Talk:Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats/Archive 1

message: Dreamworks Animation is also supporting HD DVD exclusively, they are not listed in the studios216.141.239.249 00:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dreamworks Animation

message: I don't think a GameFAQ's poll should be used as a source for this article. There is no way GameFAQ's represents a random sample of the gaming community, and it isn't really a sizable chunk of the gaming community anyways.
-ChewyLSB 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GameFAQ's Poll

message: All of the rankings from the eproduct wars page, I believe, are a day-to-day sales ranking from amazon.com.  Since day-to-day figures fluctuate erratically, I wonder if they should just all be removed from the article 4.18.224.165 21:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eproduct wars 

message: Is there a need for comparison in this article of the different copyright-enforcement strategies built in to each standard? Blu Ray is more restrictive on the rights available to media purchasers, via some measures that may be encyclopedically significant. Paul.w.bennett 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights Restriction? 

message: I've renamed/moved the page to a more encyclopedic-sounding name (it also allows for inclusion of other high def formats and not just HD DVD/BD). I'd been tempted to create an article like this for some time, but never did because I imagined it turning into a constant back and forth between proponents of both formats (just look at the AVS Forums for an example of format fanboyism gone wild). Here's hoping this article doesn't devolve into an edit war. 
My advice to all who would consider editing this article: read up on WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:CITE before editing too heavily. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title, etc 

message: The section on Total HD seems like it's practically identical to one I just read on X-Bit labs, a bit odd here. It seems like someone just cut it up, copied, and pasted it over here. 24.184.105.10 02:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it worried me a bit to have whole paragraphs cited from news sources without marking it more clearly. I'm looking up how to do just that thing right now. There are a couple of templates that should work. Paul.w.bennett 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and Paste? 

message: I believe the section mentioning that Blu-ray has suffered from a shortage of the laser used to build the players should be removed; both HD DVD and Blu-ray use a 405nm, blue-violet, solid-state laser.  A shortage of 405nm lasers should hurt both systems. Troy 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser Availability?

message: What studios have signed with BluRay and what with HDDVD? (separate for total) --Energman 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studios signed 

message: I just read this entire article and I found no reason for the "clean-up" tag. Should someone remove it?72.28.56.83 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree, this article is still very disorganized and mostly argumentative. Ray andrew 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up Needed?

message: WTF is MPEG audio? MPEG-1 part 3 Layer 3 audio? MPEG-1 part 3 layers 1-3 audio? MPEG-2/MPEG-4 AAC audio? --Tmh 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything its the MPEG-1 Audio Layer II that was mandatory for European DVD players. But honestly I don't think its part of the spec for either hi def format as I have never seen any other mention of it. Unless it can be verified it should be removed. Ray andrew 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MPEG Audio

message: --Delirium 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited as a source

message: Should the 20 GB model be labeled under discontinued with a US only mark, or should it not be there since they are still being produced for Japan? Socby19 05:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Playstation 3

message: This page doesn't seem to take into account the non spec benefits, such as will Bluray be cheaper in the long term or will people be more likely to adapt to the household "DVD" name, which format the porn studios are ultimately choosing, which drives are likely to end up in peoples home computers, which format the "uneducated masses" find more comfortable etc. There are many web pages and sources there on research and essays on these things, it sort of feels a little, well, mechanical not to have them. It's like a page on a war between two countries and comapring what guns and hardware the soldiers are using, but ignoring the politics and support the two warring countries have, which are the things that ultimately decide a war. JayKeaton 14:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non specification benefits of either format

message: I just wanted to mention that on G4's the Feed they said that in the first quarter of 2007
blu-ray sold 70% of next-gen movies, while HD-DVD sold 30%. I'm not going to put it on the article just in case my numbers are wrong, but if anyone finds it true, go ahead and post it.
Playstationdude 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New numbers

message: I created notebook section under it. I moved acer. It manufactured laptop with both formats in UK. Added about HP.--w_tanoto 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in PC Manufacturer section 

message: WalMart in Utah had only sold DVDs until a few weeks ago.
Now they have a sizable Blu-ray section but no HD DVDs as of yet.
Is this official policy? 71.219.94.15 00:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does WalMart support Blu-ray?

