Dual Layer DVD+R Developed

Lucretian writes "And they said it couldn't be done... It appears that Philips has found a way to burn a dual layered DVD+R. Unlike other dual layered disks that have been developed, this one is also designed to be backwards compatible with current DVD players. Phillips will be demonstrating this new technology at CEATEC this coming week at the DVD+RW alliance booth. The DVDs will hold 8.5GB of data (4 hours of video) and are set to be released as soon as next year."

Comments

It will be expensive

[The One KEA]

This latest DVD burning technology will undoubtedly be quite expensive, for both the drives and the media. Especially the media, since it will probably take Phillips a while to manufacture enough media for these devices.

OTOH, it will certainly make it easier for the home movie crowd.

Seriously

[chendo]

Why haven't they agreed on a standard format for DVDs yet? I can't keep track of the -s and +s.

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty much a non-issue with all new drives supporting both formats...

Re:Seriously

[hendridm]

> I can't keep track of the -s and +s.

You can't keep track of two formats? ;) DVD-RAM is gone, DVD-R/RW is cheaper, but DVD+R/RW is a somewhat superior technology and I believe it is poised to take the lead due to the industry heavyweights behind it. Now with this dual-layer coming out before the minus camp it will only encourage the + "standard".

Why haven't they agreed on a standard format for DVDs yet?

Why wouldn't Edison concede victory to Westinghouse's AC current for long range power? RCA/VHS to Sony/BetaMax?

Dvd recorder? better wait ....

[Via_Patrino]

More one reson (besides price) to not buy a dvd recorder now.

Re:BlueRay

[The One KEA]

I think the biggest barrier to BlueRay is the fragility of the discs. The discs used by the BlueRay drives are very delicate because of the way they are manufactured, in order to work with a blue laser technology. IIRC, the discs thus have to be encased in cartridges, like old Sun SCSI CD-ROMs used to use.

People probably see that as a barrier to adoption, because instead of a thin disc you now have a big bulky cartridge. It will probably take a while to either get rid of that requirement or get rid of the stigma surrounding encased CDs.

Price & Standards

[TennesseeJeff]

Well, it looks like this will drive down the price of current single-layer DVD-R's (hopefully).

It also appears to comply with standard to play/read in all current DVD players/readers.

Backups will take fewer disks! Now what about the speed?

Re:I will be the first, but certainly not last to

[sonoluminescence]

Hmmm, I often wonder why the rest of the world seems to hate americans.

Luckily there is always someone around to remind me.

Re:Two things

[goombah99]

Yep, until now the floodgates of dvd copying have been held back by the fact that movies are ubiquitously about 4.5GB insize and a single DVD-r cant hold that much. Sure you could copy it to your hard drive, but that gets full quickly (at least on a laptop). Or you could compress it, but then for people with home theaters this sucks in quality.

you could burn it onto two CDs but this cost money, is a hassle to actually do correctly, and is a hassle to play back correctly or in a timely fashion when you want to view it.

So until now actually making copies of DVD movies has had significant prohibitive obstacles which are now about to be erased. Of course this will not happen overnight since the price of these things and the media will still be a barrier. But Notice has been served. DVD copying is about to become a real issue.

Re:Still too small

[JabberWokky]

I'm going to be doing the same thing, and I'll be facing the same problem. I'm digitizing all my VHS, many of which are totally out of print. The best I can come up with is to do them all and then store them all on DAT. Luckily for me, VHS is a pretty lousy quality original, so I can use a nice advanced (lossier) codec rather than MPEG2. My favorite CDs are 256k MP3s on my harddrive, but most are in two Sony 200 disc changers or in one of four 208 disc wallets. That's over 1000 CDs or thereabouts (the wallets are alphabetical, and have some empty spaces between letters).

Heh, plus I have a handful of out of print vinyl, some of which is virgin, and I've been planning for years to see if I can get a pristine digital transfer from them better than the "collector's" CDs (read: bootlegs from the vinyl). Nell Campbell's and Tim Curry's albums plus a couple local bands.

So, yeah - there are serious digital storage needs for legitimate collectors and their physically owned media.

--
Evan

Way cool!

[TripleA]

Now you don't have to recompress your DVD movies before copying them. I bet the MPAA will figure that out, soon enough.

Jack Valenti's gonna be livid

[crovira]

The average movie is 7+GB in size. 4.5GB drives were no threat to the MPAA. Hence we weren't subjected to a whole lot more than mere rhetoric from the end of Valenti's digestive system incapable of facial expression.

Given that most of the movie leaks to date have come from industry insiders, and that industry capable drives aren't common, the MPAA enjoyed what the RIAA could only whish it had, an exclusive advantage in both the market place and in the means of production.

Look forward to RIAA-style lawsuit writs being included in the installation instructions with every drive.

Re:Still too small

[Anonymous Coward]

> Luckily for me, VHS is a pretty lousy quality original, so I can use a nice advanced (lossier) codec rather than MPEG2

Ummm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you take a shitty quality recording, and run it through a lossy codec...don't you end up with Super-Shitty output? I mean, if the quality is already bad, wouldn't you want a high quality codec to keep it watchable?

I could be out to lunch here though...

Re:Still too small

[yerricde]

Lossy codecs on high settings are designed to remove as much noise as possible without grossly affecting the signal.

Re:I will be the first, but certainly not last to

[sparc_]

Let's not forget that this comes from the Eurofags whom invented the audio cassette, the CD, disk video and the video disk.
(these last 2 are different inventions it seams. Wierd but hey...)

Still better inventing stuff like this, instead of focussing on 'mini-nukes' to circumvent international treaties. (There I go again. Please mod me down, please?)

Re:hdd vs. dvd

[altek]

Whoa there son... This is /. ! You can't just post knee-jerk reactions! >:)

I think you're sort of missing the point.. You are comparing apples to oragnes. DVDs are a removable media format. It's not very easy to say, take out your hard drive and bring it to your friends house every time you want to swap pornos or whatever it is that you do.

Yes, for long-term archival you could just fill up a HD and set it on the shelf. But with DVD, the cost does go down as you burn more and more of them (the line approaches the cost of a DVD and the cost of the drive gets swallowed up). Also, it's easy and convenient to distribute data to others on DVD versus a hard drive. There's also the chance that hardware for reading DVDs will be more accessible in the long-term future than hardware for plugging in and accessing a hard drive.

I won't even get into the problems I faced when trying to cram a hard drive full of my home movies into the tray on my component DVD player for the family to watch at Christmas...

Remember, your uses of a storage medium may very well differ from say, a movie producer's, or a Radiologist's, or an IT firm's. Also, keep in mind that it's an emerging technology and of course cost is an issue when you're still paying for R&D. Did you go out and buy a CD-burner when they costed $600 and discs were $5?? I doubt it, but I'd be willing to bet that you have one now and find many uses for it....

Re:Hard Drive is probably more reliable

[Angram]

It's a duplicate of my hard disk - I have two copies of everything at all times. If one crashes, the other can be used to fill it back in. It would be extremely foolish to have only one copy of anything at a time, the point is that this is far more convenient than 150 CDs to work with. Consider the fact that I can easily update 10 gigs of info in 10 minutes. Try that with CDs or DVDs. I don't have stacks of CDs to wade through when something fails, and I don't have to buy new ones every time I want something new (CD-RWs have a very finite capacity - if files get bigger, you're out of luck). Same with DVDs.

And if your hard drive doesn't last more than a few months, you're either treating it terribly or you've bought a bad one.

model number statistics are VERY misleading

[David Jao]

DVD-R can only play on about 5% more players than DVD+R (according to DVDRHelp.com)

5% of the number of player models on the market is not a very meaningful statistic at all. What matters is the number of units sold of each of those models. When you take into account how many units of each player model has been sold, DVD-R has a compatibility advantage far larger than 5%. The reason is that each of the older player models (the ones incompatible with DVD+R) has a far larger market share than each of the dozens of modern cheap $40 players that you tout. An older player model should not be weighed equally against a modern dime-a-dozen model, but that is exactly what you are doing with your 5% figure.

As to your assertion that DVD-R costs more, a quick check of actual selling prices reveals that DVD+R media is actually fractionally more expensive than DVD-R media. I'm not even going to bother checking drive prices because dual-format drives (both players and recorders) are already so cheap.

DVD+R can be a good solution for a private user of recordable DVDs, but if you plan to distribute DVDs to any large group of people you'd be crazy to use anything but DVD-R.

Re:8.5gb?!

[WuphonsReach]

1.4Mb? I remember when you bought single-sided floppies, punched a hole on the other side and flipped them over.