×

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!

Blu-ray Proposes Incompatible BD-XL and IH-BD Formats

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the it's-that-time-again dept.

Data Storage 252

adeelarshad82 writes "The Blu-ray Disc Association announced upcoming specifications for high-capacity write-once and rewritable discs. The BDA proposed two new formats, BDXL, the name given to new 100GB and 128GB discs; and IH-BD, a so-called 'Intra-Hybrid' disc that will incorporate both read-only and rewritable layers. Specifications for both disc types will be published during the upcoming months. Both formats will be incompatible with existing hardware; however, new players designed to take advantage of the new formats will be able to play back existing Blu-ray discs, which are available in both 25 and 50GB capacity points."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

Designed Obsolescence (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31740800)

How many Blue Ray players am I supposed to buy before they stop coming up with new formats? I bet they keep this sh!t up until the next video format wars. Asshats.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740836)

Highly unlikely this is intended for movies. This is almost certainly designed for backup storage only. Given the exceptionally low penetration of BD on computers, it's fine.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

cbensinger (127227) | about 4 years ago | (#31740960)

And given the size of hard drives how beneficial is this? Why not make try and make the existing drives and media more cost effective instead?

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31741030)

Highly unlikely this is intended for movies. This is almost certainly designed for backup storage only. Given the exceptionally low penetration of BD on computers, it's fine.

Had there been no format war I doubt this would be the case. Apparently they haven't learned that lesson and now we again have two competing formats. In terms of customer adoption and marketshare, this deserves to fail in order to send the message to companies that "useless format wars" == "financial losses". What else would provide a strong enough incentive for them to cooperate long enough to reach agreement on a single good standard?

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741194)

Hopefully since these are both proposed by the same association, they'll pick one to go ahead with before any hardware is on the market. They won't want to be competing with themselves, they just want to shop both formats around a bit and see if there are any bites.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31741302)

Hopefully since these are both proposed by the same association, they'll pick one to go ahead with before any hardware is on the market. They won't want to be competing with themselves, they just want to shop both formats around a bit and see if there are any bites.

The problem is that if this association is one single block of harmony, it would be quite rare among trade groups. That there are two formats already tells me that there are at least two factions within this association who disagree about design decisions. If they don't come to a consensus before hardware is manufactured it will be their declaration to the rest of the world that they are not only too stupid to learn from history, but could not even learn anything from extremely recent history.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 years ago | (#31741196)

What else would provide a strong enough incentive for them to cooperate long enough to reach agreement on a single good standard?

Pah, you forgot that the good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741192)

I read this article a few days ago, and the new formats are not intended for movies. They are for a very small niche market.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

cbensinger (127227) | about 4 years ago | (#31740876)

Agreed. I've got a XBOX360 HD drive and a couple of stand-alone HD-DVD players that gather dust while we watch movies on the PS3's and/or PC's with Blu-Ray drives...

Blu-Ray burners and discs still (at least in my opinion) aren't to a price point where they are common; but yet lets throw another format into the mix. How many of these do they really think the market will bear? These guys never learn....

Re:Designed Obsolescence (3, Insightful)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | about 4 years ago | (#31740964)

And yet, we nerds keep buying the "latest greatest" technology and enabling them. Remember when people used to say paid DLC would never catch on because we were to used to free patches? Same basic principal, certain people gotta have it, though, and that's what gives these companies the ability to keep pushing incompatible the time frame for designed obsolescences shorter and shorter.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#31741492)

Remember when people used to say paid DLC would never catch on because we were to used to free patches?

Nope. I don't remember that. They've had game add-ons for decades, nothing particularly crazy about selling it online.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741654)

Same basic principal

That word. It does not mean what you think it means.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741006)

Don't forget that any media sales that the market wont bear will be blamed on piracy =/

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31741132)

Don't forget that any media sales that the market wont bear will be blamed on piracy =/

This is physical media, not copyrighted content, so I think this is the one case where they won't try that one.

It may even be the opposite. Those countries which place a tax/levy on blank media and then send that money to the copyright cartels are assuming that at least some of those blank media will be used to make copies of copyrighted works. So if these new blank media don't sell because of another needless format war, they would be blatantly contradicting themselves if they blame that on piracy. It would be amusing to watch them try. It might even create a "boy who cried wolf" situation where any laments about piracy are no longer taken seriously by anyone.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741356)

"They're not buying any blank media anymore because everyone is pirating... FROM THE CLOUD! They don't need their own media anymore thanks to that evil cloud hosting and streaming, putting us out of business!"

Seriously, I think these asshats will keep finding excuses to sue people until the courts and society put them in their place permanently. I can only hope that happens soon.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740910)

FTFA:

"Professional industries have expressed a desire to find optical disc solutions that enable them to transition away from magnetic media for their archiving needs."

Not that anyone expects you to RTFA.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0, Troll)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 4 years ago | (#31740936)

I'm hoping everybody remembers this and the ongoing gouging for BD movies next time Sony is involved in a format war.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 4 years ago | (#31741292)

Sony doesn't set movie prices.

I don't understand why Best Buy and other retailers keep trying to charge $35 for a BluRay movie, when Amazon.com has tons for $15-$20 or less. Blame retailers and studios for jacking up prices.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | about 4 years ago | (#31741434)

Sony doesn't set movie prices.

I don't understand why Best Buy and other retailers keep trying to charge $35 for a BluRay movie, when Amazon.com has tons for $15-$20 or less. Blame retailers and studios for jacking up prices.

Sony doesn't set movie prices? So who sets the prices for Sony Pictures releases then? If you think Sony doesn't have a vested interest in high BD prices, you're wrong.

That being said, they're just plain stupid for not realizing there's a LOT more money to be made by selling a lot of BD disks at LOW prices than there is at selling fewer at high prices.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Informative)

EyelessFade (618151) | about 4 years ago | (#31741564)

And how was the DVD prices when this format was new? Exactly how Bluray is now. And I've seen a significant drop in Bluray prices the last 6 months also

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 4 years ago | (#31741574)

Sony sets prices on their movies, but Sony Pictures isn't exactly Disney, Fox, Warner Brothers, etc.

Sony doesn't control ALL movie prices.

You also completely contradict yourself. You suggest Sony is part of some massive conspiracy because it is in their best interest to have high prices, and then immediately after say it is in their best interest to have low prices.

Retailers ultimately set prices. And most retailers are being stupid because Amazon is massively undercutting them.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (5, Informative)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31741878)

You also completely contradict yourself. You suggest Sony is part of some massive conspiracy because it is in their best interest to have high prices, and then immediately after say it is in their best interest to have low prices.

I wouldn't call it conspiracy, I would call it collusion. It's reminiscent of the USA cellphone industry. For example, text messages cost next-to-nothing for the carrier of a CDMA network, and absolutely nothing for the carrier of a GSM network. Yet despite multiple competing cellphone networks, none of them have text message pricing that remotely reflects the actual cost of delivering SMS.

It's not difficult to understand why. It benefits all of the cellphone companies to continue overcharging for this service, and the one company that undercuts the competition and forces all of them to lower their prices is going to ruin the high profit margins for everyone, itself included. No conspiracy is required; they didn't have to get together and plan this ahead of time. Each company only has to realize that changing this status quo will result in less profit, and they can realize this independently without consulting the other companies.

Until and unless they start losing serious sales volume because customers feel that the price is too high, the movie producers have no incentive to engage in competition that they know will reduce their profit margins. Unlike the cellphone providers, they are not even directly competing with each other because of the monopoly nature of copyright. No one but Sony can produce and distribute copies of a movie for which Sony owns the copyright, so if you want a movie made by them you cannot purchase that same title from a competitor. So there is even less competition for each unique movie title than there is among cellphone providers for mobile phone services. That means there is even less incentive for any one company to rock the boat with aggressive pricing.

Retailers ultimately set prices. And most retailers are being stupid because Amazon is massively undercutting them.

If Sony's wholesale price for copies of its movies is X, then Amazon cannot charge less than X for those titles and expect to remain in business. That's why Sony's influence on the ultimate retail price is quite strong and should not be so quickly dismissed. I would venture that Amazon's lower prices have more to do with sales volume and the fact that they don't have the expenses of maintaining brick-and-mortar stores.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741052)

What do you mean? I already have a player that supports all current formats as well as all future ones. It's called a PC.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

maxume (22995) | about 4 years ago | (#31741112)

I would suggest none.

Unless you really really need your movies in high resolution.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31741114)

How many Blue Ray players am I supposed to buy before they stop coming up with new formats?