message: I think we might want to make note of the fact that Fox and MGM have effectively stopped supporting Blu-ray for the time being. Fox has not released a title since April 24th (almost 4 months) and has no titles with an announced release date. MGM has not released a title since March 13th (5 months today) and has no titles with an announced release date. I am posting this here first to try to avoid any controversy and get others input before this change is made. Refrences:   --Ray andrew 13:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the addition, but disagree of its removal from the list (or rather, table) of studio supporting BD. You might want to add that Fox is planning "rejoined" the BD, which is expected to be soon. (I just quote it from an article). I believe it is due to BD+. We are expecting it to release new titles during holiday season. I post the link(s) if I managed to find it (considering to the fact that I'm on dial-up, it will be almost impossible)--202.148.21.96 / User:W Tanoto 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never wanted to remove them from the table, just make note of the situation. I will draft a replacement for the introduction to that section. I don't think we should comment on what is rumored to happen for the holidays (as that would likely violate verifiability), but I am open to discuss that. --Ray andrew 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't exactly like the wording "effectifely stopped supporting for time being". They don't stop supporting, only stop releasing on BD. A lot of companies supporting BD (example: Fujitsu - who only released their BD-supporting product just recently, but never before that), does not necessarily release anything for it. I just can't find better wording to describe the situation. What I know is that Fox wanted to test BD-J (or BD+?? - i'm not an expert on this one) before go ahead re-releasing.--w_tanoto 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can change the way it is worded if a better way is found. The reason for that wording though is because the only "real" way a film studio can support a format is to release titles for the format. Unlike other types of companies (like Fujitsu) they are not in the position to support the format on the back end with patents, research and other less noticeable things. Thus I would argue that if a film studio is not releasing titles on a given format, it is effectively not supporting it. --Ray andrew 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ray, maybe it's because you're an HD DVD fanboy that you can't help but put that caveat in there, but Fox is by no means neutral or not supporting Blu-ray. They release promotional materials for Blu-ray and are active members in the BDA. Their reasoning has to do with AACS being busted and wishing to release on BD+. You know this, everyone involded in HD knows this. It's intellectually dishonest at its core to say that they're not supporting blu-ray. Wiki is not about being dishonest through omission or clever phrasing.166.214.160.82 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets not start bashing here. I don't have a horse in this race, I just like HD in general. But I do like to keep the information accurate. I'm not the only one here though that thinks it would be dishonest not to mention it. I never intended to imply that they were not firmly in the Blu-ray camp, and I have no objection to adding the bit about them waiting for BD+. Chill --Ray andrew 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop this. I am admitting that I am BD fans, but I agree with addition of that then information, because IT IS THE TRUTH that Fox/MGM had not released anything since March 2007. Chill, they have announced titles.--w_tanoto 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox and MGM's (lack of) support for Blu-ray 

message: Both of you need to cool down and STOP the revert war. You are both violating many rules (WP:3R, etc.) and pissing me off by having to look at all these damn edits on my watchlist. I vote that we do not include a comparison to the beta/vhs with porn. --Ray andrew 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is suggesting a Beta/VHS comparison.  The paragraph in question is specifically about Bluray/HD-DVD and the impact a major adult studio (like playboy) would have if they chose one format over the other.  I vote in favor of leaving it there, albeit rewriting it so it's easier to read. Theaveng 08:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ray andrew. Please stop this argument!--w_tanoto 11:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP

message: I think the paragraph about what would happen if (hypothetically) a company like playboy took a side constitutes original research. I make this claim because all references just point to the size of the industry, and none make the claim that they would not have an effect. --Ray andrew 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relative size of porn to other industries is relevant, because various media are reporting that "porn will decide who wins the format war".  By showing how teeny-tiny porn is compared to other industries, the statement is debunked as nonsense.    (Certainly porn will have *some* impact, just as a butterfly beating its wings can affect the weather, but that impact is so small as to be trivial.)   -   Theaveng 08:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You making that link though is original research, ie., porn is small and thus could not affect the format war. Find a source that makes that claim, or its original research. --Ray andrew 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't do the research.  The author working for Forbes was the one who did the research and reached the conclusion that the adult industry is too small to effect the outcome of a format war.  -   Theaveng 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you can give me the quote where the author makes the conclusion that they would not have any effect on the format war? ;) You cant because the author makes no such conclusion. All that is discussed is the size, assuming that the size of the market is the only factor in determining the effect on a format war was your assumption. Thus the claim is original research. --Ray andrew 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  WP:NOR puts it this way:  "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."  See WP:SYN Barte 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   "What pornography lacks in cultural resonance, it also lacks in financial clout," says the Forbes writer.  An industry lacking clout is NOT going to determine the next HD disc winner.   To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson: It is "self-evident"... as self-evident as the color of grass is green.  (Or do I need a reference for that too?)  -  Theaveng 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I think you've made a inferential leap not supported by the Forbes piece and inconsistent with WP:NOR guidelines. The Forbes article states that one researcher believes that the industry accounts for no more than 10% of total CD sales and rentals.  But the article doesn't estimate what proportion - or influence - those customers will have in the early adopter market.  Will they adopt earlier than the general audience?  Will they serve as a tipping point toward one format or the other? In this column, Forbes doesn't go there and either should we. Barte 07:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Quote:
"Even with the 6 month hiatus of FOX and MGM however, Blu-Ray has still managed to release more movies in 2007 so far than HD DVD."
I think this is unecessary and not neutral. What do you think?--w_tanoto 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, even if its true its not by much. The real comparison would be whats happened since they stopped releasing. --Ray andrew 15:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The hiatus statement should stay until they actually release titles, as Fox/MGM have on numerous previous occasions not made good on their announcements. For the statement that more titles were released this year on blu-ray, not that I don't believe it, but I don't think its relevant to Fox/MGM situation, as Blu-ray got a later start and had to "catch up" no matter what. Sony worked its ass off releasing titles like crazy this year, I doubt they would have done as much if they were more comfortably in the lead with the help of Fox/MGM. --Ray andrew 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unecessary Comment 

message: What's this raw transfer rate in the comparison table? Including error correction data? If so, at what level? 88.154.247.49 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, it is the minimum rate that a player should be able to read information off the disc into the buffer. The reason its higher then the Audio+Video mux rate is so the player can recover from read errors without any interruption in playback. --Ray andrew 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw transfer rate 

message: I'd like to add the following to section of disc and player sales figure(applies to EU only):
:HD DVD claimed 70% of stand-alone players (excluding PlayStation 3) - Gfk Figure
:Blu-ray has 94% of hi-def players (including 1.3 million PS3 sold)
:Blu-ray claimed 70% of software/title sales across the Europe (650,000 titles vs 332,000) - Gfk Figure
:The attach rate of HD DVD disc is four per player
:The attach rate of Blu-ray disc is half disc per player (Graffeo claims that European GfK data suggests that only one Blu-ray movie is sold for every two Sony PlayStation3 consoles)
:http://www.current.com.au/2007/09/05/article/QDCYXBFYPL.html
:please comment on any changes I should make on this--w_tanoto 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Sales figure HD DVD/BD 

message: I think the Japanese market is important as it is the birthplace of both formats. I'll try to find more reliable neutral source.
BD has 90%+ share in Japan for disc and player
http://www.google.co.id/search?q=blu-ray+japan+90%25&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a 
http://www.n4g.com/News-64661.aspx--w_tanoto 05:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The japanese numbers would be more reliable if we could find a source other then the BDA. Also the Japanese market is a bet special, as they had had blu-ray STB burners (for recording HDTV) before any the actual ROM movie format launched. None of these early STB burners play BD-ROM movies, just the discs that they burned, as far as I know. So wee need to know if they are counted.--Ray andrew 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the news from January 2007 (I read katakana and hiragana, but can't read kanji. you might need a help from web translator):
http://bcnranking.jp/news/0701/070117_6575.html
It said Blu-ray has the lead of 94.7% for both Player and Disc
As of March 2007, a new figure has been released (94.8%), but I lost track of the sites I used.
I'll try to find it again tomorrow. Meanwhile, the March's 94.8% can be found at Japanese wikipedia.
I could not find the most recent figure.
These figure is according to BCN stats (I guess it's approx. Nielsen's equivalent and Gfk's equivalent for Japan).--w_tanoto 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposed entry: According to BCN, Blu-ray has the lead in both player and discs. As of January 2007, the figure was 94.7% for Blu-ray.--w_tanoto 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese sales number 

message: per Betanews:
In a statement to BetaNews this afternoon, a Toshiba spokesperson said that only a preliminary version of Toshiba's 51 GB three-layer, single-sided HD DVD format had been approved by the DVD Forum, caretaker of HD DVD.
As it turned out, and as Toshiba's spokespersons may have only just now realized, the DVD Forum signed off on a preliminary specification, which may have been confused for the final specification because its version number is 1.9.
"We understand that the preliminary version (1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc has been approved," said Toshiba's spokesperson today.
The spokesperson then added that it has not yet been determined whether current HD DVD players or recorders will be able to use the new format, which the headline of an official Toshiba statement given to BetaNews today is now calling "Trip-Layer." "Toshiba will study the performance of current HD DVD player/recorders with the disc after the standard receives final approval by the DVD Forum."
That last part is a pretty clear indication that final approval was not granted, contrary to our earlier report based on industry news that cited sources with a stake in the format.
The formal Toshiba statement reads as follows: "We welcome the DVD Forum Steering Committee's decision to approve the preliminary version (Version 1.9) of the physical specifications for the triple-layer 51 GB HD DVD-ROM disc. This decision reinforces the fact that HD DVD is capable of offering a range of capacities due to the flexible nature of the format and provides studios with even greater options for creating high definition content. With extended capacities, studios can meet their future needs for releases that may require more storage."
Toshiba's admission today is the first genuine admission from the company that work on engineering the final "Trip-Layer" format has actually not been completed, as was previously believed.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Toshiba_DVD_Forum_Hasnt_Yet_Approved_Final_51_GB_HD_DVD_After_All/1189716943  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.48 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I AGREE with the addition about preliminary approval, not FINAL approval. This is FACT and should be included in this article and HD DVD article. Another fact: http://www.hddvd.com/go.php/triple-layer-51gb-hd-dvd-disc-coming-less-soon/ --w_tanoto 14:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  51GB HD DVD discs are not in the finalized format yet 

