Talk:Blu-ray - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rublamb (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 31 October 2023 (OneClickArchived "Br as the informal a name of Blu-ray" to Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:03, 31 October 2023 by Rublamb (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchived "Br as the informal a name of Blu-ray" to Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

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.

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.

Table of resolutions and frame rates.

Am I being dim or or am missing something? The chart lists resolutions and frame rates (note 1 under the chart says so). However, the interlaced formats seem to be expressed in field rate which is double the frame rate. Surely, the 1920x1080 50i should be 1920x1080 25i (and similar for the others) if it is frame rate? 86.130.98.251 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Not quite :

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

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

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

Cinavia

... should be added to the DRM section. (Don't have time myself now.) _W_haledad (Talk to me) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry if this already covered in the litany of complaints

"High-definition video may be stored on Blu-ray Discs with up to 1080p resolution (1920×1080 pixels), at up to 60 (59.94) fields or 24 frames per second. Older DVD discs had a maximum resolution of 480i, (NTSC, 720×480 pixels) or 576i, (PAL, 720×576 pixels)." Makes no sense, since any kind of file can be stored on any kind of disc that will hold it. Author was apparently speaking only of BD discs vs DVDs.

Lead must discuss trends,

Lead must discuss popularity of the format, trends, compared to DVD and threats from other formats. All this technical info in the lead could be trimmed. --Inayity (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 April 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the proposed name is both "correct" (it's a widely used and accepted short form), and more common in the sources. Cúchullain /c 21:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Blu-ray Disc → Blu-ray – Per WP:Commonname. I only ever hear it advertised as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray Disc. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Why the name Blu-ray?
The name Blu-ray is derived from the underlying technology, which utilizes a blue-violet laser to read and write data. The name is a combination of "Blue" (blue-violet laser) and "Ray" (optical ray). According to the Blu-ray Disc Association the spelling of "Blu-ray" is not a mistake, the character "e" was intentionally left out so the term could be registered as a trademark.
The correct full name is Blu-ray Disc, not Blu-ray Disk (incorrect spelling)
The correct shortened name is Blu-ray, not Blu-Ray (incorrect capitalization) or Blue-ray (incorrect spelling)
The correct abbreviation is BD, not BR or BRD (wrong abbreviation)

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

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

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

Relisting comment: There seems consensus that the current name is wrong, can we agree on a new name? Andrewa (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: The proposed name seems inaccurate, as it would seem to refer to the type of ray used to read the disc, rather than the disc and disc format itself. In the phrase "Blu-ray disc", "Blu-ray" functions as an adjective to identify the type of disc, and we generally prefer nouns as Misplaced Pages article titles. The current article name, especially when capitalized as noted by Dicklyon, also helps introduce the abbreviation "BD", which is used universally and consistently for things related to this disc format (e.g., search the article for "BD" and you'll find more than 100 matches). Retaining the "D" also helps provide symmetry with the terms and abbreviations for the earlier "CD" and "DVD" disc format names, which are universally used. No actual evidence has been provided that dropping "disc" is more common. I don't personally see how Andrew can perceive a consensus that the current name is wrong, given Dicklyon's extensive comments above (and very little said from anyone else). The stylized logo for the format (seen in the infobox, and on the cover art of the discs) includes the "D" in the abbreviation (in stylized form) and includes the full phrase with the word "Disc" (with the capitalization and spelling used in the current article title), and it seems to appear prominently on every disc, on the spine of every disc's box, near the top of the front cover of every disc's box, and in other places on every disc's box. Although "Blu-ray" by itself also appears to be a separately trademarked term and also appears on the cover art, I personally think the current title is more proper and probably more common. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Oh well, we did once have consensus that the current name is wrong. We move on! Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  I don't think we did have such a consensus then. Dick had posted an extensive argument saying the move was a bad idea, Red Slash had pointed out that there was no evidence provided for the common name argument, and Vlādis Mānisqā's off-topic suggestion for lowercasing had been clearly shot down by Dick. That's not a consensus to do anything. Slash put forth a conciseness suggestion, but that didn't outweigh Dick's extensive commentary. Yes, time to move on, and sorry for dredging the "water under the bridge". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Blu-ray is the common name. Calidum T|C 19:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Support - The issue for me here is whether we're talking about the technology (Blu-ray) or the storage media (Blu-ray Disc). Since the article seems to cover the storage media as an aspect of the technology as a whole, I'd say the article should be moved to Blu-ray. – Pee Jay 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Support as WP:COMMONNAME. The discs themselves are almost always referred to as Blu-ray, not Blu-ray disc: , , , , , etc. and Google Books results . Zarcadia (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Dicklyon's evidence shows that both forms are correct, and I don't think there is any confusion that the proposed title will be confused with the laser itself. kennethaw88 • talk 21:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Support. Tempted to close but as my assessment of consensus above has been questioned, better to leave to others. The case has been well argued above. Let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Dolby Digital Plus maximum bitrate

