TDK Develops 320GB Blu-ray Disc [Archive]

TheBigL

10-04-2009, 09:01 PM

Each time you think physical media storage is dying we get something new. TechOn has the news (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090930/175896/).

TDK Corp developed a write-once optical disc with a capacity of 320 Gbytes. It has ten layers, and each layer has a storage capacity of 32 Gbytes.

The new optical disc has a larger capacity than the Blu-ray disc, which has a capacity of 25 Gbytes per layer. And it is possible to write and read data on and from the disc by using a blue-violet semiconductor laser with an oscillation wavelength of 405nm and an objective lens with a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.85, which are currently used for the Blu-ray disc.

This is like in the movies when they put a single disk and copy all the computers info, only now, it is really possible.

Syl

10-04-2009, 09:17 PM

It would require a good 4 or 5 of these to copy my computers data over. ;)

I somehow doubt that current blu-ray devices are compatible with it.

TheBigL

10-04-2009, 09:20 PM

It would require a good 4 or 5 of these to copy my computers data over. ;)

I somehow doubt that current blu-ray devices are compatible with it.

Let us assume I will not want to copy your 1,000GB of porn ;)

LilBunnyFuFu

10-04-2009, 09:44 PM

Let us assume I will not want to copy your 1,000GB of porn ;)

I'll take 1TB of porn over here please.

hund_

10-04-2009, 10:01 PM

this is why i cant upgrade to blue ray on my pc.
the tech is just coming too quick.

Syl

10-04-2009, 10:06 PM

Let us assume I will not want to copy your 1,000GB of porn ;)
I can honestly say that in my 2.6 terabytes of space currently being utilized, absolutely none of it is porn.

I can stream that shit.

TheBigL

10-04-2009, 10:34 PM

this is why i cant upgrade to blue ray on my pc.
the tech is just coming too quick.

It uses the standard blu-ray reader of your choice.

brandonjclark

10-04-2009, 10:34 PM

I can stream that shit.

Let me rephrase that for you, this time with more accuracy!

"I DO stream that shit!"
;)

And in related news, it only takes one week to burn the disc!

MasterEvilAce

10-04-2009, 11:30 PM

Anenome

10-04-2009, 11:41 PM

I'm not sure exactly how this works.. but can't we by now figure out a way to write multiple files at a time to a disc? It has to be possible to write to separate layers at once.. At current speeds, it would take forever to burn one of those damn things.

True, true, but it's not all that bad. These discs will see their first applications in places where that sort of thing is exactly what's needed.

And by the time it trickles down to consumers it'll be like a 200 speed disc writing if 10 minutes :P

bumgut

10-04-2009, 11:48 PM

Doesn't say for sure in that article wether this disc will be readable by a generic blue ray player.

I doubt it will be.

Anenome

10-04-2009, 11:56 PM

I think I'll wait for the 300 terabyte Maser (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maser) discs before I upgrade :P

Pal

10-05-2009, 12:33 AM

It would require a good 4 or 5 of these to copy my computers data over. ;)

Do you even have 320 GB of important data?

shadow763

10-05-2009, 01:16 AM

Do you even have 320 GB of important data?

Ha ha. Excellent question. Why does any person need 2.6 TB of space? Are you making HD movies constantly?

Anenome

10-05-2009, 01:28 AM

Ha ha. Excellent question. Why does any person need 2.6 TB of space? Are you making HD movies constantly?

- Listen... when I was quite young, we kids told my father that we wanted the new 20 megabyte hard-drive for christmas for the family PC (80286 or so), and you could NEVER in your whole life fill a 20 megabyte harddrive we assured him (we were running entire programs off a 5 1/2" inch disk at the time).

Twenty.

Megabytes.

I keep a folder of things I've written, text documents mind you, that is now 1.8 gigs by itself.
10 years from now you might have a single file that takes up a terabyte, what do you know? Things change :P

Syl

10-05-2009, 02:58 AM

Ha ha. Excellent question. Why does any person need 2.6 TB of space? Are you making HD movies constantly?
FRAPS raw recordings at 1680x1050 at 60fps works out to a frightening 450 megs per second average. Roughly 3 gigabytes a minute.

I still try to clean that up as quick as possible.

Most of the space is full from utilizing the internet to its fullest. Mostly high quality 720p versions of shows and such. That, and my "games" folder is approaching 500 gigs in itself.

shadow763

10-05-2009, 03:39 AM

FRAPS raw recordings at 1680x1050 at 60fps works out to a frightening 450 megs per second average. Roughly 3 gigabytes a minute.

I still try to clean that up as quick as possible.

Most of the space is full from utilizing the internet to its fullest. Mostly high quality 720p versions of shows and such. That, and my "games" folder is approaching 500 gigs in itself.

Now in this scenario I can see it being well used. Your average consumer would never need so much space. For your average consumer the 320 gig blu-ray disc is more then they would use.

As the previous poster commented on files size changing, we arent talking five years from now, or even ten. Obviously at that point things change and these sizes will scale accordingly. But for now a TB is something the vast majority do not need now.

But if you fill it with HD vids and tons of games, I can see it filling rather quick. But that is an exception, not whats commonplace.

alienchild

10-05-2009, 04:39 AM

Ha ha. Excellent question. Why does any person need 2.6 TB of space? Are you making HD movies constantly?

I have 3x1000 + 4x500 (5TB) and I am constantly running out of space and having to upgrade. Reason is two windows installations, music production and a need to keep iterative backup copies of large projects. Oh and my Steam folder is over 500GB :p

MasterEvilAce

10-05-2009, 04:57 AM

I have 3x1000 + 4x500 (5TB) and I am constantly running out of space and having to upgrade. Reason is two windows installations, music production and a need to keep iterative backup copies of large projects. Oh and my Steam folder is over 500GB :p

Wow, damn. If you ever need someone to watch over your steam account while you're on vacation... then... ;)

TheBigL

10-05-2009, 05:55 AM

Doesn't say for sure in that article wether this disc will be readable by a generic blue ray player.

I doubt it will be.

The new optical disc has a larger capacity than the Blu-ray disc, which has a capacity of 25 Gbytes per layer. And it is possible to write and read data on and from the disc by using a blue-violet semiconductor laser with an oscillation wavelength of 405nm and an objective lens with a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.85, which are currently used for the Blu-ray disc.

As I understand it... It means that this disk is readable with the current blu-ray player.

Cefca

10-05-2009, 06:59 AM

I don´t care at all about this... bring on some other NEW form of storage! No more spinning discs please.

gzsfrk

10-05-2009, 08:31 AM

As I understand it... It means that this disk is readable with the current blu-ray player.

I think you're assuming a bit too much, there. Certainly at the very least, a substantial player firmware update would be required. And just because two of the needed components are there doesn't mean that you could make it work through software upgrades alone; the tolerances required by the apereture and laser may be much lower for the 320GB disc than those required by the current Blu-ray spec. My guess is, if these go into production, it will require new drives/players to utilize.

Also, everyone really shouldn't get too excited about this. I mean, at least once or twice a year we hear stories about "revolutionary" new storage technology with data density beyond all belief. Anyone else remember the buzz about holographic optical storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage)? I recall first reading about it on Slashdot at least 7 or 8 years ago, and people were talking like it could be out within a couple years. Yeah.

Of course, the initial problem is always getting everyone to agree on a standard that's both manufactureable and affordable. And then, of course, you have to decide whether or not you're going to be able to convince a bunch of people who just laid out $500 for their awesome new BR players a couple years ago to dish out ANOTHER $500-$1000 for the new shiny.

Johan

10-05-2009, 09:11 AM

I don´t care at all about this... bring on some other NEW form of storage! No more spinning discs please.

The cloud is the future of storage. Local physical media will diminish with time, though it will always have a place.

Anenome

10-05-2009, 10:50 AM

I disagree, there will always be personal physical storage, the cloud has its place, but it won't take over entirely.

Anenome

10-05-2009, 10:52 AM

Well, I guess we essentially agree, though I think we differ in degree. I don't think the cloud is the future of storage, I think it's more of a niche app. That a more clear way of saying it.

Johan

10-05-2009, 11:21 AM

I think it's more of a niche app.

Cloud computing. (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/stateless-computing-the-future-of-the-cloud.ars)

Oct 1, 2009 - Cloud computing grows 45% a year. (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2009/10/01/47090/cloud-computing-growing-at-45-a-year-ief-2009.htm)

Google investing in cloud computing. (http://www.newser.com/story/11577/google-invests-in-cloud-computing.html)

Cloud computing - Operating Systems. (http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/09/let-cloud-computing-os-wars-begin.html)

It is well on its way. Those who cling to physical media will have a tough time transitioning, but there will still be some dregs around, just as VHS still has a place.

gzsfrk

10-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Cloud computing. (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/stateless-computing-the-future-of-the-cloud.ars)

Oct 1, 2009 - Cloud computing grows 45% a year. (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2009/10/01/47090/cloud-computing-growing-at-45-a-year-ief-2009.htm)

Google investing in cloud computing. (http://www.newser.com/story/11577/google-invests-in-cloud-computing.html)

Cloud computing - Operating Systems. (http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/09/let-cloud-computing-os-wars-begin.html)

It is well on its way. Those who cling to physical media will have a tough time transitioning, but there will still be some dregs around, just as VHS still has a place.

Cloud computing does not necessarily encompass all aspects of personal data storage. Due to privacy concerns, there will always be a market for privately owned storage solutions which are maintained apart from the network at large.

That's not to say that Cloud Computing is any less important or growing any less quickly; Web apps like Google Docs have matured amazingly fast and provide for Sharepoint-like document sharing and storage. But that in no way diminishes the need or desire for secure, private, and offline-accessible local data storage. (Aren't you the one who's always complaining about having to connect to XBL to authenticate and play your XBLA games?)

Vulture

10-05-2009, 11:47 AM

...
It is well on its way. Those who cling to physical media will have a tough time transitioning, but there will still be some dregs around, just as VHS still has a place.

Really as a gamer you say that? Online gaming via cloud,I think I heard that one before just recently ;)

as for storage a friend in Hollywood just took 4 days to restore his pc backup of 60 gigs from a "carbonite" online backup. That was 4 days lost for him.
Because well Fiber to the home is still a myth for most of America.

Anenome

10-05-2009, 11:52 AM

No, I've read plenty about cloud computing. We even have that company trying to pass off a cloud-gaming service.

My own assessment is that people are still going to want local storage. I personally would, and would likely use the cloud for archive documents. That's the immediate use.

automaton

10-05-2009, 12:31 PM

brandonjclark

10-05-2009, 12:33 PM

Cloud computing. (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/stateless-computing-the-future-of-the-cloud.ars)

Oct 1, 2009 - Cloud computing grows 45% a year. (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2009/10/01/47090/cloud-computing-growing-at-45-a-year-ief-2009.htm)

Google investing in cloud computing. (http://www.newser.com/story/11577/google-invests-in-cloud-computing.html)

Cloud computing - Operating Systems. (http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/09/let-cloud-computing-os-wars-begin.html)

It is well on its way. Those who cling to physical media will have a tough time transitioning, but there will still be some dregs around, just as VHS still has a place.

To quote a segment from your first link......

"One of the big advantages of this approach is that it makes it possible for companies to use cheaper hardware. Each individual server doesn't need to be extremely reliable because processing can always be moved elsewhere in the event of hardware failure."

Great, now I'll never get that board approval for better hardware! Sigh....;)

It's my understanding and belief that in a virtualized environment you'd want better hardware, since you're typically pooling several services/applications on a single, physical server. For those with awesome IT budgets (not me), you could always have more servers in the virtual farm (Citrix term) but then why not just buy a couple of "extremely reliable" servers instead of five crap servers?

Also, what's this shit about an "extremely reliable" server? A basic tenet of server building is to purchase hardware that is simple and doesn't fail. So now with cloud computing we can buy even worse products? Great!

Johan

10-05-2009, 12:36 PM

Cloud computing does not necessarily encompass all aspects of personal data storage. Due to privacy concerns, there will always be a market for privately owned storage solutions which are maintained apart from the network at large.

Of course. I already stated that physical media will remain. The point is...not to the degree it is necessary today. The cloud is on the way.

Really as a gamer you say that? Online gaming via cloud,I think I heard that one before just recently

Steam is working on allowing gamers to store game saves on their servers. People already engage in digital distribution of content, storing it locally. The next progression is to store it remotely. It's on the way. It's growing and inevitable.

Anenome

10-05-2009, 12:44 PM

Cloud Computing will be great for the 90% of people who just use a computer to surf internet, write an occasional email, and type a letter once in awhile.

brandonjclark

10-05-2009, 12:54 PM

Steam is working on allowing gamers to store game saves on their servers.

I read about that awhile back and to me this is the best idea of cloud computing I've heard of (for gamer's).

I'm so sick of not wanting to reformat because of my saves that won't transfer that I'm almost ready to flip!

oldjadedgamer

10-05-2009, 01:08 PM

All this extra space means nothing. Movies on Blu-ray still come on 2 25gig discs instead of 1 50gig disc or 100gig disc. Also, look at stuff like the Bladerunner Blu-ray box set, it comes with DVDs!!!!

This space means nothing if no one uses it.

Johan

10-05-2009, 02:59 PM

This space means nothing if no one uses it.

I'm thinking it won't be useful for mass-market applications related to gaming and movies, and I'm guessing it has to do with seek-times on larger-capacity disks.

Am I wrong? Right? Just a guess...

Anenome

10-05-2009, 03:35 PM

Making higher capacity optical disks is like putting fancier wheels on horse drawn carriages. The medium reached its peak years ago. No one will be using CD/DVD/Blu Ray/Pink Ray in 5-10 years. Flash storage is the future.

I wouldn't pin my hopes on flash memory, there's far better tech just around the corner. Have you ever heard of phase change memory? That's the future. Flash is on its way out. Phase change memory also has the advantage of being easier to build in 3D arrays, besides all its other advantages, which are considerable. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_memory

brandonjclark

10-05-2009, 04:00 PM

I wouldn't pin my hopes on flash memory, there's far better tech just around the corner. Have you ever heard of phase change memory? That's the future. Flash is on its way out. Phase change memory also has the advantage of being easier to build in 3D arrays, besides all its other advantages, which are considerable. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_memory

Excellent link! NERD!!!!!!!

:p

LilBunnyFuFu

10-05-2009, 10:01 PM

Anenome

10-05-2009, 10:17 PM

Excellent link! NERD!!!!!!!

:p

Haha, we were just talking about it on Slashdot a day ago ;P

boneyardweller89

10-06-2009, 01:18 AM

Macadameane

10-06-2009, 11:54 AM

I think you're assuming a bit too much, there. Certainly at the very least, a substantial player firmware update would be required. And just because two of the needed components are there doesn't mean that you could make it work through software upgrades alone; the tolerances required by the apereture and laser may be much lower for the 320GB disc than those required by the current Blu-ray spec. My guess is, if these go into production, it will require new drives/players to utilize.

I'm not sure about this technology, but pioneer showcased a 400GB disc (http://digitimes.com/news/a20081201PD212.html) with special reflective technology that they said could work in a normal bluray player with only a firmware update:

The technology of the super multi-layer read-only disc is based on Blu-ray Disc (BD) with a breakthrough in material of reflective layers, according to Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan. The specifications of the pick-up head (PUH) of the disc is the same as those for the PUH of blank BD discs, and therefore the Pioneer discs can be read on BD players, the company said.

By 2013 they are hoping to have developed a 1 TB disc.

Anenome

10-06-2009, 01:46 PM

I don't really think that higher capacity disks OR digital distribution are going to be very good options for next gen game consoles. The read time for a 320 BD-Rom has to be RIDICULOUS and with some games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear solid that take up entire 50 GB BD-Roms, I don't think saving all your games to the HDD is going to be a feasible option either. Not to mention that it would probably take like 12 hours to download a 50+ GB game.

You know, Phase-Change memory could potentially replace spinning disks, eventually. They could make a version that's not capable of changing memory bits (simply lacking the circuitry), and distribute games on that, in the form and shape of something similar to an SD card. Still, that could take decades :\

Macadameane

10-06-2009, 02:25 PM

You know, Phase-Change memory could potentially replace spinning disks, eventually. They could make a version that's not capable of changing memory bits (simply lacking the circuitry), and distribute games on that, in the form and shape of something similar to an SD card. Still, that could take decades :\

Possible, but I doubt it. Besides, they already have gone down that route. It is called the cartridge/ROM Chips. Its a good technology, but disks are cheaper (even if there was a way that you could get more data on a cartridge). That would skyrocket the price of games.

I do miss the N64 days of no loading times :(

Anenome

10-06-2009, 02:30 PM

Right, but that's like saying that Flash memory is too expensive to make games on...
*Points at DS games*

PCM is supposed to be even cheaper than Flash. What's more it's about a million times more stable: you can't accidentally erase a PCM card with a magnet.

Fact is, if you got flash cards to the same density as a DVD, you could easily have flash-card games on the consoles today. So, if PCM were to catch up to Bluray on price and density, expect it to happen. That's a big 'if' at this point of course, but it's one path the future may take depending on many factors.

Macadameane

10-06-2009, 03:11 PM

gzsfrk

10-06-2009, 03:47 PM

The DS doesn't use much flash memory.

My DS uses the hell out of flash memory. ;)

ScummVM DS ftw!!!

Anenome

10-06-2009, 05:12 PM

The DS doesn't use much flash memory. Most of it is solid state except for game-saves. Even so, the cost of that cartridge per the amount of space it holds (512 MB max) is probably not great. A CD holds more space and anyone can get a pack of writeable ones for 25 cents a CD (probably less for manufacturers.) I am familiar with how PCM works, but didn't know it will be cheaper to manufacture.

If they can do it so I don't have to have load times again, I'm all for it; I'd probably even spend $5 more for it.
- My understanding is that a DS game cartridge is in fact Flash memory, not a solid-state DRAM or w/e. You have any info you can cite to back that up?

In fact, DS piracy involves special flash memory carts, or something like that.

Macadameane

10-07-2009, 12:00 PM

http://www.articlesbase.com/gadgets-and-gizmos-articles/nintendo-ds-handheld-gaming-console-513031.html

[The DS] gaming console uses a proprietary solid state ROM which is called "game card". It resembles with the memory cards which are used in other portable electronic devices, such as in digital cameras.

Does that count? It is worded almost the exact same way in almost every article with specs, which makes me think they were all given the same information. When hacking though, you do use flash memory. Some hacks involve the firmware, others just have to do with making executables for the console (written to flash memory). I compiled and ran a "Hello World" app once with the help of the max media dock. I wish they wouldn't keep coming down on Wii homebrew so much.

Anenome

10-08-2009, 01:11 AM

Here's the problem: Flash memory is considered a solid state device, and can be easily manufactured as ROM.

My understanding from the first days of the DS announcement, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong, is that the DS games are basically customized SD cards. And the tech inside an SD card is the same as saying it's a flash card: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital
SD cards also work with the Wii.

Macadameane

10-09-2009, 11:17 AM

Its probably a moot point anyway. For all I know you are right. I just dont know why someone would use flash memory (which was create to be writable) for ROM when there are other ways to just create regular ROM. I don't know, maybe it is cheaper for Nintendo to write it on flash memory, then "lock" it than to "burn"/manufacture other type. Flash is pretty cheap nowadays, I guess.

Anenome

10-09-2009, 06:16 PM

Regular ROM is still normal SRAM. Flash is just a cheap way of making SRAM. So, it's all the same ;P

Actually, Flash is a damned amazing technology when you look into the heart of it. Each transistor-cell can actually count the [I]individual electrons inside it[I] and use that to represent more than just the on/off state. I think it can count up to like 40 electrons in a cell, something like that? And that accounts for the massive jump in flash size recently, rather than a manufacturing breakthrough. It's really amazing, and would be hard to improve much more. Which is why PCM memory is on the cusp.

Anenome

10-09-2009, 06:17 PM

If you mean hardcoding the program into circuitry on the level of the production mask... yeah, that's a lot more expensive! That's what the N64 and previous did! Expensive, yes!

aries100

10-10-2009, 03:04 PM

In a thread over at the Bioware's DA: forums, we're discussing whether or not the player's characters should be voiced. Apparantly, one of the forumites asked a developer about why the player character couldn't be voiced in DA: Origins at a game-convention, I think. The answer was that it would increase the game size from about 20GB to more than 40GB, thus requiring a double layered BLU-RAY(tm) disc, costing a lot of money (about 30 US dollars).

However, maybe some day in the future this will now be possible? with the advent of 320GB BLU-RAY(tm) discs?

On a more general note, technology really seem to be moving fast now...