message: Firsth thing first, I added Miramax, as it is unlike Touchstone Pictures/Hollywood Pictures, it was independent, while Touchstone/Hollywood are actually a "Walt Disney" brand in disguise for titles released for older audiences. Like Pixar (listed in original table), it was independent.
Second thing: MGM - Sony owns 20% of MGM's stake. This means Sony owned 20% of the company, but there are other owners as well who has larger share than Sony (i think there are two). If you listed it by distribution, not by company, MGM's name will appear under Sony and 20th Century Fox (mostly international, but also US) .So, I'm separating MGM and Sony (actually, I thought I already separated it long time ago).
Third, I'm adding Dimesion Films to the list. Most of its titles are distributed in HD DVD, but some of them are exclusive to BD - according to announced titles of a website.
Question is, is it better to list the studio per company as follows, or per distributor ?
This will clarify things a bit.
Blu-ray Disc	HD DVD
Sony Pictures
* Columbia Pictures
Buena Vista
* Walt Disney Pictures
* Pixar
* Miramax
MGM1
20th Century Fox
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line³
* HBO
Lionsgate	
NBC Universal
* Universal Studios
* NBC Studios
Paramount
* Dreamworks SKG
DreamWorks Animation SKG
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line³
* HBO
Weinstein Co.
* Dimension Films
or
Blu-ray Disc	HD DVD
Sony Pictures
* Columbia Pictures
* MGM (US Distribution)
Buena Vista
* Walt Disney Pictures
* Pixar
* Miramax
20th Century Fox
* MGM (International and some US distribution)
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line³
* HBO
Lionsgate
Dimension Films (some titles only)	
NBC Universal
* Universal Studios
* NBC Studios
Paramount
* Dreamworks SKG
* DreamWorks Animation SKG
Time Warner
* Warner Brothers²
* New Line³
* HBO
Weinstein Co.
* Dimension Films
--w_tanoto 08:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well were getting into the details here but I think we should be listing support by whether or not a company's current films are released on a format. There would be way to many exceptions if we listed a company just because one of its old films (that is now under different ownership) was released on a format, for instance we would have to list MGM under HD DVD since most of its old catalog is owned by warner --Ray andrew 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i take it that you choose the first. well, the former position of MGM confused me, as it is under Sony (owner of 20% of MGM), so I thought it is listed by distribution. MGM can be listed under Sony, FOX and warner for BD, and warner for HD DVD. --w_tanoto 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Movie Studio 

message: I found some interesting information from japanese equivalent of this article, which IMO should be added to the English as well. If anyone managed to do the translation before me, please do so. Otherwise, I'll do it sometime.--w_tanoto 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it sometimes when there is more in the list. I updated the list from the original Japanes wikipedia. Will add some more supporter: China Hualu, and Adobe (recently announced exclusivity to BD http://www.pcretailmag.com/news/28750/Adobe-chooses-Blu-ray-compatibility ) --w_tanoto 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might change Intel's position. Intel will be neutral. http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6479670 --w_tanoto 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I see no reason Why not?? The Japanese (and it is the birthplace of both formats) article has it. There is no dirct comparison between HD DVD and BD in BDA/DVD forum article, isn't it? I will delete some of japan-exclusive (that is unknown in English speaking region).But I propose a new article instead, with a link and very short paragraph in this article. This list is for well-know companies.--w_tanoto 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a new article will be useless, as in Japanese wiki, it's incorporated with this article's equivalent in japanese. but what heading shoud it be under, considering that there is currently a table regarding major studio support--w_tanoto 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese wikipedia article 

message: Playback times are quoted for single sided discs of each size starting with the largest at the stated average bitrate, higher or lower average bitrates would change the available playback time. The numbers represent video only and the choice of audio codec and extra content also affects playback time.
This fails to indicate what the two numbers are in the section.  It appears they are dual-layer and single-layer capacities, but the footnote clearly says otherwise.  Please correct or clarify.  -- Adam Katz 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Details -> [a] needs clarification 

message: could you all please stop the revert war. If you disagree, why don't you put it in the discussion for a vote?--w_tanoto 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which revert war? Daniel.Cardenas 13:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the porn one.--w_tanoto 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye: because it is irrelevant Daniel.Cardenas 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete, there is no urban legend. --Ray andrew 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Abstain. I don't care, but I want this reverts to this, BD, and HD DVD article to be stopped.--w_tanoto 17:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep.  The only reason I can think to delete the list of adult studios is because someone feels, "God says we shouldn't look at porn," therefore we're not even allowed to talk about it.   Well God should stay out of wiki, just as God stays out of the government (separation of church and state).  Porn, no matter how much you might hate it, is a part of life and should be documented (including a list of which studios like Playboy that support HD DVD (or Blu-ray) exclusively).  ------  Furthermore the paragraph is accurate.  Various reliable sites (like Ars Technica) HAVE said porn will make HD DVD the winner and Blu-ray the loser.  -  Theaveng 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has nothing to do with God.  Has to do with what is relevent information for an encyclopedic article.  No, various reliable sites have not said porn will decide.  Ars Technica is not a reliable site on the subject matter.  They like other sites are just pushing headlines that will attract readers.  The more reliable sites publish information that Sony is agnostic about porn and will help that industry along with others.  If you search on Ars Technica for HD DVD you will see several dozen articles about the format war before you find something about porn.  Shows that it was just a headline at one point to attract readers.  Not notable enough for this article. Daniel.Cardenas 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now see?  That was a well-spoken, well-argued paragraph.  You make some good points.  -----  However, I did a search for HD-DVD and porn, and the second article that popped-up repeated that annoying urban legend about how VHS won because "the adult industry embraced it", and how they think the same will happen with HD-DVD.  -  Theaveng 14:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop the revert war..... 

message: You said: "RAY: Although your comments are logical, that constitutes speculation & Original Research & is not allowed on wikipedia. You need to find a 2nd Source to backup your claim." Either the claim needs to go in, or the whole paragraph needs to be removed as it cannot be considered a reliable source if they do not even mention the types of discs being quoted. I'm going to remove the paragraph, but if you change your mind feel free to add it back with the note. --Ray andrew 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Baloney.  It's not our job to decide how "reliable" a source it is; only to report what it says.  Let the reader decide whether he/she believes what she reads.  -----  If it will make you happy, I will add an additional sentence stating it is unclear which discs the magazine was using to compare.  -  17:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull, it is the wiki editors job to evaluate the reliability of references. Also, its not unclear, clearly they compared the cheapest of each side ie, single layer. --Ray andrew 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but there's no way to know for certain.   Thus the paragraph should stand as it is, not filled with random guesses.  -----  Also I already asked you to provide a second source, which quotes specific costs from multiple vendors.  Why have you not done that?    -  19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point is there is no source for quotes on DL Blu-ray discs, you don't get to know unless you are a serious business and sign a NDA. So we are left with a bunch of speculation, like the blog below. --Ray andrew 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An NDA?  For a quote?!?!?  I seriously doubt that.   I've received quotes from all kinds of companies for various computer parts & pre-fabricated boards (as part of my job as a Defense Contractor), and never once did I have to sign an NDA.  (The only time I had to sign an NDA was when I asked for "proprietary information" such as schematics and program code.)  (The price of a commodity does not come anywhere near that level of secrecy.)  -  Theaveng 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good.  I'll add it to the article.    -  Theaveng 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it it does not come even close to satisfying WP:V --Ray andrew 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links provided by Tanoto ARE verifiable; just contact the plants the same way the blogger did.  Furthermore, the results from the Blogger AGREE with the results from Home Media Magazine.    -----  Don't knock Tanoto's references.  At least he's TRYING to find sources.  -  Theaveng 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be involved in this, as this is not my area. I wanted to help, but can't be bothered to read the whole article. So, I gave it to you. Sorry--w_tanoto 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not angry at you Tanoto.  No need to apologize.  In fact THANK YOU, because I already added your two weblinks to the article.  -  Theaveng 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  We could delete the double-layer Bluray costs (which you say is unverifiable), and just leave the 15, 25, and 30 gig costs.  -  Theaveng 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, along as we are comparing actual costs. --Ray andrew 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be verbiage that indicates that comparing double-layer Bluray discs is impossible because costs are unverifiable in the 'Disc Construction' section.  It's a bit misleading and POV to talk about how 'cheap' Bluray discs are to make without addressing DL-Bluray. 69.2.124.11 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disc Cost

