Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 1

message: Why should Blu-Ray have capacities listed which currently are unavailable?  Isn't that exagerrating the truth?  Sure next year there might be 100 GB Blu-Ray discs, but they aren't available yet.  That's like listing Notebook Harddrive capacity is 300 GBs, there are none available on the market, but it might be available next year. ~Michael
:Either way, they will be on the market soon enough.Mbslrm 02:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TDK is making it, not Sony.Mbslrm 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with 70.251.197.67 (sign your posts, by the way) that listing unavailable capacities is inappropriate. I thought I had successfully purged both Blu-Ray and HD DVD of this speculative stuff.  But it looks like 70.251.197.67 violated his own rule in this "in the future" edit  to HD DVD.  What is the principle here?  Spiel496 01:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Try to put your personal problems with Sony aside and ask yourself why you think they'd be the only ones in a position to (not) deliver those higher capacities. If you had even slightly researched the topic you'd see that TDK is the furthest along with research into those higher capacities, having already developed an experimental Blu-ray Disc capable of holding 200 GB. --Kamasutra 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Put up the triple layer capacity for HD DVD. What is it, anyways?Mbslrm 05:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Take that kind of discussion to the HD DVD article. The content of this article should not be dependent on the content of another. This is the Blu-ray article and discussion of changes should occur in each one's respective talk pages. --Kamasutra 09:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blu-Ray Layers

message: This section needs rewriting, is in the future tense when talking about 2004.  Likely some progress updates needed, eg PS3. --Sgkay 11:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand-alone recorders and games consoles 

message: 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.
* 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.
: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. Smoove K 01:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a new size standard? 

message: Wouldn't it be smarter to say something like "third generation" or something like it?
We don't even know if it will catch ;-)
* Next generation, while always subject to the times in terms of what console line they apply to, is something of a neccesity because it is so difficult to destinctly define 'generational' progressions before the pre-nes era.
** as i brought up on the HD DVD page, it can't be called "next-generation" if it's already here. today i can go down to the best buy, grab a player and a few discs. next-generation now would refer to what will take its place. 68.35.201.102 20:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next generation?! 

message: I'd like to recommend that in the paragraph regarding "next generation" technologies, something be mentioned about potential "UV-Ray" discs in the near future.  Pioneer successfully tested a 500GB UV laser optical disc in 2004,    and there is a company called Colossal Storage that is working on that format currently.     In any event, if this technology follows its course for at least a little while longer, the next logical step after Blu-Ray (actually being in the violet end of the spectrum at about 405nm) would be ultraviolet (1-380nm). Wikicali00 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UV-Ray?

message: 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. --Wulf 19:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no objections, revert completed :) --Wulf 05:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can agree with the latest version :) --Wulf 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: The second paragraph here seems heavily biased against Blu-ray to me. It seems to draw conclusions about what the outcome of HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc in the marketplace based upon marketing-speak from the HD DVD camp. Locke Cole 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives 

message: The article should list news sources that explain how the studios’s convinced TV manufacturers to cease production of 3D TV’s so that the 3D experience would be a cinema only exclusive and even people who pirated Blu-ray 3D releases would be unable to view them.
86.93.208.34 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 3D TV’s banned to prevent Piracy

message: Where do you guys get this resolution limit non-sense? There is no imaginary limit for resolution based on disk type. You can put a 4k video on a CD-R, you just can't fit a very long one based on space.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.86.0.165 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution Limit 

message: If infrared has a wavelength of 650 nm and violet has 405 (60% shorter) then how would that permit 21 more gigabytes to fit? Shouldn't the number be 7.5? What am I miscalculating?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wavelength - Disk space 

