Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

45GB Triple-Layer HD DVDs

Posted by timothy on Wed May 11, 2005 11:49 AM
from the my-laptop's-drive-now-feels-tiny dept.
Data Storage
m4c north writes "Toshiba has developed a new DVD-ROM: 45GB spread over 3 layers. From the press release (which has a few illustrations) the new discs have the ability "to record twelve hours of high-definition movies on a single disc." They've also added a "dual-layer hybrid ROM disc comprised of a dual-layer HD DVD-ROM side and a dual-layer DVD-ROM side." Japan Today's article adds, "The huge capacity means that a single disk can store a Hollywood movie trilogy." Do I smell yet another Star Wars re-re-release? Toshiba will take the wraps off the new DVDs at the Media-Tech Expo 2005 in Las Vegas. The HD DVD Promotion group offers the press release in PDF."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

45GB Triple-Layer HD DVDs 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • In Search of a Standard... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:50AM (#12500208)
    ...the new discs have the ability "to record twelve hours of high-definition movies on a single disc.

    It's a shame that the DVD community doesn't have the ability to decide on a standard...

    • Re:In Search of a Standard... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Walt Dismal (534799) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:52AM (#12500241)
      45 GB and a 55 gallon drum of Astroglide... I'll be set for life!

    • Re:In Search of a Standard... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mr Smidge (668120) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:55AM (#12500282) Homepage

      Personally, I hope the one with the least restrictive DRM becomes the standard.

      HD-DVD's AACS [slashdot.org] is just disgusting.

    • Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:55AM (#12500287)
      "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."
      - Andrew S. Tannenbaum

    • Re:In Search of a Standard... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:59AM (#12500342) Journal
      It's not like the community can.

      Both Sony and Toshiba have their reasons to capture the High-def DVD market with their technology. And there hasn't been any actual products any of these formats for the market to decide which is better.

      To many, there's no point in deciding now, as it would reduce any incentive for these companies to improve on their products and there is really no criteria on which to decide (except storage space, which is not a good measuring rod at all).

      When products which use these technologies are released, the market will be able to choose. And one just hopes they choose wisely.
        • It seems to me that the consumer market is unlikely to select the "best" technical solution (cf. Betamax versus VHS).

          Not that old canard again. The consumer did select the best technical solution (VHS) because at the time, technically Betamax couldn't store a 2-hour movie on a single cassette.

          When you say "X is the best solution", you'd better be sure it's solving the right problem.
          • consumers didn't choose VHS over beta, manufacturers did, and it was over sony's licensing. first, they wanted exorbitant licensing fees. Second, they didn't want porn on beta, which is a sure way to kill off any format.

  • Fine. Whatever. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:50AM (#12500209) Homepage Journal
    When everyone finally jumps off the fence and starts manufacturing, distributing and fully supporting what technology they all settle on, drop me a line.

    I'm sure Star Wars re-re-re-released on HD DVD will be stunning, but I'm rather skeptical about when I'll actually have a HD TV to watch it on. As it is, the set I just got is pretty damn good when viewed on a non-CRT screen (no black lines.) A couple years ago Philips had the TV/Monitor to watch HD on, but it was $18,000. I'm certain that kind of quality hasn't come down far enough in price, nor shall it in the next 3 years for me to even consider buying one (probably only when I get HD Soccer on FSC or such.) Meanwhile, as we saw the other day, someone has nanotubes which may make some really great screens, but probably won't actually hit consumer markets, priced attactively (gotta pay off that investment in research.)

    Heck, I'm only moving to a 64bit CPU at home because 32bit motherboards aren't being innovated anymore and I need a new mobo. It'll probably be a burned out monitor that forces me to get the nanotube screen and a few really good movie titles which convince me to upgrade to a new DVD (only because non HD players aren't made at that point.)

    • Actually, you can find really good HD-capable sets now for around $1200 to $2500, depending on the sale or how big you want it.
          • Yeah, except you could use used it one for that time. Stop being one of those people who won't buy anyhthing because something better or cheaper is bound to show up. If you need/want it, get it. Consumerium to the end!

            It's about the money. Only so much to buy toys with. The cheaper the toys, the more you can have.



          • "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don't need."

            - Tyler Durden, Fight Club

          • Re:Fine. Whatever. (Score:5, Funny)

            by dr.badass (25287) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:49PM (#12500966) Homepage
            I had a roommate in 96/97 that refused to buy CD's because something better might come out.

            Something better did come out in in 1998. It was called Napster.
    • Same here- HD is not good enough to throw out existing equipment for, but when you find yourself without a TV at all, there's no reason not to go HD with a replacement. Sooner or later, HD is going to be either present in *all* video devices, or a "free" feature on some other device you want already (like a next-gen console), so the cost of explicit migration gradually erodes until one day you find that you're HD-ready almost without realizing it. This is basically what happened to me, and it looks awesome

  • Very Cool (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:51AM (#12500223) Journal
    We've been looking for a decent replacement for our old 30gb tape backup system, and this looks to be the critter. Hope the price of burner and DVD's isn't too high. Heck, with that kind of storage, I could use Ghost or something like it to do HD images.
    • Likewise, but we have been looking at Sony's AIT4 200gb tapes. We currently use AIT3's at just over 100gb tape. Unfortunatly, AIT4 drives are not backwards read compatable with AIT3 or AIT2.
    • At the beginning of the CDrom era, a CDrom handled more space than most of HDs over there (at least the personal computer HDs). You were lucky if your HD was 200Mb!!. I guess we would be happier with something of about 100Gb right now, but I agree that 30Gb is more than enough.

  • Great! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gr33nNight (679837) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:51AM (#12500230)
    Now it will only take 20 of these to backup my porn!

  • Big deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:52AM (#12500250)
    Blu-Ray has had 8 layer 200gb discs for almost a year now: http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=44 30 [digitmag.co.uk]

  • Arg! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enigma_Man (756516) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:53AM (#12500256) Homepage
    Just imagine how many different models of CD(or whatever)-ROMs we're going to need now, and how many sub-versions (a-la DVD-R, DVD+R) we'll have.

    The packaging on burners will look something like this:
    16x4x16x DVD+RW / 12x4x16x DVD-RW / 5x DVD+R DL / 4x HD DVD+R / 32X HD3-DVD1-R+RW / etc / etc

    -Jesse

  • Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by solios (53048) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:54AM (#12500268) Homepage
    With something like this I'll be able to backup my workstation with ten pieces of media, instead of the seventy or so DVDs it would take to do a Full Backup.

    Seriously, it's about time offline media started catching up with hard drive capacities.
    • Except you'll notice that the article doesn't talk about a triple-layer HD DVD-R format. That's because the DVD forum hasn't really been moving too swiftly on multi-layer recordables at all. Notice that there's no DVD-R DL (that's the Toshiba-led DVD Forum's format) -- only DVD+R DL (the competing Philips-led camp.)

      Since we're not going to see DVD-R DL until at least the end of the year, that means we're probably not going to see HD DVD-R until next year, and HD DVD-R triple-layer for years!

      They should
    • Erm, use a second hard drive, or tape, or something that was designed to make backups on? Seriously, why in hell would you ever wish to backup your workstation to DVD???

  • Need More Cheetos (Score:3, Funny)

    by lbmouse (473316) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:54AM (#12500280) Homepage
    Twelve hours of high-definition pr0n on a single disc.

    • Re:Need More Cheetos (Score:5, Funny)

      by JudgeFurious (455868) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @11:57AM (#12500318)
      Cheetos?
      WTF do you do when you're watching porn?

      C'mon, start talking. The rest of us want to know whether or not to be afraid.

    • Re:Need More Cheetos (Score:4, Funny)

      by saider (177166) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @01:27PM (#12501411)

      A man walks into the doctor's office complaining of a discolored penis. Doctor gives him a pill and asks him to return in a week.

      He comes back the following week with the same condition. Doctor tries a stronger medication and again asks for a follow up.

      The third visit shows no improvement so the doctor asks what he's been doing with it lately.

      "Same thing I do every night. Come home from work, grab a beer and a bag of Cheetos(TM) and watch some porn."

  • As stated previously, when they decide on a standard, let me know. I'd really like to get a burner, and I know that it will probably work well and be compatable for some time. However, I don't want to buy something and then have it become obsolete just after I buy it. Guess I'm just too cheap.

  • Deja vu all over again (Score:4, Funny)

    by amliebsch (724858) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:00PM (#12500352) Journal
    This is what, the 42nd new DVD format this week?
  • 1) Even if it has a "scratch-proof" surface, data gets much more delicate. Think about it, 45 GB of data on one disk. If this disk gets broken, you lose a whole lot more than having the data on 10 DVDs and losing one.

    2) It is still a mechanic, spinning system. Which sucks, because it has to accelerate first, then it can read. If there is an error, it decelerates.. well, you know it already. It blocks parts of the system, and is downright annoying.
    OK - the data density is MUCH higher than in a CD. But no on

  • Sounds like an interesting backup media.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the_rajah (749499) * on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:01PM (#12500371) Homepage
    Let's get the double layer ones at a reasonable price before we go crazy on this new one. I'm still seeing around $4 apiece for the doubles buying them online in bulk.
  • The HD-DVD folks have upgraded their inferior 30GB disc to a still inferior 45GB disc. (15GB per layer) Meanwhile, Blu-Ray still holds steady at 50GB. (25GB per layer) All of this is moot, of course, as Blu-Ray will prevail with an eventual max size of 200GB (8 layers) per disc, outdistancing a max size of 120GB (8 layers) per disc for the HD-DVD condortium.
  • 10-15 minutes of porn is sufficient for general public, really. No need to be HD quality either.

  • Trilogy on one disk (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nf1nk (443791) <nf1nk AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:07PM (#12500464) Homepage
    Not long ago I purchased the "Smokey and the Bandit" trilogy on DVD ($12.50 at Staples), and was suprised that it fit on one DVD.
    They used the trick of the double sided DVD to acomplish this mission.
    Since only Smokey and the Bandit 3 is on one side I can safely say that there at least one side with no quality data on it (how horrble must a script be for Burt Renolds to turn it down?)

  • Still not enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThePurpleBuffalo (111594) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:09PM (#12500485)
    Back when I first bought a CD burner, I did it to archive. Back then, a "big" consumer harddrive was around 1.2G and a CD held about half of that. Not bad for the time.

    These days a "big" consumer harddrive is around 250G to 300G, and this "great new technology" (yet to be released) will allow for about one fifth of that.

    That's simply not enough for me to justify using it as a method of data archiving or backup. To backup a single 250G volume I'd need 5+ blanks.

    On the consumer side of the equation, I can't see people moving from DVD to this unless there is some justification better than "you'll have to swap discs one third as often".

    Now, on the topic of size, since most optical media is recorded radially, why not make the physical size of the discs bigger? Not as big as LDs, because those were a little unmanageable, but another inch or two in diameter would GREATLY increase the capacity of even a DVD-R. Some will point out that it would no longer fit in a 5.25" bay, but who cares. This is why we have firewire and USB2.

    Thoughts comments?

    • Re:Still not enough. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Detritus (11846) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:44PM (#12500907) Homepage
      Increasing the size of the disk also increases the workload on the servo system, the system that keeps the laser positioned over the track and at the right height. The larger the diameter, the larger the excursions side-to-side and up-and-down.

    • Re:Still not enough. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Heisenbug (122836) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @01:31PM (#12501451)
      One reason I've heard for limiting the size is that the bigger the disk, the faster the outside edge is moving per RPM. When you're reading the inside edge at a suitable data rate, the outside edge will be shredding itself from the speed. I can't vouch for that being the reason, but it could be.

      Another reason I'd just as soon they didn't is that I have tons of ways to store CDs and DVDs, cases and racks and so on, and bigger disks wouldn't work with any of them. I imagine this is a much more serious problem further up the supply chain -- there's tons of ways that having identically-sized media saves money when moving to a new format.

      Oh, and I think bigger disks would be considered ugly by consumers, for whatever that's worth.
    • This may sound stupid, but since the surface area of a disk increases with the square of the radius, increasing the radius of a CD only slightly has a huge impact on capacity... Quick back-of-the-envelope calculation:

      120 mm disk: 11304mm^2 - 1625mm^2 hole = 9679mm^2 Your average CD or DVD
      130 mm disk: 13266mm^2 - 1625mm^2 hole = 11641mm^2 Difference: 20.3%
      140 mm disk: 15386mm^2 - 1625mm^2 hole = 13761mm^2 Difference: 42.7%

      That still fits in a 5.25" bay. Add multiple layers for added effect.

        • Please back this up or admit you pulled it out of your ass.

          This is moronic... You already backed it up with your link.

          even 78X cds with no imperfctions ought to be perfectly fine.

          There is no such thing as a CD with no imperfections. It's a matter of time and statistics. The faster the speed, the more likely it is that your disc will shatter. The wonderfully scientific study you linked to only tested a couple discs.

          Even if you have a brand-new, manufacturing-defect-free disc, just taking it out

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nizo (81281) * on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:11PM (#12500512) Homepage Journal
    ...the new discs have the ability "to record twelve hours of high-definition movies on a single disc.

    Wow I need to get my calculator and see how many divix movies that is. Lets see, the whole battlestar galactica first season fit on 1 and a half regular (4GB?) dvds..... I could move my whole movie collection to a few mega-dvds, and my entire music collection to just one.

  • Clearly, the author... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Valiss (463641) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:12PM (#12500523) Homepage
    ...of this article is out of touch with movie releases. I think he meant re-re-re-re-re-re-release of Star Wars. Then again, maybe I missed a "re."

    Quick, someone crash Goerge Lucas's computer before he reads this news!!!

  • How much? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by qualico (731143) <kevin@qualico.ca> on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:21PM (#12500626) Homepage Journal
    I bought into the Double Layer hype.
    The price of the CDs are prohibatively expensive.

    So no mater how many layers you cram onto a CD, unless the price is worthwhile, its useless.

  • Mostly posturing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by no_opinion (148098) on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:23PM (#12500640)
    Keep in mind that there are on-going talks on merging the formats (HD-DVD & Blu-Ray) next week so the timing of this is mostly political positioning. The change itself hasn't been discussed in the DVD forum and it's all vapor right now.
  • Take the Six Feet Under sets... they cost $100, but they're big and take up 6 discs, you almost feel like it "should" cost a lot. I mean, the thing looks and weighs as much as a hard-cover book.

    You're trying to tell me you're gonna try and sell a single disk for $100? No way. It won't happen. They'll still box them. And if people complain, they'll just add 40 hours of worthless crap to the discs to justify their 6-disc sets (instead of deleted scenes, they'll simply have 4 versions of each episode in their entirely, each differing by 30-seconds or so, or interviews with the "key grip," "costume designer," etc - it'll cost them pennies to tape those interviews, and they'll reap the benefits.).

    • Naw - we need to apply this tech to a SMALLER format disk and put it in a caddy - like a 3.5" floppy case. Something to ensure that the written portion of the media never comes into physical contact with anything but air and a few photons.

      Doesn't matter, though - in a few more years, nanotube memory will wipe out everything else anyway.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.