Slashdot Mirror


Another Competitor for Blu-ray and HD-DVD

neutron_p writes "New Medium Enterprises unveils the highly anticipated pre-industrial Versatile MultiLayer Discs, the next generation HD Disc & Drive containing 20GB of storage capacity. VMDs use the current Red Laser technology, so it's easier for DVD factories to switch over. The company is set for launching production and sales of 15 GB, 20 GB, 25 GB and 30 GB Discs & Drives by Fall 2005. The drives will be inherently backward compatible with the existing pre-recorded and recordable DVD and CD formats."

137 comments

  1. Company website?? by taxevader · · Score: 1

    Is there one? Kind of strange that it wasnt posted either in the /. intro or on the tech news site...

    --
    -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
    1. Re:Company website?? by Xeo+024 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The company is New Medium Enterprises. Here is their press release for the VMD.

  2. Lower Overhead by r2q2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think that the lower overhead because this uses red lazers will be the biggest selling point of the technologly. Since the other alternatives are very radical this seems to be just right. Also since it is adaptable to blu ray at 1 terabyte eventually!!! This stuff looks like it has a much better change of success.

    --
    My UID is prime is yours?
    1. Re:Lower Overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who spells 'laser' like 'lazer' should be ignored, IMNSHO. And 'change of success'? What is that? The suit you wore at your last interview?

    2. Re:Lower Overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop posting using a monospaced font. It's fucking annoying.

  3. Pre-industrial Versatile MultiLayer Discs by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are they made from copper and tin dics created by the local blacksmith and can also be used as shields if you are attacked by roving brigands?

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  4. oh for the love of god by Phil246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cant they just Fking PICK ONE and stop trying to out-do each other in the 'snazzy name dept', so they can pool research and get a better product at the end of the day?

    1. Re:oh for the love of god by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      its called evolution, if all the companies compete to make the best product, it brings down prices and new technology is developed

      its a win-win situation for the consumer, i welcome it.

    2. Re:oh for the love of god by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Just dont buy any of them yet... wait til theres a winner on this format war.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:oh for the love of god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a misuse of the term "evolution."
      Evolution is a worthless term when referring to markets because by its nature evolution is an extremely slow change that cannot be observed over the course of a human lifetime or even several hundred of them. Timespans like that are useless to apply to markets where changes come month to month in line with the quarterly reporting periods adopted by corporations.
      You're thinking of competition. This might seem pedantic, but it's quite important to use these terms correctly and recognize their distinctions because while they are similar, they contain some very important differences.

    4. Re:oh for the love of god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "evolution is an extremely slow change "
      Oh yeah? I gots me a bucket full o' fruit flies here that disagree with you. Yes, they have attained sentience in 23 generations thanks to nuclear waste.

    5. Re:oh for the love of god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a win-win situation for the consumer, i welcome it.

      Even if technically inferior formats, e.g. HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray, wins due to larger backing by movie companies?

    6. Re:oh for the love of god by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      its called evolution, if all the companies compete to make the best product, it brings down prices and new technology is developed. its a win-win situation for the consumer, i welcome it.

      I do not welcome our new disk format overlords.

      Look what happened to quadraphonic in the 70's. By the time all the smoke of standards wars cleared, all that was left was plain stereo.

      There must be other examples of great ideas that died due to multiple competing standards?

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    7. Re:oh for the love of god by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Even if technically inferior formats, e.g. HD-DVD instead of Blu-ray, wins due to larger backing by movie companies?

      Is HD-DVD even defined yet? Dual Layer, 8 gig formats exist, yet, but that's hardly enough to pull off feature length HD Movies with extras and such.

      This new format is backwards compatible with CD and DVD, can be moved forward up to a terrabyte, and incorporates copy protection.

      This may very well BE the HD-DVD format of choice by Hollywood.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    8. Re:oh for the love of god by zonker · · Score: 1, Interesting

      or more recently vhs and beta.

      interestingly, the vinyl music recording standards battle is one of the earliest format wars (discounting early pre-vinyl edison cylinders as their wasn't big industry behind differing designs). the major labels (columbia and rca victor) were trying to promote their differing designs to replace the 78 (ever wonder why their are 33 1/3, 45, 78's etc.?). here's some more links for the curious...

      all that being said, i think it is really just the early adopters that get screwed and that is and will always be the risk of being one. in general, history usually shows that some competition in the market usually helps (but when there are too many choices, it can confuse consumers and backfire)...

    9. Re:oh for the love of god by Ummu · · Score: 0

      This is what happens when a world's technology development focuses on money more than the tech itself.

    10. Re:oh for the love of god by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for emphasizing my point. It being an important one, I'm glad to have the chance to dwell on it a bit further. Even under labratory conditions with species that breed thousands of times faster than humans variations in subtle characteristics such as wing shape or eye coloration develop at a glacial pace and only to the degree that population statistics will allow. That is to say, these changes are only detectable statistically rather than being absolute changes that suddenly and drastically affect the entire population. This population statistics element is the basis for the science of genetics. Changes in fruit fly populations are not dramatic in the sense that fruit flies attain some seemingly advanced behaviors through selective breeding as you so wittily pointed out.
      On the other hand, corporations have a very specific timing: the quarterly reporting cycle in which the corporate analogy of species --product lines-- live and die in a clearly ordained manner. It's not like one percent of the population of a certain Cisco router product line develops a blue LED in the third quarter and then on a quarter-by-quarter basis the population begins to adopt this characteristic according to how the market accepts the change. No, that's how evolution works, that's not how corporations work.
      In a corporate environment, entire product lines can appear and disappear completely within a single fiscal quarter based on the whims of an executive. The similarities to evolution are about as strong as the similarities between evolution and creationism. They both seek to describe a similar topic, but they are nonethless quite discinct and even contrary.
      The corporate world is much more along the creationist lines of thinking, ie the CEO is God and all the creatures of the world live and die in accordance with his wishes. This is not evolution, this is competition. Competition and evolution are NOT synonyms. This is a subtle but significant point that I am quite pleased to have the opportunity to inform you of.