message: The introductory text says,
The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the "blue laser" used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD.
If it offers six times more, then it offers seven times as much; correct? "More than" means "in addition to what already exists"; true? I'm still in the early stages of learning about Blu-Ray, and don't yet know the  numbers. "Times more" and "times less" seem to be a very popular, but logically-sloppy shorthand that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, where strict language is especially significant. For instance: A three-yard-wide fence (or, make that three meters long) is two yards/meters wider than a one-yard/meter fence, right? That would make it two times wider. (To lessen obfuscation, I'll use "yards" only from here on.)
When writing (or editing), in particular, please carefully avoid "times smaller" or the equivalent! It's appropriate for describing the smile of the Cheshire Cat, provided the numbers are right (two times smaller than the cat's face), but "times smaller" and such typically leads to logical absurdity. The one-yard fence is not three times smaller (or narrower) than the three yard fence. It is, however, one-third the width of the three-yard fence. In more detail, the narrow fence is two yards narrower. If  you say it's three times narrower, then "times" implies multiplication. Multiplication of what? The width of the three-yard fence, of course. Three times that is nine yards. If it's nine yards smaller, it's minus six yards wide! This suggests that the fence has been obliterated, leaving a double-size negative ghost image.
Regards, Nikevich (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Six times more..."

message: Is Blu-Ray video 8-bit or 10-bit in color depth?  I could not find this info anywhere. DORC (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A Blu-ray disc can store 10-bit color depth but it depends of the panel of your TV and your blu-ray player.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.42.31 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the 12-bit per component so-called "deep colour" that's offered by many (even budget priced) Blu-Ray players around at the moment? I doubt that the information exists on the disc as the highest quality HD recording format I know of (HDCAM SR) only records with 10-bit precision and most of the lesser formats only record with 8-bits of precision, and that includes most of the file-based, as well as tape-based, recording systems. I suspect therefore that it's a bit of a con, rather like the 20-bit and 24-bit DACs used by some CD player manufacturers. MegaPedant (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 8-bit or 10-bit color depth

message: "The first known attack relied on the trusted client problem. In addition, decryption keys have been extracted from a weakly protected player (WinDVD)". Please explain what an attack relying on the "trusted client problem" is, and what's the difference is between that and extracting keys from a PC software (WinDVD). Unless somebody can add more info I suggest we change this. Has any attack relied on something else than extracting single device keys from software or hardware players?
-- LM, 6 June 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.57.46 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks on the DRM

message: When searching bluray disc in google or even in wikipedia's built in search this link is returned as the best result: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Also this very article's link points to this link. Sadly this link only shows a 404 not found error. Is there a way to make it redirect to this article?
The the correct URL seems to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray_Disc
--200.115.64.250 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong URL 

message: <Comment has been removed>
:This is an encyclopedia not a guide to pirating commercial recorded material.  Also: the above comment is not a discussion of the article which is what this discussion page ism provided for. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is advertising not pirating.205.250.255.227 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the original comment to prevent search engines from picking up the name of the product that had been advertised. Mikus (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to rip Blu-ray ？ 

message: There is nothing about the reception of Blu-ray, either by the public or the industry.  I have read an article by an independent film publisher slating the costs of working with the format and I have also read complaints by the public about the performance of the players and their concerns about DRM.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.161.10 (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Blu-ray_Disc#End_of_the_format_war_and_future_prospects. Cochonfou (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The section under the above heading says that Bluray supports up to 25fps progressive at 1920x1080; the cited pdf only specifies up to 24fps and consensus elsewhere is that 24fps progressive is the correct limit. Is there any vaguely official source showing that 1080p25 is supported?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blu-ray_Disc&action=historysubmit&diff=327667159&oldid=327354568 is the change, any reason this hasn't been reverted? TNC (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Specification 

message: I understand how all players have to support a minimum subset of the available codecs and I understand that all discs have to use one of the mandatory codecs for its primary audio tracks. However, the article doesn't explain how a low cost player that lacks support for, say, DTS-HD Master Audio manages to output analogue sound from its stereo audio phono connectors when playing a disc that only purports to have a DTS-HD Master Audio sound track. Is there a backup audio track in one of the mandatory formats that's hidden away and not selectable by the user or advertised on the packaging? MegaPedant (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no way of answering that question for you correctly without knowing if the "low cost player" and/or disk are actually standards-compliant or not; Beware of knock offs. When you try and playback DTS-HD to a stereo audio output (ie a stereo headset) then you should hear stereo audio unless you somehow selected mono mode in an on-screen menu or via a setting on the player itself. I'd say the most like cause of hearing mono would be a faulty headset jack or plug. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory vs. optional codec support 

message: Next to footnote 15, the article talks about cartridges no longer being necessary.  What cartridges is the article refering to?  I'm assuming that in the early days the discs had to be protected from scratches using some sort of cartridge but the article doesn't make that clear.Jimindc (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original BD spec included cartridges similar to DVD-RAM or to PFD. Cartridges were dropped because they increased the price. Hardcoating is used instead to protect disc surface. Mikus (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartridges? 