In accordance to other sources (]) the maximum bitrate for the audio "Dolby Digital Plus" should be 1.7Mbit/s instead of 4.736 Mbit/s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.163.18 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Storage medium vs Storage format

This article talks about a storage format, but it also talks about an actual disc. One thing is the physical medium where the information is stored and another how the information is stored in said medium. This article is unclear about what is what.
It says thing like "The information density of the DVD format...", but information density is a property of a physical medium, not of a storage format.
It also says "It was designed to supersede the DVD format, in that it is capable of storing high-definition video resolution (1080p)", which implies that it's not possible to store HD video in a DVD. That is, of course, not true. You can store video of any definition either on a CD, DVD or BRD. Another thing, completely, is the standards for video players which use those disc in a certain way. Again, two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrgwea (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

It appears there's an edit war between people who think it will support 4:4:4 sub-sampling and others who think it will remain 4:2:0. Does anyone have direct access to the specs? Because a leak earlier this year suggested it will be limited to 4:2:0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.37.97 (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate article for Ultra HD Blu-ray?

Ultra HD Blu-ray is now covered as a section of the Blu-ray Disc article. Arguably, it is a separate standard with different disc structure (triple layer disc), different density, different video formats and encoding supported, etc., even though it shares some physical characteristics with Blu-ray Disc such as wavelength and numerical aperture (unlike DVD and CD). So the question it whether a separate section might be justified. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that the format is out, I must concur. It is a new format, incompatible with the old (Just try playing an Ultra HD disc in a regular Blu-ray player.), and it seems odd for it to only be listed as a section in this article given all the separate articles for other formats and in this instance would be like making HD-DVD a section of DVD. The only similar precedent that comes to mind is the way MUSE LD is a section of the Laserdisc article, but that was understandable given MUSE's obscurity.

Thus far wikipedia in general is extremely scant on Ultra HD Blu-ray mentions, with it usually not included in article home media sections, and only a handful of links to the section/redirect from articles. (Even UMD appears to have more!) What will justify more mentions, links, and in time hopefully a separate article? Will there have to be a couple hundred discs on the market to before any of this can happen? At the rate the releases are happening and being announced, this will be the case within a year or so. I’m not going to put it up right now, but I think the section should be flagged for an article split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.104.141 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've performed the split. —ajf (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the resolution chart still has UHD resolutions. This should be moved to the UHD article, since it's confusing to have UHD material suddenly inserted into what seems to be a pure BD article. I believe it's incomplete for UHD BD too, since if that supports 4k at 60p it should support 2k at 60p. (I don't feel like looking it up to check, though.) 2601:18B:8200:1040:8DF:EEF1:8AB5:5849 (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the current Blu-Ray article seems to be a bit conflicted, sometimes saying that Blu-Ray itself supports 4K UHD, aka 2160p (it doesn't) and 10-bit color depth (it doesn't), and other times pointing out that UHD Blu-Ray is a separate standard that supports these things (it is, and it does). Conflating the two makes it pretty confusing, as it suggests regular Blu-Ray can do these things, which would render UHD Blu-Ray unnecessary. It should be clearer that they're two separate formats. ZoeB (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggest to merge sections 'Variants' and 'Variations'

Section Variants lists:

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

while sections Variations lists:

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

I could see a distinction where the former are variations of the physical format while the latter are variations on data level but then Ultra HD Blu-ray is at least in the wrong section, as it's physical characteristics differ. It may be better to simply merge these two sections. Thoughts? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Colour sub-sampling for 4K

Two sub-sampling rates have bee edited in (4:4:4 and 4:2:0), both using unacceptable blogs to support them as references. I have also seen 4:2:2 quoted as the sub-sampling but using an equally dubious blog. Unless a truly authoritative source can be found to nail the sub-sampling rate down, any speculative guesses have no place in the article and I have removed the given rate accordingly. 85.255.234.45 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

chroma_format_idc shall be set to “1”.

