![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I think we might want to make note of the fact that Fox and MGM have effectively stopped supporting Blu-ray for the time being. Fox has not released a title since April 24th (almost 4 months) and has no titles with an announced release date. MGM has not released a title since March 13th (5 months today) and has no titles with an announced release date. I am posting this here first to try to avoid any controversy and get others input before this change is made. Refrences: [1] [2] -- Ray andrew 13:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering if somebody removes HP from both Blu-ray Disc Association and this article from the list of supporting companies and Board of Director? Is this right as now (HP quit BDA)?-- w_tanoto 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Blu-ray_Disc&diff=152904892&oldid=152876357
-- AVRS 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who added the price comparison. I'm not sure what you mean be "mixed up", but the prices are accurate. As for Flash, why do you not have Flash??? Just go download the plugin, and you'll be all set. ;-) - Theaveng 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not very clear on the article about how much support there is for playback on a pc.Is there alot of support for playback with the menus, and subtittles etc, on PC?.Seems like Powerdvd is only software available, not sure about VLC media player. Rodrigue 17:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
powerdvd, indeovideo, Nero showtime and some other less known decoders
Markthemac
04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please take a moment to view the discussion taking place regarding the addition of pornography industry statistics and its effect on vhs and betamax format war and subsequently the HD format war on pretty much every article related to the HD format war. It is my position that since both formats have stated on the record that they both ALLOW porn, it is a moot point. the fact that porn is allowed is all that needs to be posted. there is no controversy and therefore no comparison to the betamax era nor to the porn industry in 1998 or 2001 when the referenced article was posted. The submission makes guesses as to the cause of the downfall of a 30 year old technology and if anything confuses the reader as to the relevence of porn in the current climate. The editor wants to debunk the myth porn had anything to do with betamax losing to vhs. as this does not apply to the current situation I feel this material should be added to the betamax, vhs, sony, or one of those relevent articles. rather then repeat everything (I might have already though..lol). feel free to look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats
In order to avoid an edit war I will honor whatever the consensus is. after a resonable amount of time to get responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 ( talk • contribs) 01:16, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
Neither of these are part of the official Blu-ray or VHS specifications...... and yet they both exist in the real world. Therefore they should be discussed in their respective wiki entries. 162.58.0.64 12:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The correct term for the pre-10/31/07 profile is "Profile 1 (Grace Period Profile)". People commonly refer to this profile as "Profile 1.0", but that is not the official terminology. Likewise, the proper term for the profile that takes effect 11/1/07 is "Profile 1 (Final Standard Profile)", but many people informally refer to it as "Profile 1.1". "Profile 2 (BD-Live)" is often called by the colloquial terms "Profile 2.0", "Profile 2.0 BD-Live", or simply "BD-Live". I changed the article to reflect the more proper terminology. Kelpie3483 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following (applies to EU only) to the article, also to comparison between HD DVD and BD:
BD has 90%+ share in Japan http://www.google.co.id/search?q=blu-ray+japan+90%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a http://www.n4g.com/News-64661.aspx
The inclusion of this new HD-DVD technology in the BD/HD-DVD comparison article is not a good thing to do at the moment, since its not yet confirmed if it is compatible with all HD-DVD players currently on the market. This makes the information about HD-DVD having the storage advantage over BR a bit misleading at this time. I think this line should be removed from the article until more on this subject will become clear. -- Ckyle88 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Toshiba: DVD Forum Hasn't Yet Approved Final 51 GB HD DVD After All By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews September 13, 2007, 4:55 PM
In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD.
As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9.
"We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today.
The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum."
That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format.
The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage."
Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.
yes, it's confusing ATM, regarding the specs. Toshiba itself said triple layer has not been completed, and we don't know if it's compatible with current player -- w_tanoto 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree.. it should be removed until final and more info on compatability with existing players is available - Tracer9999 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-I reverted some.. I personally think its should be removed completly until a final standard.. they are not releasing disc's on the "preliminary" standard. until its final.. and the compatibility questions have been addressed its just talk and vapor. It should be mentioned in the HD DVD article but NOT as an official spec until its final.. Ray, be fair on this. you know if this was a blu ray prelim standard that the blu ray page would have already been reverted. Im cool on adding it to the article. but lets wait till even HD DVD knows whats going on before making it the official capacity of HD DVD that could take another 6 mo or who knows.. even longer to finalize... lets not push vaporware until its final - Tracer9999 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I know the TDK labs have experimented with multiple layers, but have any of these larger discs moved beyond the lab & into official testing for consumer use? - Theaveng 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
TDK has demonstrated 4 layer media on modified hardware with special optics. -- Ray andrew 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why no history info? How did BD get started? Who started it? Why did Disney defect at the last minute? Why didn't Sony comply with the DVD Forum? What happened? The origins of Blu-ray, I want to know. Can we get something started? Swisspass 11:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
One very important information which should be near the top of the article is that the competing format HD DVD also uses a blue laser. This is something that not a lot of people would know and would also educate people as it would instantly clear up the misconception that Blu-ray uses a blue laser and the competing HD DVD uses a red laser. People should look at this article, see that fact, and be able to walk away with a "wikipedia taught me something that I did not know that I can tell my friends" sort of feeling. And it IS perfectly relevent that a competing format also uses a blue laser. JayKeaton 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It probably should, but wouldn't it be an interesting thing to read that relates to Blu-ray in real terms? Plus the lead section already mentions that it uses a blue laser and it also mentions that it is in a format competition with HD DVD. It just makes sense JayKeaton 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see why this keeps being reverted. Do we want people to think that only Blu Ray uses a blue laser? You can hardly even say Blu Ray without even mentioning that it is in format war with HD DVD, even the lead mentions it, so why should it not say that they both share a common technical trait? The only reason I can think of that people don't want that is that they believe it might damage Sony's image. JayKeaton 06:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that mentioning this in the laser and optics section is prominent enough — Ksero 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jay, it should be included in the lead when HD DVD is mentioned, it's a common misconception that we can help dispel. -- Ray andrew 12:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with what? The overview section is no longer in the lead, since this thread was started the overview was moved to its own section which is not in the lead. I am just saying that it is very relevant that for a technology called Blu Ray that it be mentioned that a blue laser is in fact the standard for all next generation discs and is the standard for Blu Rays primary competition. JayKeaton 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This article has been flagged as too technical. Why would someone think that? It seems perfectly clear to me. - Theaveng 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Compare this to the
previous version. I summarized all the "Stand-alone players and the PlayStation 3", "Recordable stand-alone players", "Portable players" and so on into the "List of Blu-ray devices" table. I found most of those sections to be too detailed for an encyclopedic article. I also moved some of the content around so the order makes more sens (at least to me
) and I started a "History" section.
Now... go forth and be bold yourself! Can you find a better way of organizing the article? — Ksero 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that it says to meet profile 1.1, user supplied memory such as memory sticks and usb drives can be used.. Thats all news to me and must be a recent addition to this article. the whole point of 1.1 is to set a standard. I don't think its the can be used with 1.1 if you buy your own memory standard...my understanding is it requires the memory to be included and BUILT in.. am I wrong? Is there something I missed, an announcement or something. I have added a citation needed tag however this info if untrue is detrimental to the article and I intend on removing it if not sourced in a relativly short period of time.. any objections? - Tracer9999 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory." PCWORLD MAGAZINE.. not a blog. http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,128205/printable.html .. removing until source specified as PCWORLD is a major magazine and specifically states FLASH memory - Tracer9999 22:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
lol.. the release date changed..not the profile - Tracer9999 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC) your post is a forum.. not a legitamite source
Not to be a dick, but the PC world FAQ doesn't even refer to profiles:
Do home-theater Blu-ray Disc players have any minimum storage requirements? The first wave of players have no such minimum. Today, so-called persistent memory is optional on Blu-ray. However, as of June 2007, new Blu-ray Disc movie players will require a minimum of 256MB of persistent memory storage, in the form of flash memory. If the player has an Internet connection, the minimum required local storage will be 1GB of memory.
Also, it may have been true at some time that they were to include built in memory, but guess what the BDA got cheap and decided that "capability" was enough. -- Ray andrew 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
both you and I know june was the orig release date.. now your just grasping at straws.. heres one from oct 11th..
note the "onboard memory" . others refer to "local" memory. If you find an article from a major magaine or NEWS source. then I say put it back up. but as of now the only major source says FLASH based - Tracer9999 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ray.. even the source after your revert (regarding the delay) says
"Additionally, after Oct. 31, all Blu-ray players must hold a minimum 256MB of persistent memory storage, which will help power the picture-in-picture feature. Also, any Blu-ray player that features an Internet connection is required to have 1GB of such memory, in order to hold whatever content users decide to download from the Web." a minimum... if you add it.. its not a minimum.. the minimum would be 64k plus whatever you add.. thats not a standard thats a suggestion.. it must come with 256MB..if you want to add more good for you. but 256MB is the minimum http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6427147.html - Tracer9999 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
HERE: (www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iij) not a blog or forum, I'll take an apology now. Also it was pretty rude of you to go ahead and remove the information so shortly after I objected, hopefully you can be more patient in the future. -- Ray andrew 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
lol.. my post was too old. so you pull one from june 2006... lastest source is still PCWORLD article sorry... get a recent source.- Tracer9999 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
my suggestion.. leave it a capable of supporting 256MB. as there is obviously a blurry line at this point as to wether it is FLASH based or add-on. common sense would dictate its flash based but this is sony/blu ray group we are talking about so who knows. however the most RECENT source is PC world.. So I say in the interest of keeping the article accurate. we error on the side of caution. which is that it must be capable of supporting a minimum of 256MB.. let the consumer decide how or well update when these come out next month and we know more.. - Tracer9999 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
EMedialive announces updates to The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ in the following categories: II. Physical, Logical, and Application Specifications; VI. Compatibility; IX. Industry Support, Prices, and Availability. Posted 12 Oct 2007