Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Terabyte of Data on a Regular DVD?

Posted by Zonk on from the through-the-magic-of-magic dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "This is the promise of the 3-D Optical Data Storage system developed at the University of Central Florida (UCF). This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc. The system uses lasers to compact large amounts of information onto a DVD and the process involves shooting two different wavelengths of light onto the recording surface. By using several layers, this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte. Read more for additional references and a diagram showing how this two-photon 3D optical system reads data."

200 comments

  1. maybe Im not getting it by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But how is this different than current dual layer DVDs? Does it just take advantage of shorter wavelengths or what?

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:maybe Im not getting it by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Much higher density and multiple layers. TFA mentions 33 x-y planes (layers) of information. With that many planes, the density of each layer is comparable with a single side of a Blu-Ray disc. Can't remember if Blu-Ray is multi-layer or not.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    2. Re:maybe Im not getting it by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      TFA also says we have been having issues reading the data and now they have solved the problem. Why weren't we seeing this problem with dual layer DVDs?

      I remember going over this in my CS courses years ago on the use of multiple wavelengths to write data, I assumed that was what they did with Dual Layer DVDs, but I see in the Wikipedia article that there is a physical layer to dual layer as this new tech is some kind of holographic tech?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    3. Re:maybe Im not getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting it...MORE PORN per DVD! Woo-Hoo!!!

    4. Re:maybe Im not getting it by rune420 · · Score: 1

      I'm not totally sure, but it seems like they read using two different-wavelength lasers simultaneously, and in normal dual layer DVD there it always just one beam which shoots at one of two surfaces.

    5. Re:maybe Im not getting it by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      The thing is (from TFA's VHS analogy) that every time you read a DVD that was burned (i.e not pressed) the reading process uses the same wavelength of light that was used to burn it in the first place and degrades it slightly. Over time, and many many reads, it could (or most likely will) degrade the data placed on the disk such that it's no longer readable.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    6. Re:maybe Im not getting it by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But is that really true? Is there significant degradation? VHS causes degradation during every play cycle not because you use the same device to read and write, but for two reasons: One, your VCR creates EM fields and VHS uses analog magnetic recording. So any time you put a tape in your VCR you're erasing it a little, whether you play it or not, just because there's a transformer in the same metal box as your tape. Two, the head in your VCR does helical scanning. Since the head therefore has to be round, so that 1) it can spin and 2) as it spins the distance from the axis of rotation to the tape has to remain constant, the tape also must describe a round path. The only way it can do this is if it rubs something so it might as well rub on the head. It pretty much has to anyway, because at the time it was outside our technical ability to use a much stronger signal - which probably wouldn't have been a good idea with analog recording anyway. The result is that the head physically wears away some of the coating as the tape passes the head. This is true of any system in which the recording medium contacts the read head, but it's especially true of VHS because you have a rapidly rotating head to deal with.

      As an aside, this is why you should never pause VHS unless you're actually trying to see something paused, and then you should unpause it as rapidly as possible, because otherwise you're stopping the tape but not the head, and the head will sit in one place rubbing away the magnetic coating on the plastic tape. This is why you should never rent porn on VHS, all the good parts will be missing :D

      Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I know this is not directly comparable for some obvious reasons, but I want to bring up Minidisc. While Minidisc is a MO drive and thus uses a substantially different technology, it might be worth discussing. MO works by using a laser to heat a very small region of the disk to the Curie Point, and then you write it with an electromagnet as it cools. Nothing happens below the curie point. Now, I know far less about CDR or DVDR than I do about this, unfortunately, but AFAIK it's based on the intensity of the laser, right? So here's my question, is there actually any significant degradation when you use the laser to read, or is the power level so much lower that there's really just not enough energy to cause it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:maybe Im not getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing I thought when I saw this article:

      "Suck it, Blu-ray!"

    8. Re:maybe Im not getting it by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, it's a poor analogy, but it was from the article and I'm sure they are trying to talk to the masses, not folks that actually understand the technology. I almost considered writing that in the first response, but figured it was unnecessary. Oops.

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    9. Re:maybe Im not getting it by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative
      is there actually any significant degradation when you use the laser to read, or is the power level so much lower that there's really just not enough energy to cause it?

      No. There is some degredation of the dye with exposure to light, but with a low-power reading laser, it's so extremely small as to be negligable.

      There's much more energy in a few seconds of exposure to sunlight than in numerous full reads of a CD-R.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    10. Re:maybe Im not getting it by Javanista · · Score: 1

      From nature.com:

      With increasing demands for data storage, especially in video and imaging applications, new technology is required to obtain higher data-storage capacity. One approach to achieving this objective is three-dimensional optical data storage -- significantly increasing data capacity per disk by means of storage in multilayer media. The ability to read or write from a small volume without interference from the rest of the material, referred to as crosstalk, sets a limit on the possible density of data storage. Two-photon absorption effects offer a way of alleviating this crosstalk and have recently been investigated in so-called photochromic materials as they offer data-storage applications both high resolution and sensitivity.

      Now, C. C. Corredor and colleagues have fabricated a two-photon three-dimensional optical data system using a photochromic polymer. They show that the system is suitable for recording data in thick storage media and for providing a readout method that does not erase existing stored information -- they perform 10,000 readout cycles with only a small reduction in contrast. Also, contrary to other techniques, this method allows reading and writing of data at the same wavelength, which is achieved by changing the intensity of the laser light. Although the authors used a relatively expensive femtosecond Ti-sapphire laser to both read and write the information, they suggest that the data could be read using cheaper nanosecond laser diodes with comparable laser intensity, making this high density data-storage system more cost effective.

    11. Re:maybe Im not getting it by tobiasly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Getting a terabyte of data onto a DVD is easy. You simply render the bits using little colored shapes instead of traditional laser-beam pits and valleys.

    12. Re:maybe Im not getting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Um...parent is wrong, 1024 GB is not a TB, 1000 GB is a TB, don't let idiots who think 1024 is "near enough" get control of a well defined magnitude.

  2. Cost? by Fayn · · Score: 0

    Yea...sure is nifty as hell..but what would the price of something like this be?

    --
    .-.
    1. Re:Cost? by thewils · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't forget to factor in the expense of more hard disk needed to rip and burn 'em.

      --
      Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    2. Re:Cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you have a terabyte of data to store I'm guessing you have plenty of disk space already. Maybe you don't have an empty file system with a terabyte of free space to do disc to disc copies but eventually disk space cost will come down to something reasonable for that amount of data.

      Jim

    3. Re:Cost? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1
      If you have a terabyte of data to store I'm guessing you have plenty of disk space already. Maybe you don't have an empty file system with a terabyte of free space to do disc to disc copies but eventually disk space cost will come down to something reasonable for that amount of data.


      Okay, here you go, 2 TB of NAS space for $850.

      --
      My blog
    4. Re:Cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to factor in the expense of more hard disk needed to rip and burn 'em. Or the tank full of sharks with the lasers to read and write 'em!
  3. Woo Hoo! by stoneycoder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Glad I didn't buy blue-ray or HD-DVD, I knew they were both scams!

    1. Re:Woo Hoo! by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Given the shortage of a single blue laser diode, why do I get the feeling that this will be just as if not more expensive? Especially since you probably get better results the farther off the spectrum the lazers are.

    2. Re:Woo Hoo! by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      With technology such as the 3D technology, why make a stop at HD-DVD instead of going straight to the better technology? HD-DVD is obsolete before it has even really gone into much use.

  4. Yup, that is what is needed by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Soon someone will announce that by using blue laser they get blu-Terabit-DVD and another will announce blu+terabit-DVD and one more blu-terabit+DVD and finally a blu+terabit+DVD. By the this time users would have been fed up and gone on a nice fishing trip in the Owen's river in California.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Yup, that is what is needed by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have the blu-teraBYTE-DVD mentioned in TFA than a blu-terabit-DVD...

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    2. Re:Yup, that is what is needed by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      Not that a terabit would be bad either, maybe a little more realistic for the average consumer...

    3. Re:Yup, that is what is needed by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      What does it matter, as soon as your 2 yr old gets ahold of it, the game's over anyway.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
  5. Blu-ray by acgrissom · · Score: 1

    *waits for Sony to buy the technology and sit on it*

    It will be interesting to see whether or not this develops into something commercially viable. We can't have anything screwing up the perception the blu-ray is "THE FUTURE!" (tm), now can we?

    1. Re:Blu-ray by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      Call me a fanboy but I don't think Sony's in the position to buy it. . . though I would like to personally tell them to sit on it. . .

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    2. Re:Blu-ray by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      With only a few dozen PS3 sold world-wide, it's still time to go back and upgrade Blu-Ray. In five years, when a few thousands PS3 will have been sold, it'll be too late. ...

      Calm down Sony fanbois, it's only a joke.

  6. A Terabyte... For How Long ? by bateleur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't help wondering how durable the resulting storage solution will prove to be. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.

    1. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      using it on regular dvds might be like the days of hole-punching 720k floppies.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

      using it on regular dvds might be like the days of hole-punching 720k floppies.

      Don't be stupid. DVDs already have the hole punched in them...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree completely. My burned CDs from 5 years ago are quite deteriorated, and the new CDRs I buy are of even shoddier quality. It's time to put laser media to rest and start using something more resilient.

    4. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know... CDs can be carved into excellent throwing stars.

      Seriously, though, lots of great things come from using things for purposes other than what they were intended for. Microwaves ovens were made after someone noticed that radar systems could melt candybars. CDs were originally intended, AFAIK, for audio, and only later adapted for general data discs for computers. That's often how technology advances: people realize they can use one discovery for an unintended and unrelated purpose.

    5. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by rebootconrad · · Score: 1

      Was the first car designed to go 200mph? Was the first computer designed to do a teraflop? To say that because a concept extends its original specification that it is therefore dangerous is not only stupid, but dangerous backward thinking. With a terabyte of space plenty of parity could be build in and still offer vast improvements over current optical disc storage space.

    6. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.

      I think the slashdot title is probably a bit misleading. It says "Regular DVD", but from reading the article, all I got out of it was that they can put this much data on something the SIZE of a regular DVD. If it mentioned anything about using a DVD+/-R that you can buy from the store today, then I completely missed it.

    7. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microwave ovens are made to be ovens. That the idea arose because of radar systems is irrelevant to this discussion. You're right that CDs were intended for audio. I would argue that they are not great for computer systems precisely for this reason. Unlike the old floppy disks, CDs do not do random-access writes and are not covered by a dust and dirt-blocking shell. On the other hand, standadizing on a non-optimal solution has had the great advantage of making CDs and CD players cheap as dirt, as well as allowing computers and audio systems to share music. The original poster in this thread presumably values reliability over cost savings based upon his negative experience with CDs.

    8. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhhh how about paying a bit more than 10 cents per disc? How can you say it's not resilient if you don't want to pay for it at the same time?

    9. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by PoderOmega · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have some burned CDs ranging from 1-8 years that have just been sitting in the dark in a CD binder. Visualy they look fine and I am still able to pull data from them without problems in the rare case I pull something off them. Are you leaving your CD-Rs in the sun, swapping them in and out of drives? Some of my music CD-Rs that get frequent use are not looking too good. One thing about my older CD-Rs is the look (the new ones are slightly translucent) and feel thicker than the newer ones I have purchased of the same brand (Imation).

    10. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is more like a successor to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. I.e. a new ultra-dense format that is the same size as a standard CD/DVD.

      It isn't a DVD unless I can put it into a DVD drive and read it. ... much like some people don't think a copy protected CD is a CD, since it can't be read by computers using their CD drives, and standard CD methods.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    11. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by slavelayer · · Score: 0
      I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.
      You mean like POTS, Cable, or the power grid for connecting to the internet?
    12. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      A bunch of my CDRs are in cheapo binders. The plastic or vinyl or whatever the binders are made of get stuck to the CDs and kind of smear them and make them cloudy. Bummer.

      Nowadays I don't even bother. I leave my CDs on spindles. I don't know whether that's better or worse.

    13. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Microwave ovens are made to be ovens. That the idea arose because of radar systems is irrelevant to this discussion

      It's not irrelevant, though you might lack the imagination to see the connection. The point is that technology is often developed for one purpose, and then later found to have other uses. Most technological development comes from mixing and matching different ideas and technology from different areas. Mankind didn't start making microwaves in order to cook food, nor did they produce aspirin in order to treat heart-attack patients. Running electricity to people's houses was originally meant for lights, but all those years ago, no one imagined it would be used for running plasma televisions and laptops.

      To claim that we should only use technology for "intended purposes" is completely ignorant of how technologies are developed.

    14. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      My burned CDs from 5 years ago are quite deteriorated, and the new CDRs I buy are of even shoddier quality.

      THEN STOP BUYING 5 CENT CDRs.

      I have a handful of 12 year-old CD-Rs that are still working just fine today, and hundreds of discs that are just a couple years newer and only 1% have EVER developed read-errors, and then they were always recoverable and a new copy was quickly made (though I do have secondary backups anyhow).

      It's time to put laser media to rest and start using something more resilient.

      Like what?

      It's all well and good to say something has problems, but unless you've got something better to offer, it's just a lot of whining and complaining.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      Hole-punching a regular DVD is just a good way to make the DVD go wakka-wakka-wakka in the drive (and ruin it, too). BTW, I used to own one of those hole punches. Good times...

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    16. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Remind me not to complain to you about rush hour. You'll probably suggest I found my own city.

      Seriously buddy. Bubble bath. Valium. Spliff. Repeat.

    17. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Remind me not to complain to you about rush hour. You'll probably suggest I found my own city.

      No, I'll suggest you stop whining about it, because it doesn't help, and just makes you an annoyance (nobody likes to hear other people complaining).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    18. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Practice what you preach and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    19. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by Herr_Skymarshall · · Score: 1
      Can't help wondering how durable the resulting storage solution will prove to be. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always wary of solutions that use things for purposes they weren't designed for.
      How about the internet and porn? Many people use it as a solution for their problems. ;)
    20. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see I've stumbled upon the high IQ society here.

    21. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      The original poster in this thread presumably values reliability over cost savings based upon his negative experience with CDs.
      Presumably not, as he says "A bunch of my CDRs are in cheapo binders. The plastic or vinyl or whatever the binders are made of get stuck to the CDs and kind of smear them and make them cloudy." If he spent a few pennies more on media and storage, he probably wouldn't be having the problems that he does.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    22. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I see I've stumbled upon the high IQ society here.
      What do you mean, the .002% society or the .00002% society?
  7. finally! by Rooked_One · · Score: 5, Funny

    something big enough to hold my pr0n collection!

    1. Re:finally! by mordors9 · · Score: 1

      I didn't know there was that much goatse.

    2. Re:finally! by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      there couldn't be any LESS goatse.

    3. Re:finally! by lordmage · · Score: 1

      Er..

      Not mine.

      I think I am around 2 of these DVD's!

      Need more Storage..

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
    4. Re:finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pffff... amateur.

    5. Re:finally! by jordie · · Score: 1

      Only two?

      You must be married!

    6. Re:finally! by lordmage · · Score: 1

      Wow! I am one of the few who has seen a woman and actually tricked her into marrying me. Staying with me for 11+ years as well.

      Your powers of intuition is outstanding.

      --
      I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  8. Re:Next Voyager mission? by olyar · · Score: 1

    Remember when it seemed insane that anyone would ever need a whole Gigabit of RAM?

    --
    Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
  9. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Backing up your entire hard drive on one disc, maybe. It takes a lot of 4.7 GB DVDs to back up even an inexpensive hard drive nowadays.

  10. Re:Next Voyager mission? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You sound like "640 KB is more than enough", "There is demand in the world for upto six computers". If you build it, they will use it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Re:Next Voyager mission? by solevita · · Score: 1

    Whenever some advance is made in storage technology comes along, someone always says "but how will we use all this space?". Don't worry, we will. In 5 years time you'll be amazed that you could ever use a PC with less than a terrabyte storage and wouldn't it be great to burn it all to a single disk?

    We'll easily find a use for all this space, just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.

  12. Oblig 640kb-should-be-enough-for-anyone by everphilski · · Score: 1

    Backup sounds like a good starting point. CD's don't have the life expectancy of tape but they have speed, and for most backups a life expectancy of a few years is good enough. Terabyte drives will be hitting the market next year, why not be able to back it up to a single disc?

    There are a few applications nowadays that span multiple CD's... for example terrain databases. NASA's 90m SRTM data takes up 25GB, compressed. Higher resolution - say, 1m or 2m - would more than encompass a 1TB disc.

  13. Finally!!! by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I might actually be able to back my data up at home to something other than more striped HDs!!

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Finally!!! by FunkeyMonk · · Score: 1
      I would love to have a new technology like this. Does anybody else remember those halcyon days when a CD-ROM could hold much more data than the HD on your computer? I remember my computer having an 80MB HD, and being absolutely awestruck at the idea of 680+ MB of storage on a CD-ROM.

      Where have those days gone? Have we run into a problem of the limits of miniturization, or have we simply run out of innovations?

  14. A "Regular" DVD? by Spritzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That doesn't sound like a regular DVD to me.

  15. Article is wrong by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

    By the definition of a DVD (yes, just like the various "color" Book standards that defined CDs, there are standards that define DVDs), this new technology will not result in a standard DVD by any means.

    More proper terminology might be "in a standard form factor 12cm optical disc".

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Article is wrong by skorch · · Score: 1

      Well, my question, and the title certainly seems to suggest though I don't see how it's possible, is whether or not these will be readable in regular dvd players. If that's the case, then I think that's what they were referring to. If not then I don't see what the summary, title, and article have to do with DVD's at all, other than as a misleading example of a similar medium.

      The article makes reference to data storage cubes as an alternative possibility, and that's something that I deffinitely know won't fit in my dvd drive, so does this mean that the disks are similarly incompatible? I'm just concerned about yet another proprietary media player/recorder on the horizon while we still haven't even gotten fully started with the current batch of too-similar-to-decide hd players.

  16. Scratch proof? by tempestdata · · Score: 1

    Better Make that DVD scratch proof. Wouldn't one tiny scratch or piece of gunk and blot out a few megs of stuff? Or maybe they'll put it in a plastic casing (like a cartridge)..

    --
    - Tempestdata
    1. Re:Scratch proof? by Jerf · · Score: 1

      DVDs already have that problem.

      In fact, CDs already have that problem.

      Go look up what the engineers have done to solve that problem. It transfers to this new technology just fine. (It's somewhat more complicated that I care to type into a Slashdot post when other web sites cover it with images and diagrams and stuff, not just text.) Google for cd error correction red book. (The "red book" is the CD standard and ensures that you'll get discussions about the actual standard; without I found some other irrelevant stuff in the higher results.)

  17. light on details...I'm a skeptic by tpjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both articles repeat the phrase "uses lasers to compact large amounts of information onto a DVD" and then state that several layers would then be utilized. First of all, what the hell does using lasers to compact information mean? As far as I can tell, the articles explain how they are able to cause a state change in recording media with two wavelengths of light, and read it using a single wavelength, and that this media layer is particularly thin, allowing for multiple layers to be stacked up on the disc.

    In my opinion, if you're going to the trouble of utilizing a multiple beam system in your drive, holographic storage makes a lot more sense, as both beams are the same wavelength (meaning only a single laser and a beam splitter are needed), your read times are going to be tremendously faster, due to the data all being stored in the same layer, obviating the need to refocus or switch beams, and finally, due to the nature of holography (in that small sections of a hologram contain the information needed to reconstruct the entire hologram), a disc with holographic storage should be much more resistant to read errors resulting from scratches, whereas with one of these, a scratch could render data on several layers unreadable.

    1. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by abradsn · · Score: 1

      These problems can be overcome.


      1.) Put the disc in a sheath, effectively doubling the size of the disc, but rendering it safe from scratches.
      2.) Double the size of the protective platstic layer on the disc, or make that protective layer much harder.
      3.) Develop technology that can see at a higher resoultion to avoid needing to refocus.
      4.) Use more than one laser focused at different distances.
      5.) Speed up the ability to switch beams.

      Though practically, none of these things are likely to happen... even if they are technically feasable (which I'm sure that most any scientist could figure out how to make that coating harder) it would mean that people could actually use the same discs for a longer period of time, and it would cut into margins for the producers of the discs. I mean come on, how hard is it to make it so that setting the disc on a flat surface (like a coffee table) for a day or two causes the disc to be unreadable. It's ridiculusly easy to scratch now.

    2. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      and finally, due to the nature of holography (in that small sections of a hologram contain the information needed to reconstruct the entire hologram), a disc with holographic storage should be much more resistant to read errors resulting from scratches, whereas with one of these, a scratch could render data on several layers unreadable.

      You are incorrect - you're almost right but your interpretation of the durability of a hologram is unfounded.

      Small portions of a hologram contain the information needed to produce an approximation of the original image. The difference between traditional and holographic storage is that a scratch on a CD renders the information under the scratch unreadable, while a scratch on a hologram degrades the entire image.

      In other words, you lose just as much data, it's just unevenly distributed. In the end, it will help you with durability by making it so that a certain percentage of the disc must be damaged before the data is unreadable; but at the same time, if you start with a 10cm square hologram, and you want to be able to still read the data faithfully if you only have 1cm square area left, your data will have to be written across 100x the area that it normally would in order for you to be able to read it out later.

      If a 700MB CD without ECC is 800MB then an audio CD is ostensibly one-eighth error correction. Assuming the same density, you would get the same amount of data on the CD, but you would still be able to read data from any part of the CD as long as no more than 1/8 of the media was destroyed. In theory you could drill some symmetrical, balanced holes in such a CD (assuming a rotating-media holographic system, which is probably not a safe assumption) and lose nothing, not even the data you punched out.

      Anyway, the REAL problem with optical disc durability is that the top layer is vulnerable. Scratches on the bottom can be polished out and minor scratches don't even have a significant effect because the laser is focused on the metal layer, not on the disc surface. It's diffuse when it passes through the layer where the scratches are. If the top of the disc were protected, I'd probably have lost about 50% less discs. I just had to throw about five discs away because their metal layer stuck to my CD binder and peeled off... And the first CD I ever killed died because I laid my arm across it for a couple minutes and sweated on it, which caused big chunky pieces of the metal layer to delaminate and stick to my arm like gold flakes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your a fagoot

    4. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so the REAL problem is that you're a cheapskate? i've been paying about 15% more for coated disks for years now (it's basically just a layer of paint over the metal, choose from myriad colors) and haven't lost any data, despite more-than-usual carelessness. see also: paper CD labels. they're not just for labeling, they're an added layer of protection.

    5. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "50% less discs"

      s/b

      "50% fewer discs"


      Just thought you'd like to know

    6. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      "Small portions of a hologram contain the information needed to produce an approximation of the original image. The difference between traditional and holographic storage is that a scratch on a CD renders the information under the scratch unreadable, while a scratch on a hologram degrades the entire image."

      BullShit!

      Provide me with the source on this one. A scratch is a scratch, depending on how it impedes the reading of the information, neither system will fair better. Your under the misunderstanding that a scratch in on location on an HVD will make the entire disc unreadable. That's incorrect.

    7. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      you obviously dont understand how an hologram works.

      Try getting one (a real one, for illumination with coherent light), and break it in half.
      Then look at each parts seperately and be surprised.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    8. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the top of the disc were protected, I'd probably have lost about 50% less discs. I just had to throw about five discs away because their metal layer stuck to my CD binder and peeled off... And the first CD I ever killed died because I laid my arm across it for a couple minutes and sweated on it, which caused big chunky pieces of the metal layer to delaminate and stick to my arm like gold flakes.

      Very true, even minor flakes near the core have destroyed contents tables for me. People don't realize how different pressed discs are from writables, though the potential for irreparable damage to the label side is the same. Many libraries and some rental stores will add a film of protective plastic along with their security strip to the label side. If you've ever borrowed music or movies from the library it's obvious how little care most people take, the turnover for replacement is huge compared to tapes.

      In archival institutions the conventional wisdom is still to never put anything on the label side. No adhesives, no inkjet, no felt pen, just like photographs the only "safe" option is a soft pencil on a matte surface. But you don't see Fellowes selling archival-safe pencils off the rack! Thankfully Kodak has re-entered the market with "their" U.S.A. made 24k gold discs, so we're very happy.

      The growing problem is with the data side. As they try to sandwich more and more layers in, HD and Blu-Ray discs have a "protective coating" that is nigh sub-millimeter, compared to CD-Rs which have quite a bit of thickness to sand away. I think many people will find their Disc Doctors ruining a high-def movie collection.

      All the more reason to get backup burners on the market, sez I.
      All the more sales for re-buys, sez them.

    9. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Thank you for this post! One of the most informative I've had the pleasure of reading :) --tedb0t

      --
      Limina.Log
    10. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Provide me with the source on this one. A scratch is a scratch, depending on how it impedes the reading of the information, neither system will fair better. Your under the misunderstanding that a scratch in on location on an HVD will make the entire disc unreadable. That's incorrect.

      Okay, first of all: s/fair/fare/, s/Your/You're/, s/in on/on/

      Second, you are under the mistaken impression that I believe that a scratch on the HVD will make the entire disc unreadable. That's incorrect. HVD stores data in a sort of linear hologram. It's not one big hologram. I'm talking about holograms. Holographic storage doesn't have to be organized in this fashion.

      I'm not all that interested in rotating holographic storage, because as you say, it won't produce the same error protection that other types of holographic storage might.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Anyway, the REAL problem with optical disc durability is that the top layer is vulnerable.

      No. DVDs put the reflective "top" layer between two layers of plastic in the exact center of the disc, so you have to break it in half to even get to the reflective layer.

      I just had to throw about five discs away because their metal layer stuck to my CD binder and peeled off...

      You're just using extremely cheap crap CD-Rs. If you spend a fraction more, you'll find all the better ones have a nice thick layer on top to protect the reflective layer.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear that DVDs sandwich the metal layer. I haven't noticed. And yes, I have been using cheap crap CD-Rs - some of them date back to when they cost an order of magnitude more than they do today, more of them date back to when they were only twice what they are today, but I had about a quarter as much money so it seemed like they cost eight times what they do now :P

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:light on details...I'm a skeptic by ishark · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's light on detail, but sounds very similar to a two-photon 3D storage technique which was presented some time ago. I can't remember the name of the company, but basically they used two laser beams of different wavelength and different direction to perform the 3D selection. Two-photon absorption of the beams (one photon from each) provides the writing capability. It looked somewhat vaporous, and I've searched a bit on google but I can't find the company website, which reinforces the vaporous side of the thing.....
      Two-photon processes for data storage are a hot topic, anyway, you can search "two photon data storage" on google and get links to some good papers on the subject.

  18. Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now we can lose even MORE data as the discs decay!

  19. Re:Next Voyager mission? by the_greywolf · · Score: 1
    What would use 1TB of data storage in normal everyday kind of use?

    My pr0n collection, for starters?

    --
    grey wolf
    LET FORTRAN DIE!
  20. How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have enough trouble with my regular DVDs getting hosed. I imagine this would only make the process of data retreival even more delicate. Can the data be stored more robustly if some storage capacity is given up?

    Oo! Oo! Could this be done with software, even if the manufacturer decides to go with one nonrobust terabyte?

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      read-only RAID with 4 partitions on the disc :)

    2. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive

    3. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Vreejack · · Score: 1

      Having experienced the misery of losing part of a DVD archive I was thinking of implementing a more holographic way of creating redundancy on archival storage, but instead of trying to invent a new operating system it might work to simply save some space for par2 files. I have used them a lot for transmitting binaries as email attachments but does anyone have any experience using them as archive protection?

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    4. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Can the data be stored more robustly if some storage capacity is given up?

      No, but it could be more robust if you use the full ammount of storage AND PUT THE DAMN DISC IN A CADDY SO IT CAN'T POSSIBLY GET SCRATCHED TO BEGIN WITH.

      Why do so many people look torwards redundancy when the problem is clearly an utter lack of any protection from the elements?
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 1

      Any parent will tell you that no caddy or jewel case will protect a DVD from every destructive element in its environment.

      --

      Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    6. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just write stuff to more than one disc. That gives vastly better redundancy because you can put them in different boxes. A single disc of any type will never be that reliable - what if you drop it when you go to read it in?

      So, to do this in software, you want two DVD/whatever burners and a script or k3b patch to burn stuff to both simultaneously.

    7. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      I haven't had much time to implement this, but I have created some PAR2 files of a couple of DVDs which have important documents on them.

      The problem I have though is that on a slower computere creating the PAR2 files is timely in itself. So its not an ideal way of backing up, but it sure as hell beat not being able to recover anything.

      Check the PAR2 sourceforge page. I had my doubts, like you, some time ago about using PAR2 for backup. It turns out there's already a bunch of users using it for that very reason.

      All things being equal though, I would much sooner get a more reliable backup medium than using CDs/DVDs, and hard drives. I've considered tape but I need a separate machine (have an iMac) or MO (too expensive) or RAID or bunch of HDDs (again cost, convienience considerations).

    8. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Jewel case, no.
      Caddy, YES.

      Provided you aren't running it over with a car, or jabbing it with a large screwdriver, it'll hold up to most anything.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:How about 250 redundantly stored gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this is the drives, par2 files are very good and it's easy to set aside 10% of the disk as a recovery area.
      The problem is that the filesystems and overall structure of the disk assume that it is error free after the standard error correction. This means one scratch in the wrong place wipes out all the directory information or even prevents the disk being identified as a CD/DVD in the first place despite 99.9% of the disk being intact.
      Then there's the physical fact that the disk must remain balanced and spinnable if you spin a damaged disk it's quite possible for it to fly apart in the drive. A shattered DVD isn't likely to damage more that a few percent of the data on the surface of the disk, it just makes it completely inaccessable.

  21. Go Knights! by madhatter256 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Let's hope that next year the football team will actually be mentioned in the local Orlando Sentinel!

    --
    Previewing comments are for sissies!
  22. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Gospodin · · Score: 1

    A gigaBIT? You can't even run XP on that.

    --
    ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
  23. Bandwidth Increase as a Bonus by hahiss · · Score: 1

    The bonus is that the bandwidth of my stationwagon goes up dramatically as well!

    --
    "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
  24. new fangled by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Why would I want to back up my data on a 1 TB disc? So I can stop having copy the files onto almost 3 million 360k floppies! Finally, a worthy reason to ditch this 8086! I've been a bit cautious since spending the money upgrading to the DD drives.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  25. FMD-ROM vaporware... by TyFighter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FMD-ROMs were the wave of the future, what? 6 years ago? Promising to hold up to 140GB?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Multilaye r_Disc
    None of this kind of vaporware will ever see the light of day unless Sony or Microsoft wants it to.

    --
    -tyfighter
    1. Re:FMD-ROM vaporware... by silentounce · · Score: 1

      Dude! It's not vaporware. I heard from an inside source that Duke Nukem Forever is coming out in this format in '08.

      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
  26. Sony will be the first to adopt them by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    And they'll use them in the Playstation 4. After all, Blu-ray is so....2006.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  27. Re:Next Voyager mission? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

    What would use 1TB of data storage in normal everyday kind of use?

    Easy full backups, Entire (non-HD, anyway) series on one disc instead 4 episodes at once, simple storage and portability of gigantic video/picture files, etc.

  28. And the blank media tax will be.. by The+Creator · · Score: 2, Funny

    In best Dr. Evil voice: "One million dollars!" *muhahahahaha*

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  29. I have a much better idea by digitalderbs · · Score: 1

    Read/write optical media with X-rays -- much higher density.

    (kidding, obviously)

    1. Re:I have a much better idea by strstrep · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you were serious, you'd go straight for the hard gammas. ;-)

  30. Slow I/O??? by Sargeant+Slaughter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this is using essentially the same technology as DVD i think the read/write speeds would be awfully slow to handle 1 TB of data. If the bits are squeezed into a smaller surface area (instead of just layerd on top of eachother) if should read faster but if the space the bits take up is the same I think it would have simial I/O performance. After all, you can only spin a disc so fast (10-15K RPM).
    Unless they find a way to read/write to multiple layers simultaneously and very efficiently, I think it would be really slow. At round normal DVD I/O speeds, burning one of those suckers would take like 60 hours!
    Universities like to announce stuff like they are a big breakthroughs when in reality they have little to no impact. Get's their names in paper...

    --
    I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
    1. Re:Slow I/O??? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unless they find a way to read/write to multiple layers simultaneously and very efficiently, I think it would be really slow. At round normal DVD I/O speeds, burning one of those suckers would take like 60 hours!

      So, if I go away for a weekend I can come back and have ~200 DVDs backed up on one disc, which I presumably only need to access one at a time. Though since DVD is 1x, I can probably stream them to 4-5 TVs around the house in a (up to) 16x drive. What part of that isn't huge? Or backing up my whole machine. If they could use RW encoding on these disks, I'd use it almost like a WORM drive. We'll see, I already find Blu-Ray/HD-DVD vastly overpriced compared to Internet as a transfer medium and HDD as a storage medium, this would presumably be even worse.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Slow I/O??? by Mr0bvious · · Score: 0

      I'm certainly no expert in this area, but I'd assume there would be an inherent increase in data transfer as the same disk spin speed due to greater density. I would assume that the disk spin speed is a major limiting factor in current day optical media.

      There are obviously many factors to be considered (e.g. more tracks due to greater density) which could still contribute to transfer speeds.

      Anyone know the real details?

      --
      Never happened. True story.
  31. Re:Next Voyager mission? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1
    just as we find uses for all the other developments in technology.
    Are you so sure? Perhaps we just never hear about the developments in tech that don't lead to some use. Or perhaps we hear about them, and then forget about them because they didn't turn out to be useful.
    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  32. Re:Next Voyager mission? by dorath · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You sound like "640 KB is more than enough", "There is demand in the world for upto six computers". If you build it, they will use it.

    Indeed. I remember back when my favorite game came on two 5.25" floppies. After a while, it was twelve 3.5" floppies. My current favorite game comes on two DVDs.

    If the capacity is there, somebody will fill it. That somebody will likely make games.
  33. Realisminity by pedropolis · · Score: 1

    They've got enough production problems with a simple blue laser diode. A twin photon contraption capable of reading and writing in multiple wavelengths, put into mass production? Never. We'll see Lucas direct Chapters 7-9 before this comes to fruition.

    1. Re:Realisminity by bogd · · Score: 1
      "put into mass production? Never."

      Sounds very similar to "nobody will ever need more than 640K of RAM". Or "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

      Be very careful what you predict. And IT in particular is one field where you should never say never...

  34. I'm curious... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    magnetic tape...catridges...optical discs....so many wildly different storage mediums.

    When will the next big innovation occur, and what will it be? Even a holographic disc is still a *disc*, no matter how advanced it is.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:I'm curious... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      The use of a holographic storage method could be a very big step if they get it to work (have we heard promises like that before?). Imagine holographic storage in cube form instead. Then we'd really talk about major capacity. I'm hoping this could become the first real world step towards something like that.

    2. Re:I'm curious... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      cube form (or something similar thereof) would almost be a requirement...if we still haven't learned that optical discs are too easily damaged in the 25+ years they have been around...

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    3. Re:I'm curious... by ConanG · · Score: 1

      Uhm...flash media??? Ya know, like USB flash drives...

    4. Re:I'm curious... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      That's the obvious step, but the developement is unbelievably slow...not to mention the costs associated with it.

      An 8 gig flash drive costs as much as a 400 gig hard drive.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  35. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

    Backup is the only thing I can think of it would be useful for right now. I doubt they've managed to improve read speeds at all, meaning it would take *forever* to actually look at a lot of that data.

  36. What's old is new again by Control+Group · · Score: 1

    This is neat and all, but I'm still holding out for FMD-ROM.

    I've been waiting for seven years, so it's got to be out Real Soon Now.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:What's old is new again by stile99 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I heard that's the media Duke Nukem Forever will be released on.

  37. We've heard this song before by ScriptGuru · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Multilaye r_Disc

    I'm pretty sure the company went bankrupt.

    --
    Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
    1. Re:We've heard this song before by beowulf01 · · Score: 1

      Nope. That wikipedia article talks about a completely different technology that didn't pan out. The full title of this one is: "Two-Photon 3D Optical Data Storage via Fluorescence Modulation of an Efficient Fluorene Dye by a Photochromic Diarylethene", Advanced Materials, 2006, 18, 2910-2914. The keys here is "2 photon" and "3-D". no pits and the whole volume is used to store data I did similar nonlinear optical research back in the 80s - although not for data storage but rather polymer structure and optical properties.

  38. Firehose Data Rates by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The data rates when reading or writing one of these would be pretty high. If there were 1000 tracks then that would be 1GB/track if it were spinning at 3600 RPM that would be arounf 500 Gigabits per second. You'd need sever times that in electrical bandwith to keep the squarewave sharp. That's terrahertz modulation rates even for the shortest reads.

    So to do this at all your going to need 100 or more read heads and data channels to get the modulation rate down, or there would have to be orders of magnitude more tracks. Or possibly there's some way you could encode the bits in different overlapping frames such that the data rate of any one frame was lower. For example by using different reconstruction laser spatial patterns for different frames could use physics to select which frame was being selected.

    Otherwise this is drinking from a fire hose even for the shortest reads, and the equipment needed would be prohibitively expensive.

    The same problem happens when writing: how do you buffer a gigabyte of data to deliver it that fast. It ain't gonna be in the main RAM.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Firehose Data Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVDs only have one track.

    2. Re:Firehose Data Rates by TrilateralRegression · · Score: 1

      16 Gig NAND drive. They're already dropping in price.

    3. Re:Firehose Data Rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not fast enough.

  39. HVD? by Thraxen · · Score: 1

    So is this the same technology as HVD, or is this something different?

  40. tera-byte dvd by virtualthinker · · Score: 1

    A terabyte dvd would store my kids video creations. Then I could get my mega gig hard drive back to make a few of my own ... Like from the video I made of christmas and family re-unions all those years ago. Not to mention days in the park in Kentucky and visits to the airforce museum in Dayton. And Videos of Dale preaching in Florence, Wayne leading the kids in Jesus loves Me... And last but not least the TIRKY Trophey just sitting there doing nothing for hours... If i can fill up two 500 gig drives, I can fill a 1 tera-byte DVD.

  41. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rough Ralph says you're a moron! (if you get the joke...)

  42. Don't make me re-purchase. by sherriw · · Score: 1

    I don't care what the next media size or format is, as long as I don't have to friggin re-purchase my extensive movie collection. I was lucky, my collection of VHS movies was/is small. But my DVD collection has exploded. If they stop making traditional DVD players... I'm going to go postal.

    1. Re:Don't make me re-purchase. by lessthanjakejohn · · Score: 1

      DVD is digital until the horrors of transcoding VHA so you would be able to put all your dvds on 1 of these discs easily with no loss

    2. Re:Don't make me re-purchase. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      queue White album joke here...

      Seriously, this would be nice, but it will still take 3 of these discs to backup my modest dvd collection.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  43. What about the speed? by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    I can see that by the article, they see this technology being used for possible backup storage. However, writing a DVD is pretty slow. It would take days to just write a terabyte. Also, it would need to support some way of streaming the data to the disc. Otherwise you have one really big iso to create.

    --
    Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
  44. What about HVD? by stonesmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    HVD is supposed to be out as early as next year and have 3.9 terrabytes of storage.

  45. They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by Phat_Tony · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember when the first computers with DVD-ROM's started showing up, the computers generally had about 200-400MB hard drives. So a single 600MB CD disk held more than everything on your entire hard drive.

    Now a standard computer might come with a 160 or 250GB hard drive, and where are disks? Only at about 8 GB for DL DVD's. Instead of fitting one or two hard drives of info on a single disc, now you fit 20 or more discs onto a single hard drive.

    Yeah, I know Blue Ray and HD-DVD will be in computers soon, but they don't come close to reversing the trend. Soon we'll have 25-50 GB/disc, and by that time probably at least 500GB-1TB standard hard drives. And then it'll be a long time with frequent hard drive upgrades and no bigger discs again. Blue Ray and HDDVD may be bigger, but at the rate they're getting bigger, discs are still falling farther and farther behind.

    I hope there will be some revolutionary increase like holographic storage discs, but I'm not holding my breath, because I remember reading articles about how we'd have terabyte holographic storage devices in a few years going back as far as NASA in 1993 and 4D around 1997. Holographic storage seems to be one of those technologies like fusion that are always a few years off.

    At least holographic storage is always five years away, while fusion is always 20 years away. At least that sounds more promising.

    --
    Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    1. Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      OK, I linked to the wrong company. That 4D was founded in 2002.

      I don't know what company I saw around 1997 talking about their new holographic storage medium that was going to revolutionize everything in just a few years, I thought they were called 4D. Perhaps they were and now they're gone and there's this other 4D, or perhaps I got the name wrong.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    2. Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I remember when the first computers with DVD-ROM's started showing up, the computers generally had about 200-400MB hard drives. I'm pretty sure you meant CD-ROM, so I won't nitpick, but remember *right* before then. That same 200-400MB drive (I had a 400MB drive when I had my first 1x CD made [a backup of the 400MB drive - cost me $10 :) ]) took ~130-260 HD-FDDs. My current setup is 2x200GB & 2x320GB HDDs, takes about 125 DL-DVDs or 225 SL-DVDs.

      BTW: When DVD-ROMs started showing up, most of us had HDDs much bigger than them, IIRC.

      Just a few thoughts.
      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    3. Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by Deflatamouse! · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that when CD burners came out they cost about $1000+. A big upfront cost. I remember my mom spending a fortune buying a HP CD burner for my sister (back in 1997) and having it die after just 2 days of usage. It was traumatic. Fortunately, after begging at CompUSA, we were able to get a replacement. I also remember they only came in w/ SCSI interface for a while until they started to release IDE ATAPI versions. And it was really easy to make coasters because there was no buffer underrun protection (small buffers). And it took an hour to burn a CD. Basically have to walk away from the computer while it burns.

      Now when DVD burners came out they were going for about $200 tops. And DVD-R's were much less than $10 each. Maybe $1 each. That's progress I guess.

    4. Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      ...Now when DVD burners came out they were going for about $200 tops... Not entirely true. I owned at one time a Terapin VCD Recorder (basically a VCR without a tuner that recorded directly in VCD format to CDs - much like modern stand-alode DVD Recorders, just less reliable). Well, when I ordered it, they accidentally shipped me a DVD Burner instead. When I looked it up on their website, the drive they shipped me was selling for $700-900 (was several years ago, I don't remember exactly). The device I paid for was ~$500. Oops :)

      My point: DVD Burners *early* on were more than $200. Sorry for the long story :)
      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    5. Re:They a revolutionary jump just to stay relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now when DVD burners came out they were going for about $200 tops. And DVD-R's were much less than $10 each. Maybe $1 each. That's progress I guess.

      No. DVD burners also started in the $1000 range (and more), rapidly dropped to around $350 (which is how much I paid for my first one) before dropping semi-quickly to today's $30 price point. In some ways, I would've preferred if the prices stayed up in the $50-$100 range. It would've made it more likely that you'd get a burner that would last more then a year or two.

      Disks were in the $3 range for a while, it probably took about 2 years for them to drop from $3 each down to the $0.50 each range. I don't remember the exact timings, but I remember what a pain it was to watch a $2-$3 disk go coaster.

  46. Some questions, not answered, that are important by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

    Read/write speed? Redundancy/ease of destroying data accidentally? How is it that these questions aren't even considered? If it's too easy to lose the data, and/or it takes days to read/write it, I don't care how much data it holds... do you?

  47. I hope this becomes a mainstream format by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

    MAN, I really hope this becomes the new 'standard' format. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray can go to hell. There's already like... a million manufacturers of standard DVD's... so it should be brutally cheaper than HD-dvd's or Blu-rays.

    Well... I guess it'd make sense for the standard dvd's to cost y'know... the price of standard dvd's... but see what I'm getting at. HD-dvd and Blu-ray machinery not needed if this is used.

    --
    Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  48. Re:Hi Roland! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for another roll in the pig pile!

  49. Re:Some questions, not answered, that are importan by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    A terabyte takes days (well, a good chunk of one) to read/write even with hard disks.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  50. Competing Technology Link... by triso · · Score: 1

    Here's a link to another holographic storage technology.

    1. Re:Competing Technology Link... by beowulf01 · · Score: 1

      The original article isn't using holographic tech. Two-photon fluorescence spectroscopy used in the article is in a different non-linear optical process. Take a look:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption
      http://belfield.cos.ucf.edu/storage.html

  51. Now that's some real storage capacity by crovira · · Score: 1

    and getting a scratch will be able to corrupt so many other people's medical records than the paltry number you can now fit on a 'fading' tape.

    I can hardly wait...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  52. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This technology allows to record and store at least 1,000 GB of data on multiple layers of a single disc...this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.

    1000GB != 1 Terabyte.
    1024GB = 1 Terabyte

    More specifically:

    1 Terabyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
    1 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes

    Therefore

    1000 Gigabyte = 1,073,741,824,000 bytes

    1,099,511,627,776 - 1,073,741,824,000 = 25,769,803,776 or, well, 24G.

    Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:

    1 Terabyte (according to this cockamamie 1000 scheme) = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes
    1 Terabyte (in reality) = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

    The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) Gigabytes. That's a loss of just under 10%. It used to be a stupid marketing trick, can please we be serious about it now?

    --
    Have you read my journal today?
    1. Re:Moo by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      Actually, that is not entirely factual. That is indeed how those prefixes have been traditionally defined in the PC world, but that is not exactly the correct usage for those SI prefixes. Read this link and be informed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

  53. Not a standard DVD by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary says "By using several layers, this technique will increase the storage capacity of a standard DVD to more than a terabyte.", yet UFC's website offers the following description:
    "Depending on the color (wavelength) of the light, information is written onto a disk. The information is highly compacted, so the disk isn't much thicker. It's like a typical DVD."
    A disk that "isn't much thicker" than a standard DVD isn't a standard DVD.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  54. What about quality? by s31523 · · Score: 1

    Great, terabytes of data... I want a disc that won't turn into a coaster 5 years from now, especially if it has a terabyte of data on it. Heck, I'd be more impressed if at this point in time the good ol' CD-R was improved upon to make the data last 50 years so that I don't have to keep copying them every 5 years.

  55. Don't sweat it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1000GB != 1 Terabyte.
    1024GB = 1 Terabyte


    Once they factor in all the DRM crap that will not doubt become required by law, that Terabyte DVD is only expected to hold 1.44 MB any way.
  56. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrabyte? How many Marsbytes is that?

  57. Two-Photon !!???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they actually mean "two photon" and not dual-wavelength then this represents a quantum leap in photonics, literally.

    I imagine the dye absorbs two photons of differing energies in the process from beams of billions of photons. (which the zdnet article would seem to indicate) If they can actually control laser output photon by photon however, the implications are huge and storage is the most trivial of applications.

    I'm guessing that they can't actually control pairs of photons, considering the 154 KB "thumbnail" in TFA. The article content is probably as accurate as the page design is efficient. (Clearly someone does not pay for bandwidth...)

    Interesting technology - really bad name.

    1. Re:Two-Photon !!???!!! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      One of the other links gives better detail.

      It looks like they are relying on using two photons of half the required excitation energy (twice the wavelength) rather than one photon of the exact excitation energy. The probability of two photons arriving close enough in time is far less than the probability of one, and as a result it appears the excitation response is a very nonlinear function of light intensity.

      See http://belfield.cos.ucf.edu/one%20vs%20two-photon% 20excitation.html - It appears that the big difference in this "two photon" excitation method is that excitation only occurs at the very focal point of the beam where the intensity is at a maximum, as opposed to basically any point in the beam.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Two-Photon !!???!!! by beowulf01 · · Score: 1

      The "two-photon" refers to the type of optical spectrosopy - not manipulating individual photons.

      see:
      http://belfield.cos.ucf.edu/storage.html
      and
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_absorption

      The energy of 2 photons are abosorbed by the dyes to reach the appropriate molecular energy state. This type of optical spectroscopy has been known for a very long time. Aren't there are physical chemists in teh slashdot audience?

  58. Tape is over-rated by random+coward · · Score: 1

    The long term storage of tape is over-rated. It is just as prone to failures as optical disk; in fact it can be worse since it has such a high maintanence requirements. Besides who has a 1TB tape drive out now and how much does the medium cost? Tapes currently, not counting the drive cost more per GB than the hard disks that are backed up to them. Even enterprise SCSI disks dont cost much more than the tape media.

  59. Nothing earthshaking... by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 1

    Multi-terabyte disks have been in development for years. Initially, DARPA funded the development of a format similar to HVD. There have been many companies working on it since then. One company, I can't recall the name at the moment, used disks made of some sort of special polymer to record the holographic data to achieve an absurd amount of storage on a disk.

    Optware uses similar materials to this company for their HVDs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile _Disc

    As for the use of DVD materials in making high capacity discs, I've been reading about multi-layered disc technology for years. Maybe they'll finally do something with it now.

  60. My units were uppercased and wrong. CORRECTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1000 GB = 1 terabyte, but assume for a moment that they claimed that 1000 GiB = 1 tebibyte. That would be wrong!

    1000 GiB != 1 tebibyte.
    1024 GiB = 1 tebibyte

    More specifically:

    1 tebibyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes
    1 gibibyte = 1,073,741,824 bytes

    Therefore

    1000 gibibyte = 1,073,741,824,000 bytes

    1,099,511,627,776 - 1,073,741,824,000 = 25,769,803,776 or, well, 24 GiB.

    Now, this becomes especially noticeable if we take the "1000" thing all the way through:

    1 terabyte = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes
    1 tebibyte = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes

    The difference is 99,511,627,776 bytes or 92 (rounded down) gibibytes. That's a difference of just under 10%. Can please we be careful about it now?

  61. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    Maybe we really wouldn't need that if OSs and apps were not as bloated as they are?

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  62. Re:Next Voyager mission? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I've had a 200gig HD for I think about 3 years now, and I _still_ haven't used even half of it. I rapidly filled about a quarter of it or so, but ever since then it's been crawling upwards at a snail's pace. By the time my drive is full, I think Petabyte drives might be standard.

    I can see why some people would need a larger hard drive, but it's still true that not everybody needs it.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  63. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would just about kill for this sort of data density at the moment. I run a 4.5TB SAN at my office, and we're doing everything we can to free up space. A large part of the problem is that we have some very large datasets which are not needed regularly, but they are needed occasionally. Our current answer is tapes (we're getting a tape library which uses LTO-3 tapes soon) which work quite well, but they do degrade with time and don't handle being dropped well. Also, at $50 a tape, they can get expensive, and they are slow. Lastly, if you ever switch backup software you might have to deal with converting tapes to a new format.
    We have actually used stacks of DVDs to backup some of the less used data, but at 8.5GB per dual layer DVD backing up a 100GB folder takes a lot of them, and is slow. Bring on the 1TB discs, I'll put them to use, and probably start complaining about how small they are soon.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  64. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Obviously you have never shot photos in RAW before. My 350 GB drive is getting close to full already. 8 Megapixels of data for each photo takes up a lot of disk space. If I could dump my hard drive on one these bad boys and then make an extra copy for good measure then I could clear my hard drive for new photos.

  65. Duke Nukem Forever can finally be released... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...along with the complete collection of every Internet posting and article ever mentioning it along with developer's commentary and activity logs going back all the way to the first announcement of it, complete with DRM by Sony and indexing system by Google.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  66. Re:Next Voyager mission? by solevita · · Score: 1

    I recently bought a 250 gig USB drive and filled it in about a fortnight. I mess around with digital video - that 250 gigs represents one project I was working on. I backed it up to a drive in my server.

    I've started two similar projects since then; I need a lot more storage space!

  67. Re:Next Voyager mission? by lostguru · · Score: 1

    not that it runs particularly well on a gigaBYTE either

    but linux would run on either
    and 512k of disk should be enough for anyone

    --
    Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."
    98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smok
  68. Optical disks are about to die by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
    I think you're right on. Many people say that the next generation of high-def DVDs will be the last. I get it. Ten years from now, data distribution will be done over the internet. For backup, we will use cheap magnetic disks, which (if left alone and stored correctly) are much more durable than optical disks. For media portability, we will use iPods or flash. There will be no role left for the optical disk.

    The parent post gives another reason for the decline and inevitable death of optical disks.

  69. Re:Next Voyager mission? by deanoaz · · Score: 1

    Just set your PVR software to record any TV series that looks like it might be interesting.

    --
    If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
  70. Something that will hold.... by emor8t · · Score: 1

    .....the next generation Windows OS! and all that ad ware.

  71. Re:A Terabyte... For How Long ? depends on $ by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe it's the quality of media that you buy.
    look up your media here to see how it rates.
    http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  72. Stillbirth? by 6-tew · · Score: 1

    "Hey everybody! I invented a way to get 1TB of crap on a DVD!"

    "Awesome! Can we buy it?"

    "No."

    "Why not?"

    "Uh, I just want the publicity, this isn't really a practical invention. Really I was just trying to win a bet."

    "Oh."

    "I won five bucks though!"

  73. Wow who knew!? by fury88 · · Score: 1

    Wow! I work right across the street from the campus. Who knew those little freaks were ACTUALLY doing work! I just thought they just took all-day coffee breaks at the Starbucks nextdoor.

    1. Re:Wow who knew!? by firemangreg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because UCF has a reputation for being a school with absolutely no educational merit...

    2. Re:Wow who knew!? by fury88 · · Score: 1

      haha! just like most colleges in the US!

  74. 1TB != 1000 GB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1024 GB = 1TB

    dont rip me off 24 Gigs, jerk.

    1. Re:1TB != 1000 GB by Daniel+Wood · · Score: 1

      No, even better, the terabyte DVDs will likely be 931GB.

      Storage manufacturers use base10 to define the data sizes. Therefore, 1TB = 1,000,000,000,000 = 931GB

      Still, as long as the discs start out under $30 each, I will be buying packs of 10. Even if the drive is $500.

  75. That's not a standard DVD by ghostbar38 · · Score: 0

    So that's fake, that's a disc with the size of a DVD... fake fake fake fake!!

    Where're the editors?!

    --
    ghostbar page.
  76. Re:Next Voyager mission? by dosquatch · · Score: 1

    If the capacity is there, somebody will fill it. That somebody will likely make games.

    ... or operating systems. I remember installing W95 the first time from a stack of 21 3.5" floppies.

    Of course, at the same time, the stack of floppies needed to install OS/2 made this look reasonable.

    --
    "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
  77. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got a terabyte of video data, and NONE OF IT IS PORN?!? Man... what is WRONG with you?

  78. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Eagleartoo · · Score: 1

    I hear ya! I work in Post house (and could probably use up our bandwidth allowance for the month if I /.ed it. But if we could keep all the footage on the HDs after the project was done we would run into the need for the Terabytes of storage. As it is now, unless someone is a regular client we just keep the reference data and wipe the capture scratch, but with batch capturing and a fancy DV deck, if you do need the footage it'll be there, and it'll just take a little bit of time to upload it.

    --
    -You have been modded appropriately-
  79. Storage expands ... by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    and by the time 1TB DVD-Rs are available, you'll need dozens of them to backup your Windows system. Not that it will matter much, since none of your documents or media will be readable on another system anyway.

  80. Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll finally be able to store all of my p0rn on only eight CDs!

  81. Correct, this is not a DVD by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    The information is highly compacted, so the disk isn't much thicker. It's like a typical DVD.

    So this is a disk that looks like a DVD. It will also "look" like a CD, BR, or HD-DVD disk. Basically this summary is incredibly inaccurate and the article itself is pretty much crap as well since it is devoid of any real detail on how this works and how long it might last.

    --
    Lasers Controlled Games!
  82. WARNING: Off-topic reply by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    Also, btw, my first CD Burner was $500 (HP), external parallel port, 1x & also not super-reliable (lotsa coasters). Ahh, the good ole days. My second was a $400 SCSI a couple years later. It was 8x (Plextor), still not RW.

    --
    No need to mod off-topic, the warning is in the subject.

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  83. Special glasses by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Do you need those special funky yellow glasses to use it?

  84. Re:Next Voyager mission? by HeroreV · · Score: 1

    Movies on BluRay are often about 25GB. After trying to store a few of those things space will get tight pretty quickly.

  85. Useful - but for how long? by turnip+torrent · · Score: 1

    If the current trend continues, and we all buy 200' Uber-definition TVs, 1 terabyte will be nowhere near enough. Time to start implanting movies on our brain cells!

  86. same thing as two-photon microscopy by lukesl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the same idea as two-photon microscopy, a relatively common technique in biological sciences. Basically, the advantage is that it gives you very good resolution in the z dimension (not just x and y). This allows you to image deep into biological tissue, or apparently, into multiple layers of an optical disc. It's not exactly a new idea, and the technology is mature. The question is whether or not it can be made affordable--a low-end titanium-sapphire laser costs around $130,000, and they have to be physically large enough to accommodate several meters (IIRC) of optical path length. The development of laser diodes with high enough intensity to do two-photon excitation will probably be the limiting factor in bringing this to market, not the dye chemistry.

  87. who pays, who profits? by swell · · Score: 1

    Note that the National Science Foundation kicked in a big chunk of cash to pay for the research. Add the students, faculty, facilities and other resources primarily paid by the taxpayer and you have a significant investment that you and I paid for.

    Now, suppose that this really works and there are $millions$ to be made--do we get a piece of that action?

    I don't think so.

    The way it works is that someone at the university forms a corporation, takes the patent(s) and makes a fortune. Here in my town we have the founder of Qualcomm who is profiting quite nicely from past and I assume present State university research. Meanwhile our state (California) is struggling to restore its infrastructure and recover from the Enron energy ripoff of years ago.

    Not just computer related companies benefit from this relationship with public universities, drug companies do quite well with it too. Who paid to develop Lipitor, Viagra, etc? (I don't know, but I can guess)

    How is this different from other governments like Mexico or Russia who 'privatize' industry by giving a phone company monopoly to the favored friend of a party official? Is it not a license to steal?

    I buy a nutritional product developed at a local public university but sold by a private company. I inquired about their relationship and the owner told me that they pay an annual fee for the use of the patent. He didn't tell me the amount of the fee, or the cost of developing the product. I would like to know more, but don't know where to begin. Do you?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  88. Ginormous Cheapo Storage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck. That ain't squat. Me and my cousin from India figured out how to store the library of congress on an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of 24 pound copy paper using symbols based on the Muppets characters. But we had to use both sides. ;-)

  89. Re:Next Voyager mission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DISCLOSURE: I work for IBM and these are my own views.

    There is a product called Tivoli Storage Manager for Space Management that can really help you out in automating the migration to and from tape. Its available for most operating systems. Check it out at: http://www-306.ibm.com/software/tivoli/products/st orage-mgr-space/

    Your local IBM rep should be able to arrange a demo for you.

    With LTO3 and a decent library, you can throw data around quite quickly and it works really well.

  90. data addictive personality disorder? by tashammer · · Score: 0

    So we are well into the realm of data addiction where all that can be will be stored in vast cupboards lining the house walls. People will be wiring themselves up to record their days - not just talking either, but recording all the data from personalised body sensors. The ultimate in nose-picking, booger heaven, egocentricity. People will have static data clones of themselves just waiting to uncoil themselves. Hey maybe they can populate all the Net Lands and then a group of "I" can exchange data at the end of the day. How about feeding it into the "I Prime" during sleep times? This way everyone will have multiple personalities and no-one will ever be alone again whether they want it or not. Before the above happens there is the matter of terabyte hard drives. Soon we will be able to lose even more than we ever could previously. 1 little scratch, a scuff mark, and the disk becomes useless. Plus we would need 2 terabytes of hard disks why? First a terabyte of stuff to put on the dvd, then another terabyte for all the temp files and other files produced when making a new dvd.