Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Ray Andrew appears to be pushing HD DVD

I always suspected he was HD DVD "favored" for the last several months, but was not certain. Now I KNOW that's what he's doing. He's going around to various articles and pasting that HD DVD has a "33 gig" capacity without any kind of valid reference. He's also made other revisions (over the last several months) to try to "promote HD" as the better format, and "demote Blu-ray" as the inferior format. He's trying to push a non-neutral POV in hopes of selling more of his favored format (HD DVD). - Theaveng 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on what constitutes a valid reference. I am not here to push any format, I just want to keep these pages as accurate as possible. Call me crazy, but that includes adding new information about what the actual disc capacities are. Please refrain from future personal attacks (see WP:ATTACK) when you have a dispute with another editor. --Ray andrew 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that qualifies as a personal attack, neutral point of view is important, and if an editor is suspect of pushing a POV it's fair to call them out on that. But for the sake of getting this issue resolved, let's just deal with whether or not 33 GB is the real capacity and work on finding a credible source to back this up. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Theaveng, there's some discussion on this going on at Talk:HD DVD as well as at Template talk:HighDefMediaComparison. I don't agree with the assertion that Ray is pushing a POV though, but it does seem strange that given all the sources saying it's 15/30 GB he'd change articles en masse on the basis of this one FAQ. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Theaveng seems to have a moving definition of what constitutes a good reference. Back when we were having a dispute about disc cost, I had pointed out that these were the costs for single layer disc. He reverted me on the basis that the article did not say either way and when I started talking about reliable sources (like ones that state what kind of disc they are pricing), he said "Baloney. It's not our job to decide how "reliable" a source it is; only to report what it says. Let the reader decide whether he/she believes what she reads." (Theaveng's talk page 17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)) --Ray andrew 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is attacking. I know it's a sensitive issue for everyone but we really should focus on accurate information that transcends where our loyalties or preferences lie. Objective information is key. Swisspass 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of released titles

Considering the reference given for the count excludes the 32 discontinued, should we not report the numbers the same way. Are we not trying to over represent the release count by counting titles that may no longer be available? --Ray andrew 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The number should include the 32 Paramount titles because they were, in fact, released. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They Should be counted in the total because they were released and people purchased them... things are discontinued all the time doesn't make the copies in circulation or at peoples homes go poof..vanish as if they never existed. contrary to your statement.. excluding the 32 from the count is undercounting the movies that have been released to the public. regardless of the fact some have since been discontinued.. not to mention its going to be alot harder to track individual titles that may be discontinued..unless of course more companies take bribes to switch sides and discontinue a bunch at once.. hope that helps -Tracer9999 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ray, the count should be reported in the same manner. Swisspass 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

seems obvious to me. Like locke said, the number should be included in the the total because they were actually released ---24.253.46.31 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is the notice that it excludes the 32 titles previously available. On the Disney release article the list only includes existing titles with a note of discontinued titles. Swisspass 22:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Locke Cole, they were released so they should count. -- Vdub49 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We should also consider the source being cited reveals 319*, with some information revealing the 32 titles are excluded. The section could become overly complicated if we add the details of the 32 missing titles, etc. I think stating 319 titles is reflective of the information being reported in the source and a more accurate figure. Swisspass 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

351 is the accurate number of movies that HAVE BEEN RELEASED.. Im not sure how you get 319 is a more accurate number..regardless of how a source erroneously lists it. that baffles me. Thats like saying I bought a chicken sandwich for lunch but someone took a bite out of it so I really only bought 2/3 chicken sandwich...no.. you still bought the whole chicken sandwich.. the correct way would be I bought a chicken sandwich and someone took a bite of a third of it ... It should stay as it is ... accurate and clear... 351 "released" 32 have since been discontinued.. now Im hungry... -Tracer9999 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "Blu-ray"

