Sony Releases Blu-Ray Burner

[bapenguin]

Sony finally released their first Blu-Ray product. A PC Drive that's a Blu-Ray Burner/Player.

Details Here (http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/computer_peripheral/storage_sol_others/release/23478.html).

The new drive(model BWU-100A) supports up to 50 GB of data on BD-R (write once) or BD-RE (rewritable) discs or up to four hours of high-definition video using HDV 1080i on a BD-RE 50GB disc. The new drive is capable of burning a full 25GB disc in about 50 minutes.

Awesome. 50 gig on one disc. Too bad there's a $750 price tag and god knows what on the media.

[Norse]

50GB sounds great, but as far as I understand 50GB won't show up for quite a while. I sure took I while before Dual Layer DVD-R/+R were released. Hopefully it won't take that long. I saw a webshop selling BD-R 25GB discs for $16.99. Doesn't sound too bad.

I have no need for that kind of capacity yet, and can't see me needing it for a couple of years. In that time the prices will be acceptable I guess.

As a movie format I would still prefer HD-DVD.

[Klade]

30$! that sounds pretty bad from where I'm sitting. It makes the drive useless for casual backups. It needs to be around 5$ or less before it becomes functional in my view.

[Norse]

30$! that sounds pretty bad from where I'm sitting. It makes the drive useless for casual backups. It needs to be around 5$ or less before it becomes functional in my view.

I edited the price, since I found it cheaper at Newegg ($16.99). The $30 price was from a Norwegian shop.

[bapenguin]

15 bucks or so isn't too bad for a 50 GB disc.

[ProfPuppet]

I hear it's going to be 15$ per burnable disk, but you get a free rootkit installed on your system! *crickets* I kid, I kid.

I'd feel somewhat like I was putting all my eggs in one basket with one of those things. "Okay, here's all my music and save files and art files and oh crap I dropped it, it's scratched, now I lost all that and I'm out 17$."

[easi]

That might well be the case, seeing as how fragile BR discs are supposed to be.

Optical isn't really a viable archival option, I don't think anyone with the money to buy one of these burners + blanks is going to use it for that.

[Lunar Blue]

I saw a webshop selling BD-R 25GB discs for $16.99. Doesn't sound too bad.

No thanks, i like my DVD sounds 5 times cheaper :rolleyes:

[shnastybiznastic]

The interesting thing here isn't Blu-Ray and wether or not it will fill a useful niche (history tells us how to react to proprietary sony formats), but that we are quickly approaching the point where hard drives are cheaper than writable media. Right now it's more cost effective to buy a 300GB drive than to use 430 CDRWs. DVD-R is still a better deal than a new drive (best deal I've seen recently is a 100 count spindle for 40$), but given the economics of scale factoring into Plastic disc media, how much longer can this continue?

[KidCactus]

That might well be the case, seeing as how fragile BR discs are supposed to be.
As far as I know the surface on a Blu-ray disc is tougher than on a normal CD.

[Kamalot]

As far as I know the surface on a Blu-ray disc is tougher than on a normal CD.
From what I understand, the writable layer on a bluray disc is 5x closer to the surface than on a regular DVD. The surface better be at least 5x more scratch resistant.

[Grifter]

If you guys want some good info on Blu-ray and HD-DVD check out this weeks Major Nelson Podcast. (http://www.majornelson.com/archive/2006/07/16/Show-183-WMA-The-one-about-HD-DVD.aspx)

They discuss Picture quality, codecs, copy protection, durability of the discs and why MS chose HD-DVD over Blu-ray, aside from the obvious.:)
It is definately worth a listen and some of the new features may even be enough to get me to up grade.

Yes, he works for MS so if you're a hardcore Sony fan I recommend staying away because he does make a couple comments that may bug you. If you prefer MS or don't give a shit either way the show contains a lot of good, and interesting info on both formats. Just remember that even though the guys Major Nelson is interviewing work for MS they are insane home theater nerds, the shit these guys have at home would put to shame anything most of us have experianced. Enjoy

[Slack3r78]

From what I understand, the writable layer on a bluray disc is 5x closer to the surface than on a regular DVD. The surface better be at least 5x more scratch resistant.
It's still too early and I'm still to groggy to google up a link for you, but there was a special coating treatment developed for BRDs that does, in fact, make the surface much tougher than it originally was. It's why BRDs no long require a permanent caddy as they would have before that development.

There's a lot of FUD flying around over this issue, and it's mostly a matter of old information.

[KidCactus]

It's still too early and I'm still to groggy to google up a link for you, but there was a special coating treatment developed for BRDs that does, in fact, make the surface much tougher than it originally was. It's why BRDs no long require a permanent caddy as they would have before that development.

There's a lot of FUD flying around over this issue, and it's mostly a matter of old information.
Not the most un-biased source, but this is what blu-ray.com faq has to say about it:

"Will Blu-ray discs require a cartridge?

No, the development of new low cost hard-coating technologies has made the cartridge obsolete. Blu-ray will instead rely on hard-coating for protection, which when applied will make the discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than today's DVDs, while still preserving the same look and feel. Blu-ray also adopts a new error correction system which is more robust and efficient than the one used for DVDs."

[Kamalot]

Not the most un-biased source, but this is what blu-ray.com faq has to say about it:

"Will Blu-ray discs require a cartridge?

No, the development of new low cost hard-coating technologies has made the cartridge obsolete. Blu-ray will instead rely on hard-coating for protection, which when applied will make the discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than today's DVDs, while still preserving the same look and feel. Blu-ray also adopts a new error correction system which is more robust and efficient than the one used for DVDs."
Well, of course Bluray.com will have nice things to say...

But is this new plastic coating really 5X stronger than regular plastic?

It resists fingerprints?!

Why didn't they use this surface on the PSP to prevent scratching the screen and to resist fingerprints?

[Slack3r78]

Well, of course Bluray.com will have nice things to say...

But is this new plastic coating really 5X stronger than regular plastic?

It resists fingerprints?!

Why didn't they use this surface on the PSP to prevent scratching the screen and to resist fingerprints?
Nevermind then, you're apparently just intent on trolling.

[SexualChoc]

A step in the right direction. It's got a long way to go, both media and price wise, but it's a sign of things to come, I hope.

[Kamalot]

Nevermind then, you're apparently just intent on trolling.
No, I'm serious. These are valid questions.

Why didn't they use this surface on the PSP to prevent scratching the screen and to resist fingerprints? That would have rocked. In fact, this same surface should be used on iPods too.

If this magic plastic is scratch-proof and cheap enough to put on every disc, then it should be cheap enough to put on every consumer electronics product with a screen, to prevent scratching it.

[Slack3r78]

No, I'm serious. These are valid questions.

Why didn't they use this surface on the PSP to prevent scratching the screen and to resist fingerprints? That would have rocked. In fact, this same surface should be used on iPods too.

If this magic plastic is scratch-proof and cheap enough to put on every disc, then it should be cheap enough to put on every consumer electronics product with a screen, to prevent scratching it.
That may be, but the way you phrased your post came off as "IMPOSSIBLE! LOL! ^_^" and given the tendency for anything Sony does, regardless of its merits, to get bashed around here for no good reason, I don't think you can particularly blame me for interpreting it that way.

I couldn't answer your question without doing further research on it, which I don't really have time for at the moment. I just know that I've read on the coating doing a good enough job to be able to abandon caddies from varied enough sources to accept it as fact at this point. Why it's not used in other applications is really beyond the scope of what I've read, and I'd prefer not to wildly speculate and pull things out of my ass, even if that's pretty popular. :-P

And for the record, I couldn't care less one way or another about Sony itself, so let me stave off 'fanboy' accusations before they start. The only console from this gen I own is an X-Box, and I'm mostly a PC gamer. I just think BDR is a pretty decent format and think it gets an unfair rap around here just because Sony played a role in its development.

[drakkarim]

sony shows $48 for a write once 50gig disc, ouchey, mistakes will be costly.

i think i'll wait and see what happens in 2 years.

[dimsumx]

...and we're back to waiting over 45 minutes for burning a disc. Yeah, I know it's 25gigs, but 5 -10 min DVDs have spoiled me.

[TDiddy]

The new drive(model BWU-100A) supports up to 50 GB of data on BD-R (write once) or BD-RE (rewritable) discs or up to four hours of high-definition video using HDV 1080i on a BD-RE 50GB disc. The new drive is capable of burning a full 25GB disc in about 50 minutes.

Maybe I'm just not technical enough as far as storage goes, but doesn't that sound like in-efficient storage? Wouldn't that put a cap of two hours for 1080p, the reason we, the consumer, are supposed to be upgrading to one of the various high definition disc formats?

[GunnyMo]

That is hilarious. I love how these big company piss and moan about copyright infringment and then release cd/dvd/blu ray burners. Such hypocrites.

[Zeal]

Can you imagine turning a $30 Blu-ray disc into a coaster...

[Mr.Condescension]

Can you imagine turning a $30 Blu-ray disc into a coaster...

People forget that DVDs and DVD players/burners were just as expensive at first. Early adopters made LOTS of $30 coasters. It's nothing new or anything to get to worked up over. In 2 years it will all be affordable.

[IagoTheHunted]

Wow I'm going to buy one of those!!

oh wait no I will not because it's overpriced proprietary crap.

[Silversmith]

Once Seagate or Maxtor announce Terra byte drives... Long live Downloading Media.

[Kamalot]

Early adopters made LOTS of $30 coasters. It's nothing new or anything to get to worked up over. In 2 years it will all be affordable.
Come and talk to me in 2 years time then, when it is even more worthless because we will all have 50 gig thumb drives. :rolleyes:

[Siraris]

My friend bought a 1x CD burner when they came out for $1500 bucks. If you ask me, these drives are a great deal.

And to TDiddy: That is most likely MPEG2 encoding. If you use H.264, you can cut the size substantially for a movie.

[Norse]

My friend bought a 1x CD burner when they came out for $1500 bucks. If you ask me, these drives are a great deal.

And to TDiddy: That is most likely MPEG2 encoding. If you use H.264, you can cut the size substantially for a movie.

The fact that 1XCD were more expensive at launch doesn't automatically make this a great deal.

[ZeroCool99]

I gotta buy one but it is too expensive right now.

[Kamalot]

My friend bought a 1x CD burner when they came out for $1500 bucks.
Well your friend is stupid. By waiting a short while, he could have purchased a 4X burner for around $200.

Also, there is a big difference in the emerging CD technology at the time and Bluray discs today. Back then, CDs offered MASSIVE amounts of storage, larger than most home PC's hard drives. Today you can get massive hard drives, cheap.

For less than the price of a Bluray burner, you can get a whole Terabyte of hard drive space in a USB enclosure. (http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=300966U&src=PW)

Hmm...One Terabyte or a burner, without a disc...

Oh, just for reference...The U.S. Library of Congress has claimed it contains approximately 20 terabytes of text. How much stuff could YOU fit on a Terabyte?

[Mr.Condescension]

For less than the price of a Bluray burner, you can get a whole Terabyte of hard drive space in a USB enclosure. (http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=300966U&src=PW)

There will always be a need for optical media, at least for some people. Probably the same people with DVD burners now...which makes me wonder, do you use your DVD burner if you have one?.

I collect TV shows and every Anime that comes out in Japan, which is quite a bit of data, I assure you. A terabyte of storage won't even make a tiny dent in my DVD collection. I use those gigantic silver DJ cases for my DVD storage. There is no way in hell I'll ever be able to go without an optical media of some sort, unless they figure out another storage medium that is nothing like anything we've seen before. HDD and flash drives will never be enough storage for some people. Eventually I'll probably switch to blu-ray for my storage needs (when the price of the discs come down to a similar amount of price vs. storage as DVD is currently).

[Kamalot]

There will always be a need for optical media, at least for some people. Probably the same people with DVD burners now...which makes me wonder, do you use your DVD burner if you have one?.

I collect TV shows and every Anime that comes out in Japan, which is quite a bit of data, I assure you. A terabyte of storage won't even make a tiny dent in my DVD collection. I use those gigantic silver DJ cases for my DVD storage. There is no way in hell I'll ever be able to go without an optical media of some sort, unless they figure out another storage medium that is nothing like anything we've seen before. HDD and flash drives will never be enough storage for some people. Eventually I'll probably switch to blu-ray for my storage needs (when the price of the discs come down to a similar amount of price vs. storage as DVD is currently).

I stopped burning my collections to optical media about a year ago. It takes too long to burn items to disc compared to copying them to my network-attached storage (NAS). When I run out of space, I add more hard drives. They are cheap, reliable and always accessible. I can stream video and music off of them to anyplace that has Internet access. In fact, I can stream music off of my home network and listen to it on my phone.

When I want to watch a movie or show, I can browse my whole collection right on-screen and start anything right away. No shuffling through discs. I can even search for items based on year or actor.

Since the whole thing is online, I give access to my friends. They can sign in and download movies/shows/music they like. In return, they can add items to the drop box.

Optical discs are slow, outdated and, most importantly, they aren't instantly accessible.

I suppose if someone is some kind of ultra-collection-whore, they may have to have a lot of hard drives, but it is still cheaper to buy a Terabyte of hard drive than it is to buy the same space in Bluray discs and a burner.

From seeing you around Evil Avatar though, I can tell you are really hot-to-trot for Bluray, so enjoy it.

Edit:
With a network full of hard-drive media, I can watch it on many devices in several rooms. In the rec-room, I can have music playing through the Xbox 360. The living room we can be playing a movie and upstairs people can watch recorded TV shows over the Xbox media center.

With the new high-speed phone networks, you can even stream video to something like a Treo 700p.

All of this is stuff you simply can't do with more expensive optical discs.

[Siraris]

Well your friend is stupid. By waiting a short while, he could have purchased a 4X burner for around $200.

Also, there is a big difference in the emerging CD technology at the time and Bluray discs today. Back then, CDs offered MASSIVE amounts of storage, larger than most home PC's hard drives. Today you can get massive hard drives, cheap.

For less than the price of a Bluray burner, you can get a whole Terabyte of hard drive space in a USB enclosure. (http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=300966U&src=PW)

Hmm...One Terabyte or a burner, without a disc...

Oh, just for reference...The U.S. Library of Congress has claimed it contains approximately 20 terabytes of text. How much stuff could YOU fit on a Terabyte?

My friend is stupid? I could write a few pages on how my friend is far from stupid, but that's really not necessary. I'll just point out again that you're a rabid senseless and ignorant troll who is either paid by someone to troll in Sony threads, or who has some serious issues that need to be resolved.

[Siraris]

Edit:
With a network full of hard-drive media, I can watch it on many devices in several rooms. In the rec-room, I can have music playing through the Xbox 360. The living room we can be playing a movie and upstairs people can watch recorded TV shows over the Xbox media center.

With the new high-speed phone networks, you can even stream video to something like a Treo 700p.

All of this is stuff you simply can't do with more expensive optical discs.

Your argument is utterly asinine. You are comparing two different storage mediums with two different purposes. First of all, this is just your personal opinion yet you state it as if it is fact. Second of all, you can do everything that you claim with an optical media. You can be sitting in your rec room watching a burned disc and people can be upstairs watching a recorded TV show. Furthermore, Lacie drives are extremely unreliable, and I have known at least half a dozen people who have had external Lacie drives fail. Personally, I would much rather back-up my data onto a 50 gigabyte disc that I can stick in a CD wallet than put it on a HDD and risk the chance of the HDD crashing, but that's just me.

Regardless, optical media and disk media both have different purposes. Whether or not you can buy a terabyte of disk drives for the same price as a first generation Blu-Ray burner has nothing to do with their relevance, if the Blu-Ray burner suites your purposes and the terabyte disks do not, the comparison is useless, no?

[Kamalot]

Second of all, you can do everything that you claim with an optical media.Please show me how you stream video to your cell phone from a Bluray disc.

[Slack3r78]

Your argument is utterly asinine. You are comparing two different storage mediums with two different purposes. First of all, this is just your personal opinion yet you state it as if it is fact. Second of all, you can do everything that you claim with an optical media. You can be sitting in your rec room watching a burned disc and people can be upstairs watching a recorded TV show. Furthermore, Lacie drives are extremely unreliable, and I have known at least half a dozen people who have had external Lacie drives fail. Personally, I would much rather back-up my data onto a 50 gigabyte disc that I can stick in a CD wallet than put it on a HDD and risk the chance of the HDD crashing, but that's just me.

Regardless, optical media and disk media both have different purposes. Whether or not you can buy a terabyte of disk drives for the same price as a first generation Blu-Ray burner has nothing to do with their relevance, if the Blu-Ray burner suites your purposes and the terabyte disks do not, the comparison is useless, no?
You definitely have a point, but I think Kamalot's correct in this case. Hard drives have gotten to the point where they're a more effective archival medium. Optical media is great if you need to transfer files between machines at different locations or say send photos to a relative in another state.

When you start talking archival, optical media takes up more space, degrades over time, and is just plain more cumbersome to deal with. You talk about the advantages of people in different rooms being able to use it, but that was exactly Kamalot's point -- all your media is instantly available anywhere. Full-home networks are becoming much more common.

I just installed a second wireless router in my apartment last night to act both as a WDS range extender and as a network connection for my modded X-Box. (My modem and desktop are upstairs). Now I can play back any movie I have archived on my desktop downstairs through X-Box Media Center. Before, I was having to go through the process of either burning a DVD or finding the DVD I'd already burned to do the same thing. And anyone else in the place you use any media on that machine at the same time. It's a thousand times more convenient.

Kamalot's point was completely valid - for the here and now, if you want to archive large amounts of data, a good NAS is your best bet. I'm not sure why you started going on about Lacie (unless another poster mentioned them and I missed it). Lacie makes enclosures and nothing more. They don't make the actual drive in the enclosure - Maxtor, Seagate, Western Digital, etc do. So their reliability is often tied directly to whoever the drive manufacturer is and irrellevent in this discussion anyway. Tons of manufacturers build out-of-the-box as well as bring-your-own-drive NAS units. The better and higher capacity units will generally employ RAID1 or RAID5, so you have redundancy, meaning that the failure of any one drive will not result in data loss. Unless you're spending a lot of money on archival quality discs, optical media can and will degrade over time, pushing the cost advantage even more toward hard drives.

I view optical media a lot like I used to floppy disks (though I despise floppies now) -- they're a good ephemeral medium, but I wouldn't trust anything I really cared about to them for long term storage. For archival purposes hard drives have the advantage of cost, size, reliability, and a major advantage in convenience in an ever increasingly connected world.

[Hemalin]

Please show me how you stream video to your cell phone from a Bluray disc.
I use my cell phone to make phone calls, what bastard of a company is increasing the cost of cell phones by adding components that have nothing to do with phone calls?

[Siraris]

You definitely have a point, but I think Kamalot's correct in this case. Hard drives have gotten to the point where they're a more effective archival medium. Optical media is great if you need to transfer files between machines at different locations or say send photos to a relative in another state.

When you start talking archival, optical media takes up more space, degrades over time, and is just plain more cumbersome to deal with. You talk about the advantages of people in different rooms being able to use it, but that was exactly Kamalot's point -- all your media is instantly available anywhere. Full-home networks are becoming much more common.
...

I view optical media a lot like I used to floppy disks (though I despise floppies now) -- they're a good ephemeral medium, but I wouldn't trust anything I really cared about to them for long term storage. For archival purposes hard drives have the advantage of cost, size, reliability, and a major advantage in convenience in an ever increasingly connected world.

I'm not discounting the benifit of hard drives whatsoever, I think hard drives are fantastic. The only problem I have is that Kamalot is a troll and is essentially saying that anyone who buys a Blu-Ray burners for $800 or whatever the price, is an idiot. My point is, I think optical discs are still extremely useful, and I am really excited to be able to back up 50 gigs on one disc. I wouldn't pay $800 for a burner, but not many would. If someone does, it's their decision and they either have a reason to do so or a lot of money.

As for your argument about drives taking up less space and being more reliable, I don't necessarily agree. Burning 10 BR discs to backup 500 gigs of data is going to take up a negligable amount of space, and I think discs are more reliable than disk drives. I've had CD's for 10 years that work fine, I've never had a HDD last that long (granted I usually replace them with bigger sizes after a year or two) but I've never had a disc not work, but I've seen more than a few hard drives fail.

But yes, I'd much rather have a 4 terabyte file server streaming media around my house than carrying around discs.

Oh and I never talked about the benifits of being able to carry around discs, I just said that you could do the exact same thing. If I want to burn 50 gigs of episodes to a BR disc and 50 gigs of movies to another, then someone can watch TV shows upstairs and movies downstairs.

[Slack3r78]

I'm not discounting the benifit of hard drives whatsoever, I think hard drives are fantastic. The only problem I have is that Kamalot is a troll and is essentially saying that anyone who buys a Blu-Ray burners for $800 or whatever the price, is an idiot. My point is, I think optical discs are still extremely useful, and I am really excited to be able to back up 50 gigs on one disc. I wouldn't pay $800 for a burner, but not many would. If someone does, it's their decision and they either have a reason to do so or a lot of money.
My point was mainly that I agreed with Kamalot in the sense that, at this point in time, BD-Rs are far more expensive than the cost could justify for general usage. Ignoring the cost of the burner, BD-Rs cost 25-40% higher per gigabyte than hard drive storage right now. If you're in a niche market that needs them now (production being an example), sure, go for it. But there are better solutions on the street for Joe Consumer right now.

As for your argument about drives taking up less space and being more reliable, I don't necessarily agree. Burning 10 BR discs to backup 500 gigs of data is going to take up a negligable amount of space, and I think discs are more reliable than disk drives. I've had CD's for 10 years that work fine, I've never had a HDD last that long (granted I usually replace them with bigger sizes after a year or two) but I've never had a disc not work, but I've seen more than a few hard drives fail.
The space argument can go either way, really. In my world, you can stick a NAS in a closet and never physically bother with it again, but optical media has to be kept in some form of case, and then in a location that's easily accessible from there. It's as much a matter of where the space that's being occupied as it is the pure volume. As far as reliability goes, I've got discs I've had the better part of the decade that still work, but I've also had 3-6 month of discs with not a scratch on them refuse to read. The problem is the dyes on recordable definitely break down over time.

The funny thing is, older discs actually last longer than most of the ones you can buy now. The old, dark blue CD-Rs used dyes that didn't break down as quickly as the new, light green style you usually see today. This is ignoring manufacturing problems like the mirrored (label) side of the disc separating over time due to bad glue, etc. I work in a computer shop and while it's not an every day thing, old discs that just plain won't read anymore are far from unheard of. This is why I don't mind and use optical discs every day for ephemeral storage, but I wouldn't trust them for anything I need to have access more than a few months down the road.

In a sane NAS setup, you're going to be running either RAID1 (mirrored) or RAID5 (striping with parity) which means the failure of any single drive will not result in the loss of your data. I consider that much more reliable than relying on a single optical disc to remain readable until an unspecified later date. Sure, a single drive may fail here and there, but that doesn't mean your data is gone as it would if a single optical disc were to fail.

But yes, I'd much rather have a 4 terabyte file server streaming media around my house than carrying around discs.

Oh and I never talked about the benifits of being able to carry around discs, I just said that you could do the exact same thing. If I want to burn 50 gigs of episodes to a BR disc and 50 gigs of movies to another, then someone can watch TV shows upstairs and movies downstairs.
Except they can't do the exact same thing. As noted, optical drives require you to physically catalog all your files. First by what goes on any given disc, then what you put the disc in, then by where you store said disc. To find any given file, you have to work your way through that process in reverse to retrieve to the disc that what you're after is on. You may not consider that a problem if you're at home, and that's fine. Personally, as Kamalot already noted, I find the convenience of instant access to anything I have well worth it.

The thing that optical discs most certainly can not do is provide on-demand access from anywhere. My network at home is configured such that if I'm at work or anywhere else with an internet connection, I simply have to login to my home network and I can pull anything I want or upload any file I might need at home later. It's not practical now, but is going to become a huge advantage as faster home connections (See: FIOS) become more common. It's something that optical media just plain can't do without a big, expensive, large and impractical jukeboxing system.

Again, I don't have anything against optical media, per se. I just find it less suitable for archival storage than a redundant drive array. I've gotten to the point I almost never use optical media anymore even though I used to go through a hundred disc spindle every month or two. If I need something, I stream it. If I need to find something, I either find it with a couple of mouse clicks or I do a quick search for it. I don't have to spend time sitting around waiting for one disc to finish burning so I can feed it another anymore. But I still mail my brother photos from his last visit with the nephew and niece on CD-R. ;-)

It's all about application, and I'm finding that hard drives are increasingly becoming more practical for roles I used to rely on optical media for.

[Mr.Condescension]

From seeing you around Evil Avatar though, I can tell you are really hot-to-trot for Bluray, so enjoy it.

I was referring to optical media as a whole vs. HDD and Flash drives, and my point still stands. You would have to spend an absolute fortune on Hard Drives to contain my collection on DVD, which I was able to catalogue for a hundred or two dollars a month. For $100 I can burn the equivalent of a 500 GB hard-drive, and optical media is free of mechanical malfunctions, unlike HDDs, which have moving parts and are quite known to fail over time. I challenge you to find a 500GB HDD for $100 or less that will be guaranteed to never fail in the next 5-10+ years.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD are projected to eventually be similar in price to DVDs per disc, yet have incredibly increased storage capacity. If you think HDD sizes will increase over 5x at the same price point over the next 5 years you need to pass whatever you're smokin'.

[Mr.Condescension]

Please show me how you stream video to your cell phone from a Bluray disc.

By having it in your computer at the time.

[Mr.Condescension]

My point was mainly that I agreed with Kamalot in the sense that, at this point in time, BD-Rs are far more expensive than the cost could justify for general usage. Ignoring the cost of the burner, BD-Rs cost 25-40% higher per gigabyte than hard drive storage right now. If you're in a niche market that needs them now (production being an example), sure, go for it. But there are better solutions on the street for Joe Consumer right now.

The thing is, Kamalot is claiming that optical media as a whole will never be useful in the future, and that HDD and solid state media will overtake their place in the market. That is crazy talk, plain and simple. Optical media will always be cheaper to manufacture than HDD and Solid State media. I don't think anyone is arguing that Blu-ray isn't pricey. In fact, I specifically said I would only consider switching when I could save the same data on blu-ray as DVD at the same price point.

[Siraris]

I was referring to optical media as a whole vs. HDD and Flash drives, and my point still stands. You would have to spend an absolute fortune on Hard Drives to contain my collection on DVD, which I was able to catalogue for a hundred or two dollars a month. For $100 I can burn the equivalent of a 500 GB hard-drive, and optical media is free of mechanical malfunctions, unlike HDDs, which have moving parts and are quite known to fail over time. I challenge you to find a 500GB HDD for $100 or less that will be guaranteed to never fail in the next 5-10+ years.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD are projected to eventually be similar in price to DVDs per disc, yet have incredibly increased storage capacity. If you think HDD sizes will increase over 5x at the same price point over the next 5 years you need to pass whatever you're smokin'.

Exactly. I am not propogating that file servers are not BAD ASS, hell I am thoroughly looking forward to being able to turn my PS3 into one so that I can stream music and movies to my TV. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that optical media is in no way for idiots, and I personally like it better for backing up files. If you think about it, if 50 gig blu-ray discs dropped to 2 dollars a disc - which is a lot by todays costs of DVD's and CD's - you would have 2.5 terabytes for $100. 2.5 terabytes of hard drives would cost me over $1000. Furthermore, TDK has developed Blu-Ray discs that can store 200 gigabytes per disc. If those dropped to $2 a disc, and I bought 50 of them, that would be 10 terabytes of storage for $100. I could get 100 terabytes worth of discs for less than the costs of 2.5 terabytes of hard drives. I can't even fathom how many h.264 1080p encoded movies I could store on 100 terabytes... thousands of them.

[Kamalot]

Exactly. I am not propogating that file servers are not BAD ASS, hell I am thoroughly looking forward to being able to turn my PS3 into one so that I can stream music and movies to my TV.
If you can only stream content to one location, it isn't much of a file server is it?

Do you think you will be able to put your own movies on the PS3 or that you will only be allowed to put Sony approved, paid-for and downloaded movies on the PS3's hard drive? Will you be able to get them off so you can use those movies/shows/albums on another format aside from the PSP?

These are serious questions. The value of the system is significantly lessened if you are only allowed to watch the shows and listen to the music that Sony allows you to watch and listen to.

[easi]

Mr C, just how much anime do you have? I know plenty of people with terabytes of the stuff and they all hate messing about with optical, instead opting for RAID.

[Mr.Condescension]

Mr C, just how much anime do you have? I know plenty of people with terabytes of the stuff and they all hate messing about with optical, instead opting for RAID.

Just about everything released fom the mid '80s on, honestly. I'm a bit crazy with the hobby. I just like having everything, and being able to have any anime my friends want to watch. They just hand me discs with post-its of what they want and I burn it off for them. They don't even ask me if I have it anymore. I also collect quite a few TV shows, ultimate fighting tournaments, etc. I honestly only have time to watch a tiny fraction of what I get, but I enjoy collecting it anyway.