backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 56 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Oct 12 at 10:02 PM

Hitachi's experimental model of the quad-layer Blu-ray Disc  (Source: PC Watch)
100GB on a single Blu-ray Disc that will work with today's machines, promises Hitachi

Throughout the life of the format, DVD has been primarily limited to at most two layers, keeping the format at a maximum storage space of under 9GB. The new high-definition formats, however, appear to have taken a page from hard disk drives when it comes at adding additional storage.

Just as how adding additional platters inside a hard disk drive provides more storage, optical media makers are finding ways to stack layers of readable surface inside a polymer disc to increase capacity. Hitachi revealed this week at CEATEC JAPAN 2007 that it has successfully developed a quad-layer Blu-ray Disc that is capable of storing 100GB of data.

The concept multi-layer discs is practiced by many other media labs, but Hitachi claims that its quad-layer technology would be compatible with existing Blu-ray Disc drives after a firmware update. Prior developments of greater than dual layer discs have required special hardware to read the new media.

Hitachi is now working on improving the signal quality of its quad-layer technology so that it will be ready for market. The company also said that it is working on an eight-layer variant of the technology, which would yield a Blu-ray Disc capable of holding 200GB.

Although no new hardware may be required to read the additional layers of Hitachi’s Blu-ray Disc, it is still unclear what costs, if any, would be added onto the manufacturing side of the equation. Should expensive equipment be required to manufacture the discs, movie studios may opt to release their titles across two Blu-ray Discs rather than cram movie and special feature data onto a single disc.

While the Blu-ray camp has its hopes in Hitachi’s multi-layer disc technology, the HD DVD group recently approved a triple-layer disc that is capable of holding 51GB. In order to reach a dual-layer Blu-ray Disc-besting capacity, an extra 2GB per layer was squeezed in, for a total of 51GB. Toshiba states that continued improvement in disc mastering technology has achieved further minimization in the recording pit, allowing for the boost in capacity to 17GB in single layer and a full 51GB on a single-sided triple-layer disc.

Interestingly enough, blue-violet laser technology has not stopped endeavors in increasing the capacity of red laser-based media. UK-based New Medium Enterprises revealed in March that it developed a quad-layer DVD, called the Versatile Multilayer Disc (VMD), which is capable of storing 20GB. Even with four layers, the VMD can’t best the storage offered by today’s HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc media.

Adding just one or two layers may just be the tip of the iceberg in optical media technology. Media specialist company Ritek told DailyTech at CES 2007 that not only has it been able to produce three-layer and four-layer HD optical discs, but to have successfully designed HD media with a full 10 layers. Ritek said that its multi-layer process can be applied to both HD DVD and Blu-ray formats, making the latest developments in 20GB DVD, 51GB HD DVD and 100GB Blu-ray Discs look like just the beginning.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Great for users
By jak3676 on 10/5/2007 8:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think this is even needed for high def movies, but it will be great for all the other uses - assuming that they can make cheap recordable media for consumer use.

Cost is always the issue, and I think that's the only reason that there is even still an argument between HD and BR.

But its really nice to see that this update will be compatable with existing hardware with only a firmware update. I've heard that HD is working along similar lines (multi-layer), but I haven't seen anything from the HD camp say that it will only take a firmware upate. If either camp starts making updates to their standard that are not fully backward compatable - that will only push more consumers away. While consumers understand that technology is always improving, no one wants to sink a lot of money in a standard that may not be able to play the discs that are released in a few years.




RE: Great for users
By GreenyMP on 10/5/2007 9:16:08 AM , Rating: 1
Just for fun lets do some math. If a typical DVD is recorded to support 720 x 480 resolution and a typical Blu-ray is recorded to support 1920 x 1280. The Blu-ray needs to support six times the data. (In an attempt to simplify the equation I will ignore the codec differences.) In The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King (Platinum Series Special Extended Edition) is 4 disks. So 4disks * 4.7GB * 6xResolution = 112.8GB needed to put it all on one disk.

So I am sending you all back to the drawing board. Blu-ray/Hitachi, we need another layer out of you guys. HD-DVD, we need 7 layers at 17GB/layer (8 at 15GB/layer). Lets not do the job half way boys. Lets do it all the way or not at all (straight from my dad).


