Fujifilm Blu-ray & HD DVD Media Mid 2006

Michael writes to tell us TheTechLounge is reporting that Fuji Film has announced the release of Blu-Ray and HD DVD media by mid 2006. From the article: "Consumers are driving demand for interactive gaming and entertainment applications that require enormous storage capacity," noted Steve Solomon, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Recording Media Division, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A. "Fujifilm coating technology will ensure the precision and quality of signal strength in these new media formats. The success of new recording technologies depends on the availability of affordable, reliable media and our scientists are already working to perfect next-generation storage solutions, long before they hit the market."

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll pick up a few when I go out for my copy of Duke Nuken Forever in my rocket car.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Consumers Driving Demand?

[TooMuchEspressoGuy]

I'm sure they're *also* demanding the enormous hardware upgrade costs that will inevitably come with a new media standard.

/sarcasm

Re:Consumers Driving Demand?

[hal2814]

Well they can't exactly say that publisher demand is going to force this new format down our throats.

Re:Consumers Driving Demand?

[Kjella]

I'm sure they're *also* demanding the enormous hardware upgrade costs that will inevitably come with a new media standard. /sarcasm

2,5 years ago I bought a DVD burner for 2200,- NOK
Now I bought a much better one for 400,- NOK

Some of us are willing to pay. Yes, we're quite probably insane. I expect to get a Blu-Ray burner too before most. My 1920x1200 LCD screen doesn't have HDCP though, so well... if they want my money, it's not hard to get. I'm sure there will be other options if they aren't cooperative.

Re:Consumers Driving Demand?

[Anonymous Coward]

2.5 years ago, I bought a dvd burner for $85 CDN

last week, I bought a DVD burner for $60 CDN

I think you got screwed.

Re:Consumers Driving Demand?

[camperslo]

Blu-ray or HD DVD would be great for backup, if it is cheap enough.
It might be wise to wait for some credible reports on the life and durability of the media though.

I have no plans to buy movies in that format, at least not while there is effective DRM.
If it won't do everything (including rip) that a DVD-R does, I won't pull a DVD-R drive to install Blu-ray.

For now I'd rather see some cheap dual-layer DVD media. $2 a disc is still too much

Of course my interest might be perked up a bit if Apple announces a c

Re:Consumers Driving Demand?

[converge18t]

What the hell is an "expresso"?

Cool MEDIA!!

[TheDoctorWho]

Where's my player/recorder/for $1000+ Alex?

Re:Cool MEDIA!!

[thaerin]

Which came first, the media or the hardware? I know they're wanting to get in on the bandwagon and let customers know that there'll be media for the hardware that should be out near or before the same period. Why can't they announce that they'll have some 16X DVD+/-R media sometime soon for the drive that I bought two months ago?

Good thing

[JonN]

To be honest, even though I have heard a lot of complaining and what not about the new DVD technology, I feel there is one part in TFA that shows that this is a necessary step, regardless of hardware upgrade costs and whatever else:

With mainstream adoption of high definition (HD) content, television sets and recording devices, consumers and retailers will need new storage technologies to handle ever-expanding digitized files. For example, a two-hour program in HD creates a digital file roughly 15-25 Gigabytes in size, or the equivalent of more than 13 hours of standard-definition TV.

I got a HDTV for the purpose of watching high definition television. True I can get HDTV cable, satellite, etc. however if I want to watch my favorite documentary, I would prefer it HD then standard, same goes for all the other movies I love to watch.

Re:Good thing

[Artie Dent]

The only reason that I would be hesitant to buy some of this new technology is the competing features right now. It would be great to have the highest format available, but if the new players aren't mutually compatible (which really shouldn't be that hard to do) than one is likely to get stuck with the digital Betamax tapes. If there's any new technology that supports both formats, this would be extremely valuable and consumers wouldn't end up getting stiffed in the end. A dual-reading HD DVD reader/writer would sell like hotcakes methinks.

Re:Good thing

[teh moges]

My god! Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet? The main problem is although the two formats are similar (blue lasers etc) they are mainly NOT compatable, and a dual read player would be priced close to the equivilent of buying the two seperate players and sticky-taping them together.