The succession of newer, higher capacity formats stretches way back before blu-ray. Personally, I think that the fact that, since CD-ROM, there's been a focus on allowing older media to play in newer devices is a good thing.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0, Flamebait)

future assassin (639396) | about 4 years ago | (#31741126)

Thats why nothing in my house has a Sony label on it anymore or will ever have Blue Ray player. DVD FTW! When companies stop bringing out products that restrict my rights as a consumer then I'll bring them into my house hold. For now there's nothing wrong with DVD and the only thing that could possibly replace DVD for me would be digital files but only if I could play them on any device that is capable of playing/displaying that digital file. If not I'm fine with not having to see new movies. Most of them suck anyways.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 4 years ago | (#31741218)

Depends on how many of the players can be firmware updated to deal with the formats.

The two formats they are talking about appear to be in pipedream stage. They will be obsolete before they are released, if they are released at all.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31741392)

Depends on how many of the players can be firmware updated to deal with the formats.

The two formats they are talking about appear to be in pipedream stage. They will be obsolete before they are released, if they are released at all.

No joke, and that's why I am having a hard time understanding the point of this. If you are just now going to start designing a new optical disc format, why only 100-128GB? Why not use ultraviolet lasers (or whatever else it takes) and aim at a 1TB optical disc? That way, by the time you have gone through the design, engineering, manufacturing, and marketing stages and finally bring a product to market, it will have a useful quantity of storage for backup and archival purposes.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (2, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31741840)

If you are just now going to start designing a new optical disc format, why only 100-128GB? Why not use ultraviolet lasers (or whatever else it takes) and aim at a 1TB optical disc?

Because neither is really intended as a completely new optical disk format, they are incremental updates of Blu-Ray for specialized needs, where it is assumed that continued use of existing blu-ray disks in the same devices is important. One is essentially "BD-ROM plus BD-RW", the other is "High capacity BD-ROM".

Re:Designed Obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741274)

That's why I just download the 5-10GB Bluray rips. That way I don't have to worry about keeping up with their new formats every couple years.

According to the studios, am I going to hell for downloading them? Probably. But I refuse to purchase crap that is going to be useless with new media in 2 years.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 4 years ago | (#31741304)

Yeah, time to run out and buy all new stuff!

Seriously though, I hope movie studios recognize that this is part of the reason their movie sales are down. It's not just piracy. It's a variety of reasons, but I believe one of the main reasons is that people who buy lots of movies are collectors.

I say it as a collector: I don't really want to collect things that are transient in a way that makes them a huge money hole. Back in the day of VHS tapes, I bought a bunch of VHS tapes. When DVDs came out, I bought a bunch of DVDs, including repurchasing a couple of titles I had previously bought on VHS. Then came the MP3 revolution. I realized that it made far more sense to rip CDs to my computer so I could easily store, sort, and retrieve an enormous library, and I realized that those days would be coming for movies sooner or later.

By the time DVD ripping become easy and commonplace, we were into the format wars. I might have bought DVDs and ripped them for my computer, but I knew HD was coming, and so I'd wait it out to see if Bluray or HD-DVD won. Then Bluray won, but it was still expensive and hard to rip. Then there's iTunes and Amazon to contend with, that save you the trouble of ripping and tagging, but aren't compatible with all devices. Now there's new and incompatible Bluray discs? The whole thing just keeps getting more and more complicated, and it's more and more clear that whatever movies I buy today I'll probably need to re-buy later. The only way that they could make me more unlikely to buy anything today is by announcing they'll release a new format in 2 years that supports higher resolutions and 3D displays.

Sorry, it's a long rant for ideas that everyone has probably read before, but damn these companies need to get their crap together. They could stand to learn a thing or two from Gabe Newell [youtube.com] on copy protection.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (5, Insightful)

Ogi_UnixNut (916982) | about 4 years ago | (#31741854)

But that is the point. You (as a customer) are the antithesis of what they want. The want people to keep re-buying things all the damn time, in fact in an ideal word, the MPAA/RIAA would charge you for every time you set eyes on a movie or heard one of their songs. Failing that they probably would not mind a rental modal where people pay forever to be able to access the content. As such DRM is designed to fulfil these goals, which is why it ends up being so frustrating that enough people put their heads together to break it.

Ideally they want the transition from one medium to another to be impossible. Failing that, making it so complicated that the majority of people just re-buy it all is an acceptable alternative. Once you realise this, why they implement DRM the way they do (or at all) and their general attitude make a lot more sense.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | about 4 years ago | (#31741458)

How many Blue Ray players am I supposed to buy before they stop coming up with new formats? I bet they keep this sh!t up until the next video format wars. Asshats.

If they don't compete with themselves, then some other alliance of companies comes in to produce high capacity discs.

Screwed if they do, screwed if they don't.

Re:Designed Obsolescence (4, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 years ago | (#31741552)

What are you talking about? If you had bought a profile 1.0 player you could still play discs which were profile 2.0, 3d or whatever. You'd miss out on the new functionality that your player would ignore but the movie would still play. Of course, new players are so cheap that I expect most people would probably go through at least 2 or 3 different players over the course of the lifetime of the format rather than stick with some crappy 1st gen player. In that regard it would be no different from DVD, or VHS probably.

As for the new format, go ask the BDA what it's for, but I doubt they intended or expected it to supplant the existing and set-in-stone 25/50Gb disc formats. More likely it's for data storage or something exotic which has no bearing on consumer kit.

Natural development (1)

Kumiorava (95318) | about 4 years ago | (#31741560)

Since when did you think current Bluray was the final stage of development on optical disks? Most likely it's physically impossible to get old players to play new 100GB disks, they are just not built for that. On the other hand it makes sense that these new 100GB players will be able to play regular Bluray disks. Where is the problem? Your Bluray movies will keep on playing on all Bluray players, only when you want to have writable Bluray with 100GB capacity you need to buy a new player.

DON'T YOU GET IT? (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31740814)

HDDVD lost the format war because it had way too many syllables!

Everyone! We've been Had! Blu-Ray is exerting its dominance by proposing 4 or more syllable formats, forcing technical speak to be less groovy and savvy, making it once again disasterous to be a nerd, instead of the hip trend Apple was starting.

Quick, someone start an internet petition (because those always work) to rename the formats to something catchy!

Re:DON'T YOU GET IT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741018)

VHS-- 3 syllable
BetaMax/Beta--3/2 syllables

your point has been invalidated by sheer logic and historical facts. On a side note, I would love to see HD-DVDs starting to be madeout of nowhere again, since this bullshit makes people have to buy NEW Blu-Ray players.

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740830)

That PS3 just became even less enticing than it already wasn't.

Am I Missing Something Here? (3, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31740870)

Aren't writable optical disks pretty much dead these days?

I've not used anything Blu-Ray yet but pretty much every PC and DVD player these days has USB ports into which you can plug thumb drives or external USB hard disks.

And even for DVD-R disks, gigabyte for gigabyte hard disks are still cheaper, let alone for a new disk format where writable media is bound to be at a premium price initially.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (5, Interesting)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | about 4 years ago | (#31740914)

I bet you could burn an encryption key to the disk from the player itself, thereby locking it to a single player. The *IAA would gobble that shit up.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

Thaelon (250687) | about 4 years ago | (#31741794)

The trick is we make sure that the we and the people whose tech we oversee make sure that the people don't gobble that shit up.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740938)

No, you haven't missed anything. A new re-writable 100Gb optical disk format is already obsolete.

In fact, optical disks are becoming mostly obsolete. I get all my video over the air or over the internet. No CD/DVD/Blu-ray required.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740940)

I've yet to find a place where you can rent movies on hard disks or thumb drives..

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31741060)

I've yet to find a place where you can (legally anyway) rent movies on writable optical media.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 4 years ago | (#31741128)

You do realize that the ability to lock a disk to a given player would/could be used by the MPAA to kill rentals of any disc, right? All the studios have to do is refuse to release disks on any Blu-ray format other than the hybrid one, and force player makers to implement locking software.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31741216)

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense to me.

Why would you rent out a physical disk that can only be played on *one* player? Surely you're going to focus on DRM-ing an Internet movie download so that it becomes unplayable after so many views or so many days?

I seem to recall a planned DVD disk format that was supposed to degrade of its own accord within a week or two but that died a death as quickly as it was suggested.

Likewise, why risk writing to an optical disk that could be placed into another machine and be cracked open by some wiley hacker?

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

BobMcD (601576) | about 4 years ago | (#31741894)

I seem to recall a planned DVD disk format that was supposed to degrade of its own accord within a week or two but that died a death as quickly as it was suggested.

You're thinking of DIVX [wikipedia.org] . (Not to be confused with DivX).

And with Netflix and company streaming the whole movie online, there's little need for such a format today. The DIVX people had the right idea, they just underestimated the delivery mechanism.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 4 years ago | (#31741162)

Your looking at this from the point of view of a consumer.. From a media companies point of view, a single disk that can hold 100GB of HD disney movies, that your child will utterly destroy the first time you turn around, is a new revenue generator. You have to buy another disk, unless someone can finally will a lawsuit saying they should replace broken disks if they are really just a "license to use"

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31741280)

But why do you need a new format just to be able to do that? It's already the case with CDs and DVDs that you don't get replacements free.

And whilst I do know what havoc kids can cause to digital media, this is still an extreme case - I would imagine the number of parents who re-buy movies because their kids destroyed the disks are a very small minority of the overall consumer base.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (4, Interesting)

phoenix321 (734987) | about 4 years ago | (#31741640)

Nevertheless, the point still stands: when people buy a DVD of "Avatar", do they buy a physical product, a plastic shiny disc, that happens to have the movie "Avatar" on it, or do they acquire the license to watch "Avatar" in DVD resolution that happens to be accompanied with a plastic shiny disc?

Movie studies are the owner of the licenses. They need to decide which kind of merchandise their product is.

It's either a physical thing and then they have no say about how the customer uses it, but when it's damaged, it's gone - or they sell a license and the customer has the right to make a backup, not lend it, not publicly show it but get another copy if one gets damaged.

Currently, they're trying to eat their cake and have it.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31741728)

Yes, but you are still missing my point.

Your statement totally applies to the existing DVD and Blu-Ray formats, I fail to see how additional licensing restrictions might be applied to a new writable format that is unlikely to see widespread adoption anyway since, byte for byte, it will work out to be far more expensive than a hard disk or thumb drive.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741322)

I don't know about hard-drives being cheaper than DVD-R's. You need at least two drives (mirrors) to put anything important on so that doubles the cost right there. That is even more important when talking hard-drives with platters larger than 320GB which tend to be unstable in my experience (this is the case for all manufacturers, the 500/GB platter technology is just too close to our current physical limits).

In theory most removable media should be more stable because once it's written and verified it should remain that way barring any physical damage. Hard-drives on the other hand can die at any moment because they're always moving parts that have crazy tolerances and are incredibly fragile.

Still, you're right for the most part. Hard-drives are pretty much cheaper than anything else if you ignore the failure aspect.

I would never ever put anything important on flash RAM devices. Talk about unstable.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (3, Informative)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 4 years ago | (#31741806)

I used to do a lot of archiving to DVD-R disks but discovered that despite being stored in disk cases away from the light and day-to-day use, they still developed read errors within a couple of years of having been written - yet I also have a large music CD collection stored in a similar fashion but have music CDs that are 20 years old that still play absolutely fine. I know for a fact it wasn't a particular brand of DVD-R with the read error problems because I used to make two backup copies to different disk brands....

Yes, a hard disk in regular use is probably going to start failing within a couple of years also - but it's much quicker to slot in a new 1TB hard disk and backup to it than it is to burn about another 200 DVD-R disks to store the same amount of data...

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

tomkost (944194) | about 4 years ago | (#31741382)

Writable optical disks dead? Definitely not. I use them all the time when making backup copies of my 5 year old daughter's movies. She tends to abuse and scratch them a lot. I don't want to mess with back and forth to HDD. I have two drives and make a copy with minimal effort. It's so simple my family can even do it.

Re:Am I Missing Something Here? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 years ago | (#31741882)

Its not about media cost or even common sense. These are the media giants, and their only goal is to screw the consumer.

Great!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740884)

So they'll be able to fit more content I will never watch onto the disc!!! This will also be known as the "3D copy" of said movie.

Is anybody really using current burners? (0)

ThePlague (30616) | about 4 years ago | (#31740890)

I'm not trying to troll here, but what exactly is the point of 25/50 GB burners? Sure, it was a great tool when CD burners became affordable, and even DVD burners still have some utility, but it seems to me one would be better served by an external hard drive than yet another optical media subject to scratches and incompatibilities. I guess the current burners can act as backups to Blu-Ray movies, though I have to admit I don't see a compelling advantage in moving from DVD level resolution to the new hotness. I guess my point is that as far as data is concerned, why bother with optical media at all anymore?

It's more for large data sets (2, Interesting)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | about 4 years ago | (#31741480)

Low coast, loanable, disposable, large data sets. Think more of like medical imaging archives, and regular FULL backups. The need for this is great in the corporate world. Spinning disk is nice, but it's also hard to loan out, and expensive. Networking a 1.5G study is rough, requires a lot of upload bandwidth, and if you look over some patients histories they may have >20 studies that a doctor wants to see YESTERDAY! Burning a patient's whole history to 1 usable disk would be great!

Unfortunately, it will never be because it's not standard in common PC builds yet. It's just a pipe dream that is perpetually > 10 yrs away. The reason for this is as computers get faster, we take more and more data, higher resolution studies, 3D reconstructions, etc.. That outstrip our abillity to keep up on the portable storage front.

Re:It's more for large data sets (0)

ThePlague (30616) | about 4 years ago | (#31741798)

Yes, I can see that. A large CT scan, say about 200 slices at half a meg per slice would run 100 MB. Throw in multiple CT scans, MRIs, etc, and it wouldn't be hard to exceed the capacity of a CD IF you wanted to and could put all the studies on one disk. However, DVD size is still plenty for the vast majority of patients. Plus, there's the usual problem of collecting all the studies at one site, willing and able to actually burn them all to one disk.

As you point out, though, the "one disk dream" will never be for the reason you cite. It could be, but it's not nor is it likely to be. So I ask again, is anyone trusting full backups or large data set distribution to Blu-Ray burners now? If I ever need a CT or other "big data set" imaging modality, the first thing I would do is make absolutely certain I get a copy of the DICOM images from the tech. Then, a digital copy of the read from the radiologist. Finally, I'd throw the whole thing on a USB stick with redundant backups to other storage (external, redundant internals, etc) and archive the optical.

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31740912)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Re:Jews for Nerds! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741158)

You know, I read a lot. Especially about things that have to do with history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact, I don't know if you know or not, yids were spawned by chinks.

It's a fact. You see, yids have yellow blood pumpin' through their hearts. If you don't believe me, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, you see, the mongols conquered Jewland. And mongols are basically chinks.

So you see, way back then, red sea pedestrians were like your ay-rabs from ay-rabb-ya. They all had coffee colored skin and big noses, but then the mongols moved in there, and they changed the whole country. They did so much fucking with yid women that they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why hooky noses and light brown skin became really big hooky noses and tiny cocks (or flat floppy tits). You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that four-by-twos still carry that chink gene.

Probably another agenda here... (1)

MCROnline (1027312) | about 4 years ago | (#31740932)

I have a feeling this is not about raking in more cash and creating onflicting standards, but about reducing Piracy. They probably want to make a format that has the capacity to hold a lot of data without being used to clone Blu-Ray discs. It stands to reason that if a normal Blu-Ray player cannot read this format, then it oculdn't play a bootlegged version of an ISO downloaded.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (2, Informative)

TheSunborn (68004) | about 4 years ago | (#31741024)

That make sense, except for the part where the already have made write-able blue-ray disks available.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (2, Informative)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | about 4 years ago | (#31741078)

If thats the case they must not have heard of devices like the Patriot Box Office [legitreviews.com] which will stream a Blu-Ray iso from your computer. Devices like this are definitely cheaper than whatever they will be charging for the new burners when they come out.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

anthonyfk (1394881) | about 4 years ago | (#31741246)

Um, from the review you linked to:
Once again, we had no luck when trying to play our Blu-ray ISO rips over the network as that format continues to be one of the most elusive.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

brunascle (994197) | about 4 years ago | (#31741384)

Once you upgrade the firmware, the Argosy HV335T [argosy.com.tw] can play Bluray ISOs (I just bought one and it works). It only plays the main title movie, though. It cant play the menu or display subtitles, but it can do both with DVD ISOs.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

Pulse_Instance (698417) | about 4 years ago | (#31741502)

I guess that should teach me to read before I link. That one will play Blu-Ray ISOs with it's firmware update. I haven't tried the iso yet but it has played every other file type I've thrown it's way.

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | about 4 years ago | (#31741428)

From the article you linked. ...we had no luck when trying to play our Blu-ray ISO rips over the network...

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

Jakester2K (612607) | about 4 years ago | (#31741676)

If thats the case they must not have heard of devices like the Patriot Box Office [legitreviews.com] which will stream a Blu-Ray iso from your computer. Devices like this are definitely cheaper than whatever they will be charging for the new burners when they come out.

Uh, what?

Patriot Box Office [legitreviews.com] page 4, near the bottom:

Once again, we had no luck when trying to play our Blu-ray ISO rips over the network as that format continues to be one of the most elusive.

Though the concept itself does appeal. And since this device is firmware updateable, your first sentence may become true in the future.

Since TiVo has fscked up for the last time AFAIC, I might just check this out... thanks!

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31741210)

I have a feeling this is not about raking in more cash and creating onflicting standards, but about reducing Piracy.

I have a feeling that BD-XL is about exactly what they say -- supporting industries with needs for higher-capacity archival storage.

IHBD might be used a number of ways, most that involve incorporating user data that "goes with" published content on the same bit of media, so that the user content "follows" the published content. This could be used, e.g., to save user preferences or state back to a disc used for video (rather than storing these on the player), allowing, e.g., continuing from a stopping point even if you switch players. Or, similarly, to put save games back on the disc with the game,

Re:Probably another agenda here... (1)

vlm (69642) | about 4 years ago | (#31741344)

IHBD might be used a number of ways, most that involve incorporating user data that "goes with" published content on the same bit of media, so that the user content "follows" the published content.

Homemade Pr0n, now starring you and ms. whoever?

So, let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#31740934)

Because we all enjoyed the format war just that much and it didn't hamper adoption at all, they are now proposing a format civil war, where the two or more blu-ray factions fight to the death in a toxic stew of consumer confusion and apathy?

Seriously?

Re:So, let me get this straight... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31741892)

Because we all enjoyed the format war just that much and it didn't hamper adoption at all, they are now proposing a format civil war, where the two or more blu-ray factions fight to the death in a toxic stew of consumer confusion and apathy?

Seriously?

No, they are proposing two different BD variants intended for distinct use cases that don't really overlap (one is a pure "higher-capacity storage" version, the other is a "fixed content plus rewritable"), both of which would be used on devices that would also be able to use existing Blu-Ray disks. Since the variants aren't designed for the same use case, they don't compete with each other.

yay (3, Interesting)

msclrhd (1211086) | about 4 years ago | (#31741026)

I like technology, but it seems to me that the media companies are pushing newer technologies faster than ever and are then wondering why they are performing badly. CDs, DVDs and other technology (hell, even colour television) took a while to take off, and it wasn't until the market was effectively saturated, and the technologies became affordable and commonplace, that other technologies were introduced.

First it was High-Def and HDMI compatible vs compliant. Then it was HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray disks are finally starting to become affordable, but they come with the required HDMI upgrade of all your connecting audio/video hardware.

With the RealD 3D televisions and associated content as well, especially with the competing players/technologies coming out soon after HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, it is unclear how things are going to pan out -- for example, are there going to be 3D Blu-Ray disks that require new hardware?

To me, the home entertainment hardware is looking fragmented, and will continue to become even more fragmented as time goes on.

Re:yay (0, Offtopic)

Intrinsic (74189) | about 4 years ago | (#31741558)

Anyone that supports blueray and all of its DRM hardware complexities deserve what they get. It seems really stupid to support it.

Re:yay (1)

robmv (855035) | about 4 years ago | (#31741592)

From the article

In general, the two new formats will be geared toward broadcast and document archiving, both industries that need to record and store massive libraries of digital content. But consumer versions will be available, "particularly in those regions where BD recorders have achieved broad consumer acceptance, " the BDA said.

It looks this is not a new format for the most predominant usage of Blu-ray media that is Video/Videogames. It is just a format for people that need that extra storage, They will kill Blu-ray movies if they start producing them on that new standard

Well, to quote someone way more famous than me (0, Offtopic)

davebarnes (158106) | about 4 years ago | (#31741042)

"Blu-ray is a bag of hurt".
OK, this is insane on their part.
Flash memory is plunging in price (yes, I know not today, but look at the 5 year trend).
Toshiba just announced a 25nm process. What will that do to production costs?

don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741072)

the optical disk should be dead by now.

Wallet voting (2, Insightful)

OopsIDied (1764436) | about 4 years ago | (#31741244)

BD-XL = blu ray version of Super Audio CD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD [wikipedia.org]
Hopefully people will refuse to oblige Sony and instead let the new format remain uncommon, lest Sony finds the practice of removing features from customers' devices as the normal thing to do.

-The PS3 has lost features throughout its life
-If SACD had been widely adopted, regular CD's would've become obsolete and would've been a waste of money for consumers
-if BD-XL and the like become widely adoped, regular blu-ray will become obsolete and a waste of money

Don't let Sony think these kinds of practices are acceptable.

  it's good that they're coming up with higher and higher capacities so often, good for those that need them, but releasing incompatible hardware with the intent of it replacing existing hardware in wide use so often shouldn't be something normally done.

Re:Wallet voting (3, Insightful)

foxtyke (766988) | about 4 years ago | (#31741596)

I already voted with my wallet, I'm sticking with DVD until they are done playing games.

Haven't bought a new television for HDMI, haven't bought an HD-DVD or Blu-ray player and you know what? I didn't even buy a PS3, Wii or XBOX 360 for the same reason.

You can't say its a standard or a feature and then change, remove or force me to upgrade anymore. I'm done with that stuff.

I'm satisfied with my standard television, my standard DVD and my standard gaming on a PS2 (more of a PC gamer anyways) and what's more, a lot more people are getting the same way. If there's no explicit reason to change something, don't upgrade, don't buy it and just support what you like or use and save the money for supporting that, it is cheaper in the end anyways.

Dear Corporate Overlords, (5, Funny)

VTI9600 (1143169) | about 4 years ago | (#31741276)

Kudos on your selection of the term "Intra-Hybrid" (simply being a hybrid is never enough) and an acronym with an "X" in it for marketing your new products. Also, congratulations on having the forsight to not allow these new media to be played on clearly obsolete Blu-Ray players while still selling them as Blu-Ray discs. However, the following concerns me:

Specifications for both disc types will be published during the upcoming months.

Don't you realize that publishing specs hurts your bottom line?!?!

Re:Dear Corporate Overlords, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741346)

Corporations bad! Corporations BAD!!!!

Yeah, we get it, asshat.

Re:Dear Corporate Overlords, (1, Insightful)

VTI9600 (1143169) | about 4 years ago | (#31741782)

There are lots of companies I like that have really good track records. Sony is not one of them. Next time I make a joke, I'll be sure to come up with a detailed list of companies, subsidiaries, corporate officers, etc. that are the target of said joke. That'll make it waaay better.

And I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741452)

And I am still sitting here not caring at all about Blu-Ray or 'HD Movies' as I see it as just another attempt to get more cash for the same product.

my bet is... (1)

Xenious (24845) | about 4 years ago | (#31741522)

this is to ensure writable BDs for future formats are not compatible with read only ones (read: consumer movies) in the name of copy protection.

Sounds good actually (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 4 years ago | (#31741550)

100GB burner sounds pretty good as a backup device. 25, 50 don't sounds so enticing - maybe it's the magic of the number 100.

Of course, I have no Blu Ray player/burner, so I don't feel the churn like maybe some of you do. I think I'm in the majority, though.

This is what happens when Sony wins (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 4 years ago | (#31741576)

They will do pretty much as they please, especially when it comes to perpetual changes, "new patents" and royalties galore. I'm wishing HD-DVD won the war. I saw it coming with Sony pushing Bluray.

Get ready for the confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741762)

If they call it BluRay, this will incite confusion. Why? Because many bluray players won't be able to use this medium that is called bluray, and the mass users don't know what the initials mean. Case in point: My bro-in-law didn't know what the difference between DVD-R and DVD-R DL was.

Additionally, IH-BD looks pointless.

Blu-Ray: Obsolete optical disc format (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31741836)

Dear manufacturers,

Number of Blu-Ray players I own: 0
Number of Blu-Ray players I plan to buy: 0

HTH!

Erf, shades of DVD-R incompatibilities. (3, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | about 4 years ago | (#31741868)

Oh man. I thought we got away from this after we left the incompatibility of DVD-R/RW with most commercial video DVD players behind. Currently I can author my HD videos to Blu-Ray recordables and they play just fine on any Blu Ray player. Hallelujah. Fortunately I don't have much of a reason to use higher capacity discs, my videos aren't 6 hours long. At 12 GB / hr I can fit plenty on a stock Blu Ray disc. As a data application, this is probably OK, but hard drives are so cheap these days there's no point in doing optical backups. This might be used for 4k video and other very high end formats in the future, however.

And if you say that there is no need for physical formats, you're wrong. At least in the USA, our level of broadband is not capable of delivering 25 mbits / sec video to the home, on demand and with everyone on your block doing same. With large LCD, plasma and DLP screens, that data rate makes all the difference in quality. Compare satellite HD to the same content on Blu-Ray and you'll see an enormous difference. Most Sat HD feeds I've seen are practically unwatchable due to compression artifacts.

-M

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...