Slashdot Mirror
Toshiba Touts 51GB HD DVD
srizah writes to mention that Toshiba plans to launch a 51 GB HD DVD, with a 1 GB advantage over Sony's Blu-ray disc. From the article: Toshiba has submitted a triple-layer, 51GB HD DVD-ROM disc to the standard's overseer in the hope the technology will be adopted as a standard by the end of the year. If approved, it allow the format to exceed the 50GB storage capacity of rival medium Blu-ray Disc. The HD DVD standard currently defines single- and dual-layer discs capable of holding 15GB and 30GB of data, respectively."
Ours goes to 51. Yes, but you see -- that's one more, isn't it? Fifty-one is one more than fifty, that's what makes it so special. It's one more.
John
TDK actually has made six-layer 200 GB blu-ray disks, way back in 2006 :)
http://www.tdk.com/procommon/press/article.asp?sit e=con&recid=127
R&D: Billions of dollars.
Marketing: More billions of dollars.
Squeezing that extra GB out of your next-gen DVD to claim your format is "better": Priceless.
Toshiba plans to launch a 51 GB HD DVD, with a 1 GB advantage over Sony's Blu-ray disc.
This will clearly make it victorious over blu-ray. The fact that the porn industry has chosen HD-DVD will have nothing to do with it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Since I already bought a PS3 and it came with a Blu-Ray as an extra (and pretty soon 1 million others will be in the same boat), I'd just prefer if Blu-Ray wins. Come on, we all know it's a superior standard. God the blu-ray discs look awesome as well.
None of these high capactiy DVD formats are going to get any traction at all for at least the next few years. DVD has just recently become ubiquitous, and I'm willing to bet that nobody is buying these new players yet (except for the ones in the XBox 360 and the PS3). The TV technology (plasma and LCD) is still unbelievably crappy and overpriced, so there's no real reason for these new formats yet.
Ok, I'm a tad confused
1 Layer = 15 gig
2 Layers = 30 gig (makes sense, 15 x 2)
3 Layers = 51 gig....wtf? 15 x 3 = 45
Error: Sig not found.
Will current HD-DVD players be able to read three layers disks? If that is not the case, they are adding to the DRM nightmare.
Now you have to check that:
- You are using the right disk with the right recorder BlueRay/HD-DVD
- You are using the right variety of disk that you recorder can read (triple layer won't work on old players).
- You have everything hooked using HDCP cabling.
- All of your hardware supports DRM (if it doesn't your content will be downgraded and you will be worst off than you would with a dvd player).
And off course, the way things are going, in no time your new shiny expensive hardware will be rendered obsolete by a new iteration of the technology and/or the Digital Restrictions Management schema imposed by the studios.
You have to be masochistic to refuse the easy route to High Definition, a DVI connector, P2P and a BFHD (Big F*****g Hard Drive).
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Someone's competitor plans to launch a product with a 2% advantage over the product you can already get, mere years after something with a 100% advantage was demonstrated, and within only 8 months of something with 200% advantage!
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I doubt that. Toshiba has made a 3 layer HD DVD disc. The current Blu Ray discs are only 2 layers. From what I heard Toshiba has designed discs of both formats at 10 Layers, considering that you get more data per layer of a Blu Ray disc it will still be bigger. Plus they have already made a 6 layer Blu Ray disc with a capacity of 200 GB. And we all know 51 is much less than 200. If it were an apples to apples comparison, it may have been a nail in Blu Ray's coffin. However, when you compare the largest Blu Ray disc produced, to the largest HD DVD disc produced, Blu Ray still has a clear advantage in capacity.
(This article appears to be a dupe, so I might as well repost my comment from last time.)
The HD-DVD spec was finalized a while ago. HD-DVD players can only read two layers, therefore no movie can ever have more than two layers. All this talk about more layers is just PR wanking.
You seem a bit over the top. This is a 51 GB disk, TDK already has a 200GB Blu-Ray disk. Also, if you RTFA you might ahve noticed the words "The snag, of course, is that today's HD DVD players will be incapable of reading the new disc, which is something of a problem for early adopters, who will presumably have to buy new kit." This is NOTHING. Blu-ray is the better technology, and everyone knows it. Nobody wants to admit it because Sony, who created a rootkit, is backing it.
Just because a blogger says that one producer will also make hddvd disks does not mean there will be no blu-porn.
Vivid which is the largest producer is exclusively blu-ray. I hate it when people take bloggers for the truth.
tabooki.com
I'm not a big fan of Blu-Ray (lack of standards is going to play havoc on first gen adopters) but if this was a fight about capacity HD-DVD would have been dead before it ever began. Capacity is about the only aspect of the next gen formats where there is a clear winner and it is not HD.
TDK was showcasing 100GB blu-ray discs almost two years ago and has recently shown off 200GB blu-ray discs. The problem is people are slow to adopt the use of next gen optical drives for performing important back ups and at present the excess capacity is next to useless for the movie industry.
This does help HD-DVD in that the increased capacity does help them match Blu-Rays superiority in the important TV DVD market. Previous to this you could fit an entire high def season on one BR disc but would be forced to use 2 or 3 HD discs. Now they can both meet the single disc hurdle.
I just hope someone wins this battle quickly and we'll get one standard for both PCs and movies or if not at least drives/players capable of reading both.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
A REAL slashdotter wouldn't have to ask. A REAL slashdotter would already know.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So which version of DVD do I burn for Macs and which do I burn if I want to put my movie ina DVD player?
Dual format is better than nothing, but I'd rather have a "winner." I know that every one of my VHS tapes is going to work in just about every VCR you can find in a home.
Of course it's even better if we don't have a fight at all, like with CD, but I guess it's a little late for that at this point?
TW
...in one basket. 51 GB on a single CD-sized disc means the data is more physically compact.... which just means you lose more data if the disc gets scratched. 51GB is an improvement from 700 MB, I suppose, but I think cooler things could be being done.
The data storage technology development seems to be progressing the same way video games were/are for a while. Video games pushed for more violence, more sex, a higher polygon count, neater visuals, blah blah blah. Too many of them are just the same old crappy first-person shooters, with prettier graphics. Hardly anything ground-breaking or new. So now we have a disc that holds more than the last disc.... Whoo.
I guess it's not really data storage's job to be exciting or entertaining, so comparing with video games might not be the most appropriate thing to do. On the other hand, where are those super-cool hologram storage things I remember hearing about years ago??
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
We'll just have to wait and see how long it takes before these discs become reasonable to manufacturer. Until then, I'm sticking to DVD.
You should tag it as FUD since it obviously is. 200 gig is far bigger then 51 gig.
tabooki.com
Blu-ray can go up to 200GB. With HD-DVD being publicly cracked before Blu-ray, that's pretty much the death knell in my eyes. The movie studios are even more paranoid about DRM than the music industry.
"Sufferin' succotash."
And if you know anything about the history of console sales, you would know that the technical merits of the system are not the only factor in what console sells the most.
Why is it that PS3s are widely available and languishing on store shelves while stores cannot keep the Wii in the stock? I mean, if the battle is so neck to neck as you believe, the PS3 boxes wouldn't be collecting dust - would they? Face it, Sony is a terrible company that practices anti-consumer behavior and they deserve to lose. Why would you even want to support them? They make MS look noble by comparison.
The war is already won by HD-DVD, for three reasons:
1. It's cheaper to produce
2. There's porn on it
3. Higher capacities don't matter for H.264/VC-1 encoded content
These map very closely to VHS vs Betamax war:
1. VHS was cheaper to product
2. There was porn on it
3. Higher image quality didn't matter much
Except #3 is not even about image quality this time around. Image quality is identical between two standards, they use the same codecs at the same bitrates.
People keep saying this because the PS3s were on-the-shelf available through most of the Christmas season, while Wiis were sold out on the morning of day one and continued to sell out immediately everywhere throughout the season. Nintendo could have easily sold two or three times what they did if they had the products on the shelves. Sony had their products out in the marketplace, which means they sold all they were capable of selling at their current price point.
There's still a lot of guesstimation, but the Wii is far more popular than the PS3. Not that the PS3 is dying (Sony won't let it) but it's not going to dominate the current console market.
John
And here is a definitely redundant post, but I suppose from a certain size one cannot expect that everyone reads every reply.
2 .html
Apparently the 'no porn' policy does not exist. See:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070112-860