Re:Good thing

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

For example, a two-hour program in HD creates a digital file roughly 15-25 Gigabytes in size,

They are lying through exaggeration. When most people talk about HD, they are referring to the ATSC standard which is MPEG2 at roughly 8.5GB/hour, tops - and is often null-padded to maintain a constant-bitrate, making the effective bitrate substsantially less than 8.5GB/hour. So a full 2 hour program is 17GB.

When you look at the newer HD formats like Europe is going with, ones that implement MPEG4 or even some of the funky things that Microsoft has already released (Terminator2, bunch of IMAX, and some other hollywood/foreign movies in Europe) then it is relatively easy to get 2 hours of "HD content" on a regular single-layer DVD.

So, if MPEG4 were used to record to permanent storage, regular recordable DVD's would be sufficient.

Re:Good thing

[MrBandersnatch]

Indeed, I was making just the same point (less eliquently) earlier today.

In fact, arnt they using H.264 for blu-ray? Id be interested to know how large a file would be for an hours HD content (on average). Roughly 2 GB would be my guess....I may have to actually try it :)

Re:Good thing

[Ironsides]

As (always) size depends on bitrate. H.264 is supposed to be able to encode at 1/4 the bit rate for equivalent quality. This is theoretical. It depends a lot on the encoder. Also, for some scenes you want higher bitrate. I have heard that HD DVDs (refering to HD, not the standard) might be up to a 40Mbps or more, even though broadcast HDTV is limited to 20Mbps (19.4 in reality, but I'm rounding). BTW, I have not yet heard of an h.264 encoder that will use the full capabilities of the codec yet and 20Mbps is the absolute minimum you need for HD, you really need more.

So, given that, for HD equivalent, we are talking 5 to 10 Mbps for h.264 for HDTV. 10 Mbps = 4.5GB/hour. So a 2 hour movie in h.264 might fit on a standard DVD, but you wouldn't have room for anything but the video track. You still need to get audio on there which is another Gig (assuming you only have one). Extras and everything else will still need to be on a second disk.

Re:Good thing

[Kjella]

They are lying through exaggeration. When most people talk about HD, they are referring to the ATSC standard which is MPEG2 at roughly 8.5GB/hour, tops - and is often null-padded to maintain a constant-bitrate, making the effective bitrate substsantially less than 8.5GB/hour. So a full 2 hour program is 17GB.

When you look at the newer HD formats like Europe is going with, ones that implement MPEG4 or even some of the funky things that Microsoft has already released (Terminator2, bunch of IMAX, and some other hollywood/foreign movies in Europe) then it is relatively easy to get 2 hours of "HD content" on a regular single-layer DVD.

While you are correct, the ATSC standard is also quite heavily compressed compared to current DVDs. Notice that 1920x1080 = 6x 720x480. 54GB Blu-Ray = 6x 9GB DVD. If we are going for MPEG4 in Europe, I missed it completely. TV broadcasts in my country are none OTA, none cable, I think one pan-european on satellite. The first people see of HDTV will probably be the PS3. I don't think you can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and a 9GB WMV on a 1280x720 or 1368x768 TV though, and that's what 99% of the marketed HDTVs have. On the other hand, for example Terminator 2 was released 2,5 years ago and Microsoft has completely failed to bring HDTV movies to the mass market.

Right now I don't think it's about the technology be it HD-DVD, Blu-Ray or WMV DVDs, it is about getting a solid player base deployed. Xbox 360 doesn't have the market share nor HD-DVD, Intel VIIV doesn't have enough consumer appeal, and where the fuck are the WMV DVDs, except a few "proof-of-concepts"? It all depends how long the PS3 will drag out though, they don't want to say anything at CES meaning it's quite a while off. All in all it seems to me they've all dropped the ball.

Re:Good thing

[tokenhillbilly]

Actually, I believe that most DVD's today use VBR (Variable Bit Rate) "Program Streams" (not to be confused with MPEG-2 Transport Streams used by broadcasters) and therefore do not pad out the content. This is the same technique used for ATSC broadcast. The 19.2 Mbps equals roughly the 8.5 GBph or 20 GB for a movie with extras and multiple audio tracks.

I saw an article that SONY had decided to stick with MPEG2 initially for HD DVD releases (of course they will use Blu-Ray format). Their thinking was that th

Re:Good thing

[maynard]

A dual layered disc may have enough storage space, but are you sure that DVD player would have the bandwidth from laser to data bus to pump an MPEG4 stream in real time? --M

Re:Good thing

[default luser]

Without question. The maximum read speed of DVD is 10Mbit/s.

You ever see a Superbit DVD? They run the video at almost 9Mbps and use the other ~1Mbps for a DTS (754Kbps) and Dolby 5.1 (384Kbps) stream. There is nothing else on the disc.

The Terminator 2 HD DVD does something similar: it use WMV9 for the video and audio, meaning much more quality for the same 10Mbit data rate, and the movie is the only thing on the disc. .h264 should improve things even more, once encoders get better.

Re:Good thing

[maynard]

Interesting. I knew the maximum data transfer rate (though I thought it topped out ~9Mbits/sec), but didn't know the newer codecs could actually stream HD in such a tiny pipe. Guess it makes sense if MPEG2 streams in 19Mbits/sec though. Thanks for the reply BTW.

I for one..

[doormat]

I, for one, welcome our new DRM overlords.

Good god

[grasshoppa]

That "article" is a press release. Written by Fugifilm, or someone that thinks very very highly of them.

I mean, it's nice to know that they predict mid 2006 for the arrival of the media, but that's really the only nugget of news in both the article and /. summary.

Re:Good god

[underpar]

Only through leading chemical knowledge and manufacturing expertise can a company produce this precise a product with durability and performance, at a competitive cost.

That's not marketing speak! That's honest journalism.

Re:Good god

[game kid]

I take it more that mid-2006 will be more the arrival of the HD/BR media blitz than actual goods. I expect Spring (or even that holy, un-commercialized *ahem* day of Easter) to be a season where the media companies persuade people on TV (watch for changes in the Nightly News and TRL commercials!) that their formats, while restrictive to consumers (they won't say that out loud obviously) will be necessary for living.

I expect something like "Unlike VHS and DVD, you'll be able to see the pimples on your yo

WHA?

[LividBlivet]

"or 8,000 times more data than a human brain retains in a lifetime." Since when did the human brain retain 125GB of data? Anyone know where this comes from or did they just pull it out of their ass?

Re:WHA?

[drinkypoo]

They just pulled it out of their ass. It looks a lot like the brain has a hologrammatic information storage system based on interference patterns between quantum fluctuations stored in calcium dendrites which are attached to neurons. As such, it is capable of storing representations of basically infinite amounts of information, much as a hologram does - if you remove part of a hologram, then the whole of the image is preserved, but the entire thing loses quality. If you remove part of the human brain, then the whole of memory is preserved, but it is also degraded (to some degree) as a whole.

The 125 GB thing is as purely bullshit as the 30 Hz vision thing (it's a guideline, not a rule, and vision has nothing to do with scanning rates unless you're a computer) and should be disregarded completely. No one has any fucking idea what the upper limit on human information storage is.

Re:WHA?

[Kijori]

The question though isn't the maximum amount the brain can hold, but how much it can hold in a lifetime. Surely the number they quote could be an estimate of the amount the brain takes in in a lifetime, which you could estimate very roughly by recording all of someone's sensory inputs in a day and finding the size of the part they can recall, then extrapolating.
I'm not saying that 125GB is by any stretch of the imagination accurate, but I don't think it's meant to reflect a maximum capacity.

Re:WHA?

[drinkypoo]

It's also a bunch of crap from that standpoint, because no part of the brain or body is digital, except maybe the fingers and toes, ha-ha. Seriously though folks, we have no digital inputs. You can't measure our information process in bits or anything based on bits. It doesn't work. We're not based on powers of two, or powers of ten, we're based on analog values.

Re:WHA?

