Why is it refered to as "Sonys Blu Ray format"?

uh they invented it. it was all about the whole toshba vs sony thing i guess

uh they invented it. it was all about the whole toshba vs sony thing i guess

LastRedMage

Get your facts straight. Sony and many other groups created Blu-Ray.

Sony simply because has the biggest credit is because they are the biggest share holder under the Blu-Ray name.

Get your facts straight. Sony and many other groups created Blu-Ray.

Sony simply because has the biggest credit is because they are the biggest share holder under the Blu-Ray name.

SSJBen

[QUOTE="SSJBen"]

Get your facts straight. Sony and many other groups created Blu-Ray.

Sony simply because has the biggest credit is because they are the biggest share holder under the Blu-Ray name.

codezer0

If you're going to cite a source, you could at least quote it or represent it correctly.

"Blu-ray was developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association, a group of companies representing consumer electronics, computer hardware, and motion picture production. The standard is covered by several patents belonging to different companies. As of March 2007, a joint licensing agreement for all the relevant patents had not yet been finalized"

"Sony started two projects applying the new diodes: UDO (Ultra Density Optical) and DVR Blue (together with Pioneer), a format of rewritable discs which would eventually become Blu-ray Disc (more specifically, BD-RE).[8] The core technologies of the formats are essentially similar."

"The Blu-ray Disc physical specifications were finished in 2004.[32] In January 2005, TDK announced that they had developed a hard coating polymer for Blu-ray Discs.[33] The cartridges, no longer necessary, were scrapped. The BD-ROM specifications were finalized in early 2006.[34] AACS LA, a consortium founded in 2004,[35] had been developing the DRM platform that could be used to securely distribute movies to consumers. However, the final AACS standard was delayed,[36] and then delayed again when an important member of the Blu-ray Disc group voiced concerns.[37] At the request of the initial hardware manufacturers, including Toshiba, Pioneer and Samsung, an interim standard was published which did not include some features, like managed copy."

Additionally, Blu-Ray was never submitted to the DVD Forum to succeed DVD and even against no formal competition HD DVD didn't fair too well either.

"In August, Toshiba and NEC announced their competing standard Advanced Optical Disc.[16] It was finally adopted by the DVD Forum and renamed HD DVD the next year,[17] after being voted down twice by Blu-ray Disc Association members, prompting the U.S. Department of Justice to make preliminary investigations into the situation.[18][19] Three new members had to be invited and the voting rules changed before the vote finally passed."

The DVD Forum did not accept BluRay at the time because of those stupid ridiculous cartridge caddies they initially decided to keep them in; HD-DVD on the other hand was a logical evolution to DVD, as much of the same tech that already went to making DVD media could be reused and simply tweaked to make HD-DVD discs and drives. Thus, HD-DVD was ratified by the DVD Forum as their preferred replacement, where BluRay took too late to find a way to ditch the caddy cartridge.codezer0

Actually HD-DVD was accepted because Toshiba chose to change the rules and ignore all the abstentions from Sony, Samsung and many, MANY other companies. HD-DVD was a last minute bit of desperation by Toshiba to try and retain all the royalties they were getting on DVD.

I for one am glad they fell on their butts, we wouldn't even have had to deal with the format war if not for Toshiba.

and buying a new player every single time that Sony decides to change up the spec (BD-Live {2.0}won't work on any stand-alone out right now, and there's already work on a v2.1 spec for BluRay)codezer0

Can you show me a link to this? I'm interested in hearing about it.

[QUOTE="codezer0"] The DVD Forum did not accept BluRay at the time because of those stupid ridiculous cartridge caddies they initially decided to keep them in; HD-DVD on the other hand was a logical evolution to DVD, as much of the same tech that already went to making DVD media could be reused and simply tweaked to make HD-DVD discs and drives. Thus, HD-DVD was ratified by the DVD Forum as their preferred replacement, where BluRay took too late to find a way to ditch the caddy cartridge.Aidenfury19

Actually HD-DVD was accepted because Toshiba chose to change the rules and ignore all the abstentions from Sony, Samsung and many, MANY other companies. HD-DVD was a last minute bit of desperation by Toshiba to try and retain all the royalties they were getting on DVD.

I for one am glad they fell on their butts, we wouldn't even have had to deal with the format war if not for Toshiba.

Thats a funny comment considering the HD DVD standard and player standard was A LOT more fleshed out from the beginning, there are still things about the Blu-ray standards that are all over the map and work differently based on which player you own.

I know that, I was asking about Profile 2.1

Thats a funny comment considering the HD DVD standard and player standard was A LOT more fleshed out from the beginning, there are still things about the Blu-ray standards that are all over the map and work differently based on which player you own.

tkemory

And which will end up superior? Toshiba ignored the need for a HD-capable disc for a long while and now they are paying for it. The BDA has already essentially said that Toshiba forced them to launch earlier than intended, so you can thank them for the incomplete spec also.

I know that, I was asking about Profile 2.1

[QUOTE="tkemory"]

Thats a funny comment considering the HD DVD standard and player standard was A LOT more fleshed out from the beginning, there are still things about the Blu-ray standards that are all over the map and work differently based on which player you own.

Aidenfury19

And which will end up superior? Toshiba ignored the need for a HD-capable disc for a long while and now they are paying for it. The BDA has already essentially said that Toshiba forced them to launch earlier than intended, so you can thank them for the incomplete spec also.

Incomplete how? The only real knock on the HD DVD was the lack of space.

Studios didnt like the region free, but that wasnt because it wasnt complete, consumers like this fact.

I suppose you also like the Bluray disc forcing you to watch commercials and previews. Instead of being able to hit the menu button, you have to next through them. Good thing about the extra space they can have 10 - 15 of these instead of 3 or 4.

I know that, I was asking about Profile 2.1

Aidenfury19

BD-Java will do everything you mentioned there if not more and the PS3 is fully capable of Profile 2.0Aidenfury19

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]BD-Java will do everything you mentioned there if not more and the PS3 is fully capable of Profile 2.0codezer0

BD-Java is not BD+ and Fox is about the only studio that has at all adopted that so far (at least that I'm aware of) look at the upcoming titles list, theres already quite a few movies with BD-J and they will only improve down the line.

BD-Java will do everything you mentioned there if not more and the PS3 is fully capable of Profile 2.0Aidenfury19

Interesting choice of word, "will".

Like I said in earlier post, the Blu-ray format is all over the place. Maybe now they can settle in and get the format standardized across players and software designed to work with the format. Its more than a mess at this point.

Please Sony can you get rid of all of the ads on your disc? I am paying enough of a premium that I shouldnt have to be subjected to them.

sony invented and invested in blu ray more than anyone else

Please Sony can you get rid of all of the ads on your disc? I am paying enough of a premium that I shouldnt have to be subjected to them.

tkemory

While a pain this isn't only a Blu-Ray thing, I've noticed it on several DVDs also.

[QUOTE="tkemory"]

Please Sony can you get rid of all of the ads on your disc? I am paying enough of a premium that I shouldnt have to be subjected to them.

Aidenfury19

While a pain this isn't only a Blu-Ray thing, I've noticed it on several DVDs also.

I agree, its a problem HD DVD didnt have...

That says pre-recorded disc, which means that it wouldn't be something you would use to record on yourself. Explain to me again how the Blu-Ray burners out there work if they all require that protection?

Copy protection is always broken and with Blu-Ray the risk of it being damaged is so reduced that its not a real concern for me. There are disadvantages which will be overcome, the baseline advantages are what convinced me it was the better way to go.

Don't think for a second that Toshiba wouldn't have introduced region codes (there was already some discussion of such a move) and do you seriously think they wouldn't have added additional copy protection when AACS was cracked? I doubt it, its the endless digital arms race and the internet has a good record so far.

Don't think for a second that Toshiba wouldn't have introduced region codes (there was already some discussion of such a move) and do you seriously think they wouldn't have added additional copy protection when AACS was cracked? I doubt it, its the endless digital arms race and the internet has a good record so far.

Aidenfury19

What? now you are grasping at straws. The players didnt support it, so now they are going to add it and make the early players obsolete. Whatever, its moot point now. Its just funny that "consumers" supported the format that was better for the studios... Not.

