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!

Sony's Blue-Violet Laser the Future Blu-ray?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the ever-more-bits dept.

Media 260

JoshuaInNippon writes "Japanese researchers from Sony and Tohoku University announced the development of a 'blue-violet ultrafast pulsed semiconductor laser,' which Sony is aiming to use for optical disks. The new technology, with 'a laser wavelength of 405 nanometers in the blue-violet region' and a power out put 'more than a hundred times the world's highest output value for conventional blue-violet pulse semiconductor lasers,' is believed to be capable of holding more than 20 times the information of current Blu-ray technology, while retaining a practical size. Japanese news reports have speculated that one blue-violet disk could be capable of holding more than 50 high-quality movie titles, easily fitting entire seasons of popular TV shows like 24. When the technology may hit markets was not indicated."

cancel ×

260 comments

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

Oh no. (2, Insightful)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997428)

Here come some more shark comments. Sheesh!

Re:Oh no. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997452)

Here come some more shark comments. Sheesh!

I think for the next April Fool's day Slashdot should automatically reject all comments that contain the words 'Shark' and 'XKCD'. Think of all the people that'd get!

Re:Oh no. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997578)

The world looks mighty good to me,
'Cause goatse holes are all I see.
Whatever it is I think I see,
becomes a goatse hole to me
Goatse hole how I love your anusy gue,
Goatse hole I think I'm in love with you
Whatever it is I think I see,
becomes a goatse hole to me.

Re:Oh no. (2, Funny)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997704)

You, troll, have ruined the tootsie roll song forever. FOREVER. ):

Re:Oh no. (1)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997500)

Seriously... I've just about had my fill of the damn shark joke. Yes, it was a brilliant movie, but it and the flood of quotes it spawned are all 13 years old. For the love of God, let the shark quote die.

Re:Oh no. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997512)

Seriously... I've just about had my fill of the damn shark joke. Yes, it was a brilliant movie, but it and the flood of quotes it spawned are all 13 years old. For the love of God, let the shark quote die.

Oh no.. does this mean we'll be hearing that stupid chair joke until at least 2018? *sigh*

Re:Oh no. (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997712)

aside from the comments, I have no idea what you are all talking about. Enlighten me, please?

Re:Oh no. (4, Funny)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997808)

In 2005 there was some story that Steve Ballmer threw a chair. Every day since then somebody has made a +5 Funny post referring to it. According to Slashdot, if Steve hits a red light while driving to work, he'll throw a chair, and the idea of that is really really really funny.

Re:Oh no. (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998110)

According to Slashdot, if Steve hits a red light while driving to work, he'll throw a chair, and the idea of that is really really really funny.

Well... I personally think it is pretty funny that Steve Ballmer keeps a chair in the trunk of his car to throw out into traffic whenever he hits a red light but hey maybe I'm a bit odd...

Re:Oh no. (1, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997522)

In Soviet Russia, shark quote lets you die!

Re:Oh no. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997648)

In Soviet Russia, shark quotes you.

Re:Oh no. (2, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997846)

They were already there, hence it's automatically on topic. It's almost like saying "Sigh, here comes another Slashdot story..." which will inevitably relate to the much more important topic surrounding shark mounted lasers.

Hence, I'm happier with this Slashdot story because it's actually *more* on topic than usual.

Re:Oh no. (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998402)

Blue sharks [wikipedia.org] , no doubt.

Yet Another Format War on the Way... (3, Insightful)

Jerrry (43027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997434)

Of course, as soon as Sony brings this to market, some other company, or group of companies, will unveil a competing product incompatible with Sony's, starting yet another format war. Too bad these guys can't just work together and agree on a common format and save us all time, money, and having to deal with dead formats (e.g. HD-DVD).

Re: (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997498)

The only reason HD-DVD didn't take off was Not enough repeated letters in the name to be catchy. This time they'll try HHDVVDDBVD.

*props to RvB

Re: (0)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997558)

The only reason HD-DVD didn't take off was Not enough repeated letters in the name to be catchy. This time they'll try HHDVVDDBVD.

The reason HD-DVD didn't take off was because they didn't allow porn.

Re: (5, Insightful)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997888)

If your storage medium has to explicitly allow your content then someone is doing it terribly, terribly wrong.

Re: (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997950)

If your storage medium has to explicitly allow your content then someone is doing it terribly, terribly wrong.

Yeah, they were very stupid about licensing, and that's why, even with, what a year+ lead, HD-DVD died an embarassing death. This is one case where the market really DID decide.

Re: (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998396)

Paying video stores to only carry your format is not really letting the market decide. The whole things was a weasel-fest, and the more expensive format, with a non-finalized spec and forced DRM (or so I'm let to believe) won. I'm still dreaming the day consumers get together and start asking "in that an open, non-patent encumbered format", and not using it if the answer is "no". In my defence, I do realise it is dreaming.

Re:Yet Another Format War on the Way... (4, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997894)

Who cares. By the time this technology goes commercial, optical discs will be dead as far as selling movies, music and such goes. Maybe they'll have some other more limited uses.

Re:Yet Another Format War on the Way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997926)

I was just wondering why we never hear about this sort of technology being invented by AFRICANS.

Anybody got any ideas?

Re:Yet Another Format War on the Way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32998080)

Because China hasn't outsourced their tech design there yet :D Much like with the US to Japan to China, given it 25-50 years and it'll ALL be produced there. Well until somebody realizes Africa doesn't actually have the population to support the sort of cheap labor China did because there is... what? A third the number of people as in China, spread across 25-50 countries? :D

Re:Yet Another Format War on the Way... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997944)

Of course, as soon as Sony brings this to market, some other company, or group of companies, will unveil a competing product incompatible with Sony's, starting yet another format war. Too bad these guys can't just work together and agree on a common format and save us all time, money, and having to deal with dead formats (e.g. HD-DVD).

This is the first time I've ever seen an Insightful mod used on the proposal that a Sony format should be unanimously adopted.

Another new format? (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997488)

People haven't even moved from DVDs to Blu-Ray yet, judging by the amount of shelf space still given to DVDs.

Is Sony TRYING to kill off blu-ray?

Re:Another new format? (1, Insightful)

cybereal (621599) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997536)

History is easy to forget. DVD was around on the shelves for almost a decade before it hit mass consumption levels. Blu-ray will probably see the same time frames, and this update to the format will take years of research and development before it's even commercially viable.

Don't sweat it.

Re:Another new format? (4, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997742)

The difference in going from VHS to DVD was far more substantial than going from DVD to Blu-Ray. No more rewinding, easy seeking, a menu system. Blu-Ray does have a higher quality, but doesn't provide enough new features to warrant upgrading my entire DVD collection...especially when a decent upconverter can be purchased for relatively cheap. Some titles I have purchased for Blu-Ray, Casino Royale, and Dark Knight look gorgeous in high definition. Duck Soup and Spaceballs, however will likely stay in my collection as DVDs.

Re:Another new format? (4, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997762)

History is easy to forget. DVD was around on the shelves for almost a decade before it hit mass consumption levels.

No, it wasn't.

DVD came out between late 1996 (Japan) and early 1999, depending on where you lived. Here in the UK it apparently came out in late 1998 (*), and in 3-4 years sharply falling prices were already seriously eroding the VHS market. I got a DVD-ROM drive for UK £40-45 circa 2002, and that wasn't especially cutting edge (nor expensive!) by that time.

(*) Or so Wikipedia claims. However, I remember DVD-ROM drives and decoder cards being offered- albeit it at a notable premium- as a mainstream option when I was choosing a PC in Spring '98.

Re:Another new format? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997772)

Yes, but they didn't announce Blu-ray right when DVD was starting to get really popular.

Leaking information about a successor to Blu-ray this early is an Osborne.

Re:Another new format? (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997930)

Hah, remember analog Laserdiscs?

Re:Another new format? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997806)

Yes, but DVDs had the PS2 and PCs to boost sales, Blu-Ray has the third-place console and a few PCs supporting it and the people who buy some of the most expensive home computers (Macs) don't have it and when the trend is for machines to forgo an optical drive altogether... I just can't see Blu-Ray reaching even remotely the level of support as DVD did. When flash memory reaches even cheaper levels than now, I don't think that an optical disk has a future, they are slow, expensive to re-write, and bulky.

Re:Another new format? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998378)

None of that three objections at the end matter much in a format for delivery of content for consumption; especially with its mass stamping for pennies.

Re:Another new format? (2, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997570)

Yes, they are trying to kill off blu-ray, 5-10 years from now. I know it can be hard to read them but the summary states that they have announced the development of the laser diode. They haven't released a product, they haven't come up with specs, they haven't even created a single diode yet. This product is years and years off. Stop whining.

Re:Another new format? (1)

victorhooi (830021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998296)

heya,

Not to nitpick - but they have the diode, lol.

It's just the specs, and a marketable product they don't have yet =).

But otherwise, your post is spot on, it'll probably be at least half a decade before this comes to market - they have to miniaturise and mass produce it before.

Cheers,
Victor

Re:Another new format? (1)

Escape From NY (1539983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998348)

Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again.

By the time they've made this into a real product (4, Insightful)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997490)

We'd already be walking around with 500GB USB sticks.

Or worse, we'd be walking around with 1Gbps wireless connections and we'd be streaming HD movies from YouTube.

So unless they've figured out how to cram like 1PB or even 1EB on an optical disc, they're walking down a blind alley.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (5, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997550)

We'd already be walking around with 500GB USB sticks.

Or worse, we'd be walking around with 1Gbps wireless connections and we'd be streaming HD movies from YouTube.

And the "HD" YouTube videos would still look like shit.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997668)

You're right, I think the article is way off the mark. I don't think there will be another viable packaged video disc format. The article makes no mention of possible use in fiber optics, the higher information density could allow much more information to be transmitted, assuming it is at all compatible with fiber.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (2, Informative)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997952)

Is there such a thing as "compatibility" with fiber? I mean, I know that optic fiber's frequency-transmission characteristics aren't perfectly flat, which probably yields more or less signal attenuation, but it's not like photons come in different 'formats'.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998098)

I look forward to the day spinning optical media dies. Hard disks are decent, but optical media is fiddly stuff. Lot of poor quality optical drives out there. They don't last, and they often error out halfway through a burn. They're slow. As if a motor to spin the disks isn't enough of a mechanical weak point, they insist on powering the trays. Device drivers for both Linux and Windows are flaky. And the disks! They decay, warp, and scratch. And lastly, the politics. There are the format wars of course. But worse is lock in and damaging attempts at DRM. Bad enough that a rogue employee might slip malware onto a CD, but that corporations could dare adopt policies to deliberately do so, and think that's within their rights...

When I use optical media at all, I prefer the RW over the R so I don't lose disk after disk when trying to figure out yet another problem. Right now, some mysterious Linux kernel bug has rendered most of my computers unable to read full sized CD-Rs, though all other kinds of optical media, such as CD-RWs and mini CD-Rs, work as well as can be expected. The only computer equipment that gives me more trouble is ink jet printers. Now that most computers can boot from a USB stick, and hard drives are so gigantic that my modest data storage needs will never exceed their capacity, the only real use I still have for optical media is transferring data where networking isn't available. A networked movie server beats the pants off a shelf full of DVDs.

Convenience over Quality (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997892)

I recently became a Netflix convert. The DVD-in-the-mail trick is okay, as I'm a patient guy and don't mind planning ahead. What really impressed me was the streaming. True, it's not perfect, but the value of convenience far outweighs subtle quality issues.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997986)

They still would be useful for doing backups. Flash is too expensive for write-once data.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998228)

But hard drives aren't, even with necessary migration to mitigate drive failure.

Re:By the time they've made this into a real produ (1)

zugmeister (1050414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998394)

The first thing that went through my mind when I read the summary is that for $100 I can go buy a USB external notebook drive that holds in the area of 350Gigs. With the proper formatting it's universally readable and can easily hold 50 movies + a ton of music + a stupid number of documents. Why would they want to do this? Maybe they're worried about the environmental impact of shipping season long episodes on multiple plastic disks?

Why the plug for "24?" (2, Funny)

kg8484 (1755554) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997502)

Oh, wait, I get it. This is a manly laser. It holds manly shows like "24." It will refuse to store shows like "Days of Our Lives" and "The L Word."

Re:Why the plug for "24?" (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998104)

No, it'll store the L Word but mute all the volume to stay extra manly.

Re:Why the plug for "24?" (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998330)

In fact, researchers have dubbed it the Man's Blu-Ray. [youtube.com]

God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997510)

i'd rather they worked on SSD technology and digital distribution than working on physical disks.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (2, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997814)

There's nothing wrong with physical discs, only that they're being overtaken by thumb-size USB flash drives for data storage, and are no longer an economical method of mass data storage. It's cheaper to buy whole hard drives and use those for archives than to use optical discs now.

If they'd get off their asses and make optical discs that can store 1 or even 10 TB, and make them cheap, then optical discs would be relevant again. Until then, forget it.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997870)

Loading, Loading, Loading. Optical drives are slow when compared to HDD, SSDs and the like, especially when writing data to them in most cases.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998006)

For archival uses, write time shouldn't be a big factor, just sheer capacity.

Obviously, they're nowhere near as useful for temporary and portable storage as a thumb drive.

I'd really like to see a 1 or 10 TB optical disc that's cheap and makes it easy for home and small-business users to back up their data without having to buy stacks of hard drives. Tapes (like LTO) aren't a solution, because their drives are obscenely expensive and require special hardware (desktop systems don't have old-style parallel SCSI ports, which for some reason all tape drives use). Not that long ago, CD-Rs and then DVD-Rs made good backup media, but hard drives have gotten so much larger, while BD-R remains expensive and isn't large enough, so it's actually much cheaper to use HDs for backup, which seems horrifically wasteful to me.

Unfortunately, I don't think anything like this is going to happen, because there's no market for it. Most people don't back up at all (how many times have you heard "I lost xxx in a hard drive crash recently"?), and big businesses use tape because a $4000 tape drive isn't a lot of money to them. Low-cost backup solutions basically have used optical discs which were designed not for backup, but for distribution of media (music and then movies). After the technology was developed for distribution, it was cheap and easy to adapt it for data storage. But there's no application that requires 1 or 10TB discs for data distribution; even the largest HD movies aren't anywhere near that big, and fit easily on a 36GB Blu-ray disc.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

Benaiah (851593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998232)

For archival use, Tapes will always be better.Sequential read and write is not an issue and Sheer surface area makes it cheaper & easier.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998044)

How does that have any significance in types of media which are naturally sequential? (writing? New discs will be meant to deliver what comes past current "HD", that's it)

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997984)

How about long time data preservation? Wasn't that one of the main pro-arguments to BluRay discs in the first place?

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998026)

If they're anything like DVD-Rs and CD-Rs, then you'll be lucky if they last 10 years. Dye-based discs don't have long lifespans, only the pressed aluminum ones do (if they don't succumb to DVD rot, caused by faulty manufacturing).

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998404)

I once read an article about BluRays in the c't which is one of the most credible IT magazines in Germany. From what they said, DVDs were never meant for archival purposes, because of their lack of reliability.

BluRay discs, on the other hand, were specifically designed for that purpose. first, they made the surface a lot more scratch-resistant than a DVD, secondly they crammed three times as much ECC data into a sector.

Re:God darnit disk, DIE ALREADY. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998120)

Size-wise, the only requirement optical discs need to pass, to "stay relevant", is "in the range of typical single instance of media delivered on them" - that's it. CD does that, DVD does that, Bluray does that; next disk will probably have to merely suffice for this format [wikipedia.org] (accidentally, it means at least the higher range of what you think it needs to do to "stay relevant" - but that's beside the point as I said, it's a target which doesn't move continuosly...like your requirement, in reality, does)

Wickedlasers? (1)

CyberVenom (697959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997520)

I'm curious if the "more than 100 times the world's highest output value" means that we will soon see a 100W version of the WickedLasers Spyder III...

http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Spyder_III_Pro_Arctic_Series-96-37.html [wickedlasers.com]

Re:Wickedlasers? (1)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997992)

I'm waiting to see someone building a cigarette lighter with that thing!

um (3, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997534)

I thought we were pretty much done with physical media?

Re:um (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997562)

Like hard drives?

Re:um (2, Informative)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997810)

For delivery, not storage.

Re:um (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997858)

I'm not so sure. Netflix instant viewing is nice, but that quality definitely doesn't equal full HD. Better than DVD, sure, but not better than BD. Network speeds could increase, but I wouldn't bet on them increasing significantly any time soon, in the USA, with the way our telecom companies are run here.

Streaming distribution of HD content might be feasible in an advanced country like South Korea or Finland, but not in the USA. Our network speeds just aren't fast enough.

Re:um (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998174)

And suddenly people here want to practically completelly give up their control over media? How did that happen?

Re:um (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998356)

There are plenty of companies providing HD over IP in the US. It just requires fiber to the home, which they're putting in for most new construction.

Re:um (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997976)

We are, at least this media. It'll be as popular as SACD and DVD Audio, which is to say not at all. Ever notice how they could sell DVDs with about 1000 of those iTunes tracks, but they don't? This won't be used to sell more on one disc, it'll be to tell you that you need BeyondHD resolution and lossless 384KHz/48 bit audio for your bats because otherwise you'll miss the overtones. Looking at the encodes I see that even BluRay is often overkill. Outside of backwater countries like the US the connection speeds are ready too. It just doesn't seem like the TV and movie industry is ready, but well... it seems more and more people understand that it's possible anyway.

Re:um (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32998016)

Yeah, the singularity is approaching...

Great DRM mechanism ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997566)

a laser wavelength of 405 nanometers in the blue-violet region' and a power out put 'more than a hundred times the world's highest output value for conventional blue-violet pulse semiconductor lasers

Use it too many times, the media is burned to a crisp.

"Why isn't this thing working - let me look in and see if there's anything clogging the ....AGGH MY EYEBALLS!"

Now if they can make a switchable converter that will let it emit in visible light, little Johnny the future serial killer can also tease cats from a block away - then nuke them!

Re:Great DRM mechanism ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997686)

405 nm is visible light. It's blue-violet. It's in the summary.

Re:Great DRM mechanism ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997872)

My dog is color-blind, you insensitive clod! :-)

Seriously, longer-wavelength light exhibits less scattering [wikipedia.org] . You wouldn't be able to tease a cat or dog a block away with a near-uv light.

405 nm (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997646)

According to wikipedia, the light used in a bluray laser is also 405 nm, so that isn't the new part, in case that was confusing for anyone else.

50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

Beardydog (716221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997680)

I'm not sure what Blu-ray is currently up to, GB-wise, but during The War, I enlisted with the side that claimed it could store the most data. Capacity was supposed to increase to 250GB at some point, based on things I was reading early on.

Instead, the maximum size a standard Blu-ray player can read is apparently 100GB, and I've never seen one that big. Everything is 50. 200GB discs exist, but rare as unicorns, and I guess unplayable with a special 200GB-Blu-ray drive.



That article doesn't even mention GB of storage. For some reason, I care about the laser's wavelength in nanometers, but I need to have the capacity of the disc described as "number of high quality movies".

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997760)

Wife: (eyes rolling) Why do you need *another* movie player?

You: But hon! This one uses a 405 nanometer laser! That's in the blue-violet region!

Now all you Blu-Ray movie watchers can sit thru non-skip-able commercials about the "amazing Hi Def picture of the Blu-Vi-402" movies coming soon!

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997960)

Now all you Blu-Ray movie watchers can sit thru non-skip-able commercials about the "amazing Hi Def picture of the Blu-Vi-402" movies coming soon!

I'm constantly amused by the fact that these commercials were first put on VHS tapes in order to stop the movie from getting damaged, while on modern media they're the only part of the disk that never seems to get damaged. You can't skip the commercials, but the movie is guaranteed to skip! There's something poetic about that ....

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998236)

Well, assuming the contents are laid out on the disk in the most probable order of playback, they should be near the center; I imagine most scratch don't end up there.

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997942)

Well, since standard blueray is 50gb and it says this one is 25x bigger then the standard one should be 1250gb.

Though at that point I have to wonder, why don't you just sell the movies on a bloody external harddrive?

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998148)

Because mass pressing of optical disks will remain much cheaper... (that it doesn't have to filter to consumers is irrelevant; price of media doesn't dictate the pricing schemes of content owners that much - but it does dictate their margins, so...)

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998206)

Because it is to easy to read and write to a hard drive.

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997966)

How many Library of Congress National Film Registries is that?

Re:50GB? 100? 200? 20xWhat? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998374)

Exactly my thoughts. A standard BD player can handle 100GB, and some can handle 200GB, which for the "entire season of 24" quoted in the article is 4-8GB per episode, or around 12500kbps. This is more than enough to achieve said result. So tell me, why do we not currently have entire seasons on single discs? Because the manufacturers think we'll not be happy spending large quantities of our cash and only getting a single disc for it. It feels so much better if its an 8-disc box set or whatever. And because screen space for the menus gets too tight to have a fancy graphical design if you have more than about 4 items per disc. So, essentially, from the studio's perspective, there isn't actually demand for more capacity on video discs right now. They could put more on than they are at the moment, but choose not to for reasons that aren't going to be alleviated by technology like this.

Now Get Rid of Spinning Discs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997716)

Good, now can we get rid of spinning discs and move to something not based on shellac records?

Ooh! (1)

AngryK9 (1553903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997728)

Goodie! A more powerful laser for my blu-Ray phaser!

damn (1, Redundant)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997746)

damn I still only have a dvd player.

Sorry, I'm not buying the capacity claims. (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997868)

The limit on drive capacity is not switching speed, but focal spot diameter. If this is a 405nm laser, its minimum focus spot will be exactly the same size as the spot of existing Blu-Ray lasers (they're 405nm, too). What am I missing?

Re:Sorry, I'm not buying the capacity claims. (2, Insightful)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998070)

It might have to do with the fact that optical discs the pits and lands don't exactly correspond to binary 1's and 0's.

CDs use EFM Encoding [wikipedia.org] to store their data, DVD's use EFMPlus and BD's use 17PP [cdrinfo.com] .

Having a faster switching laser may allow for the run lengths to be different. But that's just my best guess.

Re:Sorry, I'm not buying the capacity claims. (4, Funny)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998188)

Hoo brother, you have no idea how many libraries of congress this thing outputs.

That's nice...but how much will it cost? (2, Insightful)

lxnyce (1280956) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997874)

Just like current blu-ray, it's just not practical. Why would I pay $25 for 4 25GB discs, when I can pay $100 for a 2TB external hard drive? Even for archiving purposes, it's just not practical unless you use the argument that the discs last longer.

Eh, Sony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997882)

... I suspect this will be another format I will wish I could have, but that Sony will make impossible to get behind.

Sony does sometimes innovate, but they also almost always lock down the product in the most idiotic way (mini discs, memorysticks, blueray, ebookreaders and so on) so I can't do anything but hate them. So cool but so stupid.

Re:Eh, Sony... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998324)

MD and ebooks, really? The former were the first readily available consumer way of copying music without much in the way of generation loss (present digital Walkmans behaving fine). Sony ebookreaders are also quite open; supporting DRM format, sure...but one which is sort of standard; supporting important unlocked ones out of the box. And memory sticks...just different.

Sony is far from a monolithic entity, with some divisions almost appearing like in some sort of struggle between them.

If only (4, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997946)

50 High quality movie titles had been produced since Blu ray started shipping.

My God.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997962)

The porn industry will make billions. Imagine getting one of these discs a month crammed with High Quality movies. Not the free crap on the porntube websites. You will never leave your house...EVER.

wondering ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997964)

if pointing that laser at a 20 million year old rock
in a cave-painting cave will yield a sh1t-load of pr0n (and maybe
some philosophy on decay)

damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32997996)

guess I'll have to buy the White Album again

Great, more room for crap. (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32997998)

[...]easily fitting entire seasons of popular TV shows like 24.

I can already fit an entire HD season of a TV show on one DVD using x264 or Theora.

On a single layer DVD I've got all 6 episodes of Star Wars... Most people don't mind swapping discs every 12 hours or so.

Hell, I've got a cheap ($30) DVD player that can play Xvid or DivX, and on one 8Gb (dual layer DVD) disc I've got FOUR seasons of a TV show.

Some of the entire seasons I have stored on a single DVD have dual or triple audio streams (multiple languages and/or commentary).

Blu-ray is capable of storing entire runs of most TV shows (except exceptionally long running shows),
yet they insist on using crappy compression and dividing up the seasons into multiple discs.

As long as more disks per show == more money per show we'll still have tons of cheesy
"special features" and/or half blank disks wasting our digital and shelf storage capacity.

Format War Time Delay (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998000)

Its worth noting that techies were talking about using blue lasers back in the 90's as a way to fit more information onto a "CD" for computers, way before any of had DVD players in our homes. I remember it was pointed out the blue lasers transferred data slower than the lasers being used in CD-ROM drives of the day.

I think a Blue-Violet replacement for BluRay is longer off than most other slashdot posters seem to believe.

Conversion Please (1)

schlameel (1017070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998034)

I get that it's bigger, but can I get that in "Libraries of Congress"?

gonna take a long time... (1)

sxedog (824351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998204)

to download these files on bit torrent... :(

Like 24 what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32998240)

> easily fitting entire seasons of popular TV shows like 24.

24 shows? Which ones?

After 1 minute I wondered if the newsstory is talking about 24h, with that Sutherland (?) guy.

Not that an "h" would help much. But it's me: I pay for cable and don't watch it (specially 24h/CSI and other tr*).

It's completely irrational (1)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998306)

but I envision Nagahashi Mirimoto (the head of the miniaturization dept), screaming at the top of his lungs:

"THE PITS! MAKE THEM SMALLER!!" :)

Dang those guys are so good at making everything smaller.

Poetry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32998310)

DVDs are red
Violet-rays are blue
Do not look into laser
With remaining eye

I'll wait for Gamm-ray (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32998392)

Note how I removed the last vowel -- pretty hip, right?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>