Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage

Movie Playback From 1TB Holographic Disc 623

Posted by timothy from the floppies-were-so-awesome dept.
qorkfiend writes "Optware Corp. has announced successful playback of digital movies on a new holographic recording disc with a reflective layer. Known as the Collinear Holographic Data Storage System, the disc has a one terabyte storage capacity and one gigabyte transfer speed. The disc size is 12cm, comparable to that of a DVD and a CD."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Movie Playback From 1TB Holographic Disc More

Movie Playback From 1TB Holographic Disc

Comments Filter:

  • Okay, maybe Mark Cuban was right (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:37PM (#10070196)
    That's a big file format, and it will take a while to download [slashdot.org].

    • Re:Okay, maybe Mark Cuban was right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bircho ( 559727 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:03PM (#10070551)

      A DVD has 4.7Gb right? But people trade quality for size, and rip it to 700Mb files. How about Telesync?

      There's FLAC, but a lot of people just use 128kbps Mp3.

      Big file format IS NOT a solution to piracy.

      • No, but it is a solution to increasing the value of the product. And value is the reason people buy things.

        I mean, there are lots of people who buy DVDs of content freely available on the internet. Atom films and many of the Flash animation sites generate healthy profit from DVD sales and I'm surely gonna buy that Strong Bad's 100th Email DVD when it comes out, even though I have all 111 flash files on a DVD already...

        Why? Because the quality is better and the format is more attractive and convenient. Making the assumption that it is going to be rather difficult to stop piracy, one way for the industry to encourage people to buy films is to create formats that have even HIGHER quality with even MORE convenience and to release them SOONER in even nicer packages.

        DVD is a first good step towards that goal...tape sales used to be sort of an afterthought, just another use for movies that were intended to make money during their theatre run. Now, DVD sales might bring in a substantial percentage of a film's take, and some media (especially TV series and indie films) make MORE money on DVD then they did first run. As a result, the industry is releasing movies earlier and with more extras than you'll find in a 700 meg XVid file.

        There will always be people who are satisfied with shite quality willing to pirate. The goal of the industry should be to fight the pirates the only way they can (through lawsuits) while simultaneously making it easier and more worthwhile for people not to become pirates in the first damned place.

        • Re:Okay, maybe Mark Cuban was right (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jp10558 ( 748604 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @03:47PM (#10072220)
          But one thing I have to ask is, will this format actually look higher quality on a normal TV? Cause if it doesn't no-one will upgrade till HDTV or whatever becomes far more commonplace.

          Hell, the average person cannot tell the difference on a TV of a DVDShrink transcoded disc to 47% quality and an original DVD disc. It's a limitation of the standard TV's. On a computer screen it looks like crap, but on TV looks the same.

          My point then is that, this may be 1000 times better quality, but if you need the next resolution leap past 1080p to see it, quality will not sell the players and discs.

          And convienience won't either. DVD's were a major step up from VHS. Noticable quality, sound, no reqwinding or wearing out/strectching of the tape, smaller, easier seeking/skipping etc.

          But what do these have over DVD? They are the same size, and presumably will have the same navigation abilities. The quality improvement won't be noticable on the next generation system of audio and video, much less what is in homes now, and for at least 5 yrs to come I would guess. So what makes these attractive?

          All 3 LOTR extended edition movies and appendicies on one disc? Ok there that is a draw, but really - how many movies are just - hollywood homocide - not epic, not a trilogy, no real interesting advances to make it... So no big extras. So what is the draw?
      • A DVD has 4.7Gb right? But people trade quality for size, and rip it to 700Mb files. How about Telesync?

        Huh? [vcdquality.com]

        I'd say it's more like this: What format is used for piracy is directly related to how common the media is on the market. CD's are probably still more commonly used than DVD's, but one can't say that DVD hasn't became much more common only the last few years without lying.

        I've also seen some Telesync rips [vcdreview.com] being more and more commonly as DVDR to minimize quality loss.
      • Sure it is... now all the theives will be able to buy one single disc on the street that holds all the music, movies and video games that would have taken them weeks to steal with P2P! Yea for big media and kids with no values!

  • Finally, I will sell the (iI)nternet on Disks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:37PM (#10070199)
    First I will protect the internet from attack [slashdot.org] including This Land is My Land [slashdot.org]. And was Mark CueBall right about media size halting piracy [slashdot.org]? But, didn't we just read that size doesn't matter [slashdot.org].

  • One gigabyte? (Score:3, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:38PM (#10070208) Journal
    One gigabyte transfer speed?

    Per second? Hour? Day?

    My netflix movies come overnight. If I get 4, that works out to almost a gig per hour...

    • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Funny)

      by 56uSquareWave ( 726317 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:38PM (#10070221)
      No just one gig in total, once you have got that one gig you are stuck, so choose very very carefully!
      • That sounds a lot like those damned 12,000 BTU air-conditioning units I keep seeing in stores. I'd hate to think about how many of those you'd have to go through in a week...

    • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Laivincolmo ( 778355 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:39PM (#10070237)
      The article states 1GB per second...

    • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:54PM (#10070452) Homepage Journal
      It's pretty safe to assume they mean per second. A CD drive has a baseline speed of 150 kb/s. That means that a 48 speed drive has a transfer rate of 7,200 kb/s. Now if we increase the data density to 1 terrabyte, we find that we are now capable of reading 11 gigabytes at the same RPM. Given the greater complexity of this technology, they've probably reduced the RPMs to something more along the lines of an 8 speed drive. This would reduce the data transfer rate, but impose fewer stresses on the media.

      • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Informative)

        by canavan ( 14778 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:30PM (#10070878)
        How do you arrive at 11Gb/s? Looks like (7.2Mb/s / 0.64 Gb * 1Tb) - That would be wrong. The areal density increases about 1560-fold (assuming 640Mb/CD), but the linear density increases only by the square root of this. The amount of data that passes by the reading laser along the track would be just 40 times larger for the holographic media compared to a CD at constant RPM, which would result in 'only' 288Mb/s. With 1Gb/s, they'd still be a factor of 4 away, but that's still closer than your estimate.

        • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Informative)

          by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaiBLUEl.com minus berry> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:41PM (#10070994) Homepage Journal
          48x = 7,200 kb/s
          1 terabyte = 1e9 kb
          1 CD = 6.5e5 kb

          x = 7200 * 1e9 / 6.5e5
          x = 11,076,923 kb/s
          Yes, it's just a simple scaling function. i.e. Back of the envelope calculation. Doesn't mean it's exactly right, but it does give a general idea of how much more data can be read at the same RPM.

        • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:3, Informative)

          by hackerjoe ( 159094 )

          The areal density increases about 1560-fold (assuming 640Mb/CD), but the linear density increases only by the square root of this.

          You're assuming that the number of tracks increases at the same rate the linear density increases. That might be a reasonable assumption for DVDs vs. CDs, which are made denser by scaling everything down (which you can do because the light is a smaller wavelength and can resolve smaller features on the disc), but not so much for this format.

          This format uses a red laser for tra

        • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jerde ( 23294 )
          The areal density increases about 1560-fold (assuming 640Mb/CD), but the linear density increases only by the square root of this.

          True... but I think this technology changes the concept of "linear density" entirely: with holographic page recording, each area on the disc encodes a 2-dimensional holographic image.

          If it were just the same type of 1-dimensional spiral of pits, packed closer, you're right... it would take many many more revolutions to read the whole disc. But I believe this technology doesn't

    • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Funny)

      by bugnuts ( 94678 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:55PM (#10070464) Journal
      My netflix movies come overnight. If I get 4, that works out to almost a gig per hour...

      As the saying goes, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck loaded with tapes hurtling down the highway."

    • Re:One gigabyte? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mr_z_beeblebrox ( 591077 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:17PM (#10070730) Journal
      Per second? Hour? Day?

      This is the LEAST confusing rate ever...1 GB per GB....It takes one gigabyte of transfered data (time) to transfer 1 GB data (amount) thus the rate is 1 GB :-)

  • Don't tell me... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...they expect the technology to be on the market within a decade, right?

    Just like all the previous amazing new storage technologies, of which only one or two percent ever turn out to be commerically viable.

    Back in the '90s, weren't we meant to be using little holographic cubes by the year 2000? Funny how those never showed up, eh?

  • So close... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MalaclypseTheYounger ( 726934 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:39PM (#10070238) Journal
    I wonder why the didn't make it EXACTLY the same size as a CD/DVD? One would think this would make life so much easier for everyone. I'd settle for ~900GB on a disc, if it meant it would fit in all the existing technology/drives/spinners/changers that are already out there...

    Otherwise, this is just another "LASERDISC" with better technology that just won't catch on...

    • Re:So close... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 )
      It IS the same size disc. Read the article.

    • Re:So close... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dabraham ( 39446 )
      I'd settle for ~900GB on a disc, if it meant it would fit in all the existing technology/drives/spinners/changers that are already out there...

      umm, I assume that you're complaining about the slight difference in size (just shy of 12 cm vs what appears to be just over 12 cm (I did read the article, it says "The disc diameter of 12 centimeters is equivalent to those of CD and DVD.", but doesn't give exact sizes, and the pictures makes it look a bit bigger)), not getting confused by cm vs. inches.

      That sai

  • More details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Defiler ( 1693 ) * on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:40PM (#10070243)
    Optware is using a polymer developed by Aprilis [aprilisinc.com].
    You can find more technical details here: Technical Publications [aprilisinc.com]
    The founder of Optware used to work at Sony, and other technical guys working for them were involved with Blu-Ray. I guess they got tired of working by the hour. Heh. Finally, here's an EETime Article [eetimes.com] that goes into more detail about the Optware product.
    Personally, I just want to know when I can buy a burner.

  • White Album (Score:5, Funny)

    by jeffy210 ( 214759 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:40PM (#10070246)
    "Guess this means I'll have to buy the white album again..."

  • What about durability? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ElForesto ( 763160 ) <.elforesto. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:40PM (#10070249) Homepage
    I've already heard plenty of complaints about a scratch destroying more info on a DVD than a CD due to density. How much would an errant fingernail wipe out on something this dense? I can appreciate the cool factor of cramming so much data on a single disc, but if I have to handle it like a Fabrege (sp?) egg, what's the point?

    • Re:What about durability? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:53PM (#10070438)
      Why not just mirror the data? If it's a 1TB disk, why not treat it as a 250GB disk, and then have 3 extra duplicate copies.

      • Re:What about durability? (Score:5, Funny)

        by baudilus ( 665036 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:07PM (#10070607)
        You're not talking about durability - you're talking about redundancy.

        You're not talking about durability - you're talking about redundancy.

        You're not talking about durability - you're talking about redundancy.

        You're not talking about durability - you're talking about redundancy.

    • I've already heard plenty of complaints about a scratch destroying more info on a DVD than a CD due to density.

      According to this site [go.com] that's hooey.

      "A common misperception is that a scratch will be worse on a DVD than on a CD because of higher storage density and because video is heavily compressed. DVD data density is physically four times that of CD-ROM, so it's true that a scratch will affect more data. But DVD error correction is at least ten times better than CD-ROM error correction and more than mak

      • Re:What about durability? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Proteus ( 1926 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:59PM (#10071183) Homepage Journal
        Thanks for the link. Elsewhere on that site, I found this (emphasis mine):
        Keep away from radiators/heaters, hot equipment surfaces, direct sunlight (near a window or in a car during hot weather), pets,
        small children, and other destructive forces. Magnetic fields have no effect on DVDs.
        It's nice to see that Disney regards children as "destructive forces" -- clearly, whoever wrote that is an experienced parent. :)

        • Anyone with small children can attest to the fact that they are the quintessential "destructive force." Heck, my children are good kids but that doesn't mean that I leave them alone for any period of time whatsoever with anything valuable.

  • Excellent (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:40PM (#10070250)
    Now I can carry Emacs around with me....uncompressed!
  • A way to back up all the data in my house. Now I just need to contact all the HD manufacturers and tell them to stop maker bigger HDs so that removable media and permanent media will come into parity in terms of relative size. Backup mediums should always be removable, random access devices with more capacity than the primary storage.
    • Backup mediums should always be removable, random access devices with more capacity than the primary storage.

      SATA hard drives are hot-swappable. Removable caddies for them cost around $50.
  • ...but you can call me when these things are an actual PRODUCT. Many companies have been claiming massive data storage abilities, some in the range of hundreds of terrabytes! Yet not one has provided a realistic product. Problems include:

    - Too costly to manufacture at a profit
    - Holographics are too susceptible to damage from scratches or normal wear
    - Lasers are difficult to keep calibrated
    - whole bunch of stuff I'm not aware of

    I really would love to see a format that could play hundreds of hours of uncompressed HDTV video. Despite all the press releases, the reality is that it's just not here yet.

  • so fast! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lord Ender ( 156273 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:41PM (#10070267) Homepage
    A 1 gigabyte transfer speed! That is so fast! I could store this new disk in my new 12-minute wide closet.
  • I love the technology, but you got to make the media more durable. I hate today's DVDs/CDs that scratch from the slightest mishandling. Those of use with kids (not intended for parents with 30+yrs still living with them, I mean young childen) know the horror I seeing your 2 yr old running around with you prized XXX DVD screaming "I want watch Blues Clues, plez)
  • But when will the computer writers and re-writers be released?

    I'd love to backup my hard drive onto this media. Let's see, I can put my hard drive onto it 6.25 times!

    Ok, so what can this be used for besides keeping copies of my families DNA or all the books at the public library?

  • In other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by endeitzslash ( 570374 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:42PM (#10070281)
    Sony has announced a new Holographic+ format that is identical in every way except that it is totally incompatible, requiring onerous license fees.

    Sony executives reached for comment would only say "Have you seen my new house? It's made of MONEY!".

  • Special Edition (Score:5, Funny)

    by mitchellandrews ( 798269 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:43PM (#10070289)
    Does that mean I have to buy Star Wars again?

  • Screw Blu-ray (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:43PM (#10070292)
    They should just skip Blu-ray and release this one. It may take a little longer to get into production, but why would peope buy Blu-ray drives if this one won't be far behind?
  • Now in Super High Definition Video:

    "... help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope..."
  • "Could you just put the internet on a disk for me so I can bring it home"

    I swear I used to get this question......

    Well with that much space you could cache a good part of it huh.

  • what is it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sometwo ( 53041 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:43PM (#10070307)
    Here's a tutorial on Holographic storage: http://www.inphase-technologies.com/technology/ [inphase-technologies.com]

  • Back in the day (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Cr3d3nd0 ( 517274 )
    I remember back a long time ago on Reading Rainbow Levar(sp?) Burton visiting a research lab and them showing him a working model of holographic memory. I'm not sure which episode it was but I remember them saying we would have holographic memory "by the end of the decade" Damn vapor... (and no I'm not mixing this up with star trek)

    • Re:Back in the day (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      We do have it, did you not RTFA?

      This is an actual physically existing thing, not some theory and buzzwords written in a proposal.

      The technology exists. It just isn't sitting on the shelves at Office Depot yet, but it exists and works. And if you had deep enough pockets, I'm sure you could acquire one.

      It's not vapor. It's just not ready to compete with, say, an array of HDDs or big-ass tapes in terms of price yet.

      This one is big, though. They have a way to write on "normal" media, that is, preformatt
  • Since this would seem to have the same life span (rot) of DVD/CD, this could be useful for short-term, full-system backups (depending on what that 1G throughput really meant).

    Don't really see the need for 1TB movie/audio capability. Even the LOTR trilogy does not need this much room.

  • Never underestimate... (Score:3, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:46PM (#10070338) Homepage Journal
    the bandwidth of a bunch of 1Tb holographic disks waddling down the corridor in your overweight sysadmin's backpocket.

    Don't need no trucks no more.

  • I'm looking forward to the following shows.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DeadBugs ( 546475 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:48PM (#10070372) Homepage
    NBC - The complete 1st season
    LOTR - Super extendend limited edition trilogy (1 disc set)
    Johnny Carson - The complete tonight show with audio commentary
    Google Cache Magazine - DVD-ROM
    And all of my 100's of DVD's being re-released in Super High Definition uncompressed format.

  • Next stop: isolinear chips (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cyberchondriac ( 456626 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:51PM (#10070415) Journal
    I don't think it'll take us 200 more years before we see this kind of storage.
    http://littrell.doroch.nl/data/engineering/tech/Is olinearChips.htm
    We already have commercial holographic storage now. The disparity in the technological predictions of STtng is miles wide, they were so conservative when it comes to computer technology.
    http://littrell.doroch.nl/data/engineering/tech/Is olinearChips.htm
    How long before we stop using discs all together ? Anyone care to guess ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

  • Just in time! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:52PM (#10070430)
    That'll sure come in handy as soon as I set up my home IMAX theatre.

  • They're Scurvy-Dog Pirates! (Score:4, Funny)

    by endeitzslash ( 570374 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:52PM (#10070431)
    What movie did they play back, hmmm? How did that movie get transferred to the holographic disc? Did they rip it from a DVD? Did they pay all of the required fees for showing it to a room full of people? I see lawsuits forthcoming.

  • This could rule the backup market... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @12:58PM (#10070507)
    ...on the consumer end.

    Given the proven nature of tape-based backup (and the anecdotal/proven(?) volatility of optical-disc backup), I figure the enterprise market won't touch these w/ a 10-foot pole - at least not until it's been on the market for many years.

    However, the low-end/consumer-level backup market is mostly using CDs and DVDs these days (due to the cost associated w/ tapes/drives). I see that market segment moving to this more or less instantly, while growing at a VERY rapid pace (similarly to what happened with Zip disks/drives about a decade ago).

    (And yes, I am assuming that this won't hit the market for a few years - however, given that the biggest standard drives are about 250GB now - and uncommon - it seems unlikely that drives will commonly be much larger than 2 TB 4 or 5 years out, such that HVD would be an inconvenient backup solution (compare the inconvenience of backing up a 40GB drive -> 10 DVDs, vs. a 4 TVB drive -> 4 HVDs).

    The above presumes that they can get the tech out there for a market appropriate price - while the article doesn't shed much light on pricing, I can't imagine that new HVD media would cost too much (prob. a similar prive curve to DVD). However, the price-friendliness of the servo-technology they describe is pretty much an unproven quantiy, so who know how much the players/burners will go for...

    Whether the media companies follow-suit and use the media to distribute movies (i.e. create compatible players), I have no idea. However, people will lilely be backing those movies up on these HVDs, even if only to re-burn to MPAA-approved-media-of-the-week later, as I don't see digital distribution of (uncompressed, un-DRM-encumbered) digital HD coming down the pike anytime soon.

  • Storage space galore... (Score:3, Informative)

    by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @01:10PM (#10070645) Journal
    On the other hand, why be satisfied with a mere 1 terabyte of storage space when you can have a 100 times more...

    http://www.physorg.com/preview785.html [physorg.com]

    Did you know that you would have to take 1,000,000 pictures a day to fill up a 100 terabyte disk in one lifetime?

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close