The current article says it comes from "blue array," but I can't easily find proof of this. Common understanding is that it is derived from "blue ray of light" (referring to the blue-violet laser)." I would imagine "Blue array" would refer to an array of blue-light sensors. Should this be deleted, or can anyone find proof? Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never noticed. It was added in this edit. It's probably just vandalism, so I removed it. — Ksero 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move more comparison info to the "Comparison" page

In an effort to reduce duplication of effort, I am proposing to move much of the comparison and history information about BD and HD DVD to the "Comparison" page. If you have ideas / concerns, please comment on the thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Making_better_use_of_this_page Thanks Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. the comparison info is very important to the article.. people generally want as much info in their article without having to jump from page to page.. they want to just look up blu ray or hd dvd.. see what it is and how its different, where it is in the format war. I think it should be a major part of the individual articles.. not to mention it will get updated more as a part of the articles rather then some other page that people are too lazy to click on. -Tracer9999 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BD+ hacked?

apparently someone has hacked BD+ and will have disc copying software by the end of the year..

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/30/blu-ray-bd-cracked -Tracer9999 19:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If one were to start cracking the BD+, then one keyword, where to stat is the "Aspect-oriented programming". An illustrative idea: in CPU-s sometimes a behaviour of a CPU instruction is changed so that if the given instruction is subject to execution, the CPU excecutes some other instruction or does something other than the original CPU instruction has been specified to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.21.216 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

warner considering going blu ray only?

from home media magazine...Also there was Dan Silverberg, VP of high-definition media for Warner Home Video, which since Paramount’s move to the HD DVD camp is the only studio to support both next-generation formats.

That may not be for long, Silverberg said. “One thing that may be changing is our strategy,” he said. “When both formats launched and hardware prices were high, we made a decision to support both formats and let the consumer decide. But now that hardware pricing is affordable for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, it appears consumers no longer want to decide — so the notion of staying in two formats for the duration is something we are re-evaluating now that we are in the fourth quarter.”

Silverberg noted that Warner has the top-selling Blu-ray title of all time with 300 and is consistently No. 1 or No. 2 in both Blu-ray sales market share and in number of Blu-ray titles in the market.

“We can definitely talk Blu-ray,” he said. “We are committed to the format.” -Tracer9999 06:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a question, or do you just want to spread rumors? (Funny thing is thats not the rumor people are really talking about ;) )--Ray andrew 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As a counter-point, Warner also said they are looking at the sub-$200 HD DVD players to see if they make a difference in sales. This was a big PR event with a lot of rhetoric and is non-news right now. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ic868cb7073298c93e702dbdc92804c43?imw=Y Peter Torr (MSFT) 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow Peter, it didn't take long for a representative from Microsoft to respond. Don't you have some Wikipedia articles to taint, errr.... ahh clean up? The president of Warner video did in fact say he was committed to Blu-ray. He didn't say the same about HD DVD.... Uh oh.... looks like you need to work up another bribe for a friend  ;-)--Kibbled bits 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kibbled, remember WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. If you think that some of Peter's edits are inappropriate, you can discuss them on the relevant talk pages, just like any other edit. — Ksero 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read NPA and there's nothing personal in my comment. Invoking someone's name or 'calling them out' is seriously not a personal attack I think we're getting a little too sensitive here. I find that Peter and people like him that work for his employer spread disinformation and are bad for Wikipedia. That being said to say what a president within Warner said is Non-news? Note the several threads in http://forums.highdefdigest.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6 also http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=blu-ray+warner&btnG=Search Yes this is non-news my friend... Peter  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.128.198 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your improvements to my Wikipedia edits! Just for fun, here's an article stating that Warner has a release date for Twister on both formats for May next year. Couple that with the Hollywood Reporter article I referenced above that says Warner may consider either side, and I come to the conclusion that it is non-news right now. Other people made some very bold statements at that PR event -- people working for the same companies that didn't support DVD when it first came out, and look how things changed there. If you have anything to say to me personally, I have a Talk page and a blog :-) Peter Torr (MSFT) 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I sum up the Warner stuff. Warner is going to look at Q4 sales data and in there isn't a significant spike they will go Blu-ray. If there is they will probably wait on the sidelines a little more so see if it was just a fluke or not. If HD DVDs sales continue to climb then they might jump on board exclusively there.--Kibbled bits 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed today that Warner will go BlueRay only after May 2008. Adeas (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the secondary audio and video section be changed on the chart?

Now that it is November 1st, 2007, all future Blu-Ray players must have a secondary audio and video decoder. Should the chart be changed from optional to mandatory, or something like Mandatory as of November 1st, 2007? 75.52.174.191 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well considering there is not a single player out yet that supports it, I think that would be down right deceptive. Also I think it's alredy well noted that it is mandatory for 1.1 players. --Ray andrew 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cars

I read somewhere that someone was in development for a in dash blu-ray player for cars and that it was in a car at a motor show. I can't remember where or who though.--Playstationdude 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

BD+ Officially cracked

Slysofts latest anydvd beta cracks BD+

AnyDVD beta forum post

So far, it hasn't been determined the severity of the crack. BD+ was designed to fix security flaws that might be discovered. Slysoft may have cracked the current version, but Fox and the other studios may be able to identify the flaw that was cracked and fix it for the releases of future movies. Or it may be completely cracked, but we will have to wait and see. 68.23.85.184 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The crack is flawed however in that it only allows the user to copy the disc contents to the HDD and play it back from there. It does not allow the user to write the data to a BD-RE disc for playback in a set top player, nor does it allow the user to transcode or otherwise manipulate the data in any way. The BD+ entry also needs to be updated as it indirectly implies that BD+ was the reason for the playback problems with the first titles, while in reality it was other parts of unrelated BD-J code on the discs. These issues have also since been fixed by firmware updates from the player manufacturers. 90.149.15.238 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Panasonic in history section?

Panasonic is the major stakeholder in Blu-ray, they hold more IP in Blu-ray than Sony (though not by that much). I remember reading somewhere that in the beginning, when Sony and Panasonic discovered that they were both doing research into 405nm laser discs, that they decided to join their efforts into a common format. My knowledge was mostly gleaned from reading message boards and news reports that I can no longer find, so I don't feel confident in editing the History section. Surely there is someone reading this who has better knowledge of the initial development of Blu-ray?--66.8.194.25 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BD/HD-DVD contentious fans

No mention of the insane devotion fans of each format? I think the fact that a newsgroup got shut down due to physical threats of the opposing side is notable. --24.249.108.133 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some news outlets reported it, if you want to find a reference it could be added :) ---- Ray andrew (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something in Neilsen on it if you need a reference. 68.74.220.65 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Juvenile. As juvenile as the old "Commodore 64 is better than Atari XL" debates I used to partake in. That debate proved to be irrelevant (they both are in the obsolete pile), and the current HD v. Bluray debate is also irrelevant (they will eventually be replaced by something better). Intellectual debate is fun, but there's no point making threats over something so unimportant. ----- Oh, and yes, I would like to see that article reference. It would make for a good laugh. - Theaveng (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Modest Proposal (Delete list of devices)

Coming from the perspective of someone who knows little about this subject, far too much of the main article is taken up by matters that should be in other articles, such as the list of devices: in a couple of years, this is either going to be much longer or irrelevant (there's no list of Betamax devices, is there?) Much the same applies to most of the content on the different formats / the format war, which should be off in the comparision article. It is indeed noteworthy and fascinating that the various sides are bribing various people to support their format 'exclusively', but this isn't the place for it, beyond saying that it has happened and is not in the consumer's interest. Lovingboth (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The list of studios should also be shortened. And the price list eliminated. And other junk that, in five years, will be irrelevant. If people need that information about devices/prices/movie available, they can go search amazon or walmart.com. - Theaveng (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats#Making_better_use_of_this_page (referenced above on this page as well) -- that was intended to reduce copy-and-paste jobs between the three pages (HD, BD, and Comparison) but as part of that maybe you can splinter off the soon-to-be-irrelevant information. My personal feeling is that yes, 5 years from now nobody will care about most of these things, but there will be one or two key "turning points" that will determine the outcome of the format war (0, 1, or both formats survive), and we probably won't know what they are until long after they have happened. Trying to find news references after-the-fact is very hard. I also think general trends are more important than day-by-day stats, but Wikipedia doesn't really help there (yes, you have edit history, but it's too hard to follow all the edits). Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay well, let me give an example then. What's the point of listing "Studio X supports both formats". Is Studio X going to have any influence on the outcome of the battle? Nope. It's just a waste of space (and reader's time) to list that information. So don't list it... only list the Bluray-exclusive formats & clean-up the appearance of the article. - Theaveng (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disc capacity comparison

There are some contradicting points in this article that need to be resolved. The most prominent (for me) is that the second sentence of the comparison section states that HD DVD currently has greater capacity than Blu-ray. Now does that mean discs that are actually in circulation in the market or overall? I'm asking because in that very same section it goes on to say that the ultimate maximum capacity for Blu-ray discs exceeds that of HD DVDs. And the layer-by-layer capacity analysis shows that if they are compared equally, Blu-ray has more capacity than HD DVD. Can someone clarify this for me? Rajrajmarley (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The DVD Forum has approved 3x17Gb (51Gb) discs as part of the official spec, but none have shipped yet. Common practice has been to report on things that are "in spec" even if they haven't shipped yet (eg, Blu-rays "Live" feature, which hasn't shipped). The reports of 100Gb or 200Gb Blu-ray discs are just lab prototypes (not approved specs), and if memory serves me correctly they tend to be recordable formats, not pre-recorded formats.Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as I recall, Profile 1.1/Bonus View/whatever features weren't prominently listed until the breakoff point for older hardware to be released. Heck, the listing in the comparison table (the template) still contains a blurb about it being only for newer players). IMO, until an actual title or playback device is announced that will support these new discs, they have no reason to be included in any discussion about the current situation between both formats. See paper launch. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison chart makes it look like HD DVD currently has a greater storage capacity, which is untrue, and I think it is deceptive. We should remove the 51GB from the chart until they are actually released. (Just because it is approved does not mean it is going to be used) HK-48 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. See also Template:HighDefMediaComparison. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it should be listed if it's final, but I don't think the current spec is final. Note the "part" bit. Until I see another "part", I think it should be removed. --w_tanoto (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is we shouldn't include it until they've announced an actual title that will be released on the format. I expect that, assuming this is real and not just vaporware, they'll announce a title at CES in January. If it's vaporware, then we won't see any announcements. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with listing TL51 as long as its noted that nothing has been released for it yet. After all it IS part of the spec now and that IS how we handled BD50. --Ray andrew (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if that's the case than everything on Profile 1.1 on the chart needs to be changed to mandatory. It isn't official until a 51GB disc is released. Plus more people here agree that it should not be 30/51. HK-48 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prifile 1.1 is a different issue, it is mandatory for new players, but the table covers all players. Thus it is properly noted that it is an optional feature that new players are required to have. I see no inconsistency. PS: Just because you (or anyone else) don't want it included thats not reliant, the only thing that matters is whats in the specs. We include everything that is part of the spec, the end. --Ray andrew (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia reports what is widely known and understood as true (and where relevant, the opposite opinion is also presented). Right now it is widely understood that the highest capacity HD DVD supports is 30 GB. That will change once discs and players are released that support this new format, but until that time comes, we're stuck with the reality that the highest capacity supportable by HD DVD is 30 GB. It's the exact same thing with Profile 1.1/2.0; we didn't (or shouldn't have if we did) report on advanced interactivity in Blu-ray Disc until it was something that was widely understood to be imminent or available. As that benchmark has passed (numerous titles are announced for late December/early January that utilize Profile 1.1, and playback devices are also available or soon to be available (via firmware updates or new hardware) as well). The same cannot be said of 51 GB HD DVD discs which are, as of now, merely paper launched (and even that's a lie; they're included in a specification that nobody is, at present, using to anyones knowledge, which makes them slightly more real than the 100 GB and 200 GB Blu-ray Discs shown by TDK and Hitachi).

I will reiterate: 51 GB discs have not (and so far will not) be released any time soon. Including them is a mistake at best, and dishonest and biased at worst. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is it dishonest? We clearly state that it is not being used at present and that current players may or may not support it. I think you are stretching the truth to push your POV. --Ray andrew (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's dishonest because there are no titles, expected or announced, that utilize this new capacity. The article text mentions that the format isn't available yet, but listing it in the table as if it's currently available is dishonest. And the only ones pushing a POV here are you and Harumphy (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For a good part of last year there was no titles expected or announced for BD50 did that stop us from listing it? I do agree that the table needs a footnote (which I just noticed it is now missing) but other then that it would be a clear violation of NPOV if you decided to exclude something that is part of the spec from inclusion in the table. Excluding HD51 would be like removing BD-Live (profile 2.0) from the table for blu-ray because it has yet to materialize. --Ray andrew (talk)

You miss the point that every playback device was announced to be compatible with BD50. So far there's been no public announcement from Toshiba indicating that current players will play these back (there have been rumors spread on forums, but nothing substantive like a press release). That's the difference here. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea players were announced to be compatible with BD50, thats why there was no note indicating that that it might not be compatible. Thats about the end of the differences. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and this is from very foggy memory, but I recall manuals for the initial players indicating support for single and dual layer BD media. Again, this is far different from HD51 (where they're introducing a new layer scheme after the format has launched). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I guess this is a touchy subject but I have to agree with HK-48 because when I was reading this article it definitely seemed to try to assert that HD DVD had greater ultimate capacity that Blu-ray. This makes the article more difficult to read and interpret than it should be. Rajrajmarley (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's only touchy because there appears to be a lot of AVS Forum influence here. I really wish people could be objective and check their bias/POV at the door, but a lot of these folks lately seem intent on pushing HD DVD on any point they can even mildly argue it on (just take a look at Comparison of high definition optical disc formats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where, in the US sales data section, they've convinced themselves it's more accurate to show the aggregate sales data than the actual sales data). I've tried really hard to assume good faith with Ray and Harumphy, but with Microsoft editors like Peter Torr involving themselves, it's hard to keep hoping everyone isn't pushing their own personal agenda. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you prefer blu-ray.com then ;). I don't think we can make much headway if you think that AVS of all places is biased. --Ray andrew (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't prefer forums at all. One need only read through AVS for an hour or two to witness the bias there (and witness the not one, but I believe three Microsoft employees routinely steering discussion in their favor). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

At least everyone knows who I work for; I think that kind of transparency is valuable. As for this discussion, why don't we agree to pull BD-Live and 51Gb at the same time? Easy: Because both of them are in the specs even though neither of them exist as products yet. Why does Apple get listed as a BD supporter even though the only next-gen product they have released is for HD DVD? Again: Because that's what the official word is. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things: how did this become a discussion of BD-Live? And what, exactly, is the problem with BD-Live? I'm failing to see how the two are interrelated, at any rate. That's a separate issue, one that no doubt needs it's own discussion. As to Apple, as I recall, isn't it mentioned somewhere that they've released software that supports HD DVD but have yet to actually release anything BD related? I know it was at some point, though this is a wiki, so obviously things change. As to this being about the specs, I'm fine with specs. But I'm not fine with taking something that only exists in the specification (HD51) and using it as a point of comparison to something that's actually available on store shelves (BD50). That reeks of bias. Now if you want to specify what it is you have a problem with re: BD-Live, we can have a productive (hopefully) discussion about that somewhere else. At the moment though, this discussion is about disc capacities between these two formats. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)