Slashdot Mirror


New 100GB Optical Disk From Taiwan

Alt173 points to this article from Taiwan Economic News , excerpting: "The National Science Council (NSC) said Sunday that a local research team has successfully developed a new optical disc that can hold more than 100 gigabytes of information. The research team was led by professor Tsai Ding-ping of National Taiwan University. The new disc can store 150 CDs of favorite songs or an equivalent of 20 DVDs, Tsai said. By using "near-field" optical technology, the 100-gigabyte disc stores more than any other similar product in the world. The super-sized disc will be used at home to store large movie or music files, according to Tsai. The near-field optical technology also allows the bits of information on a disc to be spaced closer together to increase the disc's storage capacity."

7 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen ... by pgrote · · Score: 5, Funny

    Commented today, "This is it. We're done. This will kill the movie and music industry just like the VHS tape, CD and DVD."

    Senator Hollings responded, "We're asking China to invade Tawain today to stop this evil horde from joining the axis of evil."

  2. Signal to noise ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great. Now instead of an album costing $15.00, and containing one hit and 14 filler songs, the CD will cost $1,500.00 and contain one hit and 1499 filler songs.

  3. Size matters by mblase · · Score: 5, Funny

    The new disc can store 150 CDs of favorite songs or an equivalent of 20 DVDs, Tsai said.

    What he forgot to mention was that, at present, the disc is roughly the size and thickness of a small kitchen table.

  4. Gift to the movie industry from heaven. by jms · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lots of talk here about how this could be the "ultimate bootlegging product." On the other hand, if the movie industry is smart, this could be the "ultimate bootleg killer."

    The movie studios are very nervous about internet piracy, but there's a good reason why the vast majority see movies in theatres and rent or purchase DVDs instead of acquiring bootleg VCDs. The simple truth is that low bitrate videos suck. They have motion artifacts. They have substandard audio.

    They don't meet our quality expectations. A DVD is vastly superior. So is a 35mm print in a theatre. That's why Spiderman and Clones made over a hundred million dollars each in their first weekends, in spite of the fact that vastly inferior bootlegs were available "for free" on the internet.

    As the electronics industry begins to retool their equipment from CDR manufacture to DVD-R manufacture, the movie industry is going to run into the same problem as the music industry -- they are going to be selling a $15.00 product that can be trivially copied perfectly onto a $1.00 piece of media. Over the next decade or so, as internet bandwidth increases, we will begin to see file-sharing of actual DVD images.

    How can the movie industry make file-sharing of DVD images undesirable?

    The answer is by providing something much, much better. Current "digital movies", as projected in theatres, provide a vastly superior image to DVD, and require approximately 70-100 gigabytes of storage space. The movie industry should be preparing to transition away from DVD to a new "super DVD" format that offers at least HDTV resolution, and most importantly, a big, whomping data rate that is completely impractical for internet streaming, and completely impractical for copying to DVD without downgrading the video quality.

    Such a technology, available for the home, would quickly relegate DVD-quality recordings into the "low end" of video, at the same time that the price barrier on DVD-recording equipment falls through the cellar.

    The industry should also realize that copy protection is worthless. It will always be broken, and the longer it goes unbroken, the more severe the market effect once it is broken. The real solution to the piracy problem of inferior bootleg recordings is the age-old tactic of the salesman. Offer a vastly better product, and your customers will follow.

    1. Re:Gift to the movie industry from heaven. by jms · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If one of the manufacturers of dvd equipment had not gotten careless with the encryption technology, is there any reason to believe that we would be able to rip DVDs today?

      The DVD encryption game was over the instant that the first PC DVD player software was released. From that moment on, all of the secrets of DVD decryption were published and available for purchase ... and it was only a matter of time before someone with the ability to read machine language translated those secrets into something more accessable to the general public.

      But yes, had the DVD taken a hard line and absolutely refused to license DVD technology for computers, DeCSS would probably not exist.

      Contrast DVD encryption/decryption to DirecTV, where the decryption function is encapsulated in a smart card. Although people have created workarounds, allowing them to manipulate the smartcard to get free TV service, no one has yet determined the decryption algorithm contained in the chip itself. If they have, they are keeping it a secret.

      Encryption is a bit of a red herring though. The real issue is player feature control. There have been DVD rippers for years, but all of them required modification of a licensed DVD player. What made DeCSS dangerous to the DVDCCA was that it was a complete, standalone, unlicensed implementation of CSS. Being in the DVDCCA carries advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that you have access to the decryption algorithms, and are able to produce DVD players. The disadvantages are that you are subject to a licensing agreement, and you may not manufacture players with unencrypted digital outputs, and your player must impose macrovision distortion on the video signal.

      If DeCSS were not suppressed, then non-DVDCCA licensed hardware manufacturers would be able to start manufacturing and selling DVD players with no macrovision, and unencrypted digital outputs. This would place the entire existing DVD player industry at a self-imposed marketplace disadvantage, because they all entered into a "suicide pact" not to include those features.

      DeCSS is being suppressed not because of the danger of ripping DVDs, but because of the danger of the entire DVD player industry being usurped by a superior product -- that they have all sworn in blood to never provide for themselves. Internet file trading is just a smokescreen.

      I also disagree that DVD will be too entrenched for a new high definition medium. The marketplace would accept and require new "HDTV DVD" players to play "legacy" DVDs, and the new format would be noticably superior in a side-by-side comparison (on those big screens at Best Buy, for instance.) No need to ditch your DVD collection, but the new ones would look much better.

      Plus, for the first time, for digitally-originated movies at least, individuals would be able to own movies in their original theatrical format. That's a very nice incentive indeed. If nothing else, it would fuel the market for video projectors.

      My main fear about a new format is that it gives the studios renewed control - they are not likely to make the same mistake twice (re allowing DeCSS to happen).

      Well, obviously they would go with a new encryption algorithm in place of CSS, but I have full confidence and faith that our next generation of young people will be as up to the task of cracking the encryption as the current generation was up to the task of cracking CSS. In the end, it won't matter. People have had the capability of copying movies since the introduction of the betamax. Time and again it has been shown that the vast, vast majority of people would prefer to watch a movie in a theatre, rent, or purchase a legitimate, guaranteed copy then take a chance on a probably-inferior bootleg.

      As I said, the DeCSS war is all about keeping macrovision-free players with digital outputs off the market. It is not about internet piracy, or anything else.

  5. Back to the Future... by Ando[evilmedic] · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's hilarious how you could substitute a few words in your post above, to be having the same problem seven years ago.

    80 Gig HD --> 2 Gig HD
    writeable DVD --> CDR
    100 CD-RW's --> 100 floppies

    Until writable CD's come along, there isn't even a usable, cheap way to do a backup of my 2 Gig hard disk as it is. Right now, it'd take a stack of 100 floppies to do it, and about a year or so. It seems the only practical solution is to buy two (or more) identical hard disks...

  6. Re:Good news, bad news by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one that finds the comparisons to CD burners a bit lacking in perspective? For one thing, its not like they are taking a current CD and stacking it vertically until it can hold 100GB. Instead, they're going to increase the density and add a few layers to it. More density = more bits per disc rotation. A 24x CD Burner would burn 3.6MB a second, but a DVD at the same rotation would be like 3.6MB x 8 because the density is higher.

    What Im saying is that a single layer version of one of these disks would get filled just as quickly as itd take to fill a CD (huge leap in the amount of data, though...), it might take twice as long if it has 2 layers.. and so on. Who knows, it depends on how the burning technology works.

    My point is that the data rate of a CD is going to be incredibly slow compared to the data rate of one of these disks as long as the data density is higher. So stop comparing it to CD Burners. It is sort of like saying that an airplane would be many times slower than a car because it's so much heavier.

    --
    "Derp de derp."