RE: Great for users
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 9:32:13 AM , Rating: 4
or... less useless crap added to movies. The movie itself fits on one DVD right?

I for one don't want 3 dvd's full of extra's. I want the movie, and in some cases a few extra features that usually fit onto the first DVD already, not 3 whole extra DVD's worth of crap.


RE: Great for users
By colonelclaw on 10/5/2007 9:37:39 AM , Rating: 5
hmm, maybe sony needs the extra space for it's next DRM scheme?


RE: Great for users
By retrospooty on 10/5/2007 9:58:32 AM , Rating: 1
LOL - probably... All the more reason to go HD-DVD


RE: Great for users
By mal1 on 10/5/2007 11:26:07 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah....'cause Microsoft wouldn't even dream of using DRM.


RE: Great for users
By retrospooty on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great for users
By mars777 on 10/5/2007 2:35:18 PM , Rating: 3
If they use the same exact size for the same codec... neither one is bloated or both are.
Meanwhile AACS+MKT (on BluRay) is just another way of encoding the keys on the disc, arguably more secure.

But it really doesn't matter.
Use AnyDVD to rip BluRay or HDDVD.

DRM doesn't matter cause it's cracked.


RE: Great for users
By mars777 on 10/5/2007 2:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, i forgot to mention that AnyDVD HD strips the BD region coding too..

ie 100% cracked formats.


RE: Great for users
By mars777 on 10/5/2007 2:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, i forgot to mention that AnyDVD HD strips the BD region coding too..

ie 100% cracked formats.


RE: Great for users
By BladeVenom on 10/5/2007 3:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sony has started adding another layer of copy protection, BD+ to their latest videos. Has that been cracked yet?
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1035


RE: Great for users
By andrewsdw on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great for users
By V2K on 10/5/2007 10:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
good for TV box sets too - you could fit entire seasons of some shows on a single disc


RE: Great for users
By Martimus on 10/5/2007 11:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
The movie is on two DVD's. The extras are the other two DVD's.


RE: Great for users
By kyp275 on 10/5/2007 1:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
actually, I found the extra features on the LOTR extended dvds to be quite interesting.

I don't usually bother with the bonus materials, but then I'm a big LOTR fan :)


RE: Great for users
By Locutus465 on 10/5/2007 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Speacial edition Fellowship of the ring does not fit on to a single DVD... I'm sure the same would be true for HD... Though to be honest I'm not really that upset by it, not much different than changing video tapes back in the day. And as far as I know the standard editions of all the movies *DO* fit onto a single DVD, there for if you really don't want to change disks you can buy standard as opposed to speacial uber omg edition.


RE: Great for users
By Cogman on 10/5/2007 9:47:54 AM , Rating: 5
Ahh, but the codec difference is a huge one. We are talking about a codec that is essentially 4 times more efficient then the old MPEG2 standard, meaning if that was pure video, you would only need 28 GB to store it all. A single layer Blu-ray disk is 25 GB. so already you can store almost all of it on one disk. If you want crazy quality, you could easily split this to 4 single layered blu-ray disks, and get a quality that is much better then a MPEG2 encoder would be able to handle. Now you split that to double, triple, or quad layers and you are talking about either Uber-extreme quality or using one or 2 disks at the most.

Don't discount the codec so quickly as it is a HUGE factor in how much data can be stored.


RE: Great for users
By Obadiah on 10/5/2007 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
No, the codec really isn't so much of a factor when the material is high-definition. Part of the reason is that mpeg2 was designed for high-bitrate applications while h264 was designed for low-bitrate applications. Another part of the reason is that the higher the bitrate, the more often blocks of the image are encoded instead of just re-using blocks from previous frames and all of the codecs - mpeg2, h264 and vc1 are roughly equally efficient at encoding new blocks, they only differentiate themselves by how well they are able to "figure out" what previous blocks can be re-used.

So, the higher the bitrate, the less of a difference there is in codec efficiency.

Take a look at this comparison of all three codecs: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498

If you look at the table comparing OPSNR (peak signal to noise ratio) and SSIM (structural simularity) you can see that mpeg2 at 12mbps beats vc1 and h264 at 6mbps, sometimes very dramatically. At 18mbps, mpeg2 just barely lags the others at 12mbps.

The important thing to take away from those numbers is that at best the other codecs are 2x as efficient as mpeg2 and their lead decreases as bitrate increases. Note that those tests are not low-bitrate like 2mbps, where h264 would have a significant lead over mpeg2. But that kind of bitrate is for internet-streaming video, not high-definition blu-ray/hd-dvd.


RE: Great for users
By Strunf on 10/8/2007 7:58:10 AM , Rating: 2
You contradict yourself... if mpeg2 was designed for high bitrates and mpeg4 for low ones then how come the mpeg 4 wins on high bitrates?...

mpeg2 was never made for high bitrates it was made to have the best quality possible and still fit a movie on a DVD.

Also the higher the bitrate is the less the codec becomes important, however we have a limited space available has such for any givin space the mpeg4 encoded movie will give a better quality than if it was encoded in mpeg2 (at the same resolution).


RE: Great for users
By Obadiah on 10/11/2007 8:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You contradict yourself... if mpeg2 was designed for high bitrates and mpeg4 for low ones then how come the mpeg 4 wins on high bitrates?...
For one thing, the quoted examples of 12mbps and 18mbps are not terribly high bitrates. BLU-RAY is 40mbps. For another thing, it isn't black and white, there is not a single bitrate at which MPEG4's algorithmic improvements lose their effectiveness, it's a slow reduction as bitrate increases and depends on the material and the encoder in use as well.

quote:
mpeg2 was never made for high bitrates it was made to have the best quality possible and still fit a movie on a DVD.

Sorry, but you don't know a thing about what you are talking about. Support for my claim that mpeg2 was designed for high bitrates and mpeg4 for low bitrates is widely available to even the most inept of google users. Here is one example:
http://www.fh-friedberg.de/fachbereiche/e2/telekom...
o MPEG-2 -- Higher Bandwidth (up to 40Mbits/sec)
...
o MPEG-4 -- Very Low Bandwidth (64Kbits/sec)

quote:
for any givin space the mpeg4 encoded movie will give a better quality than if it was encoded in mpeg2 (at the same resolution).
You are incorrect. MPEG2 encoders are very sophisticated, having been around for well over a decade. MPEG4 encoders are just beginning to see serious use, they have a long way to go to reach the sophistication of modern MPEG2 encoders. Thus it is entirely possible for a high bit-rate encoding, such as BLU-RAY's 40mbps, to be better at MPEG2 than at MPEG4.


RE: Great for users
By Strunf on 10/12/2007 10:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
"For one thing, the quoted examples of 12mbps and 18mbps are not terribly high bitrates."
They are high bit rates by any standard... and if you pick higher bit rates than that then the codec becomes even less important.

"Sorry, but you don't know a thing about what you are talking about."
No it's you that doesn't know a thing of what your talking about...
Mpeg-4 at 64kbps? man MPEG-4 can go all the way up to 960kbps...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264

"Thus it is entirely possible for a high bit-rate encoding, such as BLU-RAY's 40mbps, to be better at MPEG2 than at MPEG4."
hmm I wonder why soo many people complained about the Blue-ray movies when they first came out in mpeg-2...


RE: Great for users
By erikejw on 10/5/2007 8:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we need to go 10bit and 12bit in colors since the panels soon support it and it takes extra space and is needed in low color scenes as mostly is black and white or skys which looks real bad in 8bit.

Another use is to let go of the 24fps rate. It was invented for 100 years ago. I guess they did not have guys playing fps games then. I see the picture studder all the time when I watch sport or panning or quick motion in any movie.

We got 120 fps screens but we need to up the recording quality too.


RE: Great for users
By 3kliksphilip on 10/5/2007 11:53:40 AM , Rating: 1
It might force movie makers to cut down on the rubbish in their films (In my opinion, Return of the King had the most useless, boring endings ever. They should have finished it after the Minas Tirith hobbit-bowing bit. Everybody in our cinema got up to leave several times before the 'end'.

1920 x 1280's an insane resolution. Where will it end?!


RE: Great for users
By kyp275 on 10/5/2007 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It might force movie makers to cut down on the rubbish in their films (In my opinion, Return of the King had the most useless, boring endings ever. They should have finished it after the Minas Tirith hobbit-bowing bit. Everybody in our cinema got up to leave several times before the 'end'.


well, they were trying to stay as faithful to the books as they could. The celebration at Minas Tirith was barely half-way through the book, and frankly, would've left too many things unanswered if the movie were to just end there.

But then if you're only watching it purely for the action, yea it's not an exciting ending, but for a fan of the actual book, it was probably as good as one could hope for in a movie adaptation (at least one that's not 200 hrs long :P


RE: Great for users
By ZaethDekar on 10/5/2007 12:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
That was the 4 discs at 118GB. Already its down to 1 1/5th of a quad layer Blu-Ray... and I am sure they could easily work the codecs around to make it fit on 100GB.

I honestly think Blu-Ray is going to win this war. It holds more already, and then getting 100GB vs 51GB... that means the HD will be 2-1 vs Blu-Ray. No matter what. Then with just a firmware update on the Blu-Ray to play the added content, it would be perfect. With 1TB Harddrives it just works better.


RE: Great for users
By plonk420 on 10/5/2007 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 4
but the point is to NOT ignore the codec differences. have you ever played around with AVC? you could EASILY get any of the movies in 33gb even with a PCM track or two, a DD640 track for each other language (don't give me a "DD mixes are inferior; just listen to The Island's DD mix). Pirates has a bitrate at LEAST 50% higher than the already "good-as far as i can tell" X3 (i haven't spot checked or frame-by-framed action sequences or tough spots; i was only rewatching for enjoyment) and Pirates 1 was only 29 or 30gb.


RE: Great for users
By sadffffff on 10/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Great for users
By GlassHouse69 on 10/8/2007 11:01:26 AM , Rating: 3
Wow. A complete moron wrote today. I normally see just immature people, or others who just have no idea what they are talking about. Sometimes there are folks who are plain illiterate. Other times we have proof a deep seated, irrevocable ignorance. It is as if some people were so improperly reared as children that they will never increase in any sort of understanding or wisdom. Generations of losers breeding other losers in an unending battle to nullify the need for active neurons. This is something new though.

This is everything bundled into an all-in-one moron!

We should have you post in every thread. You will be the moron representative. Much bandwidth will be saved. Thank you for filling this position.


RE: Great for users
By CascadingDarkness on 10/8/2007 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly natural selection doesn't mean best traits carry on. What ever traits lead to reproduction. Sadly being an idiot doesn't matter as long as someone shelters you just enough to reach puberty.

That's all it takes.

In this day and age where the government is expected to take care of everyone regardless of personal actions it doesn't take much to make it that long.


RE: Great for users
By GlassHouse69 on 10/9/2007 12:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
" Sadly being an idiot doesn't matter as long as someone shelters you just enough to reach puberty."

LOL


RE: Great for users
By Some1ne on 10/5/2007 4:03:36 PM , Rating: 1
It it really though?

I mean, optical disks are easily scratched, damaged, and otherwise made unreadable. They also have a nasty tendency of degrading over time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_rot ), and are generally completely unable to survive exposure to microwave oven radiation for more than a second or so before suffering total catastrophic failure.

So while being able to put 100 GB on a single disk may seem convenient, it means that (at least in the case when the disks are being used for data backup purposes) the user is exposed to a much higher level of risk, because if anything happens that causes a disk to become unreadable, then that's 100 GB of data out the window. At least when more, smaller-capacity disks are used, only a subset of the data is lost when a disk happens to fail.


RE: Great for users
By Assimilator87 on 10/5/2007 6:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Do the current video standards have less quality than the original film? I'm curious because I don't think there's such a thing as lossless compression on video.


RE: Great for users
By erikejw on 10/5/2007 8:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
That might go for the HDDVD but not Bluray.

From Wiki:
Blu-ray Discs now use a layer of protective material on the surface through which the data is read.

The recent introduction of a clear polymer coating has given Blu-ray Discs substantial scratch resistance. The coating is developed by TDK and is called "Durabis". It allows BDs to be cleaned safely with only a tissue. The coating is said to successfully resist "50 grit sandpaper scrubbing" according to Samsung Optical technical manager Chas Kalsi.


RE: Great for users
By afkrotch on 10/7/2007 10:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
Microwave oven radiation? Why even bring that up? Seriously, what piece of electronics can survive that? What plant, animal, anything can survive that. It's whole purpose is to heat up objects to high tempatures.


RE: Great for users
By Some1ne on 10/8/2007 3:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Humor value. If you've ever put a CD or a DVD in a microwave and watched the result, you'd understand.


Format War
By wannabemedontu on 10/5/2007 8:28:24 AM , Rating: 2
Let em keep fighting, only means more innovation and choice for us.




RE: Format War
By colonelclaw on 10/5/2007 10:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
i disagree. i just want one of them - either, i dont care - to be declared the winner so i can go out and buy a bloody player


RE: Format War
By euclidean on 10/5/2007 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Just let them fight it out and get an up-converting DVD player...it's what the smart kids do ;).

neways....Once this fight is over, can they move the fight to the Internet speeds and ISPs... :\ Netflix Downloads ftw.


RE: Format War
By plonk420 on 10/5/2007 1:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
you can keep your small screen and upconverting DVD player. i forget i'm not in a theater with even just a 2.0 setup with my BRD player and projector. aside from increased clarity, on an HD set with DVDs, every once in a while a scene comes a long where you wish you could see whatever detail you're missing due to lack of resolution or a scene that just plain looks bad due to lack of resolution (La Femme Nikita's shot of the restaurant's interior).

the main annoyance is the current exclusivity battle. the new BD+ protection is worrysome, too, if it were to make it on movies i'd actually want to buy (i like to make screenshots to show off HD content, and once in a while play around with x264 and transcode one of my movies (as there's no jacked up AR correction needed; symmetrical correction++)).


RE: Format War
By euclidean on 10/5/2007 3:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
How does that have anything to do with screen size? I have my own media server I built that's attached to a HD DLP Projector, granit it's only a max of 720p or 1080i, but still, having a TV that's 116" is far greater than having a small 40" screen ;).

But I still don't understand how what you said had anything to do with what I said...


RE: Format War
By plonk420 on 10/6/2007 6:42:15 AM , Rating: 2
you cannot see the difference between DVDs and an HD sourced movie on a projector? i sure can. granted it's only 720p, Lanczos or a PS3 (i don't really care to spend another $200 on an Oppo or even more on an HD-A1) can ONLY eke out so much detail from a well done DVD. i didn't get the texture of Xavier's jacket or the suede of the Redcoats' uniforms compared to Jack Sparrow's rough, weathered outfit. even on The Fifth Elements' poor mastered version, the cityscape is sparkles with detail you can just sorta make out in SD. i'm a visual person and would have thought Crank a waste of time without the eye gougingly razor-sharp visuals, but instead found it at least interesting as a test of the technology.

bottom line, HD puts the limit of what i can see in a scene on my eyes and my equipment rather than the something that lacks detail in (at least) those few scenes per movie that DVD technology is simply not capable of recovering by upscaling.


RE: Format War
By AlphaVirus on 10/5/2007 11:26:30 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, I am tired of waiting to see which one will be the winner. IMO I think Bluray has already won but geeze adopt it as the standard so we can mass produce some consumer products. Seeing them fight is fun and all but eventually they will grow tired and we will never have a winner.


How about you change the title
By bozilla on 10/7/2007 9:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
And this is just one of the things I mentioned about your reporting Marcus. Your obvious Blu-Ray bias is making you post titles that are highly misleading. How about you actually report news as they ARE, instead of adding pro-Blu-Ray sound to it.

You should change the title to: "Hitachi Develops 100GB Blu-ray Disc that MIGHT be compatible With Existing Drives"

It is obviously very clear that this disc might actually REQUIRE new hardware:

Although no new hardware may be required to read the additional layers of Hitachi’s Blu-ray Disc, it is still unclear what costs, if any, would be added onto the manufacturing side of the equation. Should expensive equipment be required to manufacture the discs, movie studios may opt to release their titles across two Blu-ray Discs rather than cram movie and special feature data onto a single disc.

So how is this compatible with existing hardware?

This is just another theoretical sample of high capacity optical disc that will require new hardware to read multiple layers, it's simple as that.

For you to make the title sound like it's actually compatible is poor reporting and not to mention misleading to the readers.




By redfirebird15 on 10/8/2007 3:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he has a bias, maybe he doesn't. However, Hitachi claims it will be compatible, so, why would he change it, unless to clarify that it is for blu ray drives. The guy above thought it was for DVD drives.


By winterspan on 10/9/2007 8:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
It is obviously very clear that this disc might actually REQUIRE new hardware:

Although no new hardware may be required to read the additional layers of Hitachi’s Blu-ray Disc, it is still unclear what costs, if any, would be added onto the manufacturing side of the equation. Should expensive equipment be required to manufacture the discs, movie studios may opt to release their titles across two Blu-ray Discs rather than cram movie and special feature data onto a single disc.

So how is this compatible with existing hardware?

You claim it's "very obvious" that this new 4-layer disc might actually require new BD drives, yet the one paragraph you cited actually makes the counter point. It only says that manufacturers will need new hardware to *produce* the disc.

I fail to see your point. If I am missing something, please correct me.


Comment
By Necaradan666 on 10/5/2007 11:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
Gah, the only reason I clicked this post was because it said 'existing drives' and I thought they were on about the current dvd drive in my PC. The title should be more specific. Whats so great about a blu-ray disc that plays on blu-ray players?




RE: Comment
By DragonMaster0 on 10/6/2007 12:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's because it's 4x the size of normal BluRay discs, and it still plays in players released before the multi-layer discs, so people don't have to change their existing players for newer ones, unlike some DVD players released before DVD+R and dual-layers, which couldn't read the newer formats.


$$$$
By mal1 on 10/5/2007 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 1
Personally, I'd rather see discs that are 1/4 of the current cost than 4x the current size.




RE: $$$$
By BZDTemp on 10/5/2007 9:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Give it time.

I remember when CD-R's was new. I worked at a software firm making computer version of dictionaries and encyclopedias and in the early days CD-burners was like $10,000 and a 74 min disc something like $20 if you could get one as they were in very short supply. I even remember having a courier fly in 10 discs since it was they only way we could get some - those ten ended up costing like $2,000!

On the up side there was no need for copy protection. Hardly anybody had hard drives big enough to hold data from just one CD and CD-burners was even more rare as you can imagine given the prices. Also having the burner was not enough one also needed a big fast PC to actually use it.

Just a couple of years down the line CD burners was everywhere and now some 15 years later CD's are old tech and cheap as dirt. And the same will happend with Blue Ray only much faster.


Can't wait
By The0ne on 10/5/2007 7:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
I personally will be using them for storage. My DVD's are piling up and I still have thousands of CD's from my younger years that I want to save. That includes music from tapes, 8 tracks :P, and so on that are difficult to find new.

But as I understand it, the cost will not be dropping anytime soon due to several issues; competition, mfg cost, marketing. Still, if I an squeese 80 CD's on 1 HD CD then I'm happy spending the money.




Coming soon
By erikejw on 10/5/2007 8:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
Now we all wait on the 6 layer read only HDDVD at 102Gb ;))




By mthomas on 10/6/2007 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
This storage technology will leap frog all others.

Petabytes instead of gigabytes.

http://colossalstorage.net




Tired of exposed media
By kyleb2112 on 10/7/2007 3:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
I hate having to treat these things like Faberge eggs. Soon we'll be trusting discs with a 100 gigs of data and we'll still be sweating bullets if we drop one. And god forbid we ever reach the point where a 5-year old be trusted with his own Disney discs.

From the time I bought my fist CD in 1984 I've been expecting someone to put a protective cassette around this exposed media, but here we are in 2007 and that damn rainbow is still too sexy to cover.




Financial developments
By crystal clear on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Financial developments
By ninjit on 10/5/2007 1:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hitach has been making media (CDs, DVDs, etc.) for a long time before they bought the HDD business.

I fail to see how you're rant about their HDD financial wows it has any relevance to this article.

Even if they sell the HDD interests, they will continue to produce media, including (eventually) this new quad-layer one.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki