×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

Blu Ray (3, Interesting)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102025)

Good thing we all updated early to the blu-ray player, when something is about to come along to blow it out of the water, right at about the time when DVDs are reaching the point where people need more than 2-3 DVDs for games/movies (which is the point at which CDs were phased out, and floppy disks).

Re:Blu Ray (5, Informative)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102129)

Good thing we all updated early to the blu-ray player, when something is about to come along to blow it out of the water

There's always something better coming along. In this case it's pretty much just a research paper, not an actual product, so not all that exciting.

And Blu-ray had burnable 4-layer (100GB) discs two years ago.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Informative)

halsver (885120) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102213)

From the article:
"The huge capacity of these discs means that the new technology will be best suited for applications such large volume data archiving, rather than consumer use."

The tech they are using to read so many layers of information is impressive. However as the article states, this format is in no way intended for consumers.

Your BluRay hardware is probably safe for another five years or so.

Re:Blu Ray (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102401)

A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.

And there's always tape for true archiving.

Re:Blu Ray (3, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102439)

A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.

And there's always tape for true archiving.

But you can't go out and buy ST:TNG seasons 1-7 on HDD.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Funny)

8282now (583198) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102505)

A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.

And there's always tape for true archiving.

But you can't go out and buy ST:TNG seasons 1-7 on HDD.

But as soon as a generous person does, no one else needs to ;)

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102671)

On a less piratical note, distributing movies on HDD would be interesting. The HDD would be in a study case and easily inserted into the player. The HDD would not have the same data through-put issues the optical media has, but would suffer being less reliable due to the mechanical nature of the HDD. And not as study if you drop it or allow your toddler to gnaw on it while they are teething.

Re:Blu Ray (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102719)

STURDY for fucks sake

Re:Blu Ray (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102791)

This has some wicked "sneakernet" potential.

It's like the pirates answer to Netflix.

A EEE and 2 drives, one full and one empty.

What will the media moguls do when the mundanes re-discover the swapping party?

Re:Blu Ray (1)

linal (1116371) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102833)

surely you would use solid state hard drives although they are still really expensive. But isn't that a step back to using cartridges?

Re:Blu Ray (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102843)

Small (say, 1.8") hard drives have VERY high G-shock resistance while turned off. (Shock-G resistance varies.)

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103767)

Too large. Personally, I figure a mating between a Tivo and iTunes to be the future - buy your movie online, have it download to your media center for play. Time needed? With a good internet connection, about what you'd need to run to the store, find the movie, purchase it, and get home. Even for HD, you'd have enough buffer built up by then to be able to watch the rest of it.

Either that or you do a jpg style 'don't need all the data to show a lower res picture'. Give it more time to download and you get a better picture.

If you DO manage to fill up the 2 1TB HDs, have some sort of predictive system that deletes the less popular movies, keeping them available to download again if you decide to watch it again.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102639)

You can't go out and buy those shows on some high capacity bluray disc either.

OTOH, it's not that much trouble to buy the original DVD format and make your own disk.

With a modern codec, the entire series should easily fit onto an entire bus powered 2.5 USB drive.

2 large bluray discs would work too...

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Broken Toys (1198853) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102859)

And that's a bad thing?

There are only probably two episodes I'd watch a second time. I'd certainly rewatch the episode where they blow up the Enterprise five times - stuck in another chronological anomoly.

Yeah, off topic, mod me into oblivion.

Long term data storage (3, Interesting)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103025)

A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.

I'm curious as to on what you base your statement that a 500 GB HDD will last decades. Can you cite a study on the long-term storage reliability of modern hard disk designs? In my personal experience, disks which have sat unused for several years sometimes don't spin up. They're not designed for that.

I'll also point out that the equipment needed to read an ST-506 hard disk -- introduced circa 1980, thus "decades" -- would likely be somewhat hard to find and integrate into a modern operation. It might not be "fancy hardware", but the end result (high cost) is the same.

I'm not dismissing the use of hard disks for archiving in general; I just find some of your claims dubious.

One thing that seems to be true is that storage is getting cheaper and bigger all the time. Thus for some applications, it may actually be cost-effective to keep all your archives online (disks spinning), with redundancy, and simply upgrade to newer, larger drives as old ones fail. Capacity keeps growing for new data, and old data keeps getting copied to new media. That eliminates the concerns about keeping equipment around to read old media. As an added bonus, everything is online all the time.

Re:Long term data storage (2, Interesting)

mitgib (1156957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103699)

One thing that seems to be true is that storage is getting cheaper and bigger all the time.

How about faster? That is my desire, and hardware SAS and SATA raid arrays are just not fast enough for what I am interested in. I saw a new device recently that was mentioned here, the Fusion IO [fusionio.com] , that is 1000 times faster, but is cost prohibitive yet, and small in size still, like 320gb is as large as offered. At $30/GB it has a long way to go before it is really mainstream and I don't see that happening for quite some time since they have their production sold out for months on end. At least that was what I was told after contacting their sales department. It is supported in the CentOS 5.2 kernel though, so that was a major plus to me, and no Windows support yet either, another major plus to me.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102755)

And it's not really going to go anywhere. More layers = exponentially lower yields. Despite the increased packaging overhead, it's generally better to ship multiple discs.

If anyone doubts this is an issue, you might want to ask why anyone went with blue lasers for the HD formats in the first place. DVD can be increased to 50G just by making the discs 10-11 layers. Everyone's known how to do that for a while, there's even a (real, disks being pressed, players being made) HD format called HD-VMD that works exactly that way. The DVD Forum could have made HD DVD use that format, and would have thus killed Blu-ray's chances completely by making profitable sub-$100 players, in massive quantities. The only cost-adding modification you'd have to make to a DVD drive to make this work is to dampen the noise due to the 3-5X spin increase.

It didn't happen because the media itself is just too expensive in practice. It costs 10x as long to press a ten layer DVD as a single layer DVD, and if any of those layers are corrupt, then the entire effort was wasted.

Re:Blu Ray (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102165)

Well DVD Audio and SACD never really caught on, because CDs are good enough quality for 99% of the population. The advantages of BluRay over upconverted DVD is minimal at best. Even if BluRay catches on, I can't see anybody wanting to move to yet another format. Especially since we don't even have TVs that go beyond 1080p, which BluRay already supports.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102209)

We do have TVs that support higher color depths though.

48 or even 36 bit color is something I would actually upgrade for.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

trickno (1227142) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103167)

I seriously hope you are kidding. At best, a Human eye can distinguish 24 bit (16.7 million colors), although most experts expect that range to be around 10 million colors. At 36 bit you are looking at roughly what.... 68 BILLION colors. At 48 Bit... A little over 281 trillion colors. Seems to me to be a little overkill.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

lyml (1200795) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103517)

It's easy to test, startup Photoshop (or Gimp or in my case Paint.NET) make a gradient from one color extreme to another (for example: #00ffff->#ffffff) over an area that is alot bigger than 256 pixels wide (something in the area of 768+ wide) at 100% zoom.

If you can see stripes in the gradient then you can see more than 24 bit colors (or you could have a display with less than 24 bit colors). Personally I can see barely make them out, but then again I'm young.

Re:Blu Ray (0, Flamebait)

Hairy Heron (1296923) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102295)

The advantages of BluRay over upconverted DVD is minimal at best.

You must have a shitty tv or are blind to make such a stupid statement.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102669)

You must have a shitty tv or are blind to make such a stupid statement.

No. The only people who really care whether they are watching an up-converted DVD or a blu-ray are are videophile snobs looking to justify the expense, who pause the movie to point at some intricate pattern in the corner of the screen and gloat.

The average person can tell them apart side by side. The average person, once instructed what to look for, can see the up-conversion artifacts.

But when actually watching a movie, it just doesn't really matter, and most people can't tell the difference in a blind test, where they get to watch a few seconds of a random scene movie in just one format and then decide. I've done this with a number of people with a few movies I have in both formats, on a number of different TVs from plasma to DLP.

Bluray is the better picture (and sound), there is no question, but the difference is incremental, and ultimately pretty minor. Especially when compared with the transition from VHS to DVD. --THAT-- is a transition the average person can tell apart easily, and then you factor in all the extra convenience of the DVD format in terms of form factor and features. DVDs were worth re-buying much of ones collection in, blu-ray? There's maybe a dozen movies I would consider re-purchasing, and even when buying new, I'll take the usually significantly cheaper DVD version 9 times out of 10.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Interesting)

Comen (321331) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103187)

Call me a snob if you like, that does not change the fact I can tell the difference very quicly on my 56" HDTV between HD content and DVD content, especialy when the HD content was recorded with a HD camera, not upconverted from film.
To me the diffence is as drastic as going from VHS to DVD.
Some people just do not care, and that is fine.
My Dad can sit in front of his 15 year old tv and the picture has a red ghosting hue to it, and drives me nuts but when I tell him he should get a HDTV, he just tells me he likes the one he has just fine, this is a guy that watches every sporting event on TV, and that content is mostly shot with HD cameras, so he would really benefit from the upgrade, but would he care? NO

Re:Blu Ray (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102675)

Your pretentions don't counteract the fact that most of the population
just doesn't care and would be lucky to even NOTICE.

        Of course, it goes without saying that those alleged side-by-side comparisons
they have playing at places like Circuit City are total bullshit. Even the 'blind'
spouse can tell that much.
       

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103863)

Since the DVD and BR movie is often showing on the SAME tv at the same time, split down the middle, I am going to have to agree with you. It always reminds me of the old TV commercials that would show you how much better picture you would have with their brand by showing you the better picture on you set.

4096p or bust! (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103553)

I'll wait for 4096p. The visual difference between 480p and 720p are marginal at best. And 1080i has been a big failure in my opinion. 1080p is interesting in theory, but so far the 1080p Blu-Ray discs out in the wild are .. unexciting.

Re:4096p or bust! (1)

Gravatron (716477) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103727)

Go watch The Shining on blu-ray. It's amazing. Colors are vigrant, detail that we havn't seen in 20+ years shines though, and it's in true widescreen. I was watching it on my friends 28 inch 720p set and it was amazing, I took it home to my 40 inch 1080p set and it was jaw dropping.

Re:Blu Ray (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102301)

The advantages of BluRay over upconverted DVD is minimal at best.

Yeah, but not for the reason you're suggesting. The extra sharpness on the BluRay disk far surpasses your vaunted "upconverted" dvd.

The downside, though, is that they're not using the right compression scheme. Artifacts which I would not have noticed on DVD are readily apparent on BluRay disk. Either they need a better algorithm or a lot more bits.

Which is why many of us believed that HD-DVD was the better option: it was ostensibly cheaper than blu-ray, and both are really transition formats: just enough capacity to make the digital/HD TV revolution possible, but not quite enough to be the end-all storage media for the long haul.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102391)

Artifacts which I would not have noticed on DVD are readily apparent on BluRay disk.

Unless you are talking about film grain, I have no clue what "artifacts" you are talking about as Blu-Ray, outside of the early Mpeg-2 releases, and HD DVD both use more efficient compression codecs than DVD does. If you are talking about film grain, yes it is more apparent now due to the higher resolution which is able to resolve such detail now, but it is supposed to be there.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102835)

I see pixelation in the bluray demo movies that BestBuy like to show.

It's sad really...

Fixating on stuff like this really doesn't pay off in the end.

Once you start down that path, forever will it dominate your destiny...

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103341)

I see pixelation in the bluray demo movies that BestBuy like to show.

If they are showing the exact same program on multiple sets simultaneously then it is not blu-ray, or at least not blu-ray over digital like HDMI. The reason is stupid, it is because of the DRM in HDMI. You can not split an HDMI signal, so it is legally impossible to run the same output to multiple sets.

Re:Blu Ray (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102727)

Blu-ray and HD-DVD support the same compression schemes (for video at least). The difference was that some early blu-ray discs were using mpeg2 (the same that DVDs use) while HD-DVD movies often used one of the better codecs like h.264 and VC-1 already in the beginning of the "war".

Re:Blu Ray (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103647)

From what I remember, The HD-DVD standard required the use of h.264 or VC-1, and had no provisions for the use of MPEG2. Basically, they set a high minimum standard. BluRay on the other hand, while supporting these high def formats, also suppored MPEG2, and a lot of studios chose to use it.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

daybot (911557) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103641)

The downside, though, is that they're not using the right compression scheme. Artifacts which I would not have noticed on DVD are readily apparent on BluRay disk. Either they need a better algorithm or a lot more bits.

It depends on the quality of the transfer. This is why there are lists like these. [avsforum.com]

Rubbish (2, Informative)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103165)

This, frankly, is rubbish.

No matter how good the upscaling chipset is, it cannot divine information that's not on the disc.

It's like taking a 640x480 picture, stretching it to to 1920x1280 and calling it "nearly as good."

All this talk of "bluray not catching" is just a matter of time. I never gave bluray a second thought until I bought an HDTV. Soon after, I bought a bluray.

And before long, everybody will be buying HDTV's. Many will wait until their existing set bites the dust, but it will happen, just as everybody eventually switched to Color, then to Stereo.

Re:Rubbish (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103673)

It's not rubbish. Because if the different in that data is so marginal that it is nearly undetectable by half the population, then what is the point? People currently are buying Blu-Ray players because it is technically better, not because they experience anything different when they watch movies. I think a good audio system (compared to simple front stereo) has far more impact than adding a little more than double the lines to a film.

The 1920x1280 versus 640x480 analogy is not a good one because the perception of 1920x1280 being better is mostly due to having more desktop space and the ability to have smaller fonts. If OSes really respected DPI and just rendered fonts with more pixels as you increased the resolution then the experience of a higher resolution display would not be so dramatically different from a lower resolution display.

I think a better analogy would be a 4 cylinder engine versus a turbo charged 6 cylinder. Most people don't need the big 6, just like they don't need HDTV.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

Madball (1319269) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103357)

IMHO 80% of the advantage comes from the sound perspective. Image-wise, Hi-Def is a moderate improvement. Sound-wise, Dolby 5.1 (or DTS or 6.1 or 7.1) is a giant improvement over Dolby Pro-Logic. Not only can you get real immersive sound effects, but the clarity of dialogue is improved a hundredfold.

Re:Blu Ray (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102187)

We had SDTV for nearly a century, and we had VHS for what, decades?

DVD's reign will be about 2 decades.

BluRay will be what, 1 decade?

HDTV will soon be replaced with SHDTV and other such nonsense.

Keep 'em spendin'!

Re:Blu Ray (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102471)

You mean UHDTV [wikipedia.org] , right?

Re:Blu Ray (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102709)

Some people call this Quad HD.

This is probably close to the max potential for 35mm film sources.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102467)

The price point needs to be there as well. Companies need to pick a format and stick with it and get the price point low enough that people can afford the new media.

With the cartridge you could order as much storage as you needed for that particular game. Now companies are trying to find a one size fits all solution which will never exist. ###GB will never be enough for everyone.

My guess is that eventually solid state drives will replace the current one size fits all approach. You don't have to upgrade your computer every time a larger flash drive comes out.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102587)

Good thing we all updated early to the blu-ray player

Sucks to be you all, then. That's what happens when you adopt bleeding edge technology. Didn't any of you all learn anything from Betamax?

I have a nice big forty two inch flat screen analog TV set which I plan to watch until it stops working. As it's analog I have no need for hi-def movies; you might fool non-nerds into thinking a hi-def movie will look better on an analog TV, but we know better. I'll be buying a new DVD polayer shortly, as the one I have now is starting to have trouble with a few DVDs. I'll be spending about 10% as much as someone buying blu-ray.

I'll buy one of these new half-terrabyte drives for computer data backup - when the price becomes reasonable, which it always does.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

AdamTrace (255409) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103379)

First, I don't think BluRay can still be called "bleeding edge", nor do I think it can be compared to Betamax. It might not ever be as popular as VHS and DVD, but it is now THE standard for home high-def disc entertainment (am I wrong?)

Recently, I've spent $2000 on a nice big TV, and $400 on a PS3. I sit smug in my home, watching upconverted DVDs and BluRay movies, as well as lots of high definition cable with a low-end home theater surround sound system. I absolutely love it.

You, on the other hand, have spent close to nothing, and enjoy standard definition TV and DVDs, all the while happy with the fact that you've spent much less money than me.

Who's happier?

I can only speak for myself, but I'd guess neither of us would want to trade places with the other... :)

Adman

Re:Blu Ray (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102645)

what do you mean "we", I'm still waiting for this [arstechnica.com] .

Of course I am also one of those guys still waiting for the media-less age where our infrastructure is strong enough that Terabytes can be pushed across the wire in a trivial way.

Re:Blu Ray (1)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102679)

I'm still waiting for really fast rewriteable storage in the 1000+TB range. I am really tired of having to keep a wall full of optical media for my recorded entertainment. I want something the size of a stereo component or smaller that I can load up with (legally purchased - not rented!) materials and not have to worry about running out of space any time soon. So that means room for (at a minimum) 2K hours of CD quality audio tracks, and 500 hours hi-def (or better) video. It should also be eaily expandable and it should be a simple storage device - let the playback devices worry about the various codecs etc. - all it needs to do is push bytes around.

Obviously, I also want an easy and reasonably priced(8 bucks per movie, 2 dollars per hour of TV programs, 1 dollar per song) means of filling such an appliance with new content as well as free software for transferring all my existing CDs and DVDs to the big honking storage device.

Don't go all nit-picky on me about DRM and other pesky details. I'm just being the idea guy here. I know there will be problems to be addressed. It is up to the "content producers" to see if they are willing to sell at the price I am willing to pay. To help them out, if they will meet my prices, I'll accept some limitations on my rights - for example I won't worry about resale rights. I can sell the entire appliance including content, but not individual items off the device.

Burn time? (4, Interesting)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102051)

Anyone care to venture how long it would take to burn such disc, if it is loaded full?

Re:Burn time? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102141)

Sure. Same as blu-ray write-to-capacity time, x25.

Unless of course you think there will be hardware to burn layers in parallel.

Re:Burn time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102343)

x25 at the fastest. I've noticed that the second layer on dual layer disks is slower to burn, I suspect that because of attenuation going through the first layer. Whatever the reason, it might apply as well to 25 layers disks making deeper layers even slower.

No burning. Less useful than Blu-ray. Lame (2, Funny)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102053)

This is one of somewhere closing on quadrillion (give or take a gazillion) super-duper high capacity optical formats that have been prematurely hyped and then disappeared.

Re:No burning. Less useful than Blu-ray. Lame (2, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102093)

Interestingly, many of these formats were bought by SONY and led out to pasture.

FMD (Fluorescent Multi-Layer Disc) being the most promising (back in the day).

Re:No burning. Less useful than Blu-ray. Lame (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102535)

How is that a bad thing considering SONY have released a useful disk format. You're suggesting that they'd buy a load of companies and then not bother to look into any interesting tech that those companies had been researching? Blu-ray is theoretically capable of holding just as much as these disks if SONY can work out how to do multi-layer work effectively, as Pioneer claim to have done. I'd expect SONY are either close on their heels in R&D terms, or could just license the tech.

The main difference between these 2 formats are that SONYs was out in the market over 2 years ago, and Pioneer has yet to get this tech out of the lab. 2 years ago, a 50GB optical format (dual layer blu-ray) was quite useful, and it still is today. Blu-ray also has rewritable disks in the market.

Really, I don't see what use in the extremely-mild-conspiracy type comment serves.. companies like google and MS always buy out other companies and assimilate their tech. In some cases that can be negative, but in other cases it leads to some great products.

BTW, Wikipedia points out that FMD died because one of their demonstrations was proven to be a hoax [wikipedia.org] . I presume they did have some working tech though because DMD [wikipedia.org] is being developed by a company who acquired Constellation 3D's patents.

I'll believe it when I see it (4, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102139)

Frankly, given the track record of optical formats, I'd be surprised if this ever makes it out of the laboratory, especially given the fact that it has so many layers. With DVD a lot of production companies basically gave up on the dual sided dual layer discs because the yield on 4 layer disks was so bad. Getting a good yield on a 25 layer disc is either an achievement worthy of talking about over the disc, or it's a bunch of lies and marketing hype.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102259)

When I read the article on this yesterday (or the day before? either way, OLD!) they basically had a lot of marketing-speak about how they did just that.

Many layers, and lots of reliability (and tiny American flags) for all.

Re:I'll believe it when I see it (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102657)

TFA suggests that they just improved the laser diode assembly (and probably the firmware) on a drive in the lab, it didn't say anything about mass producing a cost effective systems for consumers though. That's why I'm dubious.

Oh yeah, well I'm promising more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102171)

Today, Tuesday July 8 2008 will be seen as the day that I announced the greatest optical disk ever.
I am promising to come out with a 14.6 TeraByte disk by the end of this year. Yes, it will be five feet wide and access times will be measured in tens of seconds...but by gosh it will be the biggest!

Re:Oh yeah, well I'm promising more (1, Funny)

n1ckml007 (683046) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102239)

Yes, it will be five feet wide and access times will be measured in tens of seconds...but by gosh it will be the biggest!

That's what she said!

Re:Oh yeah, well I'm promising more (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102277)

I don't know what an optical disk is, but an optical disc greater than your already exists in various telescopes and such.

They're very shiny.

Lifespan? (3, Interesting)

s31523 (926314) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102173)

With so many layers, I wonder if the useful lifespan of the disk is shorter than a conventional DVD. The obvious application for these discs is backing up servers and home storage drives.

Re:Lifespan? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102307)

The obvious application is for a patent, so you can sue anyone who tries the next logical step in giving consumers greater capacity.

AND you get to stick it to those pirates at the same time.

This will never see the light of day.

Read Only? (1)

JakeD409 (740143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102181)

So essentially these are high-capacity coasters?

Re:Read Only? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102457)

So essentially these are high-capacity coasters?

No, Laserdisks are (were) high capacity coasters. You could put an entire six-pack on them. These will just hold one drink, like all the other AOL disks.

Re:Read Only? (1)

trrwilson (1096985) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102465)

Yes, this coaster can hold 25 glasses or cups, as opposed to the 1 glass or cup that a normal coaster can hold.

Re:Read Only? (1)

EchaniDrgn (1039374) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103487)

That may be true, but you have to stack them one on top of the other. Thus the "layers."

I didn't RTFA but I guess that's the skill it involves. I've never gotten past stacking seven beer cans one on top of the other before someone wanted a drink. :-)

Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (5, Insightful)

Doghouse Riley (1072336) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102255)

the cost/GB of HDD's. I can buy 750 GB of SATA storage now for the cost of 125 GB worth of BD-RW blanks, and plug it in to any USB2 port I want. For the same cost, I can get a 250 GB USB laptop drive in a self powered enclosure that fits in a shirt pocket. I can only imagine what these 400 GB disks will cost when they hit the market, and what HDD's will cost by then.

Re:Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102323)

Hear hear... and for data fault tolerance, it'll be cheaper to simply mirror a drive than to use one of these things. BR burners are still several hundred bucks and give you 25-50GB of storage. A 1TB drive is $200.

HDDs will always be cheaper than optical media.

Re:Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (1)

jmhoule314 (921571) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103543)

There was a long time when CDs were far cheaper than hard drives. CDRs and CDRWs were around before the 1 GB mark was even reached on hard drives. Do you remember only being able to install a couple of games on your computer and having to run the rest off of the CD?

Re:Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24103171)

You are comparing apples and oranges. Optical discs such as DVDs and BDs are for permanent storage used for distribution and archives. HDDs and Flash devices are for temporary storage for easy read-write activities.

Re:Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24103365)

At this point yes. However in 5-10 years? A burnt disc uses nearly 0w of power over its lifespan. A spinning HD?

The price for it is probably huge. So at this point it is only for those who have gobs of data and are low on actual physical storage space (not byte space). So instead of having to buy say another large fire safe (think hundreds of discs) at a hefty cost. I can use the same one I have and hold say 4x the volume of data?! If the cost of the Safe is more than the cost of the burner and media. Then it is a sound economic move.

Just because *YOU* cant make a case for it doesnt mean others cant. There are other factors sometimes.

That slight scratching sound (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102257)

Was the sound of a single scratch wiping out years of corporate data...

That slight humming sound (2, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102417)

Was that the sound of an electromagnet or disruptor wiping out years of corporate data? The prudent thing would be to not put all your eggs in one basket. Magnetic tape backup is vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation.

Re:That slight scratching sound (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102451)

Was the sound of a single scratch wiping out years of corporate data...

Never worked in an enterprise server room, I take it? 400 GB is nothing. These days, library devices that put 100-200 200GB or 400 GB LTOx tapes are quite common. Multiple backups of the same data are often made -- some to send offsite, some for local storage, etc.

Optical disc storage would have to have similar capability and durability to be used in the enterprise as a serious archival data storage method. Probably some type of cartridge or caddy would be used.

Limited time offer (5, Funny)

cazbar (582875) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102303)

Now you can order a collection of ALL the pornography on the internet on an easy-to-ship 150 disc set. Pioneer drive required.

Re:Limited time offer (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102433)

150 discs?

Surely you mean 150 spindles of discs...

Re:Limited time offer (3, Funny)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103455)

They've compressed it to MPEG-1, transcoded it to FLV, added an Ebaumsworld.com watermark, transcoded it to WMV, added a break.com watermark, and then transcoded it back to FLV, cropped out the watermarks, posted it on youtube, and pressed it to 150 fully DRM compliant disks, for your viewing pleasure.

For an extra 15 dollars/disk, they'll even sync up the audio for you.

BD++ triple AACS CCS CSS DES CCCCC daily licensing (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102349)

If this doesn't make them adopt BD++ triple AACS CCS CSS DES CCCCC encryption daily licencing, nothing will.

Where have I heard this before? (4, Funny)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102425)

Let me guess, it's going to be used to ship the next version of Duke Nukem.

What will you do with it? (1)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102543)

Oh good, a 400 GB read only disc. That means you get 400 GB of zeros for your reading pleasure! What will you do with 400 GB of zeros?

Re:What will you do with it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24102943)

Pressed (production) DVDs are read only. Obviously as with other read-only material they can be written to, just not by you (who is obviously a hard core videophile =/).

rerun (4, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102729)

Too bad InPhase already has had a holographic disk of that capacity for a while now plus a write speed that blows this media away.

duh... (1)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 5 years ago | (#24102915)

[i]The per-layer capacity is 25GB, the same as that of a Blu-ray Disc, and the multilayer technology will also be applicable to multilayer recordable discs[/i] yeah well, maybe it's because the disc the article is referring to IS a 16 layers Blu-ray disc...

convenient (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24103387)

it sure would be nice to have an entire season or even multiple seasons of your favorite tv show on once dvd. right now, a single season is spread between ~8 discs (about 30 GB).

Amazing seek times (2, Interesting)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#24103407)

Essentially wouldn't this be the same as having an 8 platter HD (aside from the slower moving read head)? This could easily outperfom a 2-4 platter Hard drive, no?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...