Blu-Ray DVDs Hit 100 GB 349
Xesdeeni writes "According to The Register and MacWorld, TDK has unveiled a Blu-Ray DVD with four layers that will hold a whopping 100 GB of data. This is shortly after the previously reported HD-DVD announced three-layer HD-DVD that would hold a "mere" 45 GB. Unfortunately, this is also on the heels of the news that the HD DVD unification talks have stalled."
groovy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:groovy... (Score:2)
And rip your heart appart whenever the disc gets scratched
(That's why I always backup my anime divx's twice)
Re:groovy... (Score:5, Funny)
He was blown away that I had that many files as it was, and I was about to make a humorous comment about the boatloads of porn I have on it, when a female co-worker walked in...
"Oh, it's all Photoshop documents that I've done! Some of `em are almost 400 megs each!"
Except everyone in the office knows I can't draw to save my life. Now she won't even talk to me. :(
Re:groovy... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:groovy... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't need a disc... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:groovy... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been burning DVD+-R's (4.7gb) and when I run the "verify data" option to confirm a good burn, the defective rate on my DVDs is about 1 in 5. I've had situations where the DVD burns and verifies perfectly in the burner but I cannot get it to read in another DVD reader.
Then there is the question of DVD rot. A DVD is a sandwich of two plastic layers. There is the possibility that the cement that binds these layers can become unglued.
For routine DVDs, I find my
Multiple Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
But back to the topic at hand: The industry would benefit more from having ONE SINGLE TRUE UNIFIED STANDARD as opposed to a couple of standards, which would confuse people. The public at large (Joe Sixpack) gets all confused with this 2-format thing. They want to buy a movie and play it, not worry about if this disc will play on their type of player. When we have one unified standard, confusion is reduced, people can just buy and make the industry happy. The the industry focus can be put on actually releasing content and worthwhile stuff, as opposed to teaching consumers that they need a different player for their Fox releases versus some other studio and then wondering why people don't buy any of these confusing and conflicting products.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
The fact that nobody is buying them is not just because there are 2 different formats. There are good inexpensive players out there that can handle both formats no problem. There just isn't that much of a demand for them currently and multichannel audio is inheirently more difficult and time consuming to record/mix/etc.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's difficult for the average consumer to have a playback system that makes it worthwhile. You have to spend a few thousand dollars, and have the right room, and then spend your time sitting in the sweet spot to listen to your music.
If, like me, you listen to music while driving, exercising (oh wait, this is
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Surround, especially with a separate subwoofer, gives you a much larger virtual stage, which allows you to make creative choices with your instrument placement, and rather than having to squeeze them into what's left of a stereo speaker's capacity.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're dealing with a mix of instruments from a studio recording session, it can often be difficult to get all of them to sit well with one another in a stereo mix. Gentle EQ'ing, compression, and so on, all go into making that mix sound good in stereo.
With more channels, you have more leeway on where to place sounds and it could be seen as easier to arrive at a final mix that sounds good, given the range
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it doesn't matter, as we've seen with the DVD +/- wars, because manufacturers stepped up and released burners capable of burning either medium. The only losers are the early adopters who are stuck with the losing format.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
HD-DVD is backwards compatible with current DVD players while Blu-Ray is not.
That's basically it. The Movie people don't want to have to stock two different discs, one for Blu-Ray and one for current DVD owners. For more, see this article. [ecoustics.com]
more is better (Score:2)
How many versions of Star Wars (Episode IV) are there?
I'm sure that there are several slashdotters that have original Star Wars VHS, Wide Screen VHS, New Effects VHS, Widescreen New Effects VHS, and another one of each on DVD, and probably a Beta version and a Laserdisc version as well. (or something like that)
I can't believe that Lucas, or Wal-Mart, or anyone but the buyer lost money on that.
I expect that it is difficult for hardware man
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Then he'd figure out what it was when you switched to stereo... trust me, I'm no surround-sound afficionado, but I can still tell the difference, no problem.
As for the left/right problem; pretty much nothing released from the mid-1970s onwards suffered from that. It was done that way because a lot of older record decks had integrated speakers close to each other
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
It's not just Joe Sixpack. I'm a nerdy slashdot-reading gadget-susceptible linux kernel developer, and I don't want to have to compare the string of logos on the back of the disc with my drive's spec sheet every time I buy a friggin' album either....
--Bruce Fields
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
nobody's buying SACD's and DVD-A's because its a thin niche market. super-high resolution audio only really appeals to audiophiles, 99 percent of the population probably couldn't tell the difference between tracks mastered at 16 bits vs 24 anyways.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Make that 100%. The 16 bits format wasn't chosen at random. Human ears have a 120 dB dynamic range, and 16 bits allow for 102 dB dynamic range. Considering that someone having an anechoic chamber with less than 18 dBA background noise is extremely improbable, 24 bits is just a waste of money.
