Beta
×

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!

Titanium Oxide For High-Density Optical Storage

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the fast-cheap-and-in-control dept.

Data Storage 172

Stoobalou and other readers sent along word of research out of Japan, using a new crystal form of titanium oxide for high-density data storage — promising discs that store 1,000 times more data than Blu-ray does today, up to 25 TB. The material transforms from a black-colored metal state that conducts electricity into a brown semiconductor when hit by light, at room temperature. Titanium oxide's market price is about one-hundredth that of the rare element that is currently used in rewritable Blu-ray discs and DVDs. The material is cheap and safe, and is already being used in many products ranging from face powder to white paint. The researchers successfully created the material in particles measuring as small as 5 nanometers in diameter.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Conductive properties (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346200)

Maybe I'm wrong, but what does being a conductor/semiconductor have to do with an optical disk?

Re:Conductive properties (2, Interesting)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346208)

This state change also changes its reflectivity, similar to how a CD-RW works.

Titanium dioxide? (5, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346300)

TFA and TFS both refer to "Titanium oxide" which typically means either TiO or Ti2O3 (Ti in either II or III states). However, both TFS and TFA also assert that the "Titanium oxide" is used in sunscreen and suchlike, which implies it is Titanium dioxide, TiO2 (Ti in IV state), not Titanium oxide.
Most likely, TFA should have referred to Titanium dioxide, as this is also a semiconductor in crystalline state.

Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346486)

Titanium Oxide is the recent replacement of Aluminum Oxide, used by airplanes around 5000-feet to 10k-feet. It's use in hands-on data storage medium would prove it a metal that easily absorbs into the skin that agitates the immune system and nervous system of a host man or animal.

It was presumably used earliest by US Navy and US Army to disperse into the jetstreams at altitudes to be carried by wind, in an effort to reflect 2% to 10% of incoming solar radiation so as to manipulate the ground temperatures within 10 degrees of tolerance. Aluminum Oxide was replaced because it caused respiratory conditions worse than asthma. Titanium Oxide is the recent replacement, but is known to cause mutations in dermal tissue that are reported often as "Morgellon's Disease" of which a friend of mine in Anaheim CA recently incurred: it's horrible, and under my oberservation with a microscope it proved quite traumatic.

You have been warned.

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346544)

What the hell are you on about???

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (-1, Offtopic)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346830)

I think he's on about the aluminum oxide in his "tin" foil hat...

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (0, Offtopic)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346558)

Titanium Oxide is the recent replacement of Aluminum Oxide, used by airplanes around 5000-feet to 10k-feet.

Wow, that sounds like it's really difficult to swap that out at that altitude. Do they have a youtube video of that, or better yet, a training video? ;-)

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (0, Offtopic)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347080)

It's a "CHEMICAL"! Wow, damn, shit, holy crap, I can't believe it. They actually used a CHEMICAL. Who would have thought.
You do know that everything in our life is made from CHEMICALS? While you're at it, maybe check out this deadly chemical [wikipedia.org] .

I just love it when people just use the word "chemical" to scare everyone away. So, where to start? first of all, Morgellon's Disease [wikipedia.org] :

"Current scientific consensus holds that Morgellons is not a new disorder and is instead a new and misleading name for a well known condition. Most doctors,[2] including dermatologists[3] and psychiatrists,[4] regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis [wikipedia.org] ..."

Yes, the sentence continues to say that some believe it may be a real condition, but the consensus is that it is some sort of Psychiatric condition.
Regarding Titanium Dioxide health issues [wikipedia.org] - there are studies in animals that it can be carcinogenic if inhaled, and some studies argue that small particles can be absorbed by the skiin, but studies in humans have yet to show a similar effect, though it has been researched. Again, this is all from Wikipedia, this is not my area of expertise - if you have a different (credible) source, I'll be happy to hear about it. Anyhow, I don't think that if it would be part of a CD-like medium it would be toxic, in the same way that asbestos is only dangerous if it is broken and thus small particles are freed into the environment and are inhaled.

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347590)

Damn, he said "CHEMTRAIL" not "CHEMICAL". Silly me. Guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to all the tin-foil hat guys.

Re:Titanium Oxide is a CHEMTRAIL airborn dispersan (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347146)

Of all the conspiracy theories this one confuses me the most.

It displays a fundamental lack of understanding in both physics and meteorology. High altitude chemical spray is quite simply the the worst possible, if not impossible, way to disperse fluids. First off the winds aloft are different at 3K feet. At 10K-30K they are significantly stronger and can be in a different direction than on the group. Plus there the problem that the fluid would likely evaporate before reaching the ground. Another problem is that you couldn't fit enough "product" on a plane to cover any significant area.

Also the infrastructure required to perform "chemtrails" is insane. It would require the cooperation of at least the following groups of people.

Aircraft design companies
Aircraft manufacturing companies
FAA
Pilots
Airline companies
Airport ground crews
Chemical design engineers
Chemical manufacturing companies
Delivery companies

Yet somehow all these diverse groups can work together with no leaks or mistakes. I guess what amazes me most is the super human abilities attributed to the government.

Re:Titanium dioxide? (5, Informative)

NewToNix (668737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346888)

A better description is simply 'a Titanium metal oxide' - the phase shift is between Ti3O5 and -Ti3O5. http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nchem.670.html/ [nature.com]

"This is the first demonstration of a photorewritable phenomenon at room temperature in a metal oxide. -Ti3O5 satisfies the operation conditions required for a practical optical storage system (operational temperature, writing data by short wavelength light and the appropriate threshold laser power)."

Re:Titanium dioxide? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347524)

plus it seems to be fragile allowing the discs to degrade, This utterly delights the Media industry as the discs will slowly die giving them another money fountain.

Re:Titanium dioxide? (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347102)

But I thought titanium dioxide was white?

Re:Titanium dioxide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347284)

Racist.

Re:Titanium dioxide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347696)

But I thought titanium dioxide was white?

Racist.

Slashdotted, Coral cache link (5, Informative)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346234)

Re:Slashdotted, Coral cache link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346648)

i agree

Good for archival purposes? (4, Insightful)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346242)

Are there any projections/estimates related to how stable this media would be when used for long-term archival storage?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (4, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346308)

I admit having no idea about the answer to that very interesting question but the fact that the surface changes "when hit by light, at room temperature" makes me suspect it doesn't have much chance on that front.

We need a disk that can only be writen by divine intervention at Hell's main furnace, temperature.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (2, Funny)

martijnd (148684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346404)

Just put into a light sealed box -- bit like a hard disk today.

Oh, that was too simple a solution? I am sure we can think of something more complicated.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Rallias Ubernerd (1760460) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347298)

It is bigger then any hard drive i have heard of. Great solution. Don't drop it while writing, though. The laser may misaim just a little bit. Bad data galor

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347750)

Just put into a light sealed box -- bit like a hard disk today.

Won't somebody think of the case modders?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346570)

I admit having no idea about the answer to that very interesting question but the fact that the surface changes "when hit by light, at room temperature" makes me suspect it doesn't have much chance on that front.

I bet it would last at least as long as thermal fax paper.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346622)

Oh, you mean read-only?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346656)

How do you think current optical media works, with magic or something? Fucking retard.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346810)

How do you think current optical media works, with magic or something? Fucking retard.

How stable do you think current non factory-written optical media is for long-term archival storage?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347116)

How stable do you think current non factory-written optical media is for long-term archival storage?

I recently received 8 CDs of legacy material from a client that a previous contractor had made for them 8 years ago. The disk surfaces were pristine: 4 worked, 1 was recoverable.

Put me down for "Not super stable."

Re:Good for archival purposes? (4, Funny)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347508)

We need a disk that can only be writen by divine intervention at Hell's main furnace, temperature.

That would be "The Matrix: Revolutions" special edition BluRay with extended director's apology voice track.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347906)

with extended director's apology voice track

That made my day, thanks.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

pookemon (909195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346310)

I wondered this too - given the state change is activated by light - how do you read this "optical" disk?

With a laser? Oh wait...

And you leave the disk sitting on your desk, when someone turns on the light and all your data disappears.

Plus my understanding is that blue-ray disks are possible because of the ability to use blue light (which refracts less making the beam more confined) - what would they need to use for these new disks.

It all sounds like pie in the sky stuff to me.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346428)

What they need to do is invent different kinds of light. Obviously it could be confusing, so we'd have to give them different names. Perhaps we could come up with a scheme using Tolkien characters, vegetables, or even colours.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347922)

It all sounds like pie in the sky stuff to me.

It's going to be perfect for cloud storage, then?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (4, Interesting)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346426)

Titanium dioxide itself is ridiculously stable. It's what makes it so safe - we use it to whiten marshmallows for crying out loud. How stable the structure is is an open question though, it doesn't say what frequency or intensity of light.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346592)

Titanium dioxide itself is ridiculously stable. It's what makes it so safe - we use it to whiten marshmallows for crying out loud.

Are you saying I could store my entire porn collection on marshmallows?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346680)

Are you saying I could store my entire porn collection on marshmallows?

Isn't your porn collection sticky enough already?

Re:Good for archival purposes? (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346692)

Titanium dioxide itself is ridiculously stable. It's what makes it so safe - we use it to whiten marshmallows for crying out loud.

Are you saying I could store my entire porn collection on marshmallows?

Not with me around. Mmmm forbidden marshmallows.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (3, Funny)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346746)

Gah. For a moment, there, I thought you were referring to the other respondent's "Isn't your porn collection sticky enough already?".

I'm off to buy some steel wool for my brain scrubbing, now.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (2, Insightful)

tom17 (659054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346738)

If the cops come round cos of all your porn, you could just eat the evidence!

Re:Good for archival purposes? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347264)

If the cops come round cos of all your porn, you could just eat the evidence!

Agggh..

The sticky porn collection post turned every other one in the branch into a disgusting, revolting joke.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347558)

Titanium dioxide itself is ridiculously stable. It's what makes it so safe - we use it to whiten marshmallows for crying out loud.

Seeing as Titanium Dioxide is a DNA cleaving agent, I hope this is actually untrue.

Re:Good for archival purposes? (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346794)

Are there any projections/estimates related to how stable this media would be when used for long-term archival storage?

If the state changes in light, then there are some rules to follow:

  1. No bright light
  2. Don't get them wet
  3. Never feed them after midnight, no matter how much they beg

Re:Good for archival purposes? (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347954)

The one day I don't have mod points...

Finally! (2, Funny)

sosume (680416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346244)

I have been waiting for affordable removable storage in the TB size range for many years now! There's a giant p0^H^H document library waiting on my NAS to be archived ...

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346352)

Just publish the URL and the slashdot community would be more than happy to help you archive it.

Re:Finally! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346690)

Just publish the URL and the slashdot community would be more than happy to help you archive it.

In the Cloud!

Re:Finally! (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346748)

You mean, like (e)SATA 2T disks at € 0.06 per gig ?

So when can I watch OFHD movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346266)

Imagine watching Doctor Manhattan's weener in 7680x4320 on a 80" tv... delicious Octo Full High Definition.

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346288)

You joke, but the Japanese are actually working on a video format with resolution just like the one you mentioned - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hi-Vision [wikipedia.org]

Disks at which TFA hints might come handy for that...

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346408)

NOOooooo!

I just rebuilt my favorite movies libraries in Blu-Ray!

They've done this before to me, with VHS and DVDs.

Although, Martha Stewart in Super Hi-Vision, who can oppose that?

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346614)

NOOooooo!

I just rebuilt my favorite movies libraries in Blu-Ray!

This is the normal process of 'planned obsolescence' in the media delivery industry. You'll be upgrading your entire collection once or twice every 5 - 10 years (at least the parts of it that are re-released on the new format).

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346760)

Good news: The analog masters don't contain much more information than the 2 megapixels per frame that you get with 1080p. Typical digital cinema projectors are 2K, which means they project a 2048 pixels wide picture (1080p is 1920 pixels wide). 4K projectors are still rare and only digitally produced movies currently provide the level of detail required to make a difference when compared to 2K projectors.

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347580)

Which will never become popular enough to be used.

It took over 12 years to get TV station to buy HD gear, and many still dont have all their gear HD yet. It's gonna take 30 years for that one to get past the cheap bastards that run the TV and media outlets.

Re:So when can I watch OFHD movies? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32348018)

Considering that Japan has HD TV for alsmot 2 decades (they had an analogue system; decently succesful, it seems), it might be only 20 years?

Probably largely pointless anyway...

Won't see 1000x for a few years. (3, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346282)

The full 1000x potential won't be extracted straight away, we may see this technology in the next generation x2 or x5 the density. Now that Big Content has found a reason for more capacity with 3D, and a reason to make your existing movie collection obsolete, they will be looking for the sucessor for blu-ray 3-4 years down the track (because honestly it hasn't taken over from DVDs yet).

Interestingly in CD-ROM's heyday it wasn't uncommon for a PC to have a smaller hard drive than the amount of data that would fit on a CD-ROM. About the time DVD-ROMs were out I suppose hard drives were only a little larger. Blue-rays were fraction the size of a hard drive when the format spec was finalized (2005). Now hard drives are 20-40x larger than a blu-ray disc.

Carelessly extrapolating from the trend I predict we might not see this technology in widespread use until a common consumer hard drive is past the 25TB mark.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346398)

I have never had a HDD smaller than my removable medium at the time. When I had a 5.25" floppy drive I had a ~30MB HDD, 3.5" floppy drive I had 200MB HDD, 700MB CD-ROM I had a 2GB HDD, 4.7GB DVD-ROM I had a 40GB Drive. Now I have ~10TB of disk space and no BD-ROM.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (2, Funny)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346524)

Go go personal anecdote, I had a 486SX33 with 24MB RAM 210MB HDD and 4xCDROM drive.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346670)

I see your crazy personal anecdote and raise you mine: The first PC I owned had a CDROM had 4Mb RAM and a 40Mb hard disk (we paid nearly the price of the computer again to upgrade from its original 1Mb with 20Mb disk), before we then changed to another PC to upgrade. It was a 1x CD-ROM too. And an ISA Sound-Blaster was cabled into it. Weirdest bit? I still have the CDROM drive and it still works.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (2, Interesting)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346740)

I have a 286 @ 20MHz with 1 MB of RAM, a 40 MB hard drive, SB 16, EGA, both 3.5" HD (1.44 MB) and 5.25" HD (1.2 MB) and a 2x CDROM. The whole system still works. Ken's Labyrinth rocks!

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347664)

Tandy Model 12 with a box of 8" floppies. I demo the NASA solar panel calculation software on it about once a quarter to students.

And I got a Tandy Model I in the basement somewhere.. I need to get this dinosaur crap out of here....

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32348026)

I need to get this dinosaur crap out of here....

To the eBaymobile!

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346674)

386DX40 with 4Mbyte of RAM, 170MB HD, Mitsumi FX-001D CD-Rom drive.

Just because you were a late adopter of CD-Roms doesnt mean everybody was.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347626)

aye, 386sx25 with 387, 120mb hard drive, 1x cd rom, and THAT was when I was a freshman in highschool

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346520)

3-D now, and holograms later.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346704)

Better than 3D:

With the labor market, we could just hire people to come and act out the movie for us. Call it "RealLife-O-Vision".

I patented the idea, in case you're wondering.

Re:Won't see 1000x for a few years. (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346930)

With the labor market, we could just hire people to come and act out the movie for us. Call it "RealLife-O-Vision".

It will never work out. The special effects explosions in action movies are hell on the furniture.

If it isn't fire, it's ice (1)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347030)

It will never work out. The special effects explosions in action movies are hell on the furniture.

Worse still were the neighbors complaints after the snow scenes in Lord of the Rings when the Fellowship tried to cross the misty mountains before turning back and heading to Moria. Seems the melt required for the next scene seeped through the floorboards and flooded their flat (and the five floors beneath them). Oh well, still damn good entertainment.

Re:If it isn't fire, it's ice (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347418)

we could just hire people to come and act out the movie for us.

It will never work out. The special effects explosions in action movies are hell on the furniture.

Worse still were the neighbors complaints after the snow scenes

My dear sirs. If I may raise a point in favour of this new technology:

Porn.

That will be all.

Prior art on Broadway (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347278)

With the labor market, we could just hire people to come and act out the movie for us. Call it "RealLife-O-Vision".

I patented the idea, in case you're wondering.

But maybe they've got prior art [wikipedia.org]
On Broadway (On Broadway) [wikipedia.org]

Pirate potential. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346296)

Coming up: The Lifetime Pirate Disk! One disk containing every surviving film, TV series, book, and computer game up until it's time of release. Get yours off your friend and never have to download your piracy again.

Re:Pirate potential. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346506)

That would be false. That would take a least a couple petabytes.

Signed, thepiratebay.org torrent admin.

^--Is that enough of a citation?

Re:Pirate potential. (1)

Therefore I am (1284262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347586)

Yes indeed.

While the 'File Savers' of the world are praying for a huge capacity removable disks that have no chemical fade-out over time, the music and film industries are quaking in their boots at the very thought of such a disk.

It hasn't happened yet but you know, just as I know, that it will!

It's the circle of life (1)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346304)

Scientists invent new storage format -> New player is created for it -> **IA puts new *UNBREAKABLE* copy protection on it -> Consumers re-buy their movie libraries -> Copy protection gets cracked -> **IA drills disk full of holes to "prevent copying" -> Disks stop working on consumer devices -> Consumers switch to pirate copies -> **IA ask scientists to come up with a new storage format....

"Consumers re-buy their movie libraries" (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347460)

I'm not so sure about that step...not next time around.

Re:"Consumers re-buy their movie libraries" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347866)

I have *MANY* movies on DVD (900+). I am not replacing many of them. I only watched a few once or twice (probably should sell them or something). There are a 'few' I am replacing on blu but I am very picky about it. At this point in the DVD cycle I had almost 200. Blu-Ray I have maybe 20 and many of those were gifts or 'new' movies. I even have a few VHS still kicking around.

Once you get to a certain size you also run out of room to put the things. Maybe someday I will rip them all to a hard drive but honestly I rarely watch any of them. It is more of a pain these days than something cool and way past manageable.

Some people really get into high def. If they can not see the sweat on Arnolds arm pit hairs the movie isnt perfect. They forget to watch the movie and just enjoy it. So there will always be a market for more space. Read somewhere that the current scan process format they are using is something like 8k by 8k. That is something like 3 exabytes of data uncompressed for one standard 120 min movie. Just lossless compressing it they probably are getting something like 40-60 TB for one movie. So until we get to disks that size we will continue to get 'new formats'. Then by then the scan process will probably be 20k by 20k or something.

Something's not right (3, Informative)

yanagasawa (120791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346474)

Titanium oxide isn't used for pigments - titanium dioxide is.

Re:Something's not right (1)

delta98 (619010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346582)

You are correct. I've used it making salad dressings( Ranch for instance).

Re:Something's not right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347744)

What difference does one little molecule make?

Or two letters for that matter.

Light? Daylight will ruin your data? (2, Interesting)

gb7djk (857694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346516)

One wonders how light stable this system will be compared to existing DVD coatings. My suspicions would suggest that it may be worse.

Re:Light? Daylight will ruin your data? (1)

MiniMike (234881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347998)

Many Slashdotters would not be afraid to use data storage vulnerable to sunlight.

FINALLY, the HDDVVDDBVDs I've been waiting for! (1)

karltoncw (1796656) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346610)

RVB

20 years away? (3, Insightful)

slackarse (875650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346618)

Buh. After reading about terrabit cube storage in 1994 http://bit.ly/cf4ufr [bit.ly] [new scientist], I didn't upgrade my 3.5" floppies for years ... now I'm old, cynical about every article like this and my removable storage devices don't go past 32GB.

Re:20 years away? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346754)

You could get a USB or eSATA hard drive. That's sort of removable. I mean, it's external and all, but you can disconnect it and move it to another system without opening the case. That's what "removable" really means, not necessarily that it slides into a slot or sits on a tray.

Re:20 years away? (1)

slackarse (875650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347058)

I could, but I'm old, cynical, stuck in my ways and not upgrading my 32GB USB stick until optical holographic cube discs are available.

Re:20 years away? (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347236)

Yes, but if it's a cube, is it still a disk?

External power supply (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347356)

You could get a USB or eSATA hard drive. That's sort of removable.

Something that "slides into a slot or sits on a tray" doesn't need an extra power brick. Nor does a USB flash drive. Many USB or eSATA hard drives, on the other hand...

In other news (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346626)

Sony announces technology expo next week for new, even better than Blu-Ray format set for release in 5 years, throwing everyone in limbo wondering if they should stick with DVDs, buy into Blu-Ray and pray for backwards compatibility, or not buy a movie for 5 years. Monster cable to demo new cable technology, provides everyone with magnifying glasses so they can experience the difference.

Re:In other news (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346966)

Sony... MiniDisc, UMD, Memory Stick, Memory Stick derivatives, BetaMax, Hi-8, Digital8 MicroMV, DVCAM, HiFD, Elcaset, Super Audio CD...

I'd put little stock into a Sony format announcement until I see the specs, the marketing, the cross-licensing, and the support from other vendors.

They were instrumental in development or support for many successful open standards, like the 3.5" HD floppy, the original music CD, HDV, or compact cassette. However, just as often as supporting the format everyone is using, they try to push out a format they developed that has little or no support from anyone else.

Developing new, better formats is good. Pushing formats that aren't better just because you want to lock people in or because you're proud of your R&D team sucks. Sony's unfortunately mistaken the latter for the former too often.

Re:In other news (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347552)

Sony... MiniDisc, UMD, Memory Stick, Memory Stick derivatives, BetaMax, Hi-8, Digital8 MicroMV, DVCAM, HiFD, Elcaset, Super Audio CD...

MiniDisc found a loyal following among concert tapers, as did Video8 and Video Hi8 among amateur videographers.

They were instrumental in development or support for many successful open standards, like the 3.5" HD floppy, the original music CD, HDV, or compact cassette.

That and PlayStation, PlayStation 2, and Blu-ray Disc. But during the analog camcorder era, were Video8 and Video Hi8 [wikipedia.org] really that much of a failure?

However, just as often as supporting the format everyone is using, they try to push out a format they developed that has little or no support from anyone else.

How does Sony know whether a format will have little or no support before it tries? What was MiniDisc's fatal flaw that kept it from overtaking Compact Cassette, other than perhaps failure to aggressively cut prices on home decks?

One thing missing though: (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346762)

The point.

Why again do we need another slow optical disc medium? The times of those are clearly over.
Until that thing comes out, USB sticks are going to be 25 TB too. And much smaller. And not prone to scratching, sunlight, bending, dust, etc. And for everything else there is HDDs/SSDs.

Re:One thing missing though: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346832)

Not only are the days for optical limited, so are the days for any removable storage. The future is cloud-based.

Re:One thing missing though: (1)

schn (1795404) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346962)

Perhaps a bit like bubble memory. Better than existing solutions of its type in its time such as core, but that kind of storage was nearing its end because of hard disks. This time it's optical discs that are getting old, being replaced by cheap flash drives.

Cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32346992)

How much are those 25TB USB sticks going to cost you, bearing in mind that 64GB sticks currently retail for the best part of a hundred quid?

At the moment, CDs and DVDs are still used heavily because they're cheaper for archiving than flash based devices are (and cheaper than BD, at least in the UK), and easier to mass produce with read-only data preinstalled (Films, Games, and Music). If this is really using TiO2, then it's going to be dominant for the same reason DVD's are still dominant today. Cost is King - most of us are just getting by, and can't afford to splash out a few hundred on a whim.

Re:One thing missing though: (1)

Starcub (527362) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347962)

Optical media are still much cheaper than flash. This new tech would do two things:
1. Reduce the cost of the media and,
2. assuming the laser can switched to scale, increase bandwidth likewise.

Dailytech ran an article a few days ago that said some researchers used a scanning electron microscope to precisely place dots in a latice at about 4nm a side to create what looked like optically switched transistors. It sounds like these people are using the same tech to create a higher density re-writable disk.

A 1x DVD drive transfers data at about 10Mb/s, A 1x Blueray drive currently tranfers data at about 36Mb/sec. If they can increase the density 1000x over Blueray, then assuming the transfer rate can be scaled similarly, then theoretically the transfer rate of such a drive would be ~25920Mb/sec or 3200MB/s!

Of course, the overall storage market will drive when and if this tech becomes available.

Safe... Really? (1, Informative)

s31523 (926314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32346970)

According TFA: "You don't have to worry about procuring rare metals. Titanium oxide is cheap and safe, already being used in many products ranging from face powder to white paint"

Really? Several articles have linked TiO2 to cancer [ccohs.ca] . Yeah, real safe.

Re:Safe... Really? (1)

Gofyerself (1709970) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347072)

Just about everything on earth is unsafe in one form or another. The article you link to mentions "ultrafine titanium dioxide dust", I do not think that titanium oxide in recordable media form is any more of a hazard than it is in sunblock form, unless of course you have a CD huffing problem.

Re:Safe... Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347178)

Just another reason not to touch the pretty side. I like my storage media with a little fight in it. "Mess with my data, get cancer."

Re:Safe... Really? (1)

milosoftware (654147) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347188)

Well, unless they make that center hole a lot bigger, I won't be rubbing that disc on my skin anywhere. So I'm not really worried.

Re:Safe... Really? (1)

Variablez (1765604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347824)

First tons of things still call cancer that we actually eat on a daily basis. Two you will be handling maybe to put it in your computer and put it in a case. Honestly are you going to wear the cds a cloth. If not I believe you will be fine. Documented Troll.

*faints* (1)

Rallias Ubernerd (1760460) | more than 4 years ago | (#32347142)

25 freeking terabytes? 10 of these would store my entire movie and dvd collections! Thats less then my 40,000 DVD's and 80,000 CD's. I'm amazed. How long until this hits the market?

Reliability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32347248)

Make storage discs that are *reliable* and I will be a lot more interested. Data loss due to failed optical media must be astronomical based on the lack of long term storage ability.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?