message: Theaveng, I noticed your argument regarding disc replication cost. This might be helpful, although it's completely different study.
* http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-revealed/111/
* http://wesleytech.com/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-replication-costs-analyzed-again/113/
--w_tanoto 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  I'll add it to the article.    -  Theaveng 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it it does not come even close to satisfying WP:V --Ray andrew 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The links provided by Tanoto ARE verifiable; just contact the plants the same way the blogger did.  Furthermore, the results from the Blogger AGREE with the results from Home Media Magazine.    -----  Don't knock Tanoto's references.  At least he's TRYING to find sources.  -  Theaveng 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to be involved in this, as this is not my area. I wanted to help, but can't be bothered to read the whole article. So, I gave it to you. Sorry--w_tanoto 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not angry at you Tanoto.  No need to apologize.  In fact THANK YOU, because I already added your two weblinks to the article.  -  Theaveng 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  We could delete the double-layer Bluray costs (which you say is unverifiable), and just leave the 15, 25, and 30 gig costs.  -  Theaveng 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, along as we are comparing actual costs. --Ray andrew 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be verbiage that indicates that comparing double-layer Bluray discs is impossible because costs are unverifiable in the 'Disc Construction' section.  It's a bit misleading and POV to talk about how 'cheap' Bluray discs are to make without addressing DL-Bluray. 69.2.124.11 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc replication cost 

message: I re-read the article with the help of translator website from Japan. It does not state whether HD DVD TL will work or not, but it does state that double format (either it's HD DVD SL with DVD DL    or     HD DVD DL with DVD SL) does not work in current players due to BCA. Still not sure, that is why I removed the edit and dispute tag altogether.--w_tanoto 21:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats why translator websites suck, according to actual translations, all that was said is that they cant have a BCA for all three layers, but as BCA's are totally optional, its a bit of a mute point. --Ray andrew 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple Layer Compatibility 

message: I tried to search wiki's rules, but did not find anything.  Thanks, troy :-)  -   Theaveng 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" see WP:V --Ray andrew 15:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The term "largely not acceptable" speaks to a point.  A few blogs are written by notable experts in a field.  Some are also published by notable print sources--witness the blogs found on the New York Times. I would argue that a blog written by, say, an MIT professor following the HD format issue would be an acceptable resource, while a blog written by me, an interested generalist, would not. But, as with many things Wikipedian, it's all up for discussion. Barte 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule you're looking for is WP:SPS: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It does allow limited exceptions. Oren0 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The relevant pages are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. The funny thing about blogs are that usually they're repeating something contained in a reliable source (a news magazine/website) and sometimes they have links to the websites that back up their statements. HighDefDigest, for example, usually links to articles in Variety/Home Media Magzine/etc which would be valid citations on Wikipedia (but only if they're reporting news, opinion pieces would be less useful I'd think). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Blogs not allowed for citations?? 

message: If we talk to ten people who have some knowledge about the subject, what percent do you think will mention interactivity?  People will mention things like: price, movie availability, general popularity (what their neighbors have and what is at blockbuster), etc...  Those are the important differentiators.  I'd be really surprised if anyone mentions interactivity.  The vast majority of people want to sit back relax and enjoy a movie, not interact with it.  That's my opinion.  Daniel.Cardenas 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing--it's all opinion unless a notable source says it.  Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source, relying on verifiable secondary sources for its content.  So if, say, the Wall Street Journal (a secondary source) interviews five industry analysts (primary sources) who have concluded that interactivity (or price, movie availability, et.al.) is the most important differentiator between formats, then the article here can make that claim. Otherwise, it's just synthesis. Barte 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not worried about which format any given comparison favours; I am worried about (i) keeping the pages readable, and (ii) keeping them both up-to-date. Things are changing fast and having to edit three (different) pages every time something happens is a pain. Please try and keep the discussion to the thread (below). Thanks. Peter Torr (MSFT) 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: differentiator

message: MGM while only partially owned, is a subsidiary of Sony and is not one of the big six, please see List of film production companies, MGM and Major film studio for further information. Based on this, I have changed the article to reflect this information. Swisspass 10:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just realised that after watching several MGM/Sony Blu-rays. the list is right, the table in the page is ok, but I think the note should stay to indicate the ownership of MGM (while a subs of Sony, it is also owned by other companies).--w_tanoto 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. yeah the note. I just added the sup, thank you. Swisspass 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MGM/Sony 

message: [] JayKeaton 14:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 99 dollar HD DVD player

message: This sentence: 
:HD DVD is exclusively backed by several adult-movie studios/publishers[citation needed], including Wicked Pictures, Pink Visual, Bang Bros, Digital Playground Inc. and ClubJenna Inc. (which on 22 June 2006 was acquired by Playboy Enterprises).[citation needed] Vivid Entertainment supports both formats.[citation needed]
has been {fact} tagged since October.  Can we agree on an expiration date?  How about another month?  Barte 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could use some revision and a source but its relevant information, that deserves to stay. Not that it's a great reference, but here is the master adult hd dvd release list at AVS Forum. --Ray andrew 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your reference is a bit dated--1/07--and does nothing to back up the exclusivity claim of the paragraph (although it does support the dual-support of Vivid).  This is not "relevant information" if it is untrue, and a without a better source, we can't assume otherwise. Barte 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good!  Good job! :-)  Daniel.Cardenas 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adult studio support 

message: Unclear why the Criterion Collection mention is not notable for this article.  The company produces DVDs and has an influential customer base.  It is sitting on the fence in terms of HD support because, it says, of the format war. Why isn't that relevant?  Barte 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be relevant to a section of the title "Negative impact of the format war" :)... --Ray andrew 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something to that, actually. Barte 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: <waving white flag> Barte 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion collection 

message: Should the Total HD and multiple format "super discs" be made (with some copy editing) a subsection of Major studio support? Barte 16:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Total HD section? 

message: While I understand that wikipedia is an international website, I cant help but notice how these "japan only" players are taking over both lists. Should we perhaps make a separate section for BD/HD recorders (as all of these happen to be)? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Ray andrew 16:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: japan only should be put it separate section. as this is english wikipedia, it should covers all from english-speaking countries. but i think if it covers more than english-speaking countries, then it is best to put it in separate section--w_tanoto 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it should stay as it's an important part of the history. BD has been in Japan for many years as a recordable format, and the "player" market in Japan is skewed far more towards "player / recorder" combos than the US (I don't have a reference, but this is the talk section :-) ). BD dominates this market right now which may end up having an effect globally. Peter Torr (MSFT) 16:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it should stay, but in my opinion, should be separated (in separate table, or whatever)--w_tanoto 17:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that (a) the Japan-only players are likely to be of relatively minor interest to English-speaking readers, (b) the article is quite long, and (c) these players are not especially significant in relation to a comparison between the formats, I think we could just mention that these player/recorders exist without listing them all. --Harumphy 02:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack of the japan only players 

message: The videoscan pie chart offers no checkable source. Someone just put "Source: Nielsen VideoScan" in the caption of the pie chart. Why even mention the source if you are not going to provide citation for it? You could just make up any old numbers without an actual source for the average reader to check. JayKeaton (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same source as mentioned in the body text, but I agree it could be clearer. I'll add the citation next time I update the chart. --Harumphy (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awesome JayKeaton (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No source given for videoscan pie chart

message: Is there anything to weave into the article from this Business Week story, which gives the edge to Blu-ray and and speculates (emphasis on the term) that Warner, being heavily wooed by the Blu-ray side, could abandon its agnostic stance.  The story is by the magazine's LA bureau chief and a Silicon Valley correspondent. Barte (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's rubbish. The correspondent is citing a Lionsgate VP saying there's a rumor about Warner. That's all - a rumor from someone with a vested interest in spreading them. --Harumphy (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Week format story