message: Why is Blu-ray media so expensive?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.52.87 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost of blank discs 

message: In the infobox it says for storage capacity:
25 to 50 GB (single layer)
50 to 100 GB (dual layer)
(1 TB to 10 PB) Future 2010 afterwards
My qualms:
*"Future 2010 afterwards" does not seem grammatically correct. Is it trying to say "Late 2010" maybe?
*"1 TB to 10 PB" seems very high to me. I know technology progresses very fast, but 10 petabytes? This year? That is a lot of data. I mean how is 10 PB or 10000 TB supposed to fit on a volume so small? Perhaps it meant 10 TB instead? I not changing because I'm truly iffy on the issue, so I'm looking for clarification to make the edit.
-- Melab±1 ☎ 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The limit for DVDs was 2 layers, but with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray companies are experimenting with having several layers.  It would be good if there were a citation, but my assumption is that they would reach 10PB using extra layers.  It doesn't seem likely that so many layers would be economically viable though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.243 (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like multi-layer is now more feasible than before. () --205.233.8.190 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage Capacity in the Infobox 

message: eg this webpage is a really good model for what a discussion of what types of BDs there are, and the nomenclature
https://www.verbatim.com/subcat/optical-media/blu-ray/
this
https://videobyte.cc/blu-ray-discs-type/
also has a lot of info that is lost in this very very long and wordy article, IMO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs simple summary

message: I was wondering what's about that one. It claims to circumvent any known BD+ and AACS protection. Due my lack of BluRay drives, I am unable to test it, but it's OpenSource  and runs on Windows, Linux and Mac.  --Mewtu (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MakeMKV 

message: I've discovered there's a certain bias for or against different companies who worked with this invention (and for that matter, the same is true for the CD & DVD articles here on Wikipedia), particularly Philips and Sony, who where the major contributors to both the CD, DVD and now the Blu-Ray, remain relatively under appreciated in the articles, and thus implying that instead of European and Asian companies, US and other American companies played the main roles in the inventions.
Point 2: There appears to be a great deal of vandalism going on on these articles and topics, this suggesting the need for at least a simi or partial lock on the articles.
DaveFlash (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Bias for or against + vandalism on article 

message: Does this mean that we could see Java games played on Blu-Ray players?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java support 

message: Throughout the article, BD technology is compared to "standard DVD" technology.  Why not just refer to DVD as DVD? The current wording carries the implication that a BD is a non-standard DVD. Considering how common the misconception is, the article should clarify the distinction, not reinforce it. A DVD is not a type of CD, and a BD is not a type of DVD, but it's common to hear people talk about Blu-ray DVDs.  If the purpose of the phrase is to distinguish between DVD and HD DVD, it's not necessary. If you consider an HD DVD a non-standard DVD, the HD already makes that distinction.  Is there any reason that anybody would think that "the ... system used on DVDs..." would be referring to a non standard DVD of some sort? I can't see why "standard DVDs" would be needed in such a phrase.
Hagrinas (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But then, it looks as if some people here seem to be all FOR reinforcement of misconceptions, if only they are common / widespread enough or even prevalent (see the previous paragraph), and in that "spirit", you probably should stop using the correct acronym for that technology and start calling it "Blu-ray" and "BR" as well... – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although pre-mastered Blu-rays are close to standard DVD technology, they differ in many respects such as encryption and scripting not to mention interactive language.  Recordable Blu-ray (both BD-R and BD-RE) are not standard DVD technology as they are really DVD+R and DVD+RW technology. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's "Blu-ray Discs" or "BDs", NOT "Blu-rays". Also, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blu-ray recordable and blu-ray rewritable discs are sold as "BD-R" and "BD-RE" respectively (says so on every manufacturers' packaging), thus "BD" would seem to be a legitimate abbreviation.  Also most people seem to refer to the discs collectively as "blu-rays" avoiding the unnecessary mouthful of "blu-ray disc". 109.157.161.93 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard DVDs? 

