not penetrate the hard coating they say...alot better then having to take sandpaper to the disc and prob less risky for light scratches. the hard coating only needs to be removed IF the scratch pentrates the hardcoating completly not even if it does not penetrate as the new verbage states. at that point...the disc will only THEN be as scratchable as easy as dvd's are. I think adding anything about the scratchability is unfair at this point until more data is avail. otherwise it appears we are just looking for a negative. and in fairness if we add something about the scratchability something really needs to be put on hd-dvd and dvd as to how blu-rays coating gives much better scratch protection compared to hd dvds - dvd's in everday use. otherwise we would be playing favorites. thats just my opinion.. maybe I read the article wrong. and remember these are companies who make a profit off fixing discs..not very good for them to be saying blu-ray is very scratch resistant. my guess is if they could they would be saying these things are very scratchy buy our product now to save your discs..... -71.107.48.182 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that hard-coated disks are harder to scratch is not contested. The hard-coat does its job admirably in that regard, however like everything it is not perfect. If a scratch occurs though, it does create problems with Blu-ray discs. Why? Well its the depth of the data layer, no the scratch probably wont be that deep, but none the less it is harder to focus around then on other disks (CD, DVD, HD DVD) because the beam spot on the disk is considerably smaller. This is in contrast to the other optical disks, where most small scratches can be focused around. This slack has to be picked up by the error correcting code.
Back to the topic, buffing a disk does remove a small (even if we are talking microns here it makes a difference) amount of the surface of the disk. That is what I stated in my rewrite "..some of the hard-coat can be removed..". I'm not just looking for negatives here, but hype needs to be balanced with reality. We need remember why a hard-coat is required (they had no choice besides cartages), and that in the case that it does get scratched it works differently then other discs. --Ray andrew 02:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyones interested, there is a nice article with the differences in ECC between Blu-ray and HD DVD here. Warning: some knowledge of ECC is required. --Ray andrew 18:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

vulnerability to data loss due to scratches/wear

Let's see if I can summarize this.

Case 1: CDs have two different sides with respect to scratching. The label side and edge is only a lacquer layer away from the data layer. The other is some mm of polycarbonate away from the data layer. Same with CD-R and CD-RW, just a different kind of data layer. Exotic variations, such as double sided CDs are more like DVDs in that the data layer is not immediately under a very thin lacquer layer. So scratches to the label surface or edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On the non-label surface, buffing/polishing, if done carefully can save many disks. On the label surface, this is not possible in practice as the lacquer layer is both thin and soft.
Case 2: All DVDs have a layer (thinner than in the case of ordinary CDs) of polycarbonate between the outside surface and the data layer. Except for the edges, where there is lacquer protection only. How thick the polycarbonate layer is depends on how many data layers or sides the DVD has. And like CDs, the nature of the data layer changes between pressed DVD and the field writable DVDs, but not the polycarbonate layer protection. So scratches to the edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On both surfaces, buffing/polishing, if done carefully can save data on many scratched disks.
Case 3: The Blu-ray disc data layer is immediately under the reading surface (the non lable surface in most cases). In these, scratches on the label surface are much less dangerous to data, exactly the opposite of CDs. The protective hard surface layer makes scratches there less likely than for similar media. But harder to repair when present as the hard layer is quite thin, and more urgent since the data layer is so close to the surface and such scratches are more optically important than in CDs or DVDs. So scratches to the edge are immediately dangerous (corrosion, moisture, ...) to the data stored on the disk. On the reaading surface scratches are dangerous and less easily ignored, but harder to make given the hard surface layer. On the reading surface, buffing/polishing, if done very very carefully can save data on some scratched disks.

I think I've got the differences fairly covered. If so, and I'd appreciate a check or two by other editors, something like this info should be in the CD article, the DVD article, the Blu-ray and HD-DVD articles. The differences are relevant to WP as the Average Reader for whom we are writing/editing are not being educated about them, though understanding (and the differences) are important to protecting their data (eg, songs, movies, images, programs, ...). ww 11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The thin layer protecting the data on a blueray disc is already correctly addressed in the article. The major disagreement as I see it Ray wants to include a section about scratch repair machines being used on blueray discs. These scratch repair machines are not a major factor in the optical disc industry. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about these scratch repair machines that I could find. Furthermore there is no real world evidence for repair attempts on blueray discs available yet. All optical discs (CD's, DVD's, HD-DVD's, BD's, etc.) have been designed to continue to operate correctly with scratches. What is unique about blueray in this respect? Blueray discs have a thiner protective layer on top of the data but they also have much stronger EEC protection then the other formats. Nobody knows how scratches will end up effecting blueray usage in the real world. If in the future there are reports of statistically higher numbers of blueray discs being ruined because of unrepairable scratches, then of course something should be added to the article. But now it is way too early to do so.The Goat 13:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wal-mart high-def disc rumor

There's a rumor Wal-Mart has requested 20M high-def disc players--some reports say HD-DVD players, but it's not clear; they may be Blu-Ray. I don't think there's anything verifiable enough to be added to an article yet. Discussed at more length at Talk:HD_DVD#Wal-mart_HD-DVD_rumor. 67.180.140.96 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WalMarts in the Salt Lake area have began to sell blu-ray movies.

But no HD DVD titles yet. I speculate whether this is policy or a reflection of sales reality.

Anyone have a source? 71.219.94.15 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my rewrite of the DRM section

Tracer9999 undid my revision, saying "previous edit was fine. new edit adds less info".

That was precisely my intention, avoiding unnecessary duplication of content. Moving most of the AACS-specific parts to the relevant article. Then I expanded upon the parts that are Blu-ray specific.

What parts of the old revision (if any) do you think should be added to my version?

  • BD+ is covered in my version of Blu-ray
  • Mandatory Managed Copy is covered in my version of Blu-ray
  • CSS vs. AACS is covered in AACS
  • BD-ROM Mark is in my version of Blu-ray
  • The analog restrictions / ICT is in AACS
  • The "cracking" of AACS is covered in AACS

— Ksero 01:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

HITACHI announces 1000 GB Blu-Ray Recorder !!!


Focus on video storage

I believe this article has too much focus on commercial video discs rather than the physical medium itself. By reading the article it does not become clear which of the DRM restrictions apply to normal recorded data CDs and if its possible not to include DRM. ("The Blu-ray format employs several layers of DRM.")

-- 83.99.184.75 17:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (Not logged in: J7n)

BR is winning

Virgin Megastore Tower Records at Piccadilly Circus has 4 shelves of bluray and ONE of HDDVD. Bluray is winning. --81.105.251.160 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Same thing at my local Best Buy. Two weeks ago they rearranged the HDDVD/blueray sections. They doubled the blueray section and halved the HDDVD section. I think the retailers have already seen the future in their sales numbers.The Goat 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This so called format war is quite irrelevant. Because of the heavily crippled nature of both medias and files contained on them, an user is required to rip both discs in order to safely backup and watch the video recordings without restrictions. The resulting ripped files can be stored anywhere and only their quality matters, and not on what physical disc they were released by the commercial publisher. 83.99.184.75 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (Not loggen in: J7n)

AnyDVD HD

In the section DRM, AnyDVD HD: "..but they will release no details for obvious reasons". Call me a fool, but I don't know what the obvious reasons are, nor do I want to sit and think it over for a while. --ScarletSpiderDavE 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the AnyDVD HD section? It looks like an advertisement for an unrelated product. Jonabbey 13:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The point as far as I see it is that it allows consumers to exercise their fair-use rights and make a backup copy of movies they have legally bought and own. -Paul1337 13:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Paper Disc

I think it's time for the Blu-ray Disc#Paper based Blu-ray Disc section to go. The reference is three years old. I can't find any evidence that it's been commercialized. The motivation seems sort of weak: it's supposed to be environmentally friendly somehow, yet one could argue that a half-paper half-plastic disc would be difficult to recycle. I tried to find a diagram showing the structure, but failed. Does anyone object to dropping this section? Spiel496 04:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditch it.The Goat 12:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I notice that 64.128.200.78 added some good material on the disc structure. However, the reference is still three years old. The more I think about it, the more lousy the idea seems to be. The motivations for moving away from polycarbonate are:
  • Cost. However, CD-R discs are nearly all polycarbonate, and they are less than $1 each.
  • Recyclability. Can't polycarbonate be recycled?
  • Less material. So what? Are optical discs really a large fraction of household and business waste?

Maybe these points are over-thinking the issue. This disc looks like a PR stunt that was floated for whatever reason, and then dropped. Spiel496 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two alternative disc lists

I would like to propose that "Other optical data storage technologies" and "Alternative disc technologies" be merged together. They are near identical, with only one discrepancy (protein-coated disc) that can go in either. 212.32.73.18 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Other optical data storage technologies" heading is not referenced by any other page (as a wikipedia search confirms), so it can be safely removed while its contents is merged with "Alternative disc technologies" under "See also". The HD DVD page sets a precedent for this, as it has "alternative discs" laid out this way, and it seems to make more sense. 212.32.107.185 16:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Sided

Shouldn't double sided GB amounts be added? There on the DVD and HD DVD pages so shouldn't the be here?