  5. Well... by keeleysam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The drives will be inherently backward compatible with the existing pre-recorded and recordable DVD and CD formats."
    That may give them a slight lead, but since they are poppin up so late and Sony has already pledged for Blu-reay discs in PS3, and Xbox Next will have it too, if they ever want to see this new format get big they will need soem MAJOR luck, which personally, I dont want them to have, as too many formats isn't going to help us, and will probobly help piracy.

    --
    Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you remember back in the day sony pushed hard for the betamax format and look how that turned out...

    2. Re:Well... by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      ...Sony has already pledged for Blu-reay discs in PS3, and Xbox Next will have it too...

      I wouldn't use "major company support" as a metric for success. Intel threw its weight behind RDRAM, and it was even used in the Nintendo 64, but that didn't stop the world from rejecting it as a substandard solution.

      If another format takes off, then you'll either be seeing "on the bandwagon" support for the PS3 and Xbox Next, or their support for Blue-ray will be marketed as a "feature," in that it would help curb piracy.

      It doesn't hurt them to change the spec for a concept design at this stage in the game; if it was a year from now that this had been announced, then there might be more validity for them supporting Blu-ray.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will help piracy? Then bring this new format on!

    4. Re:Well... by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      I would like to know what these huge capacity disc are going to be used for. I guess high defintion tv for the rich. I for one will not buy a hd tv until I can get a 36 inch tv for under $500 and my present tv breaks. I do not see them putting 8 movies on one disc and charging around $100 for it. I expect that soon all movies will be on demand and no one will have to locally store them anyway. As for software the vast majority of them do not fill a cd much less a dvd or larger capacity disc.

    5. Re:Well... by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1

      Xbox next will have a bluRay drive? How do you figure that out? Everything leaked or made public about Xbox next points to the contrary...

    6. Re:Well... by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't know about the movie industry, but I plan to use them for data backups. With dual layer 50G blu-ray recordable discs, I could back up the hard drives in my house with only about forty or fifty. Give me an order of magnitude more capacity per disc, and I might even be able to back up regularly....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made it up.

    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest use I can think of is basically anything that's not using lossy compression!

      Photographs: Anybody who scans a large number of photographs at high resolution and saves them using lossless compression will know how much space you need.

      Audio: Audio compressed using lossless compression generally doesn't go very far. If you want to store a large amount of music or some other audio, you need a lot of space. Most current common lossless audio compression algorithms generally don't get one down to 50% of the size of the original. (See http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm for a comparison.)

      Using lossless compression, consider how much space you need per channel of 44kHz 16-bit sound? Now, how many channels do people want?

      Video: How much space does uncompressed video take up? Answer: A LOT!!! :)

      How about video compressed using lossless compression? Answer: STILL a LOT! :)

      Even compressed video takes a lot of space. If we ignore very high compression such as DIVX*, DVD-quality MPEG2 takes a lot of space. If you have a large number of home videos, or do any kind of research that involves video, you need as much space as you can get at this stage.

      * I say ignore DIVX only because some people here choose not to use it. I don't know enough about DIVX vs. DVD-quality MPEG2 to make a decision.

      I remember some time back somebody Asked Slashdot about mechanisms for storing and transferring video data but that DVD quality was too low quality for what was needed.

      I think the biggest uses for these "huge capacity discs" will be things we don't think about much now because it's not an option. For example, most of us have atlases in our house, but imagine an atlas that allows us to zoom from seeing the entire world on our monitor down to seeing individual houses. This is already available online (and may be available on current media, I don't know), but how much space would be required to make an average European country available in this way? Or the whole European subcontinent? Or North America? Or Eurasia from one end to the other? Now consider how many of these "huge capacity discs" you would need vs. an 8G DVD! :)

      Dictionaries, of varying sizes, are already available with audio. How much space would be required for the complete Oxford English dictionary where every word is in audio format (in multiple dialects, spoken by male and female), along with spoken versions of the etymologies, along with pictures, where applicable?

      Imagine how much more audio, video, etc. you can put on an encyclopedia stored on one of these discs.

      There's a huge amount of content out there that has limited demand. Cheap high-capacity media can mean the difference between this content being available and not.

      While we may not see 8 popular movies on a disc for a decent price, we might see entire series or seasons of things we otherwise would not. I'm sure some researchers, libraries, etc. would like to be able to get a year's worth of a daily news program. How much space would be required for 365 hours using high-quality audio and video? How much space would be required for 30-50 hours of lectures for a course taught at a university?

      There's plenty of uses, and when these higher capacity discs become available, we'll see them.

      I do not expect that *all* movies will be on demand anytime soon. For some of us, we are still two or more years away from the most popular movies being available "on demand". Some of us are probably many years away from anything other than the more popular movies being available on demand.

      Where I live, the best option I have right now is pay-per-view, which is only a limited number of popular movies and the occasional independent/foreign film being shown at pre-determined times. I doubt it will change in the next two years. When it does, I still foresee a limited number of movies available on demand for many years.

      And when movie

  6. Blu-Ray Killer? by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The prime consideration is that this technology uses current red-laser technology rather than a new blue-laser. This makes it inherently backwards compatible with today's CD-RW and DVDs. It is also cheaper and carries 20 gig on one side, with a 30 gb model available. If we use high-bandwidth XVID/Ogg streams on this, why would we need blu-ray?

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    1. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be some durability issues considering this disc is an unwieldy four layers, whereas the blu-ray disc uses less, and only uses four for the 100 GB version (which might be a while to market).

    2. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Ahh, so that's how they worked around the limitations of a red laser. Hmm, durability issues with as sizable discs as these is the least I'm looking for right now.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      If we use high-bandwidth XVID/Ogg streams on this, why would we need blu-ray?

      I just bought the Philips DVP642 Divx/XviD player and I'm wondering why you would buy a DVD+/-RW.

      I'm getting used to putting DVD quality film on 20 cent CDR's.

      Sure (complete) TV seasons on DVD would be nice but since TVtorrents has become my Tivo, CD works great. Disposable and compatible.

    4. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because MPEG-4 compression is only good for low-to-moderate bitrates. Some of us can notice the quality loss on DivX. It's kind of like how RealAudio and MP3 work best at different bitrates.