I know, there are many experts who claim to be able to tell the difference between both, but when y
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
I think Ray Charles (among many others) would have disagreed with you.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
I am an audophile, my question for you is, how do I make an ogg from a DVD-A or SACD to put on my car player? My CD collection lives under my bed in crates now, I dont want to be tied to media.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea ... the problem with being an audiophile is so much of it is voodoo :) I did lots of listening tests and determined that at quality setting 7 *I* was unable to tell the difference between an OGG and a CD on my setup. Good enough for me :) I will just re-encode my CDs if I need to change
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Joe Fourpack seems to understand that they can't play XBox games in their PS3.
Based on past OpenOffice.org discussions, it is also clear that Joe Fourpack understands that it is best to just use Microsoft Office, because it is not interoperable with the others. i.e. multiple standards.
Think of the benefit from multiple formats to the content owners (not to be confused with content producers).
If you have one type of DVD
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Funny)
You said DVDA... hehe.
Yeah, seriously. That shit is painful. You try having 4 dicks in you and see how you feel.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
The industry as a whole would benefit, we all know that. However, who should back out? The one that steps down loses everything and the other reigns supreme. In the DVD +/- war, neither + nor - won, and both formats are about. None of the producers stepped down, everyone "won" as opposed to one side losing.
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:2)
Re:Multiple Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I think I like BluRay partially because it seems to have the ability to offer a lot more storage space than HD. The one question about that is the time it takes to create a disk, I don't want to wait a full day to burn 100GB. However, the bigger reason I like
Size is no longer the issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Size is no longer the issue (Score:2, Funny)
I hear you (Score:4, Funny)
Now fill it up and let a four year old put it in and out of a player a few time.
If it is still readable, then you know you are on to something.
Re:I hear you (Score:3, Funny)
... or a drunk /.er.
Re:I hear you (Score:2)
Re:Size is no longer the issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Size is no longer the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn I miss those days.
Indestructible (Score:2)
Me, too.
We can armor Humvee's with them (overlapping to cover the holes).
Maybe armor buildings with them too.
And use them structurally.
Use them to build space-craft.
Or submarines that can take ultra-high pressures.
Even black hole exploration.
Use them for long-lasting (albeit slippery) pavement/floor coverings.
Make notched ones to use for non-wearing saw blades.
Use them to make non-wearing bearings.
The disposal will be difficult, since they won't biodegrade.
And you
Re:Size is no longer the issue (Score:3, Interesting)
The real difference is in the manufacturing end. HD-DVD is designed with the goal of minimizing the amount of changes needed at the existing manufacturing plants, making it cheaper and easier for existing manufacturers to upgrade. Considering that movies often come with extra discs without increasing the retail price, odds are that Blu Ray isn't expen
Re:Size is no longer the issue (Score:2)
Go BluRay (Score:2, Interesting)
Go Blu-Ray!
Columbia Tristar Home Video (Score:2)
Personally, HD-DVD's disgraceful AACS is enough to make me cheer for Blu-Ray
Sony is a major proponent of Blu-ray Disc, and Sony is also a member of the Copyright MAFIAA [mafiaa.org]. Who's to say that Sony's Columbia Tristar Home Video [sonypictures.com] won't demand some sort of digital restrictions management?
Reliability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reliability (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
It may put the cost up a little , but i would be willing to pay extra for the peace of mind.
YAY (Score:5, Funny)
Enough already (Score:3, Insightful)
News flash: It's not that important!
One or the other will get a foothold and catch on, the other will go away. Whether the winner is the "better" of the two options or not, we will still be better off than where we are now.
Unification (Score:5, Funny)
excellent! we're closer to (Score:5, Funny)
Re:excellent! we're closer to (Score:4, Funny)
sorry, just too easy to pass...
Re:excellent! we're closer to (Score:2)
Re:excellent! we're closer to (Score:2)
Scratches (Score:4, Insightful)
Durability? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just thinking of how scratched my average disk can get, and imagine if that scratch now corrupts 200 megs of data instead of a few bits in a song.
When are we gonna have to enclose these things in some sort of 8-track like case?
Re:Durability? (Score:2)
I am fairly sure the comercial Blue-ray discs will in all likely-hood be alot more resiliant than the current discs
Who knows they may very well use a cartridge , which would be great.
Re:Durability? (Score:2)
It's not like higher storage densities allow for more space for error correction or anything.
Re:Durability? (Score:2)
PS3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Will the content providers step up and use the capacity?
Re:PS3 (Score:2)
Re:PS3 (Score:2)
100gb is alot for a game. Even the biggest ones out now are less than 5gb. What it would be nice for 10
Re:PS3 (Score:2)
So it will take (Score:2)
a day to blank it and another day to backup your hard disk on it?
What is the speed input/ouput? That is the most relevant factor!
That's the death sentence for Bluray (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumer would say "Hey why are you charging me 60 bucks for one disk, it should only be 20 bucks as it doesn't cost you anymore to stamp out one disk as it does 4 disks."
Unless for the next 7-10 years a quad layer Blu-Ray dvd media costs > $10k. And if that were the case then BlueRay would be the winner. You have to get the companies onboard thinking that no one can copy their disks cheaper than you can sell them for. Look at the price dual layer dvd the best I could find is $3 and I can get regular ones for 50 cents; so the execs are looking at moving on because the price of dvd replication is falling to the brake point of make it your self is cheaper.
Re:That's the death sentence for Bluray (Score:2)
This hardly stops them even today. Look at most Anime discs and the like. You could easily fit the entire series on a single disc, but they split it up into 3-4 eps per disc (if you're lucky). Same with movies. Throw on a bunch of useless extras, use "high-definition" video to eat up lots of space, and release tons of editions.
Mostly, this is useful for pressing data. Large game
Storage Arms race... w00t! (Score:2)
Yippy! (Score:4, Funny)
Overkill? (Score:5, Funny)
For movie-consumers, now those DVD extras will include the cast party, the set-security tapes . . .
And TV-fans now can buy a single disk with the entire 2004 season of . . . well . . . TV.
Re:Overkill? (Score:2)
Not sure why they didn't go for a "Director's Cut" of The Apprentice, when plenty was available on the cutting room floor.
Just citing an example. A good selling point would be to get a full hour of a television program instead of 40-something minutes/episode.
But with The Apprentice, no 'extended scenes' existed, th
Crappenfest! (Score:2)
Think of all the stuff you can fit. (Score:2, Informative)
Just think, we can have more blooper minutes than actual movie minutes.
And George Lucas can remake the entire Star Wars series in HD and fit it onto 1 disc, with tons of extras.
Re:Think of all the stuff you can fit. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Think of all the stuff you can fit. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they'll start showing the business bloopers too. Morris in accounting: "And this is crazy! See, I forgot to include capital depreciation in that quarter so we took a tax hit on the film editing systems. Everyone just cracked up!"
More layers (Score:4, Funny)
so what? (Score:4, Funny)
I CAN'T BUY A PLAYER OR DISCS IN EITHER FORMAT RIGHT NOW!
so who cares how much it can hold?!?!
ATTN: I hearby announce my new holographic crystal format can now store 1,000,000,000 tetrabites on a crystal the size of a grain of salt. This device not yet available for sale, please come back in 100 years.
I'm going to patent it all too and sue the bejeezus out of anyone who even attempts to copy it!
Not stalled, they are meeting again (Score:5, Informative)
They know they need to collude if they want to maximize profits. Not having a standard is going to hurt everybody.
Now instead of ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's always bugged me about that kind of stuff on TV. They want to sell you a bazillion dollars worth of stuff. You want it all on one disk.
Then again, I have a huge problem equating two 30 minute episodes of a show which has been running for several seasons to the equivelant (or more) then a movie which cost over $100 million to make.
Yet, time and time again we see just that -- two episodes of Freinds (or whatever) costs as much as one Lord of the Rings movie -- personally I think they need to look at macroeconomics -- Mr Smith is not getting the utils of enjoyment out of the second purchase.
There is no reason to believe this won't keep happening as disks get bigger.
Blu-Ray Wins.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope HD-DVD hits a stumbling block, no one wants format wars.
Only three layers? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, the fools! If only they'd built it with four layers! When will they learn?!?
From the trenches (Score:3, Interesting)
Migration
I have switched exclusively to recordable DVD for backups about 20 months ago. The extra capacity was dearly needed, as my CD-R collection was growing large by bounds and leaps, making it unmanageable. At first, like everyone else, I thought whoa - 4.37GB - surely nobody will need more that than. Famous last words.
What was interesting to observe is that a) the transition to DVD from CD-R happened faster for me than from previous backup mediums to CD-R (Zip disks, MO discs, etc.). Whereas I had used CD-R in conjunction with my previous mediums for quite a while, jumping from CD-R to DVD-R was much quicker. About the only things that held me back are the fact that most OS installation media are still CD-R images, and the fact that the mp3-capable HU in my car only reads CD-R. That's why I still stock CD-R, otherwise I would have none.
Capacity
I felt the capacity of DVD-R as being limiting much quicker than I did so with CD-R. In other words, 4.37GB "got small" much faster for me than 700MB did. Broadband is here to stay and is only getting faster. The average computer, its display adapter, is getting faster and can display higher bitrate video content. Filesize is only going up.
Evolution
I feel that DVD-R is a clear improvement on technology compared to CD-R. There are a number of practical issues to consider. It looks like they did their homework and fixed the main issues with CD-R.
Number one is sandwiching the recording layer between protective plastic discs, as opposed to putting it on top, as CD-R did, where it is easily damageable.
The other is the overall improvement of recording reliability. Granted I only use high-quality media, but it seems to me that either thru improved error-correction algorithms and/or improved quality control/design of both recorder and media, DVD-R far surpasses CD-R in reliability. I haven't burnt one single bad disc that was directly related to media or recorder in over 1000 burns on multiple recorders. CD-Rs would often fail to verify.
Price
There is no contest as far as the price, per GB, of DVD-R vs. hard drive for backup purposes. Believe it or not, backup media has traditionally been lagging behind the real needs of customers.
Standards
CD-R had no competing standards. Good. In the beginning of DVD-R, it was a problem if you had a -R and someone else had a +R. Bad. They fixed it by having virtually all drive manufacturers, for both recorders and readers, seamlessly support both standards. Fair enough, and it gets a "fair -to- good" grade. It is transparent enough that today you don't need to even look at what media you're buying (if your name is "John Smith," of course - us freaks look at much more than just the brand of media we buy). But DVD-R was clearly a step into the general direction of chaos as compared to CD-R. It looks like the next gen will be considerably worse, unless one of the standards completely kills the other one before either comes to market.
Conclusion
Please note that I am not closely following the BR vs. HD-DVD race because I think it would be a waste of time at this point. This is a disclaimer for any specifics I mention - they are only approximations.
I feel that 100GB should not be viewed as realistic. 4 layers are not practical unless they are introduced from the get-go. I offer current DVD-R dual-layer as an example. It has 2 major cons: 1) it is currently roughly 10-30 times as expensive as single layer DVD-R for roughly double capacity, 2) it does not burn anywhere near the speed at which DVD-R SL burns (fastest is 4x vs. 16x, realistic is 2.4x vs. 12x). The only people who spring for it are the ones that use them for video backups. Being that I only back up data, it would be of no use to me even if one of the two above points were to go away.
Therefore, lets say a single layer disc will have 25GB. Nothing wrong with that, but by the time it is introduced it will be "just enough" to satisfy the needs of the market.
I feel that backups will still be lagging for a while into the future. Don't believe the hype, and don't feed the trolls.
Re:From the trenches (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:5, Insightful)
How about one of these four-layer discs with built-in redundancy to improve that?
i.e. a 50GB disc with four layers, two of which are redundant?
For archival purposes, I'd buy it.
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2, Interesting)
id buy that!
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2)
They may get scratched physically, but they do not lose data as easily as all that. Most players will play right through most scratches without a hiccup. And when there is a scratch bad enough to cause a hiccup, you can often polish it out with toothpaste or a more conventional disc polisher. Plus, unlike CDs, DVDs have a layer of plastic on both sides of the aluminum substrate so scratches on the "labe
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, nice job. You're halfway to reinventing FEC [techtarget.com], or For
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:3, Interesting)
There was an article the other day about CVD diamonds. If diamond production becomes dirt cheap, coating CD's and DVDs with it would prevent scratching, and you could pack as much information on them as can fit, with less error correction than on current scratchable disks. Monitor screens could probably benefit, too, as well as cooking utensils... I'm running off topic here, so:
Coat blu ray with diamond, problem solved.
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2)
I'm tired of DLT. 40GB, even compressed, won't backup a modern NAS, so you end up with 2-3 times the hardware investment in permanent media instead of using the DLT/DVD reusable media of old times.
If Blu-ray hits 100GB/disk, and they manage rewritable formats, someone will put them into a scratch-proof cartrige for backup devices.
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2)
Bit-rot happens on optical media. Doesn't on tapes.
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2)
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:and everyone is still using floppies : ) (Score:2)
There was even an article on it previously on Slashdot, but I can't be bothered to look it up
Here [slashdot.org] is that Slashdot story. It was developed by TDK. Here's a quote...
Multi-Layer (Score:2)
Re:Need Standard Soon (Score:3, Informative)
NTSC Fuzziness on Blu Ray will still suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh... seriously, that reminds me of catching a glimpse of the horrid "Tom and Jerry Kids" cartoon on the TV the other day.
Ignoring the quality of the animation (who cares, the show is vile anyway), what struck me was how soft and horrible the picture quality is. And the problem, it seems is... it was mastered on NTSC video.
Now, no-one gives a monkeys about Tom and Jerry Kids or Baby Looney Tunes, but... they will care
That's $.06/GB, which is a steal (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, though tapes are pretty cost effective on a per gig basis, the actual machines for accessing them are tres e