What that means is, as it stands, UHD Blu-rays will only support 4:2:0 streams, exactly the same as regular Blu-rays. There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'. So to conclude, I think it's best the section stays as it is, not mentioning subsampling at all. Uk55 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

"There is of course a slight caveat to that, which is there's nothing to stop a player taking a 2160p 4:2:0 stream and sending it to a display as 1080p 4:4:4 (all the necessary data is there), but it would be quite a stretch to call that 'supporting 4:4:4'." That would indeed be a stretch. Until recently, HDMI didn't even support chroma sub-sampling, i.e. every DVD and BluRay player upsampled to 4:4:4. Personally, with all the information gathered (and the good source from the BluRay Disc Association) I think it is save to put "4:2:0" back into the article. Most people expected this anyways, because UHD BluRay is also limited to 10 bit and not 12 bit. HEVC v1 is limited to 10 bit and 4:2:0, so this is probably no coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.51.147 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

Typo in the supported video chart 23.97?

Should the frame rates be 29.97 instead of 23.97? 29.97 is 1/2 of 59.94.

I have never heard of 23.97 being used as a frame rate.

Mark

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Removed Wii U mentions

According to Nintendo optical discs#Wii U Optical Disc, while it's unclear if Wii U discs are based on Blu-ray technology, they are not actually Blu-rays. I've removed the mentions of Blu-ray being used for Wii U games. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversial topic

Why is Blu-Ray in the 'Controversial topics' category - I don't think the battle between Blu Ray and DVD can quite be compared to that between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, nor Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill. Should this perhaps be removed. --92.25.88.162 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

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

Any objections?

{| class="wikitable" |+ Supported video formats |- ! Format !! style="width: 200px;" | Resolution and frame rate !! style="width: 100px;" | Display aspect ratio |- | rowspan="6" | 4K UHD | 3840×2160 60p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 50p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 25p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 24p || 16:9 |- | 3840×2160 23.976p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="4" | HD | 1920×1080 60p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 50p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 25p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="12" | HD | 1920×1080 29.97i || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 25i || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 24p || 16:9 |- | 1920×1080 23.976p || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 29.97i || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 25i || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 24p || 16:9 |- | 1440×1080 23.976p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 59.94p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 50p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 24p || 16:9 |- | 1280×720 23.976p || 16:9 |- | rowspan="2" | SD | 720×480 29.97i || 4:3 or 16:9 |- | 720×576 25i || 4:3 or 16:9 |}

a Only supported on UltraHD Blu-ray with HEVC video compression standard. b MPEG-2 at 1440×1080 was previously not included in a draft version of the specification from March 2005. c These resolutions are stored anamorphically, i.e. they are stretched to the display aspect ratio by the player or display. Paianni (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Read-Only Format: 2.B Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM Version 2.5" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. July 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 28, 2015. Retrieved July 29, 2015.
"White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Read-Only Format (Ultra HD Blu-ray): Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM Version 3.0" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. July 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 5, 2016. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
"White Paper: Blu-ray Disc Format: 2.B Audio Visual Application Format Specifications for BD-ROM" (PDF). Blu-ray Disc Association. May 2005. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved November 30, 2008.

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

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

4K Blu Ray early Best Buy release.jpg

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

Reverted change to "See also"

I've reverted this edit set by PhonoGraphLazer (talk · contribs) as I don't see why two other VHS formats (W-VHS and D-VHS) were removed and two other non-HD formats- UMD and VideoNow were added.

VideoNow in particular is a short-lived (and borderline novelty) format used for a kids' media player of the early-to-mid 2000s, and I've no idea why that belongs when (e.g.) D-VHS doesn't.

Ubcule (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are going on about “HD” this should go under High-definition video, I placed UMD and VideoNow because they’re discs of the same timeline, what’s VHS going to do with the subject? PhonoGraphLazer (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

clarification of the common misuse of "PAL".

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)

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

The redirect List of released blu-ray discs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of released blu-ray discs until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

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

The redirect List of Blu-ray devices has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 18 § List of Blu-ray devices until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (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)

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)

Categories: