|
Panasonic develops 100GB Blu-ray discs to last 100 years
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 20 October, 2006
Japanese electronics manufacturer Panasonic has created a 4-layer, 100GB Blu-Ray disc that it claims will last for 100 years by using Te-O-Pd, a tellurium suboxide palladium-doped phase-change recording film. The film is said to have a high transmittance and crystallization rate which allows them to layer it on without losing data quality.
The 4x25GB discs, which are not yet in production, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 05:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Go on Panasonic!!!
Can't wait for the 100GB Bluy-ray disks to come out.
Seems that HD have got a long way to go...
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. October 2006 @ 06:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
is there really a reason for a 100gb disc???
|
|
AE27
Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 06:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
I could see these being used once 2540P is used in HDTV's
|
|
gogochar
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. October 2006 @ 06:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I will love to see it when it becomes cheap and lives up to its claim.
|
|
tnarulz
Junior Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 06:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
should be interesting to see what happens when they're tested outside of the lab.
|
Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 06:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
pretty amazing but what is the cost.
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
20. October 2006 @ 07:33 |
Link to this message
|
For people needing to store 100gbs of data this might appeal (if it ever appears at a price the mass-market will accept).
But besides those professionals archiving vast amounts of raw data I doubt there is a need.
You might be interested in the latest advances being made with the VC-1 codec.
It even looks as if the (now ready) triple layer 45gb HD-DVD disc isn't going to be actually needed for high def movies and it looks as if it renders 50gb Blu-ray fairly pointless for movies (unless they insist on sticking with the comparatively clunky Mpeg2) -
Amir Microsoft/HD DVD insider over at avsforums.com
Well, I am pleased to let you in on where the future holds for titles in VC-1. We have now made another breakthrough in quality improvements as evidenced by two recent encodes which clocked at less than 10 mbit/sec, with one less than 9 mbit/sec!
Yes, you read this right.
We are now able to go below the 10 mbit/sec barrier. And this is not some random, special case, easy to encode content. One of the titles above is a major motion picture you would recognize in an instant with a ton of action.
What is more, the encoder is so efficient and good in its automatic analysis/encode mode that the need for hand tuning is sharply reduced.
One of the above titles didn?t need any manual optimizations despite the remarkably low data rate!
Given this breakthrough, we are going to see more titles appear at average rate of less than 10 mbit/sec, bringing the general range lower by 20% to 30%.
So no longer will I use the 12-15 mbit/sec for rule of thumb .
What does this mean in reality?
It means we only need 4.5 gigabytes per hour for video at 10 mbit/sec.
So a red laser disc (sans audio/extras) can hold 2 hours of superb quality video, HD DVD-15 can support 3.3 hours and HD DVD-30, a whopping 6.7 hours!
We can even do more in 9 mbit/sec.
What is more, with this improvement, we also save in peak rate requirement since the same efficiency kicks in there.
Of course, this is not to say all movies and all content will go this low.
But that there is a significant saving here across all.
Note that the rates in some cases are less than half of what was used in some HD DVD launch titles! We have come far in less than 12 months?.
Net, net, we are getting pretty close to 3:1 advantage over MPEG-2! I let you ponder the impact of this on the format war.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=718689
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. October 2006 @ 07:35
|
|
djgizmo
Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 10:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is great news. Especially for me. I'm in the music business. And when you need to store full cd images that take up 750mb and 100s of full length tracks in wav format. This majorly helps with back ups. TO back up my current business drive using 4.5gb dvds, would take 22 hours at 15 min a disc.
|
|
jbrrngtn
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. October 2006 @ 11:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's a "100 year" disc, but the technology that burns it might only be good for 5 to 10 years before it's replaced with something better and non-compatable.
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
20. October 2006 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
Hmmmmm.....
I'll be dead in 100 years, and so will you, and our children's children will say "Blu-Ray who/wha???" and Blu-ray will be more of an historical footnote in the back of technical journals, (like Sony U-Matic reel-to-reel video recordings or something), than a still-viable format, and the technology will have been superceded and replaced 3 or 4 dozen times with alternate noo-&-improoved Monster Formats "guaranteed" to last 4,296 years in accelerated ageing tests, and so on and so forth and bla-bla-bla, etc. etc. etc......
I'm far more interested in what they can come up with today, or next month, or next year, if only they will stop trying to 're-invent' Blu-ray, (how many more mystically-advanced Blu-ray permutations are they going to invent before they mass-release what they already have?), get off their duffs, and put something affordable and functional out there in the marketplace sometime tomorrow before lunchtime, or at least between now and when I grow too old, deaf and blind to watch movies anymore.
Honestly people, these new 'miraculous' pie-in-the-sky announcements, (doesn't matter whether they're true or not), don't amount to a hill 'o termite poop in the overall scheme of things.
Like the Lady on that old TV commercial used to say, "Where's The BEEF??"
The End.
|
|
FlakMNKEY
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
20. October 2006 @ 12:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can you imagine burning 100 GB's of data at a 2x write speed. OMG THE HUMANITY. LOL hope you don't need your computer for the next week.
|
|
sssharp
Junior Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
You are so right FlakMNKY, I burn my discs at 4x and it take 13/14 minutes. Multiply that by 23 and it will hopefully be done by the time you get back from 8 hours of work. These wont be good for the average person.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. October 2006 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Somehow I duodt it the and I bet the media mafiaa will prevent this from being normal.....
|
|
Balaam
Senior Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
BD writable technology is completely different from BD ROM technology. There is no doubt that there will NEVER be a 3+ layer pressed BD disk. The BDA is barely able to make BD50 disks in any kind of quantity with anything approaching decent yields. And this is going to be used for data archiving? What a laugh. You can buy a 400 gig HD for $90 now, which is probably what something like this would cost seeing as how the 25 gig BD-R are $30. And by the time something like this actually makes its way out of the lab, holographic disk technology should be available.
Talk about a superfluous technology. lol
|
Senior Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 19:53 |
Link to this message
|
Yes it would be way better to get a few 100gb HDD's for half the price, rather than bothering with this new, very buggy, tech. By the time these are needed HVD will be out and working properly and will render both BD and HD-DVD useless.
As to how long it takes to burn one the read/write seads are way faster than DVD so it wont take anywhere near an hour to burn.
Quote:
How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps. However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps). Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate. While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware. If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.
Blu-ray.com/faq/" class="korostus" target="_blank">http://www.Blu-ray.com/faq/
16x for DVD is about 22mbps so yea...
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. October 2006 @ 19:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
they have to get it stable and then lower the price, space vrs space a DISC is iely to take up LESS room than a HD after a few hundred TB Storage room will become a issue.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 21:10 |
Link to this message
|
At 2x, you are looking at roughly 3 hours to burn one of those.
When Burning DVD at 8x, it will take roughly 2 hours and 50 minutes...
The only difference is the number of discs, so this is better. However, considering that 1 layer are about $30 and 2 layer are about $50, you can expect that this will be $90 - $100 per disc.
I would rather go with HVD at $100 for 300GB and the write speed is much faster.
Or holographic cards at $1 per 30GB card (down side is that the writer is about $7000).
However, unless if the price for this disc goes under $5.32 per disc, it is not worth it over DVDs since that is what 100GB will cost to back up on DVDR... DVDR is about 18.8gbs per $1 or $0.0532 per gb.
This is a nice achievement, but they must also find a way to produce it with the consumer in mind.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
20. October 2006 @ 21:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
JaguarGod
any format that first comes out will be 3-10X the price of current media,the trick is to balance thigns where the price comes down fast.
|
|
cart0181
Member
|
20. October 2006 @ 21:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
@wabashman and hughjars:
Yeah, and why in the world would anyone need more than 50KB of RAM!?!? Come on people, I thought we were past this discussion...
|
Junior Member
|
21. October 2006 @ 05:35 |
Link to this message
|
what!! burning Blu-ray in 2x is 72Mbps and DVD in 16x is just 22Mbps...
i "barely" can burn DVD @ 16x, my HDD speed is not fast enough. i can see the drive buffer go down to 15% when i burn DVD @ 16x
so.. burning Blu-ray disc more than 2x speed, in the current HDD technoogy is hard to do...
ATA-100 7200RPM HDD max speed only 25Mbps (close to 16x DVD.. 22Mbps)
|
|
jbrrngtn
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. October 2006 @ 05:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I would think this is not only great for future data storage, but it might be great for HD video.
"Can you imagine burning 100 GB's of data at a 2x write speed. OMG THE HUMANITY. LOL hope you don't need your computer for the next week."
That's a good point that I didn't even think about!
I wonder how they would overcome the time that it would take a user to burn an entire disk?
The first thing that came to my mind after you mentioned it was perhaps a drive that might have multiple read/write lasers to help cut down on the access time. Increaing spin of the disk may not be an option.
The multiple heads could be either tightly grouped together in a close cluster, or spanning in a straight across the disk. Both arrangements could be allowed movement back and forth to allow another laser to take over the duties if one ever fails, although it would slow performance to some degree.
|
|
jbrrngtn
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. October 2006 @ 06:08 |
Link to this message
|
"i "barely" can burn DVD @ 16x, my HDD speed is not fast enough. i can see the drive buffer go down to 15% when i burn DVD @ 16x
so.. burning Blu-ray disc more than 2x speed, in the current HDD technoogy is hard to do...
ATA-100 7200RPM HDD max speed only 25Mbps (close to 16x DVD.. 22Mbps)"
Building off what I mentioned above, I wonder if higher capcity hard drives were made with dual actuator arms at each side of the platter stack. I would think it would be a noticable improvement in access speed. I guess it would be like having two drives built into one except there would only be one platter stack.
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
21. October 2006 @ 09:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
cart0181
Junior Member
21. October 2006 @ 01:35 Link to this message Report an offensive post
@wabashman and hughjars:
Yeah, and why in the world would anyone need more than 50KB of RAM!?!? Come on people, I thought we were past this discussion...
- It's not a Luddite issue at all, it's about a practical cost-effective application in the mass-market.
As has been already pointed out unless you've some amazing genuine archiving 'need' there really isn't a 'need' for this in the mass-market that can't be met more cost-effectively by other means.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. October 2006 @ 12:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
hughjars
the way you say that it feels liek whats the point of new technology its to costly and will never be cost effective.
New technology in itself is always going to cost more than older,the question then becomes can it make money to survive until its a every day item.
BR is fickle and costly right now even the consumer players are iffy perhaps this tech is just to new and unstable to be used correctly in the next 4 years but tis here and will not go away I look at the 100 GB a disc and like it but past the hype its still a fickle storage solution in order for most people to want to use it it needs to be stable and cheap ,it wont be cheap for awhile now since its still fresh from the labs ,on the other hand we have HD DVD stable fast and 10-30% cheaper than BR all they have to do to win is sell 45GB discs and burners 30-60% cheaper and they win simply because price comes first in these battles with quality and capacity being always 2nd.
still is a long messy war unless one side bows out now,theres not going to much room for a consumer "archiving" niche with HD or BR because HDs will be slightly cheaper.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
21. October 2006 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
I think the thing I'm getting at is that we were originally told that the huge capacity potential Blu-ray offered was 'needed' because of the size of high def movies.
That simply isn't so anymore.
Once that 'need' drops out of the equation what on earth could anyone honestly claim they 'need' 100gb - 200gb discs for?
......and more to the point who honestly believes the mass-market is going to be interested in 100gb - 200gb discs, bearing in mind the undoubted huge premium they would try to sell them for, for if the use isn't for backing up high def movies?
Particularly when HDD are likely to so much cheaper per gb anyway?
|