message: "In fact, there was no medium with the storage required to accommodate HD codecs, "
makes no sense.  The "codec" is the piece of software which encodes and decodes the stored video data.  The piece of software is small and it is in the player, not on the disk. Eregli bob (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this supposed to mean ? 

message: How come there is no mention of the fact that Blu-ray means nothing on your standard TV set, or that you need a special player just to watch them, which costs a lot more than the best DVD player for sale today. - Some Dude You've Never Known (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I suggest the article be moved to Blu-ray.
This article isn't limted to describing the optical media itself, but talks about the whole format specification (codecs, DRM, Java, BD-Live, BD-J, etc), and so it should be renamed accordingly. --uKER (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. PRRfan (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just the medium itself is called Blu-ray Disc, but THE WHOLE FORMAT as well, whereas the term Blu-ray DOESN'T EXIST IN ANY OF THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION; please check for yourself and also see this discussion – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No, the correct title (which covers the entire standard; codecs, DRM, Java, etc) is "Blu-ray Disc". —Locke Cole • t • c 17:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: About this revert, I had changed the lead to say that Blu-ray is a high definition media format, and it was reverted to say it's a general purpose physical media. As the article stands, it talks about Blu-ray as a video standard, not the discs themselves, so I'd say the lead should be as it was before the revert. Blu-ray discs surely can be used to record whatever you want on them, and it can be made explicit if needed in the appropriate section (Physical Media) but this is not what whole the article is about. --uKER (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the late response. I see no reason to deviate from the standard opening set by CD and DVD, especially when the first sentence states that it's designed to supersede the DVD format. And the article does talk about the discs themselves and all its usages i.e. Section 2 - Physical Media. Msgohan (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in fact it was me who created that section in this edit. However, my argument stands. You can record Blu-ray movies (that is, movies compliant with the Blu-ray spec) in discs other than Blu-ray discs, so the article isn't really about Blu-ray discs. --uKER (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, uKER, get your facts straight (consult the corresponding white papers). What you write (your perceived distinction in usage of the terms Blu-ray Disc and Blu-ray) is SIMPLY NOT TRUE, and just repeating it time and again won't make it so. See also above and the initial discussion you started about this. I agree with you that the article is not just about the physical disc medium used, but the format as a whole, but BOTH are called Blu-ray Disc (with captial "D"). As for the proper lead sentence, it think yours looked good (and as of this writing, something similar is being used in the article), although I'm not sure the term "medium" couldn't be applied in such a broad sense that it would accommodate the meaning of "format" as well – but I'm happy not to get involved in that discussion. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should get your facts straight.  uKER is quite correct.  Blu-ray format high definition video can be recorded to other optical disc formats.  In fact Panasonic's range of camcorders will record such video directly to a DVD burner.  They do, of course, have to be played back in a Blu-ray video player (in that: they will not play in a standard DVD video player).  In theory, such video format could also be written to a CD, but I know of no player that will actually recognise it but that is an omission rather than a limitation (the playing time would be rather short anyway).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I've restored the original lead. Not mentioning the data storage usage of Blu-ray Disc in the opening seems like a rather large omission IMHO. While the format is primarily used as a medium for movie distribution, it also has a large usage for data storage (more so with BDXL being available for storage applications). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section and scope of the article. 

message: Need some explain for U-Control in article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.66.86.250 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-Control?? 

