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!

A Terabyte of Data on a Regular DVD?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the through-the-magic-of-magic dept.

Data Storage 200

Roland Piquepaille writes "This is the promise of the 3-D Optical Data Storage system developed at the University of Central Florida (UCF). This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc. The system uses lasers to compact large amounts of information onto a DVD and the process involves shooting two different wavelengths of light onto the recording surface. By using several layers, this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte. Read more for additional references and a diagram showing how this two-photon 3D optical system reads data."

cancel ×

200 comments

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

maybe Im not getting it (2, Interesting)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164836)

But how is this different than current dual layer DVDs? Does it just take advantage of shorter wavelengths or what?

Re:maybe Im not getting it (3, Informative)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164922)

Much higher density and multiple layers. TFA mentions 33 x-y planes (layers) of information. With that many planes, the density of each layer is comparable with a single side of a Blu-Ray disc. Can't remember if Blu-Ray is multi-layer or not.

Re:maybe Im not getting it (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165008)

TFA also says we have been having issues reading the data and now they have solved the problem. Why weren't we seeing this problem with dual layer DVDs?

I remember going over this in my CS courses years ago on the use of multiple wavelengths to write data, I assumed that was what they did with Dual Layer DVDs, but I see in the Wikipedia article that there is a physical layer to dual layer as this new tech is some kind of holographic tech?

Re:maybe Im not getting it (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165228)

The thing is (from TFA's VHS analogy) that every time you read a DVD that was burned (i.e not pressed) the reading process uses the same wavelength of light that was used to burn it in the first place and degrades it slightly. Over time, and many many reads, it could (or most likely will) degrade the data placed on the disk such that it's no longer readable.

Re:maybe Im not getting it (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165648)

But is that really true? Is there significant degradation? VHS causes degradation during every play cycle not because you use the same device to read and write, but for two reasons: One, your VCR creates EM fields and VHS uses analog magnetic recording. So any time you put a tape in your VCR you're erasing it a little, whether you play it or not, just because there's a transformer in the same metal box as your tape. Two, the head in your VCR does helical scanning. Since the head therefore has to be round, so that 1) it can spin and 2) as it spins the distance from the axis of rotation to the tape has to remain constant, the tape also must describe a round path. The only way it can do this is if it rubs something so it might as well rub on the head. It pretty much has to anyway, because at the time it was outside our technical ability to use a much stronger signal - which probably wouldn't have been a good idea with analog recording anyway. The result is that the head physically wears away some of the coating as the tape passes the head. This is true of any system in which the recording medium contacts the read head, but it's especially true of VHS because you have a rapidly rotating head to deal with.

As an aside, this is why you should never pause VHS unless you're actually trying to see something paused, and then you should unpause it as rapidly as possible, because otherwise you're stopping the tape but not the head, and the head will sit in one place rubbing away the magnetic coating on the plastic tape. This is why you should never rent porn on VHS, all the good parts will be missing :D

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I know this is not directly comparable for some obvious reasons, but I want to bring up Minidisc. While Minidisc is a MO drive and thus uses a substantially different technology, it might be worth discussing. MO works by using a laser to heat a very small region of the disk to the Curie Point [wikipedia.org] , and then you write it with an electromagnet as it cools. Nothing happens below the curie point. Now, I know far less about CDR or DVDR than I do about this, unfortunately, but AFAIK it's based on the intensity of the laser, right? So here's my question, is there actually any significant degradation when you use the laser to read, or is the power level so much lower that there's really just not enough energy to cause it?

Re:maybe Im not getting it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165106)

I'm getting it...MORE PORN per DVD! Woo-Hoo!!!

Re:maybe Im not getting it (1)

rune420 (1037380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165194)

I'm not totally sure, but it seems like they read using two different-wavelength lasers simultaneously, and in normal dual layer DVD there it always just one beam which shoots at one of two surfaces.

What about HVD? (2, Informative)

stonesmith (1037396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165440)

HVD is supposed to be out as early as next year and have 3.9 terrabytes of storage.

Cost? (1)

Fayn (1003629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164844)

Yea...sure is nifty as hell..but what would the price of something like this be?

Re:Cost? (3, Funny)

thewils (463314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164862)

Don't forget to factor in the expense of more hard disk needed to rip and burn 'em.

Re:Cost? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165088)

If you have a terabyte of data to store I'm guessing you have plenty of disk space already. Maybe you don't have an empty file system with a terabyte of free space to do disc to disc copies but eventually disk space cost will come down to something reasonable for that amount of data.

Jim

Re:Cost? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165644)

If you have a terabyte of data to store I'm guessing you have plenty of disk space already. Maybe you don't have an empty file system with a terabyte of free space to do disc to disc copies but eventually disk space cost will come down to something reasonable for that amount of data.


Okay, here you go, 2 TB of NAS space for $850. [dealmac.com]

Firehose Data Rates (2, Informative)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165358)

The data rates when reading or writing one of these would be pretty high. If there were 1000 tracks then that would be 1GB/track if it were spinning at 3600 RPM that would be arounf 500 Gigabits per second. You'd need sever times that in electrical bandwith to keep the squarewave sharp. That's terrahertz modulation rates even for the shortest reads.

So to do this at all your going to need 100 or more read heads and data channels to get the modulation rate down, or there would have to be orders of magnitude more tracks. Or possibly there's some way you could encode the bits in different overlapping frames such that the data rate of any one frame was lower. For example by using different reconstruction laser spatial patterns for different frames could use physics to select which frame was being selected.

Otherwise this is drinking from a fire hose even for the shortest reads, and the equipment needed would be prohibitively expensive.

The same problem happens when writing: how do you buffer a gigabyte of data to deliver it that fast. It ain't gonna be in the main RAM.

Re:Firehose Data Rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165840)

DVDs only have one track.

Woo Hoo! (5, Funny)

stoneycoder (1020591) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164854)

Glad I didn't buy blue-ray or HD-DVD, I knew they were both scams!

Re:Woo Hoo! (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165202)

Given the shortage of a single blue laser diode, why do I get the feeling that this will be just as if not more expensive? Especially since you probably get better results the farther off the spectrum the lazers are.

Hi Roland! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17164860)

Great to see you back!

Re:Hi Roland! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165496)

Good for another roll in the pig pile!

Yup, that is what is needed (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164886)

Soon someone will announce that by using blue laser they get blu-Terabit-DVD and another will announce blu+terabit-DVD and one more blu-terabit+DVD and finally a blu+terabit+DVD. By the this time users would have been fed up and gone on a nice fishing trip in the Owen's river in California.

Re:Yup, that is what is needed (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164962)

I'd rather have the blu-teraBYTE-DVD mentioned in TFA than a blu-terabit-DVD...

Re:Yup, that is what is needed (1)

Raistlin77 (754120) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165160)

Not that a terabit would be bad either, maybe a little more realistic for the average consumer...

Next Voyager mission? (-1, Redundant)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164896)

Now we can send everyone's name, social security number, and banking details to the as yet undiscovered ET's in the universe on one DVD :-)

Seriously, what is the target use for this? Getting 3 seasons of 'I love Lucy' on one DVD? Replace tape as a backup medium? Distribute personal copies of the Library of Congress to each taxpayer?

What would use 1TB of data storage in normal everyday kind of use?

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

olyar (591892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164942)

Remember when it seemed insane that anyone would ever need a whole Gigabit of RAM?

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

Gospodin (547743) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165144)

A gigaBIT? You can't even run XP on that.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165908)

Maybe we really wouldn't need that if OSs and apps were not as bloated as they are?

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164950)

Backing up your entire hard drive on one disc, maybe. It takes a lot of 4.7 GB DVDs to back up even an inexpensive hard drive nowadays.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165320)

Backup is the only thing I can think of it would be useful for right now. I doubt they've managed to improve read speeds at all, meaning it would take *forever* to actually look at a lot of that data.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164952)

You sound like "640 KB is more than enough", "There is demand in the world for upto six computers". If you build it, they will use it.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (2, Insightful)

dorath (939402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165274)

You sound like "640 KB is more than enough", "There is demand in the world for upto six computers". If you build it, they will use it.

Indeed. I remember back when my favorite game came on two 5.25" floppies. After a while, it was twelve 3.5" floppies. My current favorite game comes on two DVDs.

If the capacity is there, somebody will fill it. That somebody will likely make games.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165396)

Rough Ralph says you're a moron! (if you get the joke...)

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164960)

Whenever some advance is made in storage technology comes along, someone always says "but how will we use all this space?". Don't worry, we will. In 5 years time you'll be amazed that you could ever use a PC with less than a terrabyte storage and wouldn't it be great to burn it all to a single disk?

We'll easily find a use for all this space, just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165272)

just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.
Are you so sure? Perhaps we just never hear about the developments in tech that don't lead to some use. Or perhaps we hear about them, and then forget about them because they didn't turn out to be useful.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165772)

Terrabyte? How many Marsbytes is that?

Oblig 640kb-should-be-enough-for-anyone (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164986)

Backup sounds like a good starting point. CD's don't have the life expectancy of tape but they have speed, and for most backups a life expectancy of a few years is good enough. Terabyte drives will be hitting the market next year, why not be able to back it up to a single disc?

There are a few applications nowadays that span multiple CD's... for example terrain databases. NASA's 90m SRTM data takes up 25GB, compressed. Higher resolution - say, 1m or 2m - would more than encompass a 1TB disc.

new fangled (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165152)

Why would I want to back up my data on a 1 TB disc? So I can stop having copy the files onto almost 3 million 360k floppies! Finally, a worthy reason to ditch this 8086! I've been a bit cautious since spending the money upgrading to the DD drives.

Tape is over-rated (1)

random coward (527722) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165832)

The long term storage of tape is over-rated. It is just as prone to failures as optical disk; in fact it can be worse since it has such a high maintanence requirements. Besides who has a 1TB tape drive out now and how much does the medium cost? Tapes currently, not counting the drive cost more per GB than the hard disks that are backed up to them. Even enterprise SCSI disks dont cost much more than the tape media.

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165116)

What would use 1TB of data storage in normal everyday kind of use?

My pr0n collection, for starters?

Re:Next Voyager mission? (1)

PhoenixFlare (319467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165222)

What would use 1TB of data storage in normal everyday kind of use?

Easy full backups, Entire (non-HD, anyway) series on one disc instead 4 episodes at once, simple storage and portability of gigantic video/picture files, etc.

Blu-ray (1)

acgrissom (1002693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164914)

*waits for Sony to buy the technology and sit on it*

It will be interesting to see whether or not this develops into something commercially viable. We can't have anything screwing up the perception the blu-ray is "THE FUTURE!" (tm), now can we?

Re:Blu-ray (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164992)

Call me a fanboy but I don't think Sony's in the position to buy it. . . though I would like to personally tell them to sit on it. . .

A Terabyte... For How Long ? (4, Insightful)

bateleur (814657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164918)

Can't help wondering how durable the resulting storage solution will prove to be. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (5, Insightful)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165050)

using it on regular dvds might be like the days of hole-punching 720k floppies.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165128)

using it on regular dvds might be like the days of hole-punching 720k floppies.

Don't be stupid. DVDs already have the hole punched in them...

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (4, Insightful)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165282)

I agree completely. My burned CDs from 5 years ago are quite deteriorated, and the new CDRs I buy are of even shoddier quality. It's time to put laser media to rest and start using something more resilient.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165298)

I don't know... CDs can be carved into excellent throwing stars.

Seriously, though, lots of great things come from using things for purposes other than what they were intended for. Microwaves ovens were made after someone noticed that radar systems could melt candybars. CDs were originally intended, AFAIK, for audio, and only later adapted for general data discs for computers. That's often how technology advances: people realize they can use one discovery for an unintended and unrelated purpose.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (2, Informative)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165830)

Microwave ovens are made to be ovens. That the idea arose because of radar systems is irrelevant to this discussion. You're right that CDs were intended for audio. I would argue that they are not great for computer systems precisely for this reason. Unlike the old floppy disks, CDs do not do random-access writes and are not covered by a dust and dirt-blocking shell. On the other hand, standadizing on a non-optimal solution has had the great advantage of making CDs and CD players cheap as dirt, as well as allowing computers and audio systems to share music. The original poster in this thread presumably values reliability over cost savings based upon his negative experience with CDs.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (1)

rebootconrad (836537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165600)

Was the first car designed to go 200mph? Was the first computer designed to do a teraflop? To say that because a concept extends its original specification that it is therefore dangerous is not only stupid, but dangerous backward thinking. With a terabyte of space plenty of parity could be build in and still offer vast improvements over current optical disc storage space.

Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? (2, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165708)

I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.

I think the slashdot title is probably a bit misleading. It says "Regular DVD", but from reading the article, all I got out of it was that they can put this much data on something the SIZE of a regular DVD. If it mentioned anything about using a DVD+/-R that you can buy from the store today, then I completely missed it.

finally! (5, Funny)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17164940)

something big enough to hold my pr0n collection!

Re:finally! (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165138)

I didn't know there was that much goatse.

Re:finally! (1)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165406)

there couldn't be any LESS goatse.

Finally!!! (2, Insightful)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165000)

I might actually be able to back my data up at home to something other than more striped HDs!!

A "Regular" DVD? (2, Insightful)

Spritzer (950539) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165010)

That doesn't sound like a regular DVD to me.

you Fail It?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165012)

for a living g;ot lube is wiped off

Article is wrong (5, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165042)

By the definition of a DVD (yes, just like the various "color" Book standards that defined CDs, there are standards that define DVDs), this new technology will not result in a standard DVD by any means.

More proper terminology might be "in a standard form factor 12cm optical disc".

Re:Article is wrong (1)

skorch (906936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165198)

Well, my question, and the title certainly seems to suggest though I don't see how it's possible, is whether or not these will be readable in regular dvd players. If that's the case, then I think that's what they were referring to. If not then I don't see what the summary, title, and article have to do with DVD's at all, other than as a misleading example of a similar medium.

The article makes reference to data storage cubes as an alternative possibility, and that's something that I deffinitely know won't fit in my dvd drive, so does this mean that the disks are similarly incompatible? I'm just concerned about yet another proprietary media player/recorder on the horizon while we still haven't even gotten fully started with the current batch of too-similar-to-decide hd players.

Scratch proof? (1)

tempestdata (457317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165076)

Better Make that DVD scratch proof. Wouldn't one tiny scratch or piece of gunk and blot out a few megs of stuff? Or maybe they'll put it in a plastic casing (like a cartridge)..

Re:Scratch proof? (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165172)

DVDs already have that problem.

In fact, CDs already have that problem.

Go look up what the engineers have done to solve that problem. It transfers to this new technology just fine. (It's somewhat more complicated that I care to type into a Slashdot post when other web sites cover it with images and diagrams and stuff, not just text.) Google for cd error correction red book [google.com] . (The "red book" is the CD standard and ensures that you'll get discussions about the actual standard; without I found some other irrelevant stuff in the higher results.)

light on details...I'm a skeptic (4, Insightful)

tpjunkie (911544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165092)

Both articles repeat the phrase "uses lasers to compact large amounts of information onto a DVD" and then state that several layers would then be utilized. First of all, what the hell does using lasers to compact information mean? As far as I can tell, the articles explain how they are able to cause a state change in recording media with two wavelengths of light, and read it using a single wavelength, and that this media layer is particularly thin, allowing for multiple layers to be stacked up on the disc.

In my opinion, if you're going to the trouble of utilizing a multiple beam system in your drive, holographic storage makes a lot more sense, as both beams are the same wavelength (meaning only a single laser and a beam splitter are needed), your read times are going to be tremendously faster, due to the data all being stored in the same layer, obviating the need to refocus or switch beams, and finally, due to the nature of holography (in that small sections of a hologram contain the information needed to reconstruct the entire hologram), a disc with holographic storage should be much more resistant to read errors resulting from scratches, whereas with one of these, a scratch could render data on several layers unreadable.

Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic (1)

abradsn (542213) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165586)

These problems can be overcome.


1.) Put the disc in a sheath, effectively doubling the size of the disc, but rendering it safe from scratches.
2.) Double the size of the protective platstic layer on the disc, or make that protective layer much harder.
3.) Develop technology that can see at a higher resoultion to avoid needing to refocus.
4.) Use more than one laser focused at different distances.
5.) Speed up the ability to switch beams.

Though practically, none of these things are likely to happen... even if they are technically feasable (which I'm sure that most any scientist could figure out how to make that coating harder) it would mean that people could actually use the same discs for a longer period of time, and it would cut into margins for the producers of the discs. I mean come on, how hard is it to make it so that setting the disc on a flat surface (like a coffee table) for a day or two causes the disc to be unreadable. It's ridiculusly easy to scratch now.

Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165776)

and finally, due to the nature of holography (in that small sections of a hologram contain the information needed to reconstruct the entire hologram), a disc with holographic storage should be much more resistant to read errors resulting from scratches, whereas with one of these, a scratch could render data on several layers unreadable.

You are incorrect - you're almost right but your interpretation of the durability of a hologram is unfounded.

Small portions of a hologram contain the information needed to produce an approximation of the original image. The difference between traditional and holographic storage is that a scratch on a CD renders the information under the scratch unreadable, while a scratch on a hologram degrades the entire image.

In other words, you lose just as much data, it's just unevenly distributed. In the end, it will help you with durability by making it so that a certain percentage of the disc must be damaged before the data is unreadable; but at the same time, if you start with a 10cm square hologram, and you want to be able to still read the data faithfully if you only have 1cm square area left, your data will have to be written across 100x the area that it normally would in order for you to be able to read it out later.

If a 700MB CD without ECC is 800MB then an audio CD is ostensibly one-eighth error correction. Assuming the same density, you would get the same amount of data on the CD, but you would still be able to read data from any part of the CD as long as no more than 1/8 of the media was destroyed. In theory you could drill some symmetrical, balanced holes in such a CD (assuming a rotating-media holographic system, which is probably not a safe assumption) and lose nothing, not even the data you punched out.

Anyway, the REAL problem with optical disc durability is that the top layer is vulnerable. Scratches on the bottom can be polished out and minor scratches don't even have a significant effect because the laser is focused on the metal layer, not on the disc surface. It's diffuse when it passes through the layer where the scratches are. If the top of the disc were protected, I'd probably have lost about 50% less discs. I just had to throw about five discs away because their metal layer stuck to my CD binder and peeled off... And the first CD I ever killed died because I laid my arm across it for a couple minutes and sweated on it, which caused big chunky pieces of the metal layer to delaminate and stick to my arm like gold flakes.

Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165912)

your a fagoot

Fantastic! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165114)

Now we can lose even MORE data as the discs decay!

How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? (4, Insightful)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165124)

I have enough trouble with my regular DVDs getting hosed. I imagine this would only make the process of data retreival even more delicate. Can the data be stored more robustly if some storage capacity is given up?

Oo! Oo! Could this be done with software, even if the manufacturer decides to go with one nonrobust terabyte?

Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165436)

read-only RAID with 4 partitions on the disc :)

Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165536)

Go Knights! (0, Offtopic)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165140)

Let's hope that next year the football team will actually be mentioned in the local Orlando Sentinel!

Bandwidth Increase as a Bonus (1)

hahiss (696716) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165150)

The bonus is that the bandwidth of my stationwagon goes up dramatically as well!

FMD-ROM vaporware... (2, Insightful)

TyFighter (189732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165154)

FMD-ROMs were the wave of the future, what? 6 years ago? Promising to hold up to 140GB?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Multilaye r_Disc [wikipedia.org]
None of this kind of vaporware will ever see the light of day unless Sony or Microsoft wants it to.

Sony will be the first to adopt them (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165176)

And they'll use them in the Playstation 4. After all, Blu-ray is so....2006.

And the blank media tax will be.. (2, Funny)

The Creator (4611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165238)

In best Dr. Evil voice: "One million dollars!" *muhahahahaha*

I have a much better idea (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165246)

Read/write optical media with X-rays -- much higher density.

(kidding, obviously)

Slow I/O??? (4, Interesting)

Sargeant Slaughter (678631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165250)

If this is using essentially the same technology as DVD i think the read/write speeds would be awfully slow to handle 1 TB of data. If the bits are squeezed into a smaller surface area (instead of just layerd on top of eachother) if should read faster but if the space the bits take up is the same I think it would have simial I/O performance. After all, you can only spin a disc so fast (10-15K RPM).
Unless they find a way to read/write to multiple layers simultaneously and very efficiently, I think it would be really slow. At round normal DVD I/O speeds, burning one of those suckers would take like 60 hours!
Universities like to announce stuff like they are a big breakthroughs when in reality they have little to no impact. Get's their names in paper...

Realisminity (1)

pedropolis (928836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165278)

They've got enough production problems with a simple blue laser diode. A twin photon contraption capable of reading and writing in multiple wavelengths, put into mass production? Never. We'll see Lucas direct Chapters 7-9 before this comes to fruition.

I'm curious... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165318)

magnetic tape...catridges...optical discs....so many wildly different storage mediums.

When will the next big innovation occur, and what will it be? Even a holographic disc is still a *disc*, no matter how advanced it is.

Re:I'm curious... (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165400)

The use of a holographic storage method could be a very big step if they get it to work (have we heard promises like that before?). Imagine holographic storage in cube form instead. Then we'd really talk about major capacity. I'm hoping this could become the first real world step towards something like that.

Re:I'm curious... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165438)

cube form (or something similar thereof) would almost be a requirement...if we still haven't learned that optical discs are too easily damaged in the 25+ years they have been around...

What's old is new again (1)

Control Group (105494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165322)

This is neat and all, but I'm still holding out for FMD-ROM [slashdot.org] .

I've been waiting for seven years, so it's got to be out Real Soon Now.

Re:What's old is new again (0, Redundant)

stile99 (1004110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165864)

I heard that's the media Duke Nukem Forever will be released on.

HVD? (1)

Thraxen (455388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165360)

So is this the same technology as HVD, or is this something different?

tera-byte dvd (1)

virtualthinker (872434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165380)

A terabyte dvd would store my kids video creations. Then I could get my mega gig hard drive back to make a few of my own ... Like from the video I made of christmas and family re-unions all those years ago. Not to mention days in the park in Kentucky and visits to the airforce museum in Dayton. And Videos of Dale preaching in Florence, Wayne leading the kids in Jesus loves Me... And last but not least the TIRKY Trophey just sitting there doing nothing for hours... If i can fill up two 500 gig drives, I can fill a 1 tera-byte DVD.

Don't make me re-purchase. (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165410)

I don't care what the next media size or format is, as long as I don't have to friggin re-purchase my extensive movie collection. I was lucky, my collection of VHS movies was/is small. But my DVD collection has exploded. If they stop making traditional DVD players... I'm going to go postal.

What about the speed? (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165432)

I can see that by the article, they see this technology being used for possible backup storage. However, writing a DVD is pretty slow. It would take days to just write a terabyte. Also, it would need to support some way of streaming the data to the disc. Otherwise you have one really big iso to create.

They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant (2, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165444)

I remember when the first computers with DVD-ROM's started showing up, the computers generally had about 200-400MB hard drives. So a single 600MB CD disk held more than everything on your entire hard drive.

Now a standard computer might come with a 160 or 250GB hard drive, and where are disks? Only at about 8 GB for DL DVD's. Instead of fitting one or two hard drives of info on a single disc, now you fit 20 or more discs onto a single hard drive.

Yeah, I know Blue Ray and HD-DVD will be in computers soon, but they don't come close to reversing the trend. Soon we'll have 25-50 GB/disc, and by that time probably at least 500GB-1TB standard hard drives. And then it'll be a long time with frequent hard drive upgrades and no bigger discs again. Blue Ray and HDDVD may be bigger, but at the rate they're getting bigger, discs are still falling farther and farther behind.

I hope there will be some revolutionary increase like holographic storage discs, but I'm not holding my breath, because I remember reading articles about how we'd have terabyte holographic storage devices in a few years going back as far as NASA [harvard.edu] in 1993 and 4D [4dtechnology.com] around 1997. Holographic storage seems to be one of those technologies like fusion that are always a few years off.

At least holographic storage is always five years away, while fusion is always 20 years away. At least that sounds more promising.

Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant (1)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165528)

OK, I linked to the wrong company. That 4D was founded in 2002.

I don't know what company I saw around 1997 talking about their new holographic storage medium that was going to revolutionize everything in just a few years, I thought they were called 4D. Perhaps they were and now they're gone and there's this other 4D, or perhaps I got the name wrong.

Some questions, not answered, that are important (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165462)

Read/write speed? Redundancy/ease of destroying data accidentally? How is it that these questions aren't even considered? If it's too easy to lose the data, and/or it takes days to read/write it, I don't care how much data it holds... do you?

Re:Some questions, not answered, that are importan (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165508)

A terabyte takes days (well, a good chunk of one) to read/write even with hard disks.

I hope this becomes a mainstream format (1)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165480)

MAN, I really hope this becomes the new 'standard' format. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can go to hell. There's already like... a million manufacturers of standard DVD's... so it should be brutally cheaper than HD-dvd's or Blu-rays.

Well... I guess it'd make sense for the standard dvd's to cost y'know... the price of standard dvd's... but see what I'm getting at. HD-dvd and Blu-ray machinery not needed if this is used.

Competing Technology Link... (1)

triso (67491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165602)

Here's a link [hvd-alliance.org] to another holographic storage technology.

Now that's some real storage capacity (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165604)

and getting a scratch will be able to corrupt so many other people's medical records than the paltry number you can now fit on a 'fading' tape.

I can hardly wait...

Moo (0, Redundant)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165636)

This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc...this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.

1000GB != 1 Terabyte.
1024GB = 1 Terabyte

More specifically:

1 Terabyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
1 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes

Therefore

1000 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824,000 bytes

1,099,511,627,776 - 1,073,741,824,000 = 25,769,803,776 or, well, 24G.

Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:

1 Terabyte (according to this cockamamie 1000 scheme) = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes
1 Terabyte (in reality) = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) Gigabytes. That's a loss of just under 10%. It used to be a stupid marketing trick, can please we be serious about it now?

Don't sweat it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165758)

1000GB != 1 Terabyte.
1024GB = 1 Terabyte


Once they factor in all the DRM crap that will not doubt become required by law, that Terabyte DVD is only expected to hold 1.44 MB any way.

Re:Moo (1)

Thraxen (455388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165770)

Actually, that is not entirely factual. That is indeed how those prefixes have been traditionally defined in the PC world, but that is not exactly the correct usage for those SI prefixes. Read this link and be informed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte [wikipedia.org]

My units were uppercased and wrong. CORRECTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165892)

1000 GB = 1 terabyte, but assume for a moment that they claimed that 1000 GiB = 1 tebibyte. That would be wrong!

1000 GiB != 1 tebibyte.
1024 GiB = 1 tebibyte

More specifically:

1 tebibyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
1 gibibyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes

Therefore

1000 gibibyte = 1,073,741,824,000 bytes

1,099,511,627,776 - 1,073,741,824,000 = 25,769,803,776 or, well, 24 GiB.

Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:

1 terabyte = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes
1 tebibyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) gibibytes. That's a difference of just under 10%. Can please we be careful about it now?

Not a standard DVD (2, Informative)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165646)

The summary says "By using several layers, this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.", yet UFC's website offers the following description:
"Depending on the color (wavelength) of the light, information is written onto a disk. The information is highly compacted, so the disk isn't much thicker. It's like a typical DVD."
A disk that "isn't much thicker" than a standard DVD isn't a standard DVD.

What about quality? (1)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165668)

Great, terabytes of data... I want a disc that won't turn into a coaster 5 years from now, especially if it has a terabyte of data on it. Heck, I'd be more impressed if at this point in time the good ol' CD-R was improved upon to make the data last 50 years so that I don't have to keep copying them every 5 years.

1terabyte? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165724)

I'm still waiting for the great 640K optical disc..

Two-Photon !!???!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17165780)

If they actually mean "two photon" and not dual-wavelength then this represents a quantum leap in photonics, literally.

I imagine the dye absorbs two photons of differing energies in the process from beams of billions of photons. (which the zdnet article would seem to indicate) If they can actually control laser output photon by photon however, the implications are huge and storage is the most trivial of applications.

I'm guessing that they can't actually control pairs of photons, considering the 154 KB "thumbnail" in TFA. The article content is probably as accurate as the page design is efficient. (Clearly someone does not pay for bandwidth...)

Interesting technology - really bad name.

Nothing earthshaking... (1)

TranscendentalAnarch (1005937) | more than 7 years ago | (#17165858)

Multi-terabyte disks have been in development for years. Initially, DARPA funded the development of a format similar to HVD. There have been many companies working on it since then. One company, I can't recall the name at the moment, used disks made of some sort of special polymer to record the holographic data to achieve an absurd amount of storage on a disk.

Optware uses similar materials to this company for their HVDs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile _Disc [wikipedia.org]

As for the use of DVD materials in making high capacity discs, I've been reading about multi-layered disc technology for years. Maybe they'll finally do something with it now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?