Once again the consumer was screwed by the Studios and we continue to let it happen. We ended up with the product that allows them the most control in our household.

Its just funny that "consumers" supported the format that was better for the studios... Not.

Once again the consumer was screwed by the Studios and we continue to let it happen. We ended up with the product that allows them the most control in our household.

tkemory

For quite a while, now, Blu-Ray titles have been outselling HD DVD by 2:1 or more. Are you saying the studios are buying these disks from retail to artificially inflate their numbers or are you projecting your wishes upon the general populous?

Here , here and here are articles to this effect.

Actually its true HD-DVD Forum working on region codes.

But they never did finalize them because they were too concerned about losing (which they now have) and Blu-Ray has three regions instead of six, I still consider than an improvement.

Blu-Ray is very much a mixed bag, but aside from tighter copy protection it's mostly a big improvement over DVD.

Combine with the fact that most movies in HD-DVD started @ VC-1 where most initial BluRay were MPEG2 (basically same as DVD)codezer0

That's not entirely accurate. MPEG-2 can look as good or better than VC-1 (and even AVC/h.264) if given enough bitrate. In fact, many HDV cameras actually capture in MPEG-2 and that raw footage is later compressed with AVC or VC-1. The big problem with early BD releases using MPEG-2 was that the single layer discs at 25GB didn't provide enough room to give the MPEG-2 media the proper bitrate it required.

[QUOTE="codezer0"] Combine with the fact that most movies in HD-DVD started @ VC-1 where most initial BluRay were MPEG2 (basically same as DVD)ramey70

That's not entirely accurate. MPEG-2 can look as good or better than VC-1 (and even AVC/h.264) if given enough bitrate. In fact, many HDV cameras actually capture in MPEG-2 and that raw footage is later compressed with AVC or VC-1. The big problem with early BD releases using MPEG-2 was that the single layer discs at 25GB didn't provide enough room to give the MPEG-2 media the proper bitrate it required.

In all honesty who cares, the point was the initial stuff encoded in MPEG2 didnt look very good, you are splitting hairs.

Although there were also HD DVD's that didnt look so hot either, Goodfellas, Oceans 13 are two examples. Both formats were putting anything and everything on their "HD" disc.

[QUOTE="codezer0"] Combine with the fact that most movies in HD-DVD started @ VC-1 where most initial BluRay were MPEG2 (basically same as DVD)ramey70

That's not entirely accurate. MPEG-2 can look as good or better than VC-1 (and even AVC/h.264) if given enough bitrate. In fact, many HDV cameras actually capture in MPEG-2 and that raw footage is later compressed with AVC or VC-1. The big problem with early BD releases using MPEG-2 was that the single layer discs at 25GB didn't provide enough room to give the MPEG-2 media the proper bitrate it required.

[QUOTE="ramey70"]

[QUOTE="codezer0"] Combine with the fact that most movies in HD-DVD started @ VC-1 where most initial BluRay were MPEG2 (basically same as DVD)codezer0

That's not entirely accurate. MPEG-2 can look as good or better than VC-1 (and even AVC/h.264) if given enough bitrate. In fact, many HDV cameras actually capture in MPEG-2 and that raw footage is later compressed with AVC or VC-1. The big problem with early BD releases using MPEG-2 was that the single layer discs at 25GB didn't provide enough room to give the MPEG-2 media the proper bitrate it required.

Here are two examples of MPEG-2 done correctly: Kingdom of Heaven, and Tears of the Sun. From a purely visual standpoint, an MPEG-2 transfer can be just as impressive as the newer codecs. Just because MPEG-2 requires a higher bit rate than AVC and VC-1 does not make it inferior. It does make it less efficient, which makes it harder to include lossless audio and supplemental material while delivering a top notch image.

Blu-ray launched a good 6 months early because of HD-DVD. They were in a mad scramble to get movies on the shelf and it showed in the image quality of those first releases. MPEG-2 was used in the beginning because it was familiar. Period. They could deliver an HD transfer quickly. At the very least they weren't familiar with the newer codecs, and quite possibly were not even equiped to author discs with them.