Talk:Blu-ray: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:32, 14 October 2005 editDsc~enwiki (talk \| contribs)221 edits →POV pushing: capita selecta of optical recording physics← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:57, 12 November 2024 edit undoCDVDBD (talk \| contribs)161 edits →Misleading information involving video formats: already doneTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	== Thank you ==
			{{Talk header}}
			{{American English}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Java\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Blu-ray\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Professional sound production\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Electronics\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Invention\|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Merged-from\|BD-Live}}
			{{Merged-from\|Mini Blu-ray Disc}}

			==clarification of the term "PAL"==
	Thank you for writing and contributing this article!
			The number of lines and fields/frames, '''''AND''''' the colour encoding system for analogue signals, were set down by the national television standards committee - NTSC for short. (The "nation" involved is I believe the USA, but the term is more widely applied.) It is thus appropriate to refer to '''''BOTH''''' the resolution '''''and''''' the colour system as "NTSC".

			PAL, however, stands for "phase - alternate line", and refers '''''only''''' to a colour encoding system; "phase, alternate line" does not ''mean'' '''anything''' when applied to a resolution. The resolution 576i is often ''incorrectly'' referred to as "PAL", but we should not promulgate such in an encyclopaedia.
	please send me full seminar report on this topic at tomsondevisyahoocom (please change to @, to ., etc. this is used as a measure to prevent ] email...)

			you can have 480i PAL (as indeed Brazil did): NTSC resolution with PAL colour encoding; you can have 576i with NTSC colour encoding, though no-one did beyond the experimental stage (France and some other countries had 576i with SECAM colour, as opposed to PAL which was commoner).
	== Copy Protection ==

			To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/PAL, "CCIR 625/50 and EIA 525/60 are the proper names for these (line count and field rate) standards; PAL and NTSC on the other hand are methods of encoding colour information in the signal." However, these terms are rarely used. It is valid to refer to 525/60 - or 480i - as "NTSC" since that body defined it; however, it is not valid to refer to 625/50 (576i) as "PAL".
	It would be nice to include a discussion on the copy protection, if any, that will be built into the standard.
			] (]) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

			:Technically, that is correct. However, correctness is relative and not only created by technical definition but also by ]. Even the article ] begins with ''it was broadcast at 625 lines, 50 fields (25 frames) per second '', qualifies that at the end of the lede, and only mentions the exception for Brazil way down the text. I'd suggest using less ] wording like ''576i (commonly used with PAL)''. Technical nitpicking is out of place here in this article. --] (]) 06:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
	: See the Security section. --] 09:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

			== 2.1 profile ==
	== Stand-alone recorders and games consoles ==

			https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1860150#post1860150 ] (]) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
	This section needs rewriting, is in the future tense when talking about 2004. Likely some progress updates needed, eg PS3. --] 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
			== No mention of 8K Blu-ray? ==

			I believe the 8K Blu-ray format as settled by the Blu-ray Disc Association should be mentioned in the article, even though this specification is currently released for Japan only. Source: --] (]) 01:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
	== What about a new size standard? ==

			:{{done\|Already done}}. Marked for the sake of completeness. ] ] ] 12:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
	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.

			== Why is "digital" included in CD/DVD and Blu-ray? It's not necessary and misleading ==
	* 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.

			Everything is "digital" talking about discs, why would it have to be included? Please, lets debate this. @].

			Let's start with a question: How would you describe the Blu-ray/DVD/CD format to anyone? Well.... it is... a DISC, an OPTICAL disc. But you don't start or state at any point that it's digital, because it's obvious that it contains digital media.
	: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. ] 01:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

			And this isn't important; the real importance is in the confusion it takes when you start with "digital optical disc... etc." it's just missleading. I couldn't memorize all that at once if I wanted, but if you remove the "digital", I can, because it's implicit.
	== Next generation?! ==
	Wouldn't it be smarter to say something like "third generation" or something like it?