[drinkypoo]

Well, the amount of data that can be thruput by the brain can be measured in GB/s since the protien chains used to transmit the data although analog in nature have the 'same' storage capacity when calculated digitally as when measured in analog

This sentence does not evaluate well. Putting a word in quotes (or in this case, ticks) is not valid when the meaning of that word is what has to be established by your sentence!

If you measure analog storage, then it's time-based and you have to have an idea

Re:WHA?

[GlassHeart]

Just because something is inherently analog doesn't mean that you can't use digital units as an approximation. For example, NTSC television is analog, but we can say it's roughly 640x480x24, which is already an overestimate. Now, if you take the human ear as an example, we know roughly what frequencies it can hear, which is how we came up with the so-called CD-quality audio of 16 bit amplitude at 44 KHz. CDs are, of course, a commercial estimate, so a scientific one that satisfies even the most sensitive hu

Re:WHA?

[Shawn Parr]

which is how we came up with the so-called CD-quality audio of 16 bit amplitude at 44 KHz

Actually 44.1 was choosen as it was originally supposed to be 48KHz, but at that sampling rate with the size of the disc decided upon there was not enough space for the then president of Sony's favorite recording of Beethovin's 9th Symphony to fit on a single disc.

Sony engineers moved to 44.1KHz to make their president happy. It was as high resolution as they could get with the amount of time they needed. There were also battles to keep it at 16 bits as numerous entities wanted to use 14 bits. Thank goodness they didn't do that as that difference would be much more noticeable to the average listener than dropping from 48k to 44.1.

Not true

[ElephanTS]

44.1kHz was chosen because it's a sub-carrier of the PAL frequency used to broadcast TV in Europe/Asia. There are two types even: pro and consumer (44100 and 44109 I think but I forget the details). It was to make the broadcast of digital sound (Like NICAM) easier to do over analogue pictures. Nobody predicted digital pictures at that time, just digital sound. What you've said is an urban myth.

Whoa, what's that you say?

[kripkenstein]

Disclaimer: I am a doctoral student in a computational neuroscience program.

1) "quantum fluctuations" - there is no sizeable portion of the neuroscience community that believe this. Quantum effects are considered negligible for neuronal behavior.

2) "calcium dendrites which are attached to neurons" - dendrites are PARTS of neurons (the part that gets input from other neurons), not something attached to them. Yes, certain dendrites are sensitive to calcium. But other neurotransmittors are just as import

Re:WHA?

[TheDoctorWho]

I too question that the Human brain only 'retains' 125 GB of data. Is 'retain' the key word here? Stoopid.

Re:WHA?

[JonN]

http://www.sizes.com/people/brain.htm [sizes.com]
http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/The_Great_Gray_Ra velled_Knot.htm [geocities.com]

"Robert Birge (Syracuse University) who studies the storage of data in proteins, estimated in 1996 that the memory capacity of the brain was between one and ten terabytes, with a most likely value of 3 terabytes. Such estimates are generally based on counting neurons and assuming each neuron holds 1 bit. Bear in mind that the brain has better algorithms for compressing certain types of information than computers do."

"The human brain contains about 50 billion to 200 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100 trillion (10 14) to 10 quadrillion (10 16) synaptic junctions. Each synapse possesses a variable firing threshold which is reduced as the neuron is repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000 shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to 1,000 terabytes. (Of course, if the brain's storage of information takes place at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X 10 19 bytes.)"

Both from Google Answers [google.com]

Re:WHA?

[bhima]

Obviously these people have never observed my ex-wife and her capacity to remember ancient transgressions or her ability to loose keys.

Re:WHA?

[Dog Chapman]

All the relevant information can be found here. [imdb.com]

Re:WHA?

[Lugae]

Maybe it's stored in .DOC format.

Re:Easy way to read

[vertinox]

"or 8,000 times more data than a human brain retains in a lifetime." Since when did the human brain retain 125GB of data? Anyone know where this comes from or did they just pull it out of their ass?

Step 1: Go to Library Of Congress
Step 2: Start reading...
Step 3: Tell us when you are done.

Re:WHA?

[pierpa]

Johnny Mnemonic [classictrailers.co.uk] (1995) had a mere 320 GB memory stick in his head.

Re:WHA?

[Gnutte]

That is totally incorrect! Everybody knows that a human brain can carry 160 GB. And if you do not like your childhood memories, you could go up to 320 GB.

What Would Bob Metcalfe Say?

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

I was at Best Buy and am pretty sure I overheard Bob Metcalfe going off to one of the sales staff about how much _both_ nex-gen DVD formats suck, since neither can handle the forthcoming Video Internet. He suggested that newer DVD formats be developed to take hold in the next few years.

So I'd, you know, save my money for now. (You'll probably need it for a new operating system anyway, based on some other stuff he was saying.)

Re:What Would Bob Metcalfe Say?

[chris_eineke]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Its gots us a New Meme.

Sincerely,
    the Slashdot Hive Mind

"ensure the precision [...] of signal strength"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, HD-DVD uses analog recording now? Floating point? How exactly do you make a binary signal more "precise"?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

How about...

[grub]

...giving us reasonably priced dual-layer DVD-R first?

Re:How about...

[slavemowgli]

Once double-layer DVD-Rs won't be the "best" (i.e., biggest) media anymore, they'll drop in price pretty quickly.

Re:How about...

[redfieldp]

Why would the release of one technology somehow be linked to another completely indpendent technology? Dual Layer DVD-R is part of the old standard of DVD's. Yes, it's nice to have the additional capacity, but it's pretty unrelated to the new standard of HD DVD's. I mean, the release of hybrid cars doesn't make regular cars cheaper - although it is an alternative. Just because two technologies are able to substitute each other doesn't mean that their production costs are linked.

Re:How about...

[burndive]

You, my friend, should never have successfully passed an economics class. We're not talking production cost here; we're talking percieved value, the English word for which is "price."

In the case of a factory, typically factories operate at a profit in order to recoup the cost of building the factory plus a little more. When the product being produced has a "better" replacement available, the owners of the factory are going to continue to produce until the cost at which they can sell the goods goes below t

Re:How about...

[redfieldp]

Your post implies that when a new product comes to market, a series of events occurs that "reduces the wholesale cost of outmoded goods".

What you completely ignore is that the OP states "How about...giving us reasonably priced dual-layer DVD-R first?" (my emphasis). This implies that they would like market prices of Dual Layer drives to drop BEFORE the advent of HD DVD's, completely circumventing the market forces you describe in your post.

Given that, the OP does relate to production costs (ie. the c

Re:How about...

[burndive]

Why would the release of one technology somehow be linked to another completely indpendent technology?

This is the qustion I was answering. The question was followed by an analogy speculating that the price of regular cars would not be effected by hybrid cars entering the market, which, according to economists, is false.

My response does address the OP's question that you have quoted. He is dissappointed that the price of DVD Burners isn't going to be as cheap as he wants them to be *before* a competin

Re:How about...

[Kjella]

...giving us reasonably priced dual-layer DVD-R first?

Why? If it's easier to produce single layer discs, bring them on. And if you skip the 54GB Blu-ray DLs too and go straight for single layer UV discs or whatever, I'm fine with that too. The economics of pressed and burned discs are different, and there's no reason why we have to go through exactly the same stages.

Re:How about...

[grub]

New formats won't play in current DVD players. Dual layer burners are the norm but the media is still far too expensive for everyday use.

Fuji and the Brain

[digitaldc]

"A single terabyte of holographic disc storage is roughly the equivalent of 16 days of continuously running DVD movies, or 8,000 times more data than a human brain retains in a lifetime."

It's funny that the same human brain that created this breakthrough can't match its capacity, but it is still smart enough to create a device that can.

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[IAmTheDave]

It's funny that the same human brain that created this breakthrough can't match its capacity, but it is still smart enough to create a device that can.

This is the entire human/machine paradox wrapped up into one sentence. We posess the innovative genius to eventually create machines which are for all intents and purposes, smarter than we are. Even though these machines are smarter, will they ever match human ingenuity? Are we as a race ready to accept man-made devices that become smarter than the man w

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[digitaldc]

"Even though these machines are smarter, will they ever match human ingenuity? Are we as a race ready to accept man-made devices that become smarter than the man who created them?"

Machines will never be as innovative as humans simply for the fact that they can't love, feel pain, or get drunk.
See? I did learn something from all those years of watching Star Trek.

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[Jerry Rivers]

"Machines will never be as innovative as humans simply for the fact that they can't love, feel pain, or get drunk."

Yet. I'm not sure I want to underestimate human ingenuity that much. I'm not prepared to say "never." If life follows science fiction there will indeed one day be artificial humans that can do those things.

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[digitaldc]

"Yet. I'm not sure I want to underestimate human ingenuity that much. I'm not prepared to say "never." If life follows science fiction there will indeed one day be artificial humans that can do those things."

Blade Runner (Director's Cut) fan I see :)

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[dal20402]

can't love, feel pain, or get drunk

My Mac OS 9 box had no trouble acting drunk.

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[hackstraw]

We posess the innovative genius to eventually create machines which are for all intents and purposes, smarter than we are.

So, we've used levers and machines that are much stronger than our weak bodies that can lift hundreds of tons. Even a baseball bat swung by someone is more likely to kill them than their bare fists

Even though these machines are smarter, will they ever match human ingenuity? Are we as a race ready to accept man-made devices that become smarter than the man who created them?

Again, the bat

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[everphilski]

You can't memorize the entire contents of the national archive, but you could read a good chunk of (the public vaults) in your lifetime. There is a difference between processing and retention (the exact word they used). You read shakespeare and you will remember the plot, and a few good lines. But you couldn't recite it word for word, or remember which line ended which page, etc. The brain has a humungous capacity, someone pegged it once at between 1 and 10 terabytes (whether they are right or not is still

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[GlassHeart]

It's funny that the same human brain that created this breakthrough can't match its capacity, but it is still smart enough to create a device that can.

Just like we have nutcrackers that can do what our fingers alone cannot. The more we understand our brains, the less astonishing it would seem to beat it. Remember, we already have cheap machines that can outplay almost every last human at chess, as well as even cheaper machines that can multiple big numbers faster than any human can*.

* note that human-ca

Re:Fuji and the Brain

[SouthOfHeaven]

So you say i cannot watch 16 days of DVDs ?? hopefully they will put that on a warning sticker when they come up with the said medium.

WARNING: Do not attemt to watch this whole disk it will cause you to forget everything you know.

No we aren't

[squoozer]

"Consumers are driving demand for interactive gaming and entertainment applications that require enormous storage capacity,"

Eh? What is this guy going on about? The number of pieces of media, excluding films, that come in DVD format is tiny. I admit that I haven't bought many games recently but I don't own a single one in DVD format and I don't remember seeing any that did. As for music - well enough said. So I ask you: what are there entertainment applications (not it's plural) that require massive storage?

The other thing I have a problem with is the way they bang on about perfecting the media before it hits the market. Isn't that what's supposed to happen anyway? Perhaps we have all just become used to things not working for the first couple of releases.

Re:No we aren't

[nutshell42]

Eh? What is this guy going on about? The number of pieces of media, excluding films, that come in DVD format is tiny.

Apart from a few hundred million PS2 and Xbox games sold over the last 5 years.

I admit that I haven't bought many games recently but I don't own a single one in DVD format and I don't remember seeing any that did.

Part of the reason could be that you're living in the US. e.g. from what I've heard Civ4 ships on 2 CDs in the US and 1 DVD in Europe (well at least I've got a DVD and I didn't

Re:No we aren't

[squoozer]

Nope, I'm in the UK. I hadn't realized that Civ4 shipped on DVD (I was looking at buying it the other day as well). Yes there are a few games that ship on DVD but compared to the number that ship on CD it's tiny. Even when it does ship on DVD I'll bet that it only uses around half the space available. That then brings us round to my original question: what needs all this extra space? If most games now fit easily into 4GB why do we need 40 or more?

I'm not trying to say 4GB should be enough for anyone forev

Re:No we aren't

[nutshell42]

Sorry, I'm bitter about the DVD thingy because I liked high quality cutscenes in PC games when they still existed. Nowadays the presentation of PC games is shit compared to console games and it's not just the fault of the budgets. Also I'm glad that I no longer (I assume/hope/pray that Civ4 isn't just an exception) have to pay 10 EUR more just to be spared the usually dreadful translation.

I doubt that aside from a few Japanese RPGs and some very extensive simulations (GT4 iirc was a tight fit and it uses a

Re:No we aren't

[toleraen]

The number of pieces of media, excluding films, that come in DVD format is tiny.

You might want to take a look something called the "video game console" market. The most recent home system devices (read: the last 5 years) release a significant portion of their games on DVD. As a multi-billion dollar business, it could be something worth investigating.

HVD due Q3 2006...

[MrBandersnatch]

According to an article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatil e_Disc [wikipedia.org]) a 300GB HVD disk is due Q3 2006 and an 800GB disk in 2007. If the cost of HVD manages to reach a similar price point to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD then both these media are going to end up dead in the water.....

Re:HVD due Q3 2006...

[superpulpsicle]

The original holographic storage was supposed to be in the form of a cube. After the 300GB HVD "disk" we are just scratching the surface of what's to come.

Re:HVD due Q3 2006...

[Kjella]

Does it have content? The production lines? Most importantly, how insanely expensive is it? Quote:

However, an HVD reader currently costs approximately US$15,000 , and a single HVD disk currently costs approximately US$120.

READER costs 15k? I'm sure burning a holodisc is far more complex than one/two layer discs, so I wouldn't dare to ask how much that costs. Blu-Ray burners have already been shipping in Japan at $5k range for special interest markets. Estimated cost for the PS3 BD-player is $100. HVD is off

Re:HVD due Q3 2006...

[LordKronos]

Reread the numbers in that Wiki entry carefully. That's 300 gigabit and 800 gigabit (or 37.5 gigabyte and 100 gigabyte).

Re:HVD due Q3 2006...

[MrBandersnatch]

The notation there used for the sizes is somewhat confusing, however given the source for that article (I cant find the original press release) refers to uses Terabytes and Tb, I thinks its safe to say that it is as I originally stated, GB (and hopefully GiB).

So what

[Saint37]

If the industry can't agree on the DRM that will be put in place what does it matter if panasonic has players and fuji has media?

http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/ [stockmarketgarden.com]

first videos to be released on Blu-ray

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6296434.htm l [videobusiness.com]

Rings, Harry and Kong to go high-def
As studios dish slate news at Consumer Electronics Show
By Scott Hettrick 1/3/2006

JAN. 4 | The Mission: Impossible and Lord of the Rings trilogies as well as Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Peter Jacksons King Kong all will be released on high-definition digital discs this year.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week, almost every studio is expected to announce the first slate of high-def digital d

See ya in '08

[RyoShin]

Perhaps I'm one of the few that prefer riding the middle of the wave of technology, or the fact that I'm relatively non-wealthy prohibits me from buying the latest and greatest, but I'm going to wait a while for this to work itself out.

Balancing between DVD+ and DVD- is a pain enough as it is; having worked at both Best Buy and Wal-mart (in Electronics) for a short amount of time, the most asked question about writable media is "What's the difference between + and -?" followed by "Which one should I get?". It helps that most DVD burners are dual-format, so there isn't much of a worry about which one to buy, so after the initial explanation it isn't that much of a problem. (DVD Recorders, for TVs, tend to stick to one format for the cheaper ones, though I've found that some can record both even if they only list one.)

If HD DVD and Blu-ray are a format war, I'm living in Switzerland. Unless they create at least a reader that can read both formats (I haven't heard of one, yet), one will come out on top. In the mean time, I am not going to spend my money on media and a player that may quickly go defunct, especially if the various Hollywood studios split on which format to use (assuming they don't do both.)

I can see this being a big headache for stores- so many ill-informed (or just ignorant) consumers are going to buy one of the new discs, take it home, and be utterly miffed that it won't play on their player. They'll take it back, throw a tantrum, then pick out a different movie to exchange- and it will be in the same format as the one they just returned.

I figure it will take about two years for one of these formats to come out the winner. Unfortunatly, Sony's Blu-ray will probably take the cake, as it's being incorporated in the PS3, which could sell like the PS2 at its release. Hello, Mr. DRM!

In the mean time, since most companies will probably be wary over the format war, most movies/series will still be released on regular DVD, to the delight of myself and most consumers. It works great. The quality of DVDs are fine, in my opinion, and I don't have to worry about buying a new player (or three).

The best ending would be that both formats fail, and I don't think this is out of the question. While the "hipsters" out there may want bigger and better, middle America is a-ok with DVDs, and will probably still be by 2008. With both formats failed, either the various companies will realize that they need one standard and work together on that, or we'll just replay the whole thing over again.

Re:See ya in '08

[MrP-(at work)]

This is why HD-DVD should win.

If HD-DVD wins, you don't need buy a new player. Just play the HD-DVDs in your current DVD player. Then in 2008 when the HD-DVD players are cheap, you can buy a new HD-DVD player and you'll already have a nice collection of HD-DVDs.

Blu-Ray REQUIRES a new player, HD-DVD is backwards compatible (it contains a non-HD-DVD layer)

Re:See ya in '08

[Txiasaeia]

Link? Proof?

Re:See ya in '08

[WuphonsReach]

IIRC, there was also talk of adding a DVD layer to BluRay disks. So they would have the same capability as the HD-DVD discs in that regards.

Was a story here a few months ago where the "DVD compatible layer" idea was discussed...

Re:See ya in '08

[spacefight]

If HD DVD and Blu-ray are a format war, I'm living in Switzerland.

Welcome to Switzerland :)

Re:See ya in '08

[mamer-retrogamer]

Unless they create at least a reader that can read both formats (I haven't heard of one, yet), one will come out on top.

Not necessarily. See DVD-Audio vs. SACD.

Re:See ya in '08

[16K Ram Pack]

DVD offered a performance benefit to everyone. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray don't.

Right now, the TV equipment is similar to the broadcast/media quality. To enjoy HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, you'll need a new TV.

Some gadget freaks will pay up, but most people won't want to put down a grand just to watch films in higher quality. They'll wait until their TV dies and then get a new one.

I don't think the takeup is going to be like DVD was.

DRM and The BluRay

[eliminated]

I agree with the other person, I also enjoy the DRM warlords *wink wink* The sole purpose of DRM is to prevent us from so-called pirating movies/games/television shows. Well here comes a new contender, BluRay with its storage capacity to fit HD TV and movies on; well since DRM is a total POS, what's the point of Panasonic ever coming out with a BluRay writer if Microsoft and Sony *one of the primary sources of funding for BluRay* has complete control over it. Its another horrible attempt at controlling the

Ram Doubler

[Anonymous Coward]

The Human Brain can take up 125 gb of starage unless you get a ram doubler, this will enable a maximum starage capacity of 300gb, but you have to watch out for memory leakage if you dont offload it in 24hours

I wonder.

[millennial]

Nero Burning ROM 7 supposedly has support for Blu-Ray discs (you can select it as a disc type when burning a disc image). I wonder if it actually supports them, or if it's just a placeholder for future functionality?

Worthwhile

[Gogo0]

So does anyone else with an HDTV not care about these HD formats?

I have a very nice home theatre and a huge HDTV, but I am not going to pay out the nose for something JUST because it will be in HD (*coughXbox2*).

First off, these first gen players are going to suck. First gen DVD players? They dont upscale, they dont have any advanced features, you wont find any with DVI or HDMI, and the PQ is sorely lacking in comparison to even a cheap DVD player today. It WILL be the same with these new HD players.

truth...?

[dartarrow]

I work with one of the founding company of BluRay. For both business and technological reasons we will not begin production on end consumer blu-ray til '07 which means it will probably begin popularity in '08 provided all else goes very well. Shift from DVD has not started, in fact we have *just* started production on a next generation DVD-RW which comes with 400 gb HDD. A batch of 700 gb HDDs arrived coupla months ago for testing but never passed for production. However prototypes on bluray has been around