They are listed for those formats because double sided disks are both part of the specification and feasible, but Blu-ray will likely never have double sided disks because they are not part of the specification nor is it feasible because of its extremely strict tolerances for the "flatness" of the data layer. --Ray andrew 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Problem

Why it is not mentioned that most (if not all) titles sold today on Blu-ray are in fact 720p and not true HD? 81.96.125.17 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh. Because it's not true? I have yet to see a Blu-Ray in my collection or in a store that wasn't 1080p. Googling reveals there apparently are some 720p Blu-Ray movies, but that seems to be uncommon. Perhaps these are the only movies you happened to buy? 24.23.231.54 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I came in here to post about this, and I'm glad someone else brought it up. There are clearly some Blu-ray discs that seemed to have been "upscaled" from an original DVD, not a fresh high-resolution recording directly from the film. So it's essentially a DVD in Blu-Ray format. I try to look out for them, but it's hard to tell the difference. Anyone find any references on this? I'll be looking around. This is important for people to know. Wikidan829 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Generally looking on the back of the disc's casing (box) will mention something about being mastered in high definition. If it says something other than mastered or remastered in high definition, you're probably getting a degraded picture as you mentioned. I'm not sure if this is relevant enough to make it into this particular article, so I'll leave that to the proverbial powers that be to add or not. Also, looking at the two BD movies I have right here, both are in "1920 x 1080p" ("Tears of the Sun" and "House of Flying Daggers", NA releases). 68.45.243.140 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

i haven't seen a single 720P blu-ray in europe, they are all 1080P Markthemac 04:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blu-Ray "Released Titles" list tainted

Despite the list's title being simply "Released Titles," it clearly states that it is listing Blu-Ray launch titles from June 20, 2006. However, the very short list includes Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, a May 22, 2007 release. This is wrong and very misleading. For instance, it would lead some to believe that the movie is encoded with the inferior MPEG2 format like other launch titles. Others in the list may also need to be verified (only that one stood out to me). Update: Yep. I noticed another: "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not released on BD *at all* according to this list: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3112

I think the list likely needs to be scrapped. 72.15.73.29 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or just give an external link to an official listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.243.144 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Target Announcement

The Target announcement was rewritten in such a way that it seemed almost like it was trying to obscure and downplay that Target had decided to sell only Blu-ray stand alone players. I added text based on the article from Forbes to clarify the announcement. 24.23.231.54 05:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats not quite accurate, the facts are that Sony decided to pay Target for an endcap to sell their players. I would hardly call that a decision by Target to promote one format over another. I'm sure they would gladly sell HD DVD players too if Toshiba payed them for the shelf space. --Ray andrew 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what I wrote is quite accurate. Target will carry and promote stand alone Blu-Ray players in their stores. Meanwhile, they are not carrying stand alone HD DVD players in their stores. The article keeps being altered to try to obscure or spin these facts. I guess HD DVD supporters really want this to not be true. This is supposed to be NPOV, and I'm trying to edit the article to include all of the facts beneficial to both sides, but the parts which are good for Blu-ray keep being editted out. Please stop trying to spin it. 24.23.231.54 04:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the reference for this, and the article is perfectly accurate. According to the source, Target does not have HDDVD players for sale in their stores. There should be no mix up here. Wikidan829 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue ray's techincal features

I'm not here to argue about Blu-ray vs HD DVD. All I have to day about that is that the Blu-ray system seems to have some nice technical advntages, and that not using "DVD" in the name is likely to be an advantage. (There are people who will confuse HD DVD with standard DVD).

But what are the interesting technical features. The BD-J system sounds useful for allowing more interactive content. Depending on exactly what is supported, It could have some cool implications.

I hope that people don't feel that the system is useable only for HD content. SD content on the discs has some very nice properties. A single blueray disc can fit a full season of many SD television shows. It would certainly be nice to not need to include 5 or so discs in the box. Unfortunately it looks like many companies are not going to be willing to make discs where the main content is SD. They may make discs where the extra content is SD, which allows far more extra content to be included. (Although today, I find the problem is that studios have a lot of trouble figuring out what extra content to include, besides a commentary audio track. They simply often don't have anything worthwhile to include. Being able to include 9 hours of SD bonus content is not going to be useful).

Annother cool feature is the 2 overlay frames in HDMV mode. One is intended to be frame specific, and used for things like subtitles. The other can be used to overlay things like buttons. So it is possible to pop up a choice or menu without neededing a dedicated menu screen. The BD-J mode has more flexibilty here.

Also, what features of the DISCs will not get used? For example I suspect that very few discs will use the PIP feature of Blu-ray, which requires a whole second decoding chip. I know that the Multiple-angle feature of DVDs was almost never used. Similarly the seamless branching feature of DVDs was not used often.

67.77.22.80 20:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blu-ray/Archive_5&oldid=1136569917"