message: I were a bit fast to link to this new article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Articles_List_of_Blu-ray_Community_Screening_releases
But I really think it is an important part of the Bluray spec. That differentiate it from DVD very direct, interactive versus non-interactive.
Maybe it should be mentioned here as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BD-Live
--85.227.250.36 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could establish a foundation for the concept in the article, that would be great. Then it would be fine to proceed with a link to a list. Could you provide references for the proposed text? --Bsherr (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a better BD-Live(http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/bluray/bdlive.html) ref. imo, for the community screening part, i thought that the references within the list would be sufficent. --85.227.250.36 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The references in the list give specific examples, but it would be best to have a reference that explains what community screening is. --Bsherr (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Screening 

message: FYI, on product packaging, the region codes look like this: .  Is there a free version of this, or should we scan in some packaging? -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If by free you mean libre, scanning in a cover doesn't make it public domain. The source of that image is [this PDF]. The BDA licenses its usage under the same agreement as the BD logo itself, which this article displays with a fair use notice. Msgohan (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region code visual appearance 

message: "The name Blu-ray Disc refers to the blue laser used to read the disc, which allows for six times more storage than on a DVD. The term Blu was used instead of the correct Blue which is commonly used in English (and therefore not registrable as a trademark)."
But common English words are sometimes trademarked.  Take Apple and Sandals for instance.  Does this mean:
* those two aren't registered trademarks?
* some difference in law between jurisdictions is in play here?
* the law has changed?
* the technology is too close to the literal English meaning of "blue ray" for its developers to be able to claim a trademark on it?
Incidentally, I just read on Compact Disc a mention of the "trademarked Compact Disc Digital Audio logo".  That's just as well using common English words with more or less the literal meaning.  Do I rightly deduce the point here is that BDA did this in order to trademark the name and not just the logo? -- Smjg (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In most jurisdictions you can trademark a common word (aka something you find in the dictionary) providing the context is not common. "Apple" is one of the most usual examples - you can't trademark it for fruit products because it's common but applied to computers it has no common meaning outside of the products it's TMed for. Bear in mind that trademark law contains a lot of uncertainties and also different companies take different levels of risk. I think "Blue-ray Disc" would have been defensible because it's a compound term that isn't likely to be in much generic use for anything other than this product, but by using a variant spelling the trademark is significantly stronger. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, you cannot trademark or copyright a logo.  You can only trademark the actual words.  If you wish to claim intellectual property rights on a logo, then you need to register it as "a registered device". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Trademark: "A trademark is typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements." Msgohan (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs to me that I am talking about the situation in the UK.  Other jurisdictions may vary. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue-ray not trademarkable? 

message: Much of the article applies only to 2D Blu-ray. Blu-ray 3D specifications have been published in section 6 of the specification at http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/Downloadablefile/BD-ROM_Audio_Visual_Application_Format_Specifications-18780.pdf. These should be added, or added to a separate 3D-only article. The current article may need to be restructured to make it clear which parts apply only to 2D. It is difficult to integrate the 3D specifications into the existing structure. --NPHope (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D Specifications Should Be Added 

message: Can someone who is technical and knowledgeable about BRD's please read the material and edit it for the many ambiguities and possibly mis-stated information?
Here is an example:
"Blu-ray recorders are not being sold in the U.S. due to fears of piracy. Personal computers with Blu-ray recorders are commonplace."
Which is it?
Also, the order of the presentation of material is so confusing and illogical that it is very difficult to follow.
Wikipedia does not need to have this kind of poorly written article displayed.
If you are interested in keeping this article, please clean it up
71.41.155.82 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of complaining, why not have a go yourself? 86.182.71.209 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Agree. I removed the detail pertaining to blue laser diodes - it's covered elsewhere, e.g. blue laser. Kbk (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly Written Article; Ambiguous in many areas 

message: The article should at least link to a list of software players. Or is there a reason there is not a single mention of the (un)availability of software players on various platforms? bng 90.179.239.97 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray (software) players 

message: I was looking for the compression ratio for Blu-ray codec; if it is in this article, it is not easy to find.
This would be a useful thing to add.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression 

message: I think the Blu-ray Disc photo in the infobox is a bit misleading...  Most of the Blu-rays for sale today are a silver color that is very similar to a DVD or CD.  The disc in the photo is probably either a BD-R or a BD-RE.  The reason I think the photo is misleading is because somebody might go to Wikipedia to see what a Blu-ray disc looks like, and they'll get the impression that it's purple/blue, especially with the name of the standard being "Blu[e]-ray". — Alex Khristov 17:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pressed single-layered movie disc; note the "BVSS" serial number. Part of the reason for the milkiness is likely light shining through the top label. You're welcome to improve the article by scanning a silver disc yourself, of course. Msgohan (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray photo in the infobox 

message: The article says - While a DVD uses a 650-nanometer red laser, Blu-ray Disc uses a 405 nm blue laser . This shorter wavelength allows for over five times more data storage per layer than allowed by a DVD. It is not described why and how this shorter wavelength allows for more data stoarage. It will be helpful if this technical information is provided. Thanks. Anish Viswa   08:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Storage capacity is proportional to the square of the laser's focussed spot size (itself proportional to the wavelength of the light).  Remember that not only can you get more data along any track, you can also space the adjacent tracks closer together. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wavelength and Storage space 

message: Hi, i believe that the blue ray is not actually a blue laser but it;s a violet beam am i right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando112p (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly stated in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Laser_and_optics Msgohan (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-Ray 

message: The number of available titles in the lead section uses the  Now Available page of blu-ray.com as its source. However, the number of titles does not seem to be available directly on that page, which is a big list. By checking the number of pages of the list, we can have an assessment on the number of titles listed: I find 6300+ in the US, and 3700+ in the UK, which is quite different from what is currently written in the article. Am I missing something, or is this information outdated ? Thanks for your help.
Cochonfou (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a blank search with my site preferences set to US only and unchecked "show all Region Free titles", I get 7552 US titles. But this counts things like "Africa 3-pack Blu-ray" separately from its constituent releases, collector's editions separate from regular, etc. I don't know how you would filter those out. Msgohan (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of available titles 

message: I don't have an HDTV or a fancy disk player but my laptop can show HD video if I download it.
The word "conceded" makes it sound like Toshiba gave in to Sony but the press release does not support this.  The release indicates the HD disks are being discontinued to foster the adoption of IT-hard disk solutions.  It seems fairly clear that Toshiba is saying all video-disks including theirs are obsolescent.
68.149.247.130 (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a case of 'sour grapes'.  If 'conceded' is not the right word, it's probably pretty close.  The movie studios were rapidly moving toward Blu-ray before Toshiba threw in the towel.  It was not helped by the fact that Toshiba (in order to address the smaller capacity of HD-DVD) announced a triple layer version with 55GB capacity and introduced the fear that early adopters of (dual layer) HD-DVD players would be unable to play the triple layer discs.  86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "conceded" the right word. 

message: Not sure whether it should go here or as a standalone article in the "See also" section, but presumably Pocket Blu should be here somewhere? danno_uk 19:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pocket Blu 

message: I've just read through most of the history section for this article. It looks like it was pulled from a C grade article found two years ago on some other random site.
I'll come back to it and clean everything up that I can, but anyone who actually knows anything about the BD history might want to go ahead and start fixing it.
SilvestertheCat (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section in serious need of work 

message: I understand that blu-ray has java support but I'm not sure it really falls under wikijava. Any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XphnX (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject java? 

message: Under the section Software Standards > Media Format > Codecs > Video, it states, 
"For video, all players are required to support H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10: AVC, and SMPTE VC-1.[115] MPEG-2 is the compression standard used on regular DVDs, which allows backwards compatibility."  
This leads me to believe that all Blu-Ray players must support DVDs.  However, under the Backward Compatibility section, it states,
"Though not compulsory, the Blu-ray Disc Association recommends that Blu-ray Disc drives be capable of reading standard DVDs and CDs, for backward compatibility."  
This appears to contradict the earlier statement.  Could someone with the appropriate knowledge clear this up?
Edrarsoric (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the statement about MPEG-2 to make it more accurate. MPEG-2 is required for Blu-ray players but to play a DVD-Video disc requires a lot more than that. There are many requirements for DVD-Video and the Wikipedia article on DVD-Video only gives a basic overview of what is needed.  --GrandDrake (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to believe that it's still suggestive, because the reason for its inclusion is unclear otherwise.  It should either carry an explicit caveat explaining that MPEG-2's inclusion does not by itself mean backwards-compatibility (with an advisory to read the appropriate section in this article for more information), or be removed entirely along with the rest of the expository information on the mandatory CODECs.  I'm inclined towards the latter, as it seems superfluous, especially given that the various CODECs are linked to their respective articles.  I'm also not sure that they add anything relevant to the article itself: I mean, does it matter (within the context of this article) who developed AVC or VC-1, or that MPEG-2 is also used on DVDs?  I'd suggest going from the mention of the three CODECs directly into the line beginning, "BD-ROM titles with video must…".Edrarsoric (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since those statements aren't directly related to the Blu-ray Disc format I have removed them. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backwards compatibility confusion 