			I propose adding the "digital" later on in the article, just after mentioning it's an OPTICAL disc data storage format.
	We don't even know if it will catch ;-)

			@], what's your argument on having it necessarily included as the first world describing it? It's not the first word you think of or need for explaining it.
	== 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 convclusion than that Blu-Ray's format, modulation code, error correction code, filing system etc, is obsolete.
	] 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

			A healthy entry would be: Blu-ray (Blu-ray Disc or BD) is a high-capacity optical disc format used for storing and playing back digital audio and video content.
	: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. ] 23:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

			(uppercase for emphasis) ] (]) 01:42, 21 September 2023 (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 <em> Optical disc system for digital video recording</em>, 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 . 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. ] 06:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

			:Hello {{u\|Abc910}}, an article on Misplaced Pages should summarize the highest quality sources. Additionally there are analog optical disc formats. Regards, ](]) 04:42, 21 September 2023 (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), 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..
			::@] YOu are right, and I don't deny that. I insist in the mistake of using it as the very very first word to describe what it is.
	: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.
			:{{Reply\|Abc910}} You seem to argument that it's obvious and redundant (so it shouldn't be misleading). I don't think it is. CD, DVD, BD are ''digital'' formats in contrast to former analog media like ] or various non-optical devices (phonograph, tape, CED, ...). --] (]) 08:36, 21 September 2023‎
	: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?). ] 12:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
			::@], you didn't put your firm so I can't quote you, so I do it here.
			::LaserDisc quotes AT THE LAST of the first paragraph: ''Unlike most optical-disc standards, LaserDisc is not fully digital, and instead requires the use of analog video signals.''
			::Why isn't it implicit in the VERY FIRST word that it's not fully digital? It should be: The '''LaserDisc''' ('''LD''') is a not fully digital ] format ...
			::You say I said it's "obvious" and "redundant", and I admit that "obvious" was a bad use of the word, but it was to make a point. I didn't say "redundant" tho. It would be redundant if it said it is digital at the first word, and it said it later. But guess what, it doesn't mention the "digital" word in any other part of the article. Is this misleading?
			::MiniDisc is also digital, and go to the entry, it doesn't say "digital". Well, it actually doesn't even say in the entire entry it is! But MY DEAR Blu-ray has to have "digital" as the very very very first word that describes it, huh?
			::CD-Video neither even includes the word "digital", and those are the only ones I've checked of digital media. ] (]) 09:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::@] I propose this change for the entry, along with the other entries like CD and DVD and others:
			:::'''Blu-ray''' ('''Blu-ray Disc''' or '''BD''') is an optical disc format developed for digital storage and high-quality audiovisual content designed to supersede the ] format. ] (]) 13:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
			::::{{Reply\|Abc910}} I prefer the current wording and '''oppose''' your proposal. --] (]) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::::I oppose your opposal since my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages. The change will be approved when anyone with your similar status approves it. Thank you for your point of view. ] (]) 02:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq\|my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages}} OK everyone, Abc910 is here to fix everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages, we can all quit now. I also '''oppose''' your proposed change. "Digital" helps readers who may be unfamiliar with the various differences in optical disc formats to understand that it is not analog as some preceding formats were. —] • ] • ] 04:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::You make a point on why the word is there in the first place. I'm not talking about removing it, tho. I'll still be waiting until someone approves my change, and that will be it for you digital wikipedia entry editors. ] (]) 06:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
			:{{U\|Abc910}}'s proposals are fine, so is the existing text. Let's go find something more impactful to work on. ~] (]) 14:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

			== Misleading information involving video formats ==
	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.

			UHD Blu-ray is a separate and incompatible format compared regular Blu-ray. BD supports up to 1080p24 or 1080i60, whereas UHD-BD allegedly does not support standard definition or interlaced content (need to find a a citable source on that, as well as verify whether 720p is valid for UHD-BD). The latter is apparently why UHD-BD releases tend to either upscale standard definition bonus features to 1080p, or present them on a separate BD formatted disc.
	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 <em>recorder </em>. 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.

			UHD-BD-exclusive technical information should be moved to ]. Perhaps "'''Blu-ray Disc'''" should be a separate page from "'''Blu-ray (video format)'''", like with ] vs ] and ], and with ] vs ] and ]. Blu-ray the disc format should not be conflated with Blu-ray the video format. <br/>— ] (]) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	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. ] 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

			:I agree with this. The physical disc type should be a separate article from the logical format of the content stored on it. But since they are currently intertwined in this article, it would take long to split them. I might do it at some point.
	:I did read the article, thank you very much.
			:But does the article state anywhere that UHD Blu-ray is compatible with regular Blu-ray? Nonetheless, I will note the incompatibility as per ].

			:Thank you for your input. ] ] ] 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Labeling the system "obsolete" is POV (see the three points at - 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), Misplaced Pages is still not a vehicle for original research (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.
			:Looks like it is already done: "Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs are incompatible with existing standard Blu-ray players." ] ] ] 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	: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). ] 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. --] 19:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

	:Okay, no objections, revert completed :) --] 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. ] 07:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

	::Okay, I can agree with the latest version :) --] 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 ] vs. ] in the marketplace based upon marketing-speak from the ] camp. ] 05:55, 11 October 2005 (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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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). ] 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'. ] 21:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
	:I wouldn't even call it "replication challenges". Those stories are marketing/PR spin from the ] 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 ]. 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. ] 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:

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

	: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. ] 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 , 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. ] 12:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:57, 12 November 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blu-ray article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blu-ray (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blu-ray, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Blu-rayWikipedia:WikiProject Blu-rayTemplate:WikiProject Blu-rayBlu-ray

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Invention Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the BD-Live page were merged into Blu-ray. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Mini Blu-ray Disc page were merged into Blu-ray. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

clarification of the term "PAL"

The number of lines and fields/frames, AND the colour encoding system for analogue signals, were set down by the national television standards committee - NTSC for short. (The "nation" involved is I believe the USA, but the term is more widely applied.) It is thus appropriate to refer to BOTH the resolution and the colour system as "NTSC".

PAL, however, stands for "phase - alternate line", and refers only to a colour encoding system; "phase, alternate line" does not mean anything when applied to a resolution. The resolution 576i is often incorrectly referred to as "PAL", but we should not promulgate such in an encyclopaedia.

you can have 480i PAL (as indeed Brazil did): NTSC resolution with PAL colour encoding; you can have 576i with NTSC colour encoding, though no-one did beyond the experimental stage (France and some other countries had 576i with SECAM colour, as opposed to PAL which was commoner).

To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/PAL, "CCIR 625/50 and EIA 525/60 are the proper names for these (line count and field rate) standards; PAL and NTSC on the other hand are methods of encoding colour information in the signal." However, these terms are rarely used. It is valid to refer to 525/60 - or 480i - as "NTSC" since that body defined it; however, it is not valid to refer to 625/50 (576i) as "PAL". G6JPG (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Technically, that is correct. However, correctness is relative and not only created by technical definition but also by common use. Even the article PAL begins with it was broadcast at 625 lines, 50 fields (25 frames) per second , qualifies that at the end of the lede, and only mentions the exception for Brazil way down the text. I'd suggest using less surprising wording like 576i (commonly used with PAL). Technical nitpicking is out of place here in this article. --Zac67 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

2.1 profile

https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1860150#post1860150 109.252.169.138 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No mention of 8K Blu-ray?

I believe the 8K Blu-ray format as settled by the Blu-ray Disc Association should be mentioned in the article, even though this specification is currently released for Japan only. Source: Blu-ray Disc Association Settles on 8K Format --Wengier (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Already done. Marked for the sake of completeness. CDVDBD 💿 📀 12:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is "digital" included in CD/DVD and Blu-ray? It's not necessary and misleading

Everything is "digital" talking about discs, why would it have to be included? Please, lets debate this. @Zac67.

Let's start with a question: How would you describe the Blu-ray/DVD/CD format to anyone? Well.... it is... a DISC, an OPTICAL disc. But you don't start or state at any point that it's digital, because it's obvious that it contains digital media.

And this isn't important; the real importance is in the confusion it takes when you start with "digital optical disc... etc." it's just missleading. I couldn't memorize all that at once if I wanted, but if you remove the "digital", I can, because it's implicit.

I propose adding the "digital" later on in the article, just after mentioning it's an OPTICAL disc data storage format.

@Zac67, what's your argument on having it necessarily included as the first world describing it? It's not the first word you think of or need for explaining it.

A healthy entry would be: Blu-ray (Blu-ray Disc or BD) is a high-capacity optical disc format used for storing and playing back digital audio and video content.

(uppercase for emphasis) Abc910 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Abc910, an article on Misplaced Pages should summarize the highest quality sources. Additionally there are analog optical disc formats. Regards, Rjj(talk) 04:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Rjjiii YOu are right, and I don't deny that. I insist in the mistake of using it as the very very first word to describe what it is.

@Abc910: You seem to argument that it's obvious and redundant (so it shouldn't be misleading). I don't think it is. CD, DVD, BD are digital formats in contrast to former analog media like LaserDisc or various non-optical devices (phonograph, tape, CED, ...). --Zac67 (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2023‎

@Zac67, you didn't put your firm so I can't quote you, so I do it here.

LaserDisc quotes AT THE LAST of the first paragraph: Unlike most optical-disc standards, LaserDisc is not fully digital, and instead requires the use of analog video signals.

Why isn't it implicit in the VERY FIRST word that it's not fully digital? It should be: The LaserDisc (LD) is a not fully digital home video format ...

You say I said it's "obvious" and "redundant", and I admit that "obvious" was a bad use of the word, but it was to make a point. I didn't say "redundant" tho. It would be redundant if it said it is digital at the first word, and it said it later. But guess what, it doesn't mention the "digital" word in any other part of the article. Is this misleading?

MiniDisc is also digital, and go to the entry, it doesn't say "digital". Well, it actually doesn't even say in the entire entry it is! But MY DEAR Blu-ray has to have "digital" as the very very very first word that describes it, huh?

CD-Video neither even includes the word "digital", and those are the only ones I've checked of digital media. Abc910 (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zac67 I propose this change for the entry, along with the other entries like CD and DVD and others:

Blu-ray (Blu-ray Disc or BD) is an optical disc format developed for digital storage and high-quality audiovisual content designed to supersede the DVD format. Abc910 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Abc910: I prefer the current wording and oppose your proposal. --Zac67 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose your opposal since my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages. The change will be approved when anyone with your similar status approves it. Thank you for your point of view. Abc910 (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

my point of view is better for Misplaced Pages OK everyone, Abc910 is here to fix everything that's wrong with Misplaced Pages, we can all quit now. I also oppose your proposed change. "Digital" helps readers who may be unfamiliar with the various differences in optical disc formats to understand that it is not analog as some preceding formats were. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You make a point on why the word is there in the first place. I'm not talking about removing it, tho. I'll still be waiting until someone approves my change, and that will be it for you digital wikipedia entry editors. Abc910 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Abc910's proposals are fine, so is the existing text. Let's go find something more impactful to work on. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Misleading information involving video formats

UHD Blu-ray is a separate and incompatible format compared regular Blu-ray. BD supports up to 1080p24 or 1080i60, whereas UHD-BD allegedly does not support standard definition or interlaced content (need to find a a citable source on that, as well as verify whether 720p is valid for UHD-BD). The latter is apparently why UHD-BD releases tend to either upscale standard definition bonus features to 1080p, or present them on a separate BD formatted disc.

UHD-BD-exclusive technical information should be moved to its own existing dedicated page. Perhaps "Blu-ray Disc" should be a separate page from "Blu-ray (video format)", like with DVD vs DVD-Video and DVD-Audio, and with Compact disc vs Compact Disc Digital Audio and Video CD. Blu-ray the disc format should not be conflated with Blu-ray the video format.
— SirYodaJedi (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The physical disc type should be a separate article from the logical format of the content stored on it. But since they are currently intertwined in this article, it would take long to split them. I might do it at some point.

But does the article state anywhere that UHD Blu-ray is compatible with regular Blu-ray? Nonetheless, I will note the incompatibility as per WP:state the obvious.

Thank you for your input. CDVDBD 💿 📀 21:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it is already done: "Ultra HD Blu-ray Discs are incompatible with existing standard Blu-ray players." CDVDBD 💿 📀 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: