Slashdot Log In
Pioneer Promises 400GB Optical Discs
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:41 AM
from the place-for-their-stuff dept.
from the place-for-their-stuff dept.
schliz writes "Pioneer has developed a 16-layer read-only optical disc which it claims can store 400GB of data. The per-layer capacity is 25GB, the same as that of a Blu-ray Disc, and the multilayer technology will also be applicable to multilayer recordable discs."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Blu Ray (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Informative)
There's always something better coming along. In this case it's pretty much just a research paper, not an actual product, so not all that exciting.
And Blu-ray had burnable 4-layer (100GB) discs two years ago.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
"The huge capacity of these discs means that the new technology will be best suited for applications such large volume data archiving, rather than consumer use."
The tech they are using to read so many layers of information is impressive. However as the article states, this format is in no way intended for consumers.
Your BluRay hardware is probably safe for another five years or so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.
And there's always tape for true archiving.
Re:Blu Ray (Score:4, Insightful)
A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.
And there's always tape for true archiving.
But you can't go out and buy ST:TNG seasons 1-7 on HDD.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Funny)
A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.
And there's always tape for true archiving.
But you can't go out and buy ST:TNG seasons 1-7 on HDD.
But as soon as a generous person does, no one else needs to ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... have some sort of predictive system that deletes the less popular movies, keeping them available to download again if you decide to watch it again.
"Howard the Duck", "Ishtar" and the ST:TOS episode "Spock's Brain" would never last under such an algorithm.
Long term data storage (Score:4, Interesting)
A 500 GB HDD costs less than a single one of these discs, is reliable, rewritable a million times, lasts decades if properly stored, is already available, is faster, and requires no fancy hardware.
I'm curious as to on what you base your statement that a 500 GB HDD will last decades. Can you cite a study on the long-term storage reliability of modern hard disk designs? In my personal experience, disks which have sat unused for several years sometimes don't spin up. They're not designed for that.
I'll also point out that the equipment needed to read an ST-506 hard disk -- introduced circa 1980, thus "decades" -- would likely be somewhat hard to find and integrate into a modern operation. It might not be "fancy hardware", but the end result (high cost) is the same.
I'm not dismissing the use of hard disks for archiving in general; I just find some of your claims dubious.
One thing that seems to be true is that storage is getting cheaper and bigger all the time. Thus for some applications, it may actually be cost-effective to keep all your archives online (disks spinning), with redundancy, and simply upgrade to newer, larger drives as old ones fail. Capacity keeps growing for new data, and old data keeps getting copied to new media. That eliminates the concerns about keeping equipment around to read old media. As an added bonus, everything is online all the time.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but not for the reason you're suggesting. The extra sharpness on the BluRay disk far surpasses your vaunted "upconverted" dvd.
The downside, though, is that they're not using the right compression scheme. Artifacts which I would not have noticed on DVD are readily apparent on BluRay disk. Either they need a better algorithm or a lot more bits.
Which is why many of us believed that HD-DVD was the better option: it was ostensibly cheaper than blu-ray, and both are really transition formats: just enough capacity to make the digital/HD TV revolution possible, but not quite enough to be the end-all storage media for the long haul.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Informative)
Artifacts which I would not have noticed on DVD are readily apparent on BluRay disk.
Unless you are talking about film grain, I have no clue what "artifacts" you are talking about as Blu-Ray, outside of the early Mpeg-2 releases, and HD DVD both use more efficient compression codecs than DVD does. If you are talking about film grain, yes it is more apparent now due to the higher resolution which is able to resolve such detail now, but it is supposed to be there.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no clue what "artifacts" you are talking about
I can attest that Hollywood studios are very serious about making their newest Blu-rays "artifact free". We're talking MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 at 25 Mbps, which (speaking as a HDTV guy) is way overkill for most eyes. Consider that terrestrial HDTV is =19 Mbps MPEG-2 and what you see on cable or DBS is probably compressed down from that. I'm pretty happy delivering 14 Mbps H.264 HDTV to stations for high-quality prime-time network use.
In post-production houses, there is now this position called the "compressionist" who uses semi-automated systems to compress each scene 10 or 20 different ways with different parameters to ensure the best compression. There are built in PSNR measurement, MOS estimation, as well as the human eye looking over all this. And it costs a lot of money....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is possible to split an HDMI video signal, provided it's not tainted with HDCP. HDCP encodes the signal for a specific receiver, so even though you can split the signal only one screen can decode it. It is true that all (licensed) Blu-Ray players require HDCP on their digital outputs, but one could create an unencrypted, full-HD signal some other way. For example, by applying a cheap DVI-to-HDMI adapter to the output from a PC. The resulting signal could then be distributed to multiple HD screens. Suitab
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Blu-ray and HD-DVD support the same compression schemes (for video at least). The difference was that some early blu-ray discs were using mpeg2 (the same that DVDs use) while HD-DVD movies often used one of the better codecs like h.264 and VC-1 already in the beginning of the "war".
Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
This, frankly, is rubbish.
No matter how good the upscaling chipset is, it cannot divine information that's not on the disc.
It's like taking a 640x480 picture, stretching it to to 1920x1280 and calling it "nearly as good."
All this talk of "bluray not catching" is just a matter of time. I never gave bluray a second thought until I bought an HDTV. Soon after, I bought a bluray.
And before long, everybody will be buying HDTV's. Many will wait until their existing set bites the dust, but it will happen, just as e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joce640k didn't say upconverting a DVD achieves BluRay quality. You don't need to apply other's comments to Joce. What Joce said was "it's not really as good, it's somewhere in between. But at best HD is only twice as good as DVD so being 50% better is pretty close."
I agree with the first sentence. I disagree with the second sentence. Don't make straw men arguments.
Here's where your wrong if my memory is correct. HD movies are stored on Blu-ray WITH the black bars. They are NOT stored anamorphically. DVDs d
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
You must have a shitty tv or are blind to make such a stupid statement.
No. The only people who really care whether they are watching an up-converted DVD or a blu-ray are are videophile snobs looking to justify the expense, who pause the movie to point at some intricate pattern in the corner of the screen and gloat.
The average person can tell them apart side by side. The average person, once instructed what to look for, can see the up-conversion artifacts.
But when actually watching a movie, it just doesn't really matter, and most people can't tell the difference in a blind test, where they get to watch a few seconds of a random scene movie in just one format and then decide. I've done this with a number of people with a few movies I have in both formats, on a number of different TVs from plasma to DLP.
Bluray is the better picture (and sound), there is no question, but the difference is incremental, and ultimately pretty minor. Especially when compared with the transition from VHS to DVD. --THAT-- is a transition the average person can tell apart easily, and then you factor in all the extra convenience of the DVD format in terms of form factor and features. DVDs were worth re-buying much of ones collection in, blu-ray? There's maybe a dozen movies I would consider re-purchasing, and even when buying new, I'll take the usually significantly cheaper DVD version 9 times out of 10.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me a snob if you like, that does not change the fact I can tell the difference very quicly on my 56" HDTV between HD content and DVD content, especialy when the HD content was recorded with a HD camera, not upconverted from film.
To me the diffence is as drastic as going from VHS to DVD.
Some people just do not care, and that is fine.
My Dad can sit in front of his 15 year old tv and the picture has a red ghosting hue to it, and drives me nuts but when I tell him he should get a HDTV, he just tells me he likes the one he has just fine, this is a guy that watches every sporting event on TV, and that content is mostly shot with HD cameras, so he would really benefit from the upgrade, but would he care? NO
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Informative)
Call me a snob if you like, that does not change the fact I can tell the difference very quicly on my 56" HDTV between HD content and DVD content, especialy when the HD content was recorded with a HD camera, not upconverted from film.
This statement basically says you don't know what you are talking about, as conversion from film to HD formats (1920x1080 or 1280x720) involves a loss of resolution, sometimes massive depending on exactly how the image is stored on the film.
Film easily has a resolution of 4000x4000, so even using a film format where black bars are stored on the film, you end up with about 4000x2200 at the 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio. Film is then telecined to whatever HD resolution is required, which results in a loss in resolution, but you still have at least full HD quality at that point. Now, special effects aren't always rendered at full film resolution, so some movies (or TV shows) will not have the full film resolution in all scenes, but generally the lowest rendering these days is 2K, which is more than enough for 1920x1080.
What's probably confusing you is that HDTV cameras have more depth of field than most lens/film combinations on 35mm film cameras. This gives the scene a much more "in focus" look for more of the image, and gives the illusion that it is sharper. Film can do this, but it is more difficult due to the complex interaction between the type of lens, the film speed, and the lighting for the scene.
Parent
Re:Blu Ray (Score:4, Funny)
Golly, why didn't anyone tell me this before?? On my way to Best Buy right n
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost differential is an issue even for some of those with HDTVs.
I have a samsung 50" 1080p TV. Upscaling DVDs look awesome. I have a computer attached to it and it looks awesome as well.
I'll probably buy the HD package from my cable provider once the price comes down.
That being said, I'm not investing in a blu ray player and discs until the price come down for both the player and the discs. At the local store, DVDs sell for $15 for new releases (usually it's a one week promo the week that the disc comes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bluray is the better picture (and sound), there is no question, but the difference is incremental, and ultimately pretty minor. Especially when compared with the transition from VHS to DVD. --THAT-- is a transition the average person can tell apart easily, and then you factor in all the extra convenience of the DVD format in terms of form factor and features. DVDs were worth re-buying much of ones collection in, blu-ray? There's maybe a dozen movies I would consider re-purchasing, and even when buying new,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason I'm skipping BlueRay is that I won't buy ANYTHING with DRM (unless it's easily crackable like DVD). Hollywood can take BlueRay and stuff it. I will reject any technology which limits my free use rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I guarantee you everyone is able to see the difference
I didn't say they wouldn't see the difference. I said they wouldn't care, and that it didn't matter.
if they were sitting at the THX recommended distance from their screen.
Big if. Unless you have an actual 'theatre room' and a truly huge TV the THX recommended distance is a joke. Almost nobody sits that close to the TV. To put it into perspective, a 6'2" individual sitting in a recliner in the reclined position with his FEET ON THE TV STAND will stil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can't tell the difference between SD and HD on the gear you're using, fine, no problem. Enjoy your upconverted DVD's and more power to you. But do not case aspersions on those who do have gear that can show off the difference.
I didn't say you couldn't see the difference, I said it didn't really matter in normal setups. You can see it, it doesn't usually matter.
The way you are framing the situation is almost dishonest.
First you talk about 37" CRTs and agree that there is no difference between SD and H
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it's my turn to call your assessment dishonest. Would it be fair to say that Linux is far inferior to Windows because "most people" are unable to grasp the intricacies of its foibles?
Yes it would, if it were true. I think at this point though, Windows edge is largely momentum and mindshare. Linux is not far inferior. To put it in terms of blu-ray, though would 'upgrading' from XP to Linux really benefit your average web-app/email/mp3 playing/photo sharing person? Not appreciably. Same with blu-ray... s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It depends on how the monitor is configured; some monitors have poor color curves, so some colors are a bit "farther apart" than others. Worse, some monitors (even ones marketed as 8-bit) show less than 8 bits per channel due to cheap controllers or "dynamic contrast" systems. These displays show distinct banding on many images and should be avoided.
But as long as the display is well designed and capable of outputting a solid 8 bits per channel, it's unlikely that anyone will notice banding outside of spe
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
We had SDTV for nearly a century, and we had VHS for what, decades?
DVD's reign will be about 2 decades.
BluRay will be what, 1 decade?
HDTV will soon be replaced with SHDTV and other such nonsense.
Keep 'em spendin'!
Parent
Burn time? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course you think there will be hardware to burn layers in parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
No burning. Less useful than Blu-ray. Lame (Score:2, Funny)
This is one of somewhere closing on quadrillion (give or take a gazillion) super-duper high capacity optical formats that have been prematurely hyped and then disappeared.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly, many of these formats were bought by SONY and led out to pasture.
FMD (Fluorescent Multi-Layer Disc) being the most promising (back in the day).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that a bad thing considering SONY have released a useful disk format. You're suggesting that they'd buy a load of companies and then not bother to look into any interesting tech that those companies had been researching? Blu-ray is theoretically capable of holding just as much as these disks if SONY can work out how to do multi-layer work effectively, as Pioneer claim to have done. I'd expect SONY are either close on their heels in R&D terms, or could just license the tech.
The main difference bet
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
Lifespan? (Score:4, Interesting)
Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That slight scratching sound (Score:5, Insightful)
That slight humming sound (Score:3, Insightful)
But will it play in my HD-DVD player? (Score:4, Funny)
Will it play in my HDDVD player?
Limited time offer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For an extra 15 dollars/disk, they'll even sync up the audio for you.
BD++ triple AACS CCS CSS DES CCCCC daily licensing (Score:2)
If this doesn't make them adopt BD++ triple AACS CCS CSS DES CCCCC encryption daily licencing, nothing will.
Where have I heard this before? (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess, it's going to be used to ship the next version of Duke Nukem.
rerun (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing seek times (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially wouldn't this be the same as having an 8 platter HD (aside from the slower moving read head)? This could easily outperfom a 2-4 platter Hard drive, no?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know what an optical disk is, but an optical disc greater than your already exists in various telescopes and such.
They're very shiny.
Re:Read Only? (Score:5, Funny)
No, Laserdisks are (were) high capacity coasters. You could put an entire six-pack on them. These will just hold one drink, like all the other AOL disks.
Parent