message: Hello,
The link to the source in the "Blu-ray Disc for Video" reference is marked as dead (and it certainly is). Please update the link with the following URL:
http://blu-raydisc.com/en/Technical/FAQs/Blu-rayDiscforVideo.aspx
195.80.129.44 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! LittleMountain5 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014 

message: This article is listed as needing a photograph, but it appears to have plenty of them and there is no explanation in the template or here on the talk page.  Does anyone know what was being requested specifically? Zell Faze (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, where is it listed as such? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Where it is usually listed - at the top of this talk page.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ups, sorry, I didn't pay enough attention.  That seems to be an old tag, so it's now ; there are already enough pictures. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Request? 

message: The informal colloquial name of Blu-ray Disc is Br. You can have a look at torrents at The Pirate Bay or at home theater forums to see what name people use most for referring to Blu-ray. I try to find a good reference for this, but I didn't find a good enough one. Could you help by pointing to a reference if you know any? Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there!  Already tried searching, but found nothing usable. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Br as the informal a name of Blu-ray 

message: ... should be added to the DRM section. (Don't have time myself now.) W\|/haledad (Talk to me)  03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinavia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead must discuss trends,  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dolby Digital Plus maximum bitrate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UltraHD BluRay: 4:4:4 chroma sub-sampling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggest to merge sections 'Variants' and 'Variations' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate article for Ultra HD Blu-ray? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blu-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226094151/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/02/23/dlclaud123.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090409074432/http://www.twice.com:80/article/CA6323699.html to http://www.twice.com/article/CA6323699.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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/20080828181018/http://www.watch.impress.co.jp:80/av/docs/bdhdship/ to http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/bdhdship/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX48JmH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afterdawn.com%2Fglossary%2Fterms%2Fbd-mv.cfm to http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/terms/bd-mv.cfm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5idsN03Hs?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blu-raydisc.com%2FAssets%2FDownloadablefile%2FBD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf to http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/BD-RE_Part3_V2.1_WhitePaper_080406-15271.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5icX0gHtz?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.videohelp.com%2Fhd to http://www.videohelp.com/hd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317015922/http://blu-raydisc.info:80/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php to http://www.blu-raydisc.info/format_spec/avcrec_specs.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Wii U mentions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversial topic 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any objections?

 Supported video formats

Format	Resolution andframe rate	Display aspect ratio
4K UHD	3840×2160 60p           	16:9
4K UHD	3840×2160 59.94p        	16:9
4K UHD	3840×2160 50p           	16:9
4K UHD	3840×2160 25p           	16:9
4K UHD	3840×2160 24p           	16:9
4K UHD	3840×2160 23.976p       	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 60p           	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 59.94p        	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 50p           	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 25p           	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 29.97i        	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 25i           	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 24p           	16:9
HD    	1920×1080 23.976p       	16:9
HD    	1440×1080 29.97i        	16:9
HD    	1440×1080 25i           	16:9
HD    	1440×1080 24p           	16:9
HD    	1440×1080 23.976p       	16:9
HD    	1280×720 59.94p         	16:9
HD    	1280×720 50p            	16:9
HD    	1280×720 24p            	16:9
HD    	1280×720 23.976p        	16:9
SD    	720×480 29.97i          	4:3 or 16:9
SD    	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)
thread_title:  Change interlaced entries in Supported Video Formats table to show frame rate instead of field rate and remove respective note 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've reverted this edit set by  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)
thread_title:  Reverted change to "See also" 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:List of released blu-ray discs]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:List of Blu-ray devices]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]