|
|
|
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.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
21. October 2006 @ 15:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
hughjars
You are right 20-50GB is all we need with the correct MP4 codecs and hardware we can have great looking high quality high def movies.
With that said its up to BR and HD to fight over hollywood in the end this is going to be a long drawn out fight with a dual burner at the end so neither format dies completely things are going well for HD DVD.
WHat are your thoughts on the PS3 if HD dvd wins in 2-4 years?
will sony break down and add on a HD DVD player or make a overhauled system with a dual reader in it?
Or will sony have its finger up its nose ignoring reality?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
21. October 2006 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
With that said its up to BR and HD to fight over hollywood
- Certainly from this end it looks like 'neutral' is a growing tendancy.
There are too many HD-DVD players out there now for anyone to be deliberately cutting themselves off from that market (and the XBox add-on just boosts that some more).
Quote:
in the end this is going to be a long drawn out fight with a dual burner at the end so neither format dies completely things are going well for HD DVD.
- I agree. Did you see the quote from DVD world?
Quote:
from dvdfile.com
'Mixed Messages Concerning the Potential for a Hybrid Player
It was reported that at a recent CEA industry forum, proponents form both the HD DVD camp and the Blu-ray Disc camp sparred verbally.
Mark Knox represented the HD DVD Promotion Group.
Pioneer senior vice president of product development and Blu-ray Disc Association spokesman Andy Parsons represented the other camp.
Like good politicians tend to do, Knox and Parsons stuck to their predefined messages.
But there was one notable exception.
Neither voiced a problem with the concept of a universal player that would accommodate both HD disc formats.
They stated that no legal impediments exist in either format?s licensing agreements to preclude the development and marketing of such a player.
This would seem to contradict previous reports that Sony?s licensing agreement specifically forbids Blu-ray Disc technology from being integrated into a hybrid player'.
- Maybe heads are clearing and the damage each side is inflicting on the other is becoming clear.......dual format players soon?
Is this all about to go the way of the DVD -R & DVD +R 'war' ?
Quote:
WHat are your thoughts on the PS3 if HD dvd wins in 2-4 years?
will sony break down and add on a HD DVD player or make a overhauled system with a dual reader in it?
- That is a distinct possibility but I tend to think a dual format scenario allows for Sony to save face and keep the PS3 Blu-ray only.
You can see that that is their tendancy with the switch to VC-1 and my bet is they may be left in the ironic position of having formed a consortium for Blu-ray to reduce risk etc and ending up being out-voted by the other members who will want to move to a dual format player.
Sony could well be left complaining on their lonesome as the others churn out dual format players & cash in.
Quote:
AE27 (Member) 20. October 2006 @ 10:22
I could see these being used once 2540P is used in HDTV's
- You should learn about film grain sizes and resolution.
For 35mm film we are, at 1080p, in most instances, at the point of 'transperency' with the master.
You can't just keep upping resolution and expecting better results cos after a certain point (which we are very close to now) you just end up with the grains breaking up and 'noise'.
I've nicked this from elsewhere, I hope it helps -
It's all to do with scanning the movies and grain sizes.
2k Telecine is common (the other 'standard is 4k, usually for FX too) apparantly grains tend to break up much above 2k.
see this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine
2k is used for 1080p = transparent as many movies are processed at 2k.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
This is an interesting page that compares the scan quality of various resolutions. It's actually for comparing digital cameras to film frame detail, but it's very interesting, and seems to suggest 4000dpi is commonly used, while 8000dpi is approaching the diffraction limit (ie where no more detail is possible to capture - only noise). That said, he states he is using Velvia film, which is a film with one of the lowest amounts of grain possible, so the figures he gives are definately upper limits.
In other words, 2000dpi would probably be more than sufficient for normal film and scanning at lower resolutions, such as 720p or 1080p.
Even if another even larger HD format arrives, there wouldn't really be any point transferring 35mm movies to anything larger than 1080p.
They would have to start filming on 70mm (imax) to go any higher.
Even at 1080p you'll see lots of grain and resolution breaking up with 35mm.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. October 2006 @ 15:37
|
|
cart0181
Member
|
22. October 2006 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, I guess some people don't see the discussion (on storage size)as overwith. I guarantee you will all eat your words and end up looking as stupid as the guy who said "who needs more than 50KB of RAM." It's only a matter of time... Do you really think compression technology is going to out-pace the need for additional storage space? I'm on Zippy's side on this one. (for once)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. October 2006 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
cart0181
BR has potential but is limping along right now if they dont do something ASAP and bring their prices to match HD they will simply lose the whole point of this war is to get hollywood anyhtign after that is sloppy seconds I ca easily see BR being a over priced archiving solution like the old jazz and zip drives.
I would like BR to win and in wining they must lower their prices.but HD DVD is on the path to wining and the 100GB discs even if they were cheap that would only be adfordly by the common consumer in 4 years ;_;
I see BR as the best choice for all as long as it can fix itself and be cheap other wise it will just fail us...
bah I am sleep typeing I cant tell is I am makeing any since *L*
hughjars
1.I dotn think hollywood ever "forced" media changes they waited and then pounced and culg to the winning format,they will waffle in the brezze until one format because unprofitable to sell on.
2.Pretty much they would rather join in pillaging the consumers then fight to the death THAN be forced into a price war where the winner could not rape people thru their wallets plus roums abound that dual players/buners can be built rather easily once the bugs are dealt with.so they do what all corporations do fight in front of the camera and make out behind the scenes 0-o
it reminds me of the Dues ex 2 thing where both coffee cafe chains are owned by the same corporation that was rather funny and scary do well really know who owns who? 0-o
3.Ah sony I think they ahve elarned from beta max and the PSP that going it alone is to costly better to join others and get money regardless of what is going on.
(side note the PSP would be the best thing since sliced bread if sony would have opened up made a media player program for the PSP let people convert films with the use of a tool and stuff they could always use frimware updates to squash emus and copy playback ga they have no forethought for the PSP and the stagnation of it shows that..)
4.I an only really tell a diffrance in codecs and 1080p on the more costly display unit I have seen at best buy and acouple more pricey chains its like normal HD in 580 is 10-20% in diffreance,720 is 20-30% and 1080p is 30-40% with the high brands looking 10-30% better than that(40-70%) I am like....holy shit the diffrances in quality are so all over the place just because it says HD means squat if you have 1-3 grand to buy a HD setup you need to do alot of reasearch on whats what its almost like buying computer parts 0_o
what I am saying is things are a mess,I guess we are stil in a transitional phaze from old "analog" TV to new "digital" it seems this phaze will be around another 2 or 3 years until all the new tech gets distrusted enough.and even 5-10 to become "normal".
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. October 2006 @ 00:51
|
|
anony22
Newbie
|
22. October 2006 @ 22:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
if it was cost effective i would prefer to store stuff on dvds, especially 100gb ones, than on a tape backup or a removable platter hard drive. The fact is, once the data is on the cd and the burn was verified, though it may take awhile, you now have a guaranteed backup of that file that will last longer than you (supposedly). If you take care of the disk, depending on how important the data is, you will always have that as long as you want it.
Large disk images (iso's) can take up a lot of space and its good to archive them to dvd.
|
|
hughjars
Suspended permanently
|
23. October 2006 @ 04:40 |
Link to this message
|
I think someone has the wrong end of the stick here (or is trying to just divert the issue with ridiculous and irrelevant comments about 50kb of RAM).
I didn't even say additional disc capacity was of no interest or use anyway.
I did say that, knowing what we now know, the 15 - 30gb (& possibly their 45gb as it uses existing infrastructure and is now working and ready to use on existing drives) capacity of HD-DVD
and
the 25gb - 50gb Blu-ray discs' capacity look like being perfectly sufficient for all possible credible market needs right now - especially when cost is taken into account
(and, lets be honest, looking at how much DVD9 costs, it's hard to see the mass-market rushing to buy even those high def discs in huge volumes either).
The point is that the 100gb Blu-ray disc mentioned (and the other 200gb disc sometimes mentioned) has no real practical application (now even 50gb is unnecessary for high def movies) and certainly not at the price they are liable to go for.....
.....with I suppose the exception, possibly, for those professionally archiving (and I suspect they would use other means than a mass-market commercial disc).
As for space?
Well, I suppose cooling space makes a slight difference but ever larger HDD's offer a bigger, practical, cheap(er) and obvious alternative right now.
If anyone wants to claim an array of 750gb HDD's is the same as 50kb of RAM then go ahead, but IMO it's a pretty silly point to try and make and it does completely ignore what is actually being said.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. October 2006 @ 04:44
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
24. October 2006 @ 00:37 |
Link to this message
|
Personally, I don't think the large size is needed for the new movie formats. The reason is that I think they look like crap...
OK, they are pretty sharp and the colors are nice, but the compression problems drive me insane. I hate HD. It is done completely wrong. Regardless of how efficient VC-1 and AVC are, they are talking about compressing movies to 9mbps!!!! That is roughly a 165:1 compression!!
On HD from Cable and Satellite I see all the crap from digital compression and it annoys me. Details seem to disappear when something moves. There was something where someone was wearing a black pin striped suit. When he moved, the stripes vanished. Then the other guy was wearing a dark green suit. When he moved, the collar, pockets, and all other details vanished and it looked like he was wearing a solid colored sweater. Heck, my 14 year old TVs look better on analog than all HD I have seen. This is 27" FS vs. 60" WS though. However regardless the actual look even if it were equal size, the digital compression problems are not in the analog.
I believe that even with VC-1 and AVC, they should have capped bitrate at 60mbps. Then all this extra storage would be more welcomed. There is no movie right now that would go anywhere near a full BD25 when compressed to 9mbps, heck, you would have a hard time filling a DVD9 at that bitrate!!!
The problem is that they went for technology with slow read speads so they are forced to cap at under 1x speed. A 25GB BD disc is a good size for High quality DVD (compressed to 25mbps) with extras.
A 100GB BD is pointless since 1x is 36mbps. What are they going to do, load 100 different language tracks on a disc?? 2 hour long menus?? Movies filmed at 3 completely different angles??
HD had a nice potential, but the technology needed is not available. Sure the stuff *looks* sharp, but it is not a better picture. These discs are only good for storing data. They will never be used for movies unless they decide to store an entire season of a show on a disc, but they won't since this means they will not make as much profit from charging $40 per 3 episodes.
For everyone that thinks I am insane for saying that HD looks like crap, compare it to a high bitrate DVD (Superbit). Also keep in mind that Superbit represents about 70% of capped DVD quality. Now, is there so much of a difference to actually consider this a "New Technology"??? It is better than DVD, but not by much, and sometimes a little worse.
With new movies it is hard to see because new DVDs are compressed like crazy and they (Sony) don't make Superbit anymore. I think it is on purpose to make the difference bigger between HD and DVD...
If instead of making something like BD with large potential storage, they should have made something with faster read speed. If 1x would have been 72mbps on BD or HD DVD, then you would have seen some really good HD at about 50mbps bitrate. If you think VC-1 looks good at 12 - 18 mbps, can you imagine at 50mbps??? It would look almost like D5 probably. The only problem with this (for the companies) is that the quality would be so good, there would be no need for further upgrading for many years.
Sorry, it's late and I;m tired, so I sort of ranted a bit...
|
Senior Member
|
24. October 2006 @ 02:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If instead of making something like BD with large potential storage, they should have made something with faster read speed. If 1x would have been 72mbps on BD or HD DVD, then you would have seen some really good HD at about 50mbps bitrate. If you think VC-1 looks good at 12 - 18 mbps, can you imagine at 50mbps??? It would look almost like D5 probably. The only problem with this (for the companies) is that the quality would be so good, there would be no need for further upgrading for many years.
1x for BD is defined as 36mpbs, as BD movies need a transfer speed of 54mpbs then 2x (72mbps) will be minimum speed of any BD drive. Im pretty sure thats all thats needed for read speeds.
I still dont see why all this space is needed, 100gb is overkill for movies and i dont see consumers buying them until they cost alot less if they ever even get commercially released. Great to know its possible but not interested, rather go buy a HDD or 2.
"This is how it works. Whatever you sink, we build back up. Whomever you sue, ten new pirates are recruited. Wherever you go, we are already ahead of you. You are the past and the forgotten, we are the internet and the future."-Brokep
|
|
eatsushi
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
24. October 2006 @ 06:34 |
Link to this message
|
"The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."
-Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Home Entertainment Feb 19, 2008
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. October 2006 @ 06:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Andrew691
the space is good for games and TV series they can litrealry put more eps onto a disc at a cheaper price there are good thens about BR,this of it like this is the price of 100GB is 20 a disc and Anime or other 24X30min EP shows are complete on 1 BR disc at the price of 50-60$ its almost worth it right then and there,most 25 ep anime s almost 15-25 a DVD at 4 eps per DVD or a box set for 80-140.
Of coarse its going to be awhile before they start putting more onto media and making you pay less for it.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
24. October 2006 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
@eatsushi,
Thanks for the link!!! I think you are right!!!
@Andrew691,
You are correct about the transfer speeds, but even if it is transfering at 54mbps, the actual video data is capped at 25mbps. They say it can handle 40mbps video, but if the cap is 25mbps, it will never happen...
This is possibly used for some type of buffer. I don't know how the players are built, but it is possible. Or there is a chance that it is using the extra read speed for audio.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Newbie
|
11. September 2009 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
"Although artificial ageing acceleration tests showed that the disc is readable even after 100 years, CDs were tipped to last for ages when they were first introduced, however they turned out to have invariably short (5-10 year) lifespans."
Lol I have CD's that are over 24 years old and they play just as good as the day I bought them when I was 16 in 1985.
If looked after (and not given to 2 year old to play with) they'll last 100 years np.
I download my media, but still prefer portable media like cd's and dvd's atm, going to wait a year or so before trying blueray, I still don't think it's worth paying 3-4 times for a movie that's only twice as better quality and some blueray movies aren't even that after seeing them, probably down to the crappy source material that was used. (after all it can only be as good as the origional).
I think it's great that Panasonic are thinking 'long-term' mass storage, they'll always be a need for simple portable storage without have to rely on some HDD somewhere.
|
|
