Pioneer Promises 400GB Optical Discs 228
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."
Re:Blu Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
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'!
Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Blu Ray (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.
That slight humming sound (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Blu-ray hasn't yet come close to catching.... (Score:1, Insightful)
You are comparing apples and oranges. Optical discs such as DVDs and BDs are for permanent storage used for distribution and archives. HDDs and Flash devices are for temporary storage for easy read-write activities.
Re:Blu Ray (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, I'll take the usually significantly cheaper DVD version 9 times out of 10.
That's the reason why I'm skipping the entire BlueRay generation. My family can live with DVD quality just fine. (Heck we download youtube quality stuff and are happy with it.) BlueRay just doesn't bring enough to be plate to make it worth it for me. Now if a new 400+GB disc format came out, I and others would love it for buying one disc that has the entire series of DVD quality shows on it. O.k. some will want increased picture quality; I'd like to easily fit my entire DVD collection on 2-3 single discs.
Re:Blu Ray (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 out). Also, there are $5 bins full of older releases.
I'll wait until blu ray is similarly priced.
The fact that I can't even back up the blu ray discs is another issue. My kids have already destroyed a few DVDs I own.
Re:Blu Ray (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 still be well beyond the recommended viewing distance of his 42" TV.
If you want a cinema experience in your home as the director intended, bluray is the only way to go.
Don't flatter yourself. Directors are still aiming at a theater experience in a classic movie theater, projected by commercial projectors.
It does make a difference that anyone can see and resolve all 1080 lines and more if you are doing a valid test.
I don't dispute that if you create a test designed to show that people can see the difference that they will be able to see the difference. However, I'm talking regular people in regular situations.
Of course no one is going to see the difference 10 feet away from a 36" tv.
But since that's more or less how most people have it set up. (or 12-15" from a 42-48" set) why should they really care about blu-ray?
If the only way I'm going to realize any value in blu-ray purchase is to push my couch up against the TV, then its not *really* worth it, because that's not how I'm going to use it. Its a status symbol, and if push your couch up closer and look for it, you can see the difference, but it doesn't really matter.
To use a car analgy, its like buying a 911 Turbo instead of the slightly less powerful 911. Oh sure, there's an unmistakable performance difference between them, but really, the average driver will NEVER really experience more than a hint of the 'extra' the Turbo can deliver in normal driving usage. You've pretty much GOT to take it to the track to really experience the difference.
And for most people, the odds of taking their car out to the track on a regular basis to experience that extra is about the same as the odds of setting up a theatre room in their home... people do do it... but not many, not in the big scheme of things.
Re:Blu Ray (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 HD, and I don't disagree. And then you jump to a 65" HDTV (presumably viewed within 6 feet?) and claim the difference is blindingly obvious. Again I don't disagree.
BUT...
What about 'most people'?
The majority of HDTVs being sold right now are in the 42-50" range. The vast majority of living rooms and even bedrooms are setup such that the TV is 8'-15' away from where its usually viewed from. (Think about it, even if its on a dresser at the end of your bed with just enough space to walk between comfortably, you are still a good 10' away if you are propped up on some pillows at the other end of the bed.
This puts it well out of the "THX recommended viewing distance", and even outside the maximum thx viewing distance.
And in this situation, the situation I'm talking about, viewers -can- see the difference between SDTV and HDTV, but the difference is pretty minor.
Given this is the situation most people are in, should they bother with blu-ray?
But do not case aspersions on those who do have gear that can show off the difference.
I'm not. But unless you've got an honest to god theatre in your house, your probably deceiving yourself. The fact that you can stand 6 feet away from your 65" TV and delight in the picture quality is moot if you are like most people, and sit on a couch 10+ feet away from it, at that distance the difference really isn't that great anymore. I have a 56" myself, and from 5 feet away I can really see the difference, but I sit some 12 feet away when I'm actually watching movies and not 'inspecting the picture quality'. And from 12 feet away, the difference between up-converted DVD and blu-ray isn't nearly so blinding.
Now, if you -do- have a thx compliant theatre in your house, great, more power to you, but don't kid yourself that that most people should buy blu-ray for the blu-ray -you- experience, because most people aren't going to get it.
Remember, when I say blu-ray is only a minor improvement, I am talking about the experience most people will have with it. Not some idealized microcosm inhabited by people with honest-to-god home theatres, with viewing distances THX would certify.
Re:They don't "stretch" the image (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 do that. Therefore a movie like Blade Runner on DVD has 720x480=345600 pixels. On Blu-ray it's stored as 1920x803=1541760 pixels. So that's 4.46 times as many pixels. Not 6x.
What upconverting does for the Blade Runner DVD is show all 345,600 pixels. When not upconverted, the 640x480 picture only shows 640x272=174080 pixels. That is 50% of the data stored.
So upconverting a wide screen DVD displays twice as much detail than the SD output. The Blu-ray version has 4.5x more detail than the upconverted DVD.
Re:Blu Ray (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... some small set benefit a lot, most gain little. (and in the case of linux, have to potentially give up a lot too.)
Would it be fair to say that a Ferrari Enzo is no better than Honda Civic because "most people" cannot drive a Ferrari hard enough to bring out its pedigree?
It would be fair to say that the average person is not well served by a Ferrari Enzo. They are terrible commuter cars, lousy for grocery shopping, spend far more time in the shop than a Civic, and cost orders of magnitude more to purchase, maintain, fuel up, and insure. If on top of all that you aren't going to have the opportunity to drive it hard enough to 'bring out its pedigree' the only point in owning one would be as part of a dick waving contest with your peers. Is that a good reason to own one? Or buy blu-ray?
Would it be fair to say Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is no better than an arts & crafts store copy because "most people" aren't art experts and wouldn't know the difference?
Good analagy. If you can't tell the difference between the original and a copy, what is the point of shelling out for the expensive original? Some sort of internal satisfaction of knowing that you have the real thing? Is that a reason to invest in blu-ray? 'I can't tell the difference from my couch, but I get great satisfaction in knowing its better'?? Seems like faulty logic to me. At least the mona lisa original has investment value...your home theatre is obsolete and depreciating fast before you've finished plugging it in.
I think you either give too much credit to those with uber-theaters or take away too much credit from the average consumer.
The 'average consumer' still doesn't even have an HDTV. From that its trivial to conclude that the average consumer doesn't benefit from bluray. The percentage of HDTV consumers who -might- benefit from blu-ray starts off a distinct minority. Even if we were to agree that 100% of HDTV owners would be blinded by the difference blu-ray made to their setup, it would still top out as significantly less than the majority of consumers. And I contend that the percentage of HDTV owners would see blu-ray as more than a minor upgrade to their setup to be FAR LESS than 100%, marginalizing the group even more. Even if it were HALF of HDTV owners that would be 1/6th the population... there is simply no way a 1/6th or smaller minority can represent 'average consumers'.