    5. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we use high-bandwidth XVID/Ogg streams on this, why would we need blu-ray?

      You wouldn't, but Sony's going to try and ram it into market dominance anyway via PS3 and their other home theatre offerings.

      The winner of the coming format war gets control over patent royalties and licencing fees. Instead of learning from VHS/Betamax and DVD-A/SACD, this is only going to get worse, as consumer technology firms compete to design and control the highest-capacity, most-restrictive data storage format that somehow achieves market control.

      The problem is, every company involved in this mess assumes that, like VHS/Betamax, there will be a clear victor, instead of becoming a hopeless mess of three or even four different formats becoming necessary for every title--or certain titles only appearing on certain formats depending on the studio's parent company, like happened with Divx (the Circuit Shitty/Thomson mutated DVD format) in a couple of cases during its existence.

      This is unlikely to end well for consumers or producers.

    6. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      I'm getting used to putting DVD quality film on 20 cent CDR's.

      Funny...I'm getting used to putting my full DVD backups (via dvdshrink) onto 20 cent DVD-Rs...Oh yeah, and the burner only cost me 10 bucks, too...

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    7. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Also, something says me that you could easily use their improvements for red laser for blue laser, too. 25GB blue-ray discs are only the beginning, since sony already announced >100GB multilayer discs.
      Those otoh are the absolute end of potential of long wavelenght laser.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    8. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why would we need blu-ray?



      Everytime a bought a new PC, with a shiny new HD in it, I thought "I'll never need all the storage on this HD"... Wrong every time.

    9. Re:Blu-Ray Killer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we use high-bandwidth XVID/Ogg streams on this, why would we need blu-ray?

      I try to avoid audio compressed with lossy algorithms. There was once speculation that audio compressed using certain lossy algorithms may affect how your ear would "process" inaudible sounds, or how the brain may subconsiously process such inaudible sounds. I don't know the current state of research on this, but it's an issue worth studying. Anybody know of any refereed publications on this?

      What do you consider a "high-bandwidth" OGG stream?

      I'm quite content listening to my 700kbit/s - 900kbit/s lossless compressed Monkey Audio, given that CD-quality is the best I have available.

  7. It doesn't matter by samael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    DVDs are good enough for current games/tv and other media.

    By the time the next generation of media finally makes it into production we're going to be downloading everything.

    Seriously - the way that things are going everything's going to be available via download, and unless you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere your bandwidth will be high enough toget it faster than the time it takes you to walk to the shops and back.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter by pla · · Score: 1

      DVDs are good enough for current games/tv and other media.

      Who cares about using them for media? Ever had to keep reasonably up-to-date backups of a few hundred GB of frequently changing data?

      Up to about 200GB tapes work well enough (though the drives cost more than the entire machine they back up, and the tapes alone cost as much as a cheap IDE HDD of the same size, and go quite a lot slower). Above 300GB, a "nightly backup" either requires multiple drives, an even more expensive tape robot (reasonable for backup up a few TB but when you only need two or three tapes, kinda a frivolous expense), or manual user intervention. Oy.

      I would personally like to see 200GB CD-like disks hit the mainstream. CD robots don't cost too much, the media wouldn't (assuming similar consumer-level prices as current CD and DVD blanks) cost as much as the drive you need to backup, and perhaps even "normal" people would finally start keeping backups (I do so hate having to tell friends, when they ask me to help them fix their PCs, "well, I'll let you pick - Buy a new HDD and we'll slave your old one to recover your data, or say goodbye to your porn-oh-yeah-and-your-past-five-years'-tax-data) if they could do it all to a single disc. Heh, well, okay, I won't hold my breath on that last point.

    2. Re:It doesn't matter by samael · · Score: 1

      I've had HalfLife2 on my PC for weeks now.

      Have you got it yet?

      And I only back up my important documents to offsite - about 100MB goes to a web-based site (ibackup.com)

      Everything else gets backed up to a hard drive on my flatmate's machine - and from his to mine. It's not perfect, but for replacable stuff it's good enough.

    3. Re:It doesn't matter by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      i sleep 6-8 hours a day. Enough time to download a dvd with current adsl.
      I would rather pick a game before going to bed/work and find it ready when back than having to drive to a store.
      Or do you sit in front of your pc watching to progress bar?

      btw: who buys games at stores? they are most often overpriced and full of idiot leet gamer kidz. And downloading wins agains mail-order anyday.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:It doesn't matter by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I don't think so.

      HD has so much more detail that it's not funny. An ATSC bitstream is 20Mbps. A half hour fills up one DVD.

    5. Re:It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that's only if the servers arn't flooded...

      Sounds like a good reason to use Bittorrent.

    6. Re:It doesn't matter by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      No, we're not gonna be downloading everything, if the data footprint of one movie is 20-30 GB. Yes, bandwith available to people is increasing, but even now, downloading low-definition 5GB DVD movies is just at the edge of practicality with a decent connection.

      It's no accident that Netflix moves around more data through the mail each day than the entire internet does in the same amount of time.

    7. Re:It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good enough"? Oh come on now! DVD is practically a joke. It's incredibly easy to hit the limits of MPEG2 (buy Animusic and listen to the commentary if you want an example, or just take an old recording and encode it at 6 mbps and see how blurry it gets), and, while it may have higher effective bandwidth than broadcast NTSC, you need to realize the source footage is not as good. Studio quality NTSC DV footage is 10-bit, 4:2:2 with a low intraframe compression rate--consequently 50 mbps. There's also a DV format that's 100 mbps. And even your game consoles have 4:2:2 TV encoders. By contrast DVD is this piddling 8-bit 4:2:0 with heavy compression.

      I'm surprised none of these new discs is at least talking about using the home DV format. Sure, it's still 8-bit 4:2:0 but at 25 mbps video and no interframe compression you can easily do edits. Plus without intraframe dependency you even have an advantage over ATSC---fast movements don't screw up the compression and throw blocks everywhere like they do during ATSC football games!

