Talk:Blu-ray/Archive 2

message: I've reverted a change made stating that managed copy had been approved for Blu-ray. The change summary claimed "hdbeat" had announced it, but so far my searches on hdbeat.com have only turned up this, which indicates it was a posting at the AVSForums that announced the feature being in. I don't think an anonymous forum posting is credible enough for Wikipedia...  --Locke Cole 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Reuters --Ctachme 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, thanks! --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 02:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managed Copy 

message: I noticed that the security section is, in places, almost word for word taken from this article: 
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050810-5194.html
Should there be a citation?  I'm a n00b and unsure how the process here works.  11/09/2005
:No, that's a copyvio and should probably be removed (or at least rewritten). --Locke Cole 03:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security section needs a citation? 

message: Would like to add a reference to this article: "Matsushita lowers production costs for Blu-Ray discs" - http://www.blureporter.com/blu-ray/news/100, but was unsure of where to put it. Perhaps we need a section at least discussing what we do know about the cost issue (vs. DVD, HD-DVD, etc.). I know this is not set in stone yet, but is that not the nature of this entire article? --Willy Arnold 5:17, January 09 2006 (EST)
:There had been a blurb in the article about the purported "higher cost" of Blu-ray manufacturing over HD DVD manufacturing, but I believe it was removed (by me) for being an obvious bit of POV. We could always add a passage discussing the initial claims that Blu-ray would cost more, and note that Matushita has devised methods to bring manufacturing costs down to the same level as standard DVD. Assuming this is OK with you, and there are no other objections, I'll write something up in a little bit. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The caddy might have been a factor with the Japanese units that were sold in Japan for awhile, but I believe the major issue with manufacturing costs was regarding the need for new equipment (HD DVD has, supposedly, an advantage in that duplication plants can use existing DVD equipment (with modifications) to create HD DVD discs). For what it's worth, any sane person knows the "higher cost" excuse is bogus. The reason? See: Economies of scale. The fact is if a duplicator has to pay $1,000,000 USD for equipment but they produce millions of discs, then the cost per disc ($1,000,000 USD ÷ TotalDiscsProduced) will be negligble; pennies per disc over the costs of HD DVD. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: I think the section listing all the launch titles should be moved to it's own article.  It seems out of place as is.the1physicist 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It complements the same listing at HD DVD. It'll likely be removed a while after it launches, for what it's worth (and if not, I'd agree with breaking it out to something like List of Blu-ray Disc launch titles (probably should consult the WP:MoS to make sure the naming is right though)). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch Releases 

message: This page needs to be updated.  It contains outdated information and the tenses are also outdated - e.g. "Philips is scheduled to debut a Blu-ray computer drive in the second half of 2005" Saads 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Page 

message: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html <- Sony apparently changed its mind on down-sampling. Anyone else able to confirm this? Pvt Mahoney 14:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has changed, as far as I can tell. Downsampling is still a feature of Blu-ray, even if some titles don't use it. Mirror Vax 19:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why no mention of downsampling in the article? Nil Einne 19:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OOops realised it is, just not called downsampling Nil Einne 20:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down-sampling change 

message: I'd like to request a history of blu-ray technology (not just diodes) because everything about it seems to have been lost.  I can swear talking about it years ago, particularly as used for a casino storage medium. Stoutpuppy 19:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Blu-ray 

message: External links are not for any and every report on Blu-Ray. With a few exceptions (the forum included), they should only be stuff that explains things that this article does not, or not as well. This is also not the japanese or german wikipedia, so links to that stuff should go on the articles in other languages. I cut out like half of those links cause they were junk - including one that linked to a site one needed an account for... Fresheneesz 00:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Using Blue-ray is bothering like hell. It is Blue-Ray.
What do you think?
Ed1t: My fault. Sony.com uses Blue-ray Disc. Bagga..
:Nordoelum 17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: >x<ino 11:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue-ray or Blue-Ray? 

message: This replaces the previously titled section 'Blue Ray Facts'. I thought this was a rather out of place section, and incorrectly titled, that needed cleaning up, so I added some information about the reason it is called Blu-Ray and also included information from this above discussion. 134.219.171.36 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-ray Name 

message: Is this article, whichs tells e.g. about a "self-destruct" function, still up to date? And if it is, should there be something about it in the article? –Mysid(t) 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The self destruct business is not so much halting and catching fire, leaving a lump of charred plastic. Let's say someone finds a key for the cryptographic software implementing DRM for the drive, and the 'crack' becomes known. As the scheme seems to work (viewed from the outside), this will require a new key to access protected content. If you don't get that key... Instead, the self-destruct is a possible failure to supply new keys for the crytpgraphic algorithms which give access to the content of a protected Blu-ray disk. Without that key, controlled by the drive maker, the Blu-ray disk Alliance, the content producer, ... the drive can't manage protected disks. probably still be able to play other sorts: your own content, othe rproducers' content (maybe), unprotected content generally, ... Not the nicest behavior from a piece of equipment you expect to work, and which is functioning perfectly. Save for a failed update of needed crypto keys. 71.247.246.63 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-destruct code 

message: The last sentence from Variations and sizes refers to a "table below", but there is no such table. The sentence appears to be taken verbally from theblu-rayshop.com. Copyright violation or not? At the very least it should be reworded, or someone should add the table it is referring to. --213.196.5.160 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio in "Variations and sizes"? 

message: I just saw a commercial for Underworld: Evolution which said, "Coming soon to DVD and Blu-Ray". On the main page, it's listed as releasing in late 2006. I obviously don't know what's going on here, but does anyone else? StealthHit06 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highdefdigest.com lists  its street date on Blu-ray as June 20, 2006. This is also backed up by Sony .  I'm unaware of what "main page" you're refering to. —Gabbe 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By Main Page, I mean the Blu-ray page, in the section that lists the launch titles. It listed Underworld: Evolution as coming out in late 2006. StealthHit06 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underworld: Evolution 

message: CDs and DVDs use a single layer of lacquer over the reflective data backing (on the label side) and are more susceptible to damage than either HD-DVDs or Blu-ray discs.
If Blu-ray disks need a caddy, and Cd's don't, how the heck are CD's MORE susceptible to damage, especially since on blu-ray discs, the data is 'closer to the surface?'  Also, what the heck does something being on the 'label' side matter?  Does the article mean non-label side?
:I agree the whole paragraph is poorly worded. The above quote is also WRONG. It sounds like it was written by someone who has never even used or seen a DVD. The DVD reflective layer is sandwiched between two layers of polycarbonate (as I believe bluray is) and enables double-sided DVDs to be easily made. The CD is on the top with a thin layer of lacquer. There are two sides to every single sided DVD and CD. In CDs, most people think the bottom side needs greater protection. This is not strictly true. If you scratch the bottom side, it may have reading problems but this depends on the drive and you can also try polishing the surface. If you scratch the top side (label side), your CD is well and truly dead. To be fair, the data is still there and some data recovery companies may be able to recover it (altho this is also true for damage to the bottom side) but you have absolutely no hope of recovering any data (that is contained in the part where the scratch is) with a normal drive. It is rather unlikely you an fix it either. With DVDs, it's a different matter. The bottom surface is most definitely the more susceptible side. Damage to the top surface (within reason) doesn't affect the DVD... Nil Einne 02:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't make sense 

message: I removed the following although unfortunately forgot to mention why in the summary
:* Enhanced Versatile Disc – a Chinese optical disc system developed as a response to high DVD licensing costs
As mentioned in the EVD page. I don't really see any point of discussing EVD as a competitor of BluRay. It was clearly intended as an alternative (that appears to have failed) to DVD based on the time frame and the design. No evidence it support HD content either. Therefore, would make as much sense to include DVD in the list... Nil Einne 02:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably deserved to be mentioned here, for completeness at least. perhaps with the addition of the points you make here. And probably also at the DVD article. ww 03:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVD 

message: The region codes bit on this page used to be:
Region code	Area
1          	North America, South America, Japan and East Asia (excluding China)
2          	Europe and Africa
3          	India, China, Russia, and all other countries.
and now it is:
Region code	Area
1          	The Americas, U.S. territories, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan
2          	Europe and Africa
3          	Asia (excluding Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and Oceania
Anybody have any reliable source to justify this change? For the first grouping (which was on this page as recently as May 1, 2006) there are several online sources, whereas the current grouping has been changed by various anonymous users without explanation, such as , , . Does anybody havbe more info? Where did India and Russia go? —Gabbe 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The manual for the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player lists its region code as "A", implying an "A", "B" and "C" division of region codes. Anybody has any more info on this? —Gabbe 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The back cover of the newly released Blu-ray discs features an "A" in a circle inside a hexagonal box. Is this the region code marking, perhaps? Or is it the logo for some other feature or other? —Gabbe 10:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Quickly checking the citation (9) listed in the current article (www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11760#ixa) I've found the following table. I'm not confident enought to edit the actual article - I'm supposed to be working at the moment and can't invest enough time to verify the information. 
Region code	Area
A          	North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Korea, Southeast Asia
B          	Europe (EU), Africa, Middle East, New Zealand, Australia
C          	China, India, Russia, Rest of the world.
—Snickkers 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region codes?