      I'd love to be able to put raw DV files from my camcorder straight to a disc--without any pesky additional MPEG2 encoding and quality loss---and just give it to a friend to play in his set top box. With 20 GB discs I could fit an 80 minute miniDV tape with room to spare. That and the MJPEG encode/decode hardware would be a heck of alot cheaper than MPEG2 hardware (no motion estimation).

    8. Re:It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Plus without intraframe dependency you even have an advantage over ATSC---fast movements don't screw up the compression and throw blocks everywhere like they do during ATSC football games!"

      Sorry, meant interframe there. Mmmmmm....a world without P frames and B frames. More data, but no blockiness worries for the home camcorder user with a shaky hand.

    9. Re:It doesn't matter by kaligraphic · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the ping times!

      --
      You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
    10. Re:It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good enough"?

      Yeah, I too love it when people say "good enough". :) I think what they really mean is "good enough for me now, as I don't know how much better it can be".

      DVDs are just barely practical for me doing plain data backups, due to time (too little time to sort through and figure out what's useful and what's not) and space requirements.

      That's just data backups. It's lack of time that keeps me from doing more image and video processing and don't get me started on the whole "but a photograph only takes up 100K in jpeg format". To those people I say try saving a 600dpi or 1200dpi photograph in true color using lossless compression and get that down to 100kbytes! :)

      CD-quality audio using lossless compression will easily hit between 325M-400M per CD.

    11. Re:It doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try saving a 600dpi or 1200dpi photograph in true color using lossless compression and get that down to 100kbytes! :)

      Before anybody catches me on that... I mean a 5" x 7" photograph or bigger.

  8. inherently backward compatible by Neil+Blender · · Score: 2, Funny

    The redundant department of redundant redundancy called on the telephone....

    1. Re:inherently backward compatible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and they said, "Shut the hell up, you fucking grammar Nazi."

    2. Re:inherently backward compatible by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      The redundant department of redundant redundancy called on the telephone....

      ...and they said, "Shut the hell up, you fucking grammar Nazi."


      How did you know? By the way, why did they keep repeating themselves?

  9. Ah, capitalism at work! by gumpish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because we all know competition is good and the best technology always wins... right?

    1. Re:Ah, capitalism at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a "forward slash".
      There is only "slash" and "backslash".


      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retronym.

    2. Re:Ah, capitalism at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a manner of speaking, yes; it appears to be working. Sony was not quick enough to bring to market tapes that were longer than 1 hour, so people settled for VHS.

      Of course, by agreeing with tech Darwinism, I've probably pissed off some Amiga users :)

    3. Re:Ah, capitalism at work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [you@your.post]$ C:
      bash: C: dick found

    4. Re:Ah, capitalism at work! by boarder8925 · · Score: 1

      Actually, many people considered the Video 2000 superior to both VHS and Betamax. Sadly, it died before the Betamax did.

    5. Re:Ah, capitalism at work! by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      The best technology is the one that wins. VHS is case in point. I heart the free market.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  10. Again I say I need MORE storage by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really, I currently have 600gb of data archived for photographs and images. That's not a whole hell of alot. 3x200gb Seagates take care of the raiding and assorted 80, 120, 160's (and I Just found another 60 laying around, YES!) handle day to day demands.

    So, as with bluray, All I've got to say is "How soon do your writers and media get down to 1/10th the cost of IDE media (currently reasonably at $0.47/gb).

    A DVD (cheap) can be had for about 40 cents per disk- which doesn't get you much for archiving except the ability to slap it into a jukebox that makes whirling sounds.

    I need a massive data storage solution that I can ship off to friends to keep backups for me that does not rely on moving metal /ceramic disks.

    So, I welcome another format- so long as they MOVE THEIR ASSES and get the price down to what I can afford.

    And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check Amazon and Outpost to see if they have any more 200gb Seagates for less that $0.47/gb after rebate.

    1. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think you need to go through and delete some of the shit that you've been needlessly accumulating. Unless you're running a professional studio or an online archive of stock photos, then 600 GB is extreme.

    2. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Really, I currently have 600gb of data archived for photographs and images. That's not a whole hell of alot.

      Man I was told some people have too much porn, but this is ridiculous!

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    3. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      I hear you, friend.
      I gave up on using dvds for archiving. I just calculated that with current HD-prices, and buying quality dvds (with those 150 spindle for only 60 euro things i dont think 1 copy would be enough), ect ect.
      The botton line was: DVDs are cheaper after 300 or 400GB (to amorize the burner), BUT only if you are not calculating time.
      But you need to pack data togeter to 4.3GB, keep some sort of storage sanity, ect.
      Not to mention having huge piles of discs to seek through, pick the right media, hoping its not defective, ect.
      On my raid, its just one click on the folder...

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by Bombcar · · Score: 1

      Ah, but remember that a RAID isn't a backup. Unless you have two arrays in separate machines.

      And unless you're creating 400GB of content a day, it isn't that hard to backup to DVD once, and then archive the changes every week or so.

      I'm currently burning DVDs of my 24,605 songs, and that's above and beyond my rsync backups, etc.

    5. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Just remember DVD isnt a backup either. My failure per GB per year is about 1000to1 in favour for hds. I had scores of cdr that became faulty, but i have yet to suffer a total HD loss. One near loss (increasing raw error rate) was just compensated by putting a new on in the array, rebuilt, go.
      If anything really BAD happens to take out the whole array, most likely the data loss doesnt really matter compared to other damages (really important stuff is mirrored to my notebook, too)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    6. Re:Again I say I need MORE storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      600GB is extreme?

      DV video is something like 3.6MBytes/s, so 600GB will store roughly 46 hours of DV video. The only reason more home users don't have that much DV video would be cost and convenience of storage.

      Combine that with uncompressed or losslessly compressed music, uncompressed or losslessly compressed images, etc. and it adds up.

  11. Multilayer means layer change by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It may use red lasers, but it won't play in current players.

    As people are upgrading, the phrase "no layer-change pause" will become the marketing mantra of the blue-laser crowd.

    And they will win.

    1. Re:Multilayer means layer change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can somehow implement a hardware buffer to overcome the pause, that should eliminate it. It never was a big deal to me considering I run into read errors on DVDs that pause playback more than I do with layer changes.

      As for the backwards compatibility, I think they mean they don't have to incur extra hardware costs by having more than one laser just to read previous formats. All compatibility cam be done in firmware.

    2. Re:Multilayer means layer change by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      As people are upgrading, the phrase "no layer-change pause" will become the marketing mantra of the blue-laser crowd.

      Hardware buffering of the MPEG3 stream to prevent layer change pauses is a lot cheaper than a new and incompatible technology, and most DVD players seem to have it already.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    3. Re:Multilayer means layer change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least the new players will play your old DVDS.

    4. Re:Multilayer means layer change by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Hardware buffering of the MPEG3 stream to prevent layer change pauses is a lot cheaper than a new and incompatible technology, and most DVD players seem to have it already.

      You can't retrofit it, so it means buying a whole new player.

      And adding parts doesn't make players more attractive. Introducing new technologies does.

      The only people who stand to benefit from not changing over to blue lasers is the people who actually make the laser chips for the red lasers and would have to pay a royalty (maybe) to make blue lasers.

      The rest of it is fungible.

      And the first guy to mix the multilayer with the blue laser wins the whole pie.

  12. Format war by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Great, another format war on the horizon. Backwards compatibility is all well and good, but lateral compatibility is just as important. I mean, who wants to put 25gb on a format that may be competed out of the market in a year or two? And because the physical specifications are different (different lasers, etc) I doubt we'll be seeing many multiformat drives. But this is all in the testing phase, hopefully the market can agree on a disc by the time they go to market.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Format war by dokebi · · Score: 1

      hopefully the market can agree on a disc by the time they go to market

      You mean like how the egg chose the chicken?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  13. just dont scratch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    dvd writer: $150
    blank disk: $0.40
    losing 30gb of pr0n due to a hairline scratch: PRICELESS

    seriously tho, they should concentrate on making the media more reliable, what use is all this storage if it takes a tiny scratch to irrecovably lose it all

    1. Re:just dont scratch it by LegionX · · Score: 1

      The winning format will be the one comming in the most duable and cool carthridge

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. DRM crap included by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I for one would welcome any new DVD-like format, if it just offers more storage capacity per disc (or $). And reliable recording. But my guess is consumers are really sick of all the format wars as seen with DVD.

    I'm also very fond of the small 8 cm. discs. They fit in your pocket nicely. With PC equipment getting smaller/more powerful all the time, one of the things holding back small formfactor PC's is the size of optical drives/discs. In the past, the small capacity of 8 cm. discs may have been a good argument for keeping those, but with multiple GB.'s storage on even these small discs, that argument isn't so strong anymore. I would welcome it if some manufacturer had the balls to produce a 8 cm. disc only optical drive (about floppy-drive sized), and build an extra small PC around that. Think Nintendo GameCube style, but PC-compatible.

    From the article: "VMD is a high quality format with unparalleled built-in copyright protection .."

    And then there's the DRM issue. With DVD, it doesn't actually prevent consumers from copying/converting discs, but what if this changes? I wouldn't be willing to sink ANY money in it if that were the case.

    If DRM on next-gen optical discs really does become a barrier for consumers, I might start looking to grey import some equipment/discs using non-DRM including China-developed format.

    1. Re:DRM crap included by robyannetta · · Score: 1
      With new disc technologies making pits on CDs much smaller to achieve a greater capacity, new problems arise:

      One sweaty fingerprint smudge or a single piece of lint strategically placed in the wrong area could render the disc useless.

      Unless makers of next-generation CDs engineer their products with this in mind, we're all screwed.

      Perhaps a DVD-RAM styled fingerprint and dust-proof plastic cartridge is in order?

      Just a thought...

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    2. Re:DRM crap included by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      But my guess is consumers are really sick of all the format wars as seen with DVD.

      At least I'm not, I just got a cheap DVD+/-R/RW+CD-R/RW drive. :-)

      The only sign of the format wars I notice is that my standalone DVD player only supports DVD-R (and not DVD+R) but so what? Just buy these for both video and data and you'll never need to care.

      I can only see this becoming a problem if it's technically impossible to design combo-drives like these for future formats, without too expensive drives. However, I agree format wars are annoying if you want to be an early adopter of a format.

      I wouldn't be willing to sink ANY money in it if that were the case.

      I'd be willing to buy these even in that case, assuming they'll be able to play regular DVD's too. What would I lose on it? I assume prices would go down enough after time, like they do with all consumer products.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:DRM crap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless makers of next-generation CDs engineer their products with this in mind, we're all screwed.

      Just a thought...


      Just a thought that everybody and his fucking brother has already had, and posted to slashdot a gazillion million times before.

      It is called error correction. Look it up, start with reed-solomon encoding. Each new format has more sophisticated and more capable forms of error correction. This is a NON-ISSUE.

      You are lucky I did not mod you redundant instead of flaming you, I've got the mod points. But then, some other ignorant jackass meta-mod would come along and rate my redundant as unfair just because he's never heard of it either. Slashdot - the ignorant leading the ignorant!

    4. Re:DRM crap included by tho+1234 · · Score: 1

      Its not the size of the media that takes up the space, its the size of the drive itself-

      If you built a SFF with a laptop dvd burner, it would take up a fraction of the space, without sacrificing any features. I'm sure the average laptop DVD drive is smaller than the floppy drive on a desktop... There have been "SFF"'s, built right into the back of LCD monitors for years that use laptop drives....

      If you can afford it, laptops are much smaller and quieter than any SFF- they basically take up NO space, since a good laptop takes up no more space than your keyboard, mouse, and monitor... With video cards like the mobile 128MB radeon 9700 and 7200RPM laptop hard drives, they can equal the performance of pretty well any SFF...

    5. Re:DRM crap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called error correction. Look it up, start with reed-solomon encoding. Each new format has more sophisticated and more capable forms of error correction. This is a NON-ISSUE.

      I agree that everybody and their dog and their dog's dog already said what the parent said, but do not say this is a non-issue. Despite their "more sophisticated and more capable forms of error correction", DVDs, in my experience, are much more sensitive than CDs to any kind of damage, etc. If the current trend continues, I expect to see more of the same.

      For every two backups, relatively important files go on CDs and DVD, rather than two DVDs, precisely because of this.

  16. This is why we need separate standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine a world where the HD-DVD people stuck to writing the standard for what would be stored on a disc, while the manufacturers like sony stuck to making discs that would have sufficient capacity to store the data.

    Then we could move forward without this format war bullshit, and people could start developing video players that will actually work, and the hardware manufacturers could just buy whatever drive is available at the time and slap it in their machine.

  17. Obligatory MIB reference by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1


    See these things? They're gonna replace CD's soon.

    Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  18. Doesn't matter by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    One of the things that matter for the next-gen media is, whether manufacturers can produce enough units or not. With this new technology, no big-name manufacturer announced the partnership yet.

  19. Bit late to the table, yeah? by tattoi.nobori · · Score: 1

    This has all the makings of another another DivX story... (crappy PPV sceme aside, of course. ^_^)

  20. Any influence? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether the discussions on slashdot, on topics such as these, have any influence on the decisions taken by promoters of products. This is because the chatter on slashdot is often quoted by may bulletins on other websites. What do you think?

    1. Re:Any influence? by vivek7006 · · Score: 1

      I wonder whether the discussions on slashdot, on topics such as these, have any influence on the decisions taken by promoters of products.

      Yeah right. Keep living in your dream world, where CEO and CTO of every tech company make their decisions based on commments posted on Slashdot

  21. Discs tech... by Sergio+Duran · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've never liked the disc technology, I wish there was a better replacement (durable flash drives, or something like that) or maybe the CDs with an extra plastic cover, kind of like the old floppy disks.

    Anyway, spinning disks end up having reading errors, and the reading rate becomes really slow.

    1. Re:Discs tech... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I think a lot of that has to do with marketing. With these new formats, the amount of storage is the real selling point, just as it is with hard drives. You always hear about the new huge drive that came out, but how about higher spindle speeds, faster seek times and *gasp* better reliability! I agree with you that if things are going to get better we need to find a way to head toward solid state storage, but it doesn't seem like any of the major manufacturers give a damn.

  22. competition helping or confusing? by Phucilage · · Score: 1

    I definately dig the idea of competition helping to create and give us better technology, because, face it, if no one had anything to fight or work against, things wouldn't grow and develop as quickly as they do.

    It's things like this that give us great computer technology especially, great choices as well, instead of a single brand for everything with one company controlling it all. I love choice after all...

    The only problems this runs into, would be, the confusion that arises for the general populace. IE, is dvd+r or dvd-r better? what's the difference? Is AMD really better than Intel? Should I get an HP, Compaq, or Sony computer?

    These are questions I hear daily, and while some are answered by gathering a little information and figuring out what the person really needs to use it for, others are not so easily answered.

    Recordable media for example. Sure, I can tell someone, "Good luck finding a zipdisk anyone that's not online, why not get an inexpensive CD or DVD burner". However, whether or not DVD-Rs or DVD+Rs are better. And while we all have opinions and some facts, each one has their strengths.

    Which leads me to this: How much confusion will your average non-geeky customer have once all this new-wave recordable technology hits the market? More storage capacity, faster burns, more compatibility, these could be easy answers, until you get to the point to where you have five (i picked a random number, however many it really will be/is) to choose from and compatibility starts slimming down to specific brand names.

    Any thoughts or ideas on this would be appreciated.

    1. Re:competition helping or confusing? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Should I get an HP, Compaq, or Sony computer?

      No.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  23. Hm. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "article" (if you can call it that ... marketing blurb, really) seems like one of those "too good to be true so it probably isn't" things. Time will tell, but odds are if what they're doing is as easy to manufacture as they claim, the other major DVD researchers have probably already thought of it and discarded the idea, and if it is a really complicated affair then the fact that it uses a red laser vs a blue laser probably won't make much difference. I don't know, we'll see, but I'm not holding my breath on this one. Even if they have something, they're up against some pretty tough boys that have a vested interest in seeing their own technology prevail.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  24. VMD by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Videos of Mass Destruction.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  25. There is never enought space... by nvivo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember when I had an 80Gb HD and I needed to buy about 50 CDs to free my hard drive of all the junk i download everyday. So I decided to buy an DVD-Writer and a new 250Gb HD.

    What happened is that i just moved everything from my old drive to the new one. Nowadays I have about 200Gb of stuff in the hard drive that I have no idea when i'm gonna use. I would need about 50 DVDs to free the space... great progress!

    Now, even with this 30gb discs, i would need 7 discs to backup my stuff. :-( Maybe I should just buy another 250Gb drive...

    1. Re:There is never enought space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost my music collection when my 10 month old Maxtor 120GB SATA hard drive died last month. A lot of that was downloaded of course. It simply led to me rediscovering my CD collection and buying the stuff that I really liked that I had downloaded.

      In that respect, it really optimised my music collection. And I always prefer owning the originals.

      Sadly a lot of the stuff I had downloaded isn't easily available on CD ... oh well.

    2. Re:There is never enought space... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      I think you're exactly right. I did the same calculation myself and it's why I still don't own a DVD burner. I burn CD's for the car and for friends, but since most of them can now play CD's with MP3 at home and in their car, I don't have to burn very many. And if I want to trade data, I use an external hard drive or let friends FTP from me.

      Most of the data on my hard drive is "consumeable", the sort of thing I watch and delete. Stuff builds up and I don't delete all the useless files, because I have so much spare HD space and I'm lazy. But I'm not coming across much data that I insist on keeping "for posterity" - and the stuff I think of in that way would never get burned on a disk which is so easy to damage. Or, it might, but it would live on a hard drive as well. I have 6 live hard drives right now, and space for a few more. By the time I gunk up my newest one, drive space will be less than US20c/GB, so I'll spend another $100 and double my capacity. Hurrah to the hard drive makers!

    3. Re:There is never enought space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I predict that when Pioneer's 500GB "UV-ray disc" burnable comes out, we'll have about 2TB worth of disk space to backup on an average Joe's computer.

    4. Re:There is never enought space... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      great progress!

      I would just like to say, WHAAAAAAA???

      You're actually upset that Hard Drives are getting larger and less expensive?

      Maybe I should just buy another 250Gb drive...

      Yes, that is EXACTLY what you should do...

      Personally, I have one machine on my home network, with 3x 100GB hard drives, to which I back-up about half a dozen other computers.

      Tapes are too expensive for home use, and can't be re-written as many times as hard drives anyhow. DVD-RAM discs might be a good (cheap) option, but they're not common, and you'd need an automatic disc-changer to make it work reasonably well.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:There is never enought space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have given up on trying to pack up my data, with 2.03 TB of space, most of it used there is just no point in trying

  26. And History... by dbretton · · Score: 1

    repeats itself

  27. Where's the Beef? by ka9dgx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Interesting press release disguised as article, but where's the beef? There are no technical details about how it actually works. They talk about the limitations of two layer structures, but then never actually state how they overcame those limitations.

    I call BullShit, for the second time today, actually.

    --Mike--

    1. Re:Where's the Beef? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, its not bullshit. Sony demonstrated 8 layer blue-ray discs, so there would be no problem doing similar with red lasers and only 2-3GB per layer for 20GB of storage.
      Of couse, imho, to added complexity of multilayers (including long term storage uncertaincies) for outweights the "no blue laser needed" simplification.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Where's the Beef? by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

      They said that crosstalk between layers prevented more than 2... then never said how they got around it.

    3. Re:Where's the Beef? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, i dont know either, but sony did get around its, so i guess they could too (especially after a bit of reverse engineering/ect :) ).

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  28. Same as the D-Data DMD format? by benwaggoner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This sounds exactly the same as D-Data's apparently defunct Digital Multilayer Disc format, which also was a multilayer red laser. The CTO is even a Russan/Israeli, although not Eugene Levich.

  29. Vinyl is better! by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some of us can notice the quality loss on DivX.

    Yeah, sure, I know.

    Divx/MPEG-4 at high bit rates is the same "quality"... actually better than MPEG-2 (DVD) in most cases.

    Then again it's all about where you play your MPEG-4 movies. Play the same "DVDRip" on a 550 MHz computer, a 2 GHz computer and a stand-alone player. The stand-alone will likely come out on top because it was built to only decode MPEG-1/2/4 and do nothing else.

    My player has what they call "upsampling" which sounds like pseudo-science but it actually does make the movies come out better (then they look on the ol' PC).

    Then again it's all a matter of correct encoding and so forth. If the movie was encoded badly it will never come out right. Come look through my DVD backups, I dare you to find the flaws.

    And when it comes to most video content you'd be suprised about how much stuff you don't see anyways because you aren't looking for it. If you watch the background constantly you are likely to be angered by bad extras or movie mistakes before video flaws.

    Anyways to say that you can see the quality loss with Divx makes me laugh because you can even go a whole Mbit/s higher than MPEG-2 (DVD)... it's all about encoding (like mp3 and real audio!).

    1. Re:Vinyl is better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyways to say that you can see the quality loss with Divx makes me laugh because you can even go a whole Mbit/s higher than MPEG-2 (DVD)...

      If your source material is DVD-quality MPEG-2, there's only so much you can do to make it better with that extra bitrate. You're still working with video of a certain quality to begin with. If you're starting with video higher quality than DVD-quality MPEG-2 to begin with, having that extra bitrate could make much more difference, depending on the compression algorithms, obviously.

      Different people have different tolerance levels and preferences. If something looks as good or better to you, they may not necessarily look as good or better to somebody else. Notice how some video compression utilities offer different options for compressing video and they recommend users experiment. While it is dependent on the source material, it is also dependent on viewer preferences.

  30. Not recordable..for quite a while it seems by NoData · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just thought I'd point out that their proof of concept (according the press-release-in-article's-clothing) is a "pre-recorded VMD has four layers on one side for an initial capacity of 20 GB...." One quick reference to recordable says:

    "In 2006, the company will start manufacturing cost-effective 50 GB VMD's on Red Laser, for HDTV and Digital Cinema. With minimal changes of its technology, the company can manufacture recordable VMD as well." (my emphasis)

    The fact that the recordable version is referred to as a vague possibility, and (more disturbingly) brought up AFTER a reference to what will happen in 2006, all suggests that we won't see burnable versions of this technology for quite a while. Anyone know where the Blue Laser folks are on getting a home writable version out? That, I think, will really impact user adoption.

  31. Still needs a consumer change-over by Gaima · · Score: 1

    Unless they can include 1 or 2 layers that current generation DVD players can play now, as a red-laser tech (note how I said red-laser) it's doomed to failure already.
    OK, so the manufacturers don't have to invest in new equipment now, but the consumers will have to, and everyone will when the inevitable change-over to blue-laser happens.
    But what really rules it out will be the long long change-over period in which both "normal" red-laser and VMD red-laser discs will have to be produced and sold, that will be at massive cost to both the manufacturers, and retail chain, creating additional confusion to the consumer, and only to happen again quite soon.
    We are going to have/need blue-laser discs.

    I can well see all blu-ray players being able to read VMD discs though.

  32. Rock, rock on! by NoData · · Score: 1


    I always that the ultimate defeat of Blue Laser would lie at the hands of the Cheat Commandos.. "Justice rocket backpack rocket, rocket fire!"

  33. two lasers? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

    I just had a thought ... what if you tried reading a medium with two different colored lasers? Could you get effectively better resolution than with just one laser? By how much? From what I recall from my music classes, the difference between two close frequencies is a lower frequency, not a higher one, so maybe there's nothing here. But I thought I'd ask.

    1. Re:two lasers? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      I tried drawing it on the board. It does look like you could do better. Two lasers of the same frequency work better than two lasers of different frequencies. If each laser has a resolution that takes one reading per two dots, and you space their readings one dot apart, you can figure out all the dots. Three lasers, three dots per reading, etc. And more lasers than dots per reading add redundancy, reducing error.

      I know, I know, I'm an armchair physicist. Trying to apply digital solutions to an analog problem.

  34. VMD = DRM by screwdriver · · Score: 1
    VMD is a high quality format with unparalleled built-in copyright protection that offers the most cost effective solution for next generation optical media.

    Great, another promising technology crippled by DRM. This is supposed to be a selling point?

  35. Beta(Max) argument is getting old. See Video2000 by Animaether · · Score: 1

    Video2000@Wikipedia
    "Video 2000 was technically superior to both Betamax and VHS, but the format was introduced at a time when VHS had already established itself as the de facto home video standard, and failed to overturn its position."

    We had Video2000 at home, and it was awesome. Very old 8hr tapes (4hr/side) are still running better than brand-new SVHS tapes. Sad.

    Beta, psha.

  36. Risky... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can almost hear Dubya say it:
    "What?! They got VMDs?? Let's wage a preventive war to stop them!"

  37. wait a minute by spirit_fingers · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to holographic storage? Weren't we suppposed to have little sugar cube flash drives with a bajillion bytes of storage? I want a keychain thingy to hold all of my MP3s all of my pr0n, my collection of pirated kung fu movies and 10,000 Dr Who episodes and still have enough room left over for the fucking Library of Congress! Where is the future, damn it?! And while we're on the subject, I want my flying bubblecar too! IBM lied to us back in the 60s! They lied!

  38. as I understand it... by mortram · · Score: 1
    I work in the DVD industry, and although I'm not on the cutting edge of the technology debate between Blu Ray and HD, it's my understanding that the technology to write 3 or 4 layer DVD's has been a possibility for a long time. The problem as I understand it is that the factor of error increases quite a bit when you try to write additional layers of grooves on a DVD. The grooves aren't any smaller or denser on the disc, there are just additional 4.2gb (or so) layers being packed into the same space.

    Existing players certainly won't be compatible with these discs, even though they may red-laser readable. If the industry is going to move to a better technology, they might as well choose something that is a little more advanced like Blu Ray... In either case DVD backwards capability is going to be a must

  39. Blu is inherently recordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    And you can already buy the units from Sony.

    They cost a lot. That's pretty much the only problem with them right now.

    Expect the price to drop when the deman d picks up when the price drops whern the demand picks up... you know the drill.

    Realistically, we (anonymous, but not Sony) are currently aiming at a back-end of 2006 release for the triple-writers. (That is, they will read and write CD/CDRW/DVD+R/DVD-R/Blu at 48x, 40x, 16x, 16x and 2x - bearing in mind that 1x DVD is about 8x CD and it's about the same again for Blu)

    DRM is a reality, however. You clever clever people will find a way around it as quickly as you did CSS, no doubt. And our sales will respond accordingly.

    1. Re:Blu is inherently recordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work in Eindhoven?

  40. Reading isn't too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, reading multilayer disks isn't too bad.

    Writing them is a royal pain in the behind, since it's much harder to fix a mistake. When reading, if you fall out of focus on the desired layer, the worst that happens is you have to try again.

    Blu is inherently NOT backwards compatible with DVD. But then, DVD isn't compatible with CD either.
    In the same way that you'd be insane to produce a DVD reader that can't read CDs (it DOES happen, for a few home players - but very few. And no data drives) you will see Blu players playing CD and DVD. This WILL jack up the cost a bit, though.

    An interesting question is: When will we be able to drop support for CD?
    The problem being that DVD-Audio and Super-Audio-CD (both DVD disc technologies) have kinda been a flop so far. Plus you have to wait until everyone is no longer using their old media.
    It probably won't happen much before 2010 that any backwards compatibility is lost. And even then, I think it will be due to solid state portable media players.

    There is also, you'll note, nothing stopping you making 8 layer Blu disks. But no-one will. For the exact same (cost) reasons no one made massively multilayer DVDs. And by the time anyone wants them, there'll be a large installed base of players that can't read them.

  41. Yay! by omghi2u · · Score: 1

    First of all, I'm quite glad someone has decided to go this route for HD / HD-like discs that have tons of storage. The backwards compatibility is what will win people over. Plus, the name just sounds better. I mean, who would buy something called "Blue-Ray" anyways? ;-P

    1. Re:Yay! by bhima · · Score: 1

      I would! So I could stick on my shark's head!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  42. success? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be interesting if somebody counted up all the Slashdot stories over the years covering newly invented or newly for sale storage technologies, and how many of them ever caught on. I bet it would be less than one percent.

  43. The winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The winner will be inferior technology.

  44. The Matrix all over again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You take the blue laser - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red laser - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

  45. Backwardly compatible by tenton · · Score: 1

    I don't get the concern with "backwards compatibility" (these discs certainly won't be playable on older players, at least from a logical standpoint, if not physical); the blue laser players will be able to play CDs and DVDs back; if not initially, soon after (it's required for mass market appeal).

  46. The human brain of course by pakolo · · Score: 1

    It will record almost all of the movies it will receive. But in a different manner. If we only can show all we can remember...

  47. Where's my optical cube?!?!? by Bucket+Truck · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the development of the optical storage cube (remember Star Trek?). I thought someone was developing a laser to write layers inside of a poly cube. I've seen the tacky "etchings" for sale in the souveiner shops but no media reader for them.

    --
    Tongue: A variety of meat, rarely served because it crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of dead cow.
  48. sharp press release blueray disc recorder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sharp Corporation announces the introduction into the Japanese market of a new Blu-ray Disc Recorder with Hard Drive/DVD. The new BD-HD100 can record and play back high-definition pictures to/from the built-in hard drive and Blu-ray Discs with exactly the same high resolution seen in digital Hi-Vision (HDTV) broadcast images. "

    read more, see pictures and specification at http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/041111.html

    -tomsen

  49. Yet another format!? by LANjackal · · Score: 1

    Oh God, apparently new disc formats are emerging with each passing week. What now? VMD? The only bright spot for this technology is its low cost. Alas, it lacks the backing of major electronics and content companies, thereby consigning it to the rubbish heap before it's even hit the store shelf. The fact is that the market will not support more than two formats (see SACD vs. DVD-Audio), and in that particular case widespread adoption has been almost nonexistent. On the other hand, single-format markets (see plain old CD, DVD and their (re)writable variants) have grown by leaps and bounds.