backtop

Print 62 comment(s) - last by BansheeX.. on Apr 11 at 8:40 PM
Enhancements include larger capacity discs

Blu-ray discs have been around for a long time now, and really took off in adoption thanks to the PlayStation 3. When the format first came out it was mostly for HD movies and killed off HD DVD. Today the format is still big for movies and it is used for storing large amounts of data on optical discs with a Blu-ray burner. Blu-ray players have only recently dropped to sub-$100 prices. The lower price should push adoption of the format.

The Blu-ray Disc Association has announced that formal enhancements to the Blu-ray specification are coming soon. The new enhancements will include a new BDXL specification that targets are markets where archiving large quantities of data is common such as broadcasting, medical, and document imaging.

The BDXL specification will have discs that are write-once and will store 100GB and 128GB of data per disc. There will be rewritable discs that can store 100GB of data. The 100GB disc will have three recordable layers and the 128GB disc will have four recordable layers. A version of the BDXL specification is also coming that is targeted at consumers.

“Professional industries have expressed a desire to find optical disc solutions that enable them to transition away from magnetic media for their archiving needs,” said Victor Matsuda, Blu-ray Disc Association Global Promotions Committee chair. “Leveraging Blu-ray Disc to meet this need provides professional enterprises with a compact, stable and long term solution for archiving large amounts of sensitive data, video and graphic images using a proven and widely accepted optical technology.” 

The second new enhancement is an Intra-Hybrid disc or IH-BD. This disc incorporates a single BD-ROM layer and a single BD-RE layer. The BD-ROM layer is a read only layer that allows a maker to put content on the disc that can’t be changed. The BD-RE layer is a write once layer that allows the user to add their own data and content or the disc. Each of the layers on the IH-BD will hold 25GB of data and are designed to work on existing 25GB and 50GB discs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Player compatibility?
By Spivonious on 4/6/2010 10:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
Will we need new players to read this BDXL discs, or can it be enabled with a simple firmware update?




RE: Player compatibility?
By omnicronx on 4/6/2010 11:11:15 AM , Rating: 3
No, they will not be compatible with current players, they are 3/4 layer disks that will not be supported by current players, probably not even the PS3..(which is most likely due to the need for a more powerful laser)

I for one will completely drop BD in favor of digital downloads if they even attempt to try to get us to buy new devices.. Hopefully this is only for the storage market.. or perhaps limit it to new 3d movies that nobody is going to watch anyways..

Playstation 3:

It does not do.. Other OS (anymore)
It does not do SACD's (anymore)
It does not play Ps2 games (anymore)
and now it will not play new BD's..
It does.. not do everything..

I think they need to change their commercial..

Nothing like removing functionality as time goes on =P..


RE: Player compatibility?
By bplewis24 on 4/6/2010 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 4
You guys should probably read up on this new spec before commenting on it. It is NOT intended for home media, and is not an attempt to get you to buy a new device. But hey, you keep arguing against a straw man.

Brandon


RE: Player compatibility?
By omnicronx on 4/6/2010 11:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
I really hope you are correct, but the words 'initially for consumer use' found in pretty much all articles (and the press release) on the subject does not seem to paint a pretty picture.

My I remind you that CD burning was also 'not intended for consumer use' upon release either..

Right now the BD associations stance is that the new format will be promoted for storage use, but in no way or form are they limiting it to.. Don't be surprised to see it phased in for consumer use in a year or two.. (there is already talk of using it for 3D movies)


RE: Player compatibility?
By Spivonious on 4/6/2010 11:56:46 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A version of the BDXL specification is also coming that is targeted at consumers.


What else does that mean?


RE: Player compatibility?
By someguy123 on 4/6/2010 6:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
Could mean a backwards compatible BDXL spec is being developed for consumers.

Considering the low market share of bluray (or HD for that matter) it would be insane to try to force a new standard right now.


By therealnickdanger on 4/6/2010 7:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What else does that mean?

Well, if you read the original article...
quote:
A consumer version of BDXL is also expected, particularly in those regions where BD recorders have achieved broad consumer acceptance.

Everything about this news release indicates that the professional-grade and consumer-grade product being discussed is for people that want to record content to Blu-Ray for archival backup use, not for movie playback or games. Several of my photographer buddies would likely purchase a BDXL-recorder in order to do this.

The Blu-Ray disc standard for movies and movie players was solidified in 2004, just like how DVD for movies maxed out at DVD9, so BD for movies are limited to BD50. Check with the Blu-Ray Disc Association if you don't believe me. :)


RE: Player compatibility?
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
I hope it means they will have 100GB discs for consumers.. or at the very least accept sonys 33GB and 66GB propositions.

Larger optical discs would be nice, currently only using dvd (read not using, since the discs are so small), but will jump on BD soon. HDD storage is a bit unpredicatble, so hopefully BD discs like the other optical discs will last atleast 10 years.. wich is way more reliable than the HDD.


RE: Player compatibility?
By DeathBooger on 4/6/2010 11:56:15 AM , Rating: 1
Welcome to the internet.


RE: Player compatibility?
By T2k on 4/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Player compatibility?
By Kahnivorous on 4/9/2010 10:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
Brandon - bplewis24? A comment spoke in haste, hoping to fill an uneducated void within? Perhaps.

Moving on...

I think they ignore the obvious problem that plagued the Beta Max. The current standard now is still too expensive to even become the most popular standard. Every so often a cheap player or two turns up. But, you won't find an affordable writable players on the shelf or affordable media. I can only guess how expensive this proposed new format will be.


RE: Player compatibility?
By geddarkstorm on 4/6/2010 12:02:13 PM , Rating: 5
These new Blu-rays are not for movies :P. Those are capped by the BDA at 50 GB disks precisely for preserving backwards compatibility with everything. These new disks are for IT and storage purposes with computer drives. Totally different market.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
the question is these new *3D* or steroscopical movies wich will require 2 images. then someday we have 2160p.. im sure sooner rather than later higher capcity for the movies will happend.

but could be just 33 and 66GB discs with a firmware update and no need for a new player wich would be good.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Chaser on 4/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Player compatibility?
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 3:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet another world wide blockbuster exclusive that no other console comes even close to with graphics, sound, storyline and depth. Incredible game that clearly takes advantage of Blue Ray!

"Clearly"? One can have awesome graphics and huge levels without using 25 gigs of space. GoW3 looks great due to the huge amount of effort devoted to using as much processing power of the PS3's CPU and GPU.


RE: Player compatibility?
By MGSsancho on 4/7/2010 3:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
and a massive development budget


RE: Player compatibility?
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Im guessing 50GB's of space is the limit here.. think dual layer man. :)


RE: Player compatibility?
By adiposity on 4/6/2010 2:21:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It does not do.. Other OS (anymore)


Yeah, not a huge selling point, but yeah, that was lame of them.

quote:
It does not do SACD's (anymore)


Mine still does. But since the PS3 can play digital audio files...

quote:
It does not play Ps2 games (anymore)


Mine still does.

quote:
and now it will not play new BD's..


The new BDs are not for playback, therefore this is just nonsensical.

It's unfortunate that Sony chose to remove functionality from newer PS3s to save money and lower price/cost. But they read the writing on the wall: most people weren't willing to pay for those features. So they took them out, lowered cost, and people starting buying more PS3s. It sure seems like they made the right choice.

The same people that complain that the new, cheap PS3s don't have all the functionality of the original PS3s, didn't buy when those features were available.

Champagne taste on a beer budget.

Maybe one day the PS3 will get cheap enough they can add back in PS2 compat (the only removed feature that's very significant, IMO). But until then, they have at least lowered the price to something affordable for gamers.


RE: Player compatibility?
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 3:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The same people that complain that the new, cheap PS3s don't have all the functionality of the original PS3s, didn't buy when those features were available.

Sure, but there's also a legitimate criticism of a company when they spend so much time and effort touting features, and the superiority of their product due to those features, only to remove those features over the life of the product. It indicates poor vision and sloppy execution of the product, which are not exactly confidence boosters. Comments by Sony's CEO shortly after Kutaragi was given the boot support this.

quote:
Champagne taste on a beer budget.

Some beer costs more than most champagnes.


RE: Player compatibility?
By adiposity on 4/6/2010 6:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, but there's also a legitimate criticism of a company when they spend so much time and effort touting features, and the superiority of their product due to those features, only to remove those features over the life of the product. It indicates poor vision and sloppy execution of the product, which are not exactly confidence boosters. Comments by Sony's CEO shortly after Kutaragi was given the boot support this.


I'm not going to argue this point. However, the original PS3 likely would have done much better had the economy not been so bad. Perhaps in that nonexistent economy, the pricey features might have been left in.

The bottom line is, of all the 60GB PS3 owners I know, none of them are still playing their PS2 games. There are plenty of great PS3 games, and they are far better. So while the feature was important to us at the beginning (when there weren't so many PS3 games), we don't really need it now. IMO, the 60GB/20GB models did their job of managing the transition.

A few people are complaining now, but I think those people either are just haters (Xbox fans) or want everything for cheap. If the features stayed in, and it cost $400, people would complain about the price. Sony made a mistake originally, but obscure feature removal has proven to be the right choice. The people out there willing to buy those expensive features just aren't enough.

My preference would be to offer PS2 compat. as an optional addon pack, for the small percentage that would actually use it. The other features are mostly not worth mentioning. There are probably as many people glad that SACD is gone, as are upset, and both groups are tiny.

quote:
Some beer costs more than most champagnes.


Yeah, it's a saying...but the exceptions prove the rule, anyway.


RE: Player compatibility?
By BansheeX on 4/6/2010 9:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing like removing functionality as time goes on =P..


Why would you get a 5 for this goofball criticism? Crippled linux and the failed SACD format were extremely trivial additions and shouldn't have existed to begin with. BDXL has nothing to do with movies or games. There have been hundreds of new, meaningful features added via firmware updates, and yet the new rhetoric is that the PS3 has less total features today than when it was released. Huh? What brilliant xbot blog came up with that one? Go back to your lawnmower last-gen optical drive and fee-based netplay.

I award you only a half of a point on the PS2 playback. Shelf price was too high for a while and Sony badly needed to cut costs somehow. But instead of doing away with it completely, they should continue to make a more expensive model that includes it for the people who care.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Belard on 4/6/2010 10:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Now if SONY used such TV ads when the PS3 launched... rather than the creepy dark ADS that made people say... WTF...?

Creepy baby.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Noliving on 4/6/2010 11:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one will completely drop BD in favor of digital downloads if they even attempt to try to get us to buy new devices.


Have fun downloading those movies that have around 2 hours of lossless audio tracks to go along with them on a 12mb connection speed that has been throttled by your ISP because you are taking up to much bandwidth and then eventually they just block your access to that site because the justice system just gave them that authority today!


RE: Player compatibility?
By zombiexl on 4/7/2010 5:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
The justice dept didn't give them any new authority, they denied the FCC control over something it has never had control over. Like the ruling or not you should get your facts straight.

The judicial system did the right thing here. Sure they could legislate, which is contrary to their job. If you want a new law passed have your representatives make a law. I'm sure if enough people are opposed to it (not sure thats the case here) they will push it through.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Fritzr on 4/6/2010 10:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
Old drives will not handle the new format. This limitation is nothing new. Early DVD players were format specific. Later drives read and write all the formats.
CD: CD (Y), DVD (N), BD (N), BDXL (N)
DVD: CD (Y), DVD (Y), BD (N), BDXL (N)
BD: CD (Y),DVD (Y), BD (Y), BDXL (N)
BDXL: CD (Y), DVD (Y), BD (Y), BDXL (Y) (educated guess on this line :P)

There is a pattern with the first three. Why should the 4th type which extends the BD standard not be compatible with all the previous standards? Once the price on consumer BDXL drives drop below $100 it'll be no brainer as to which -RW drive to buy for your new machine. I would not mind backing up a terabyte on 7 or 8 disks using a dive that still plays 20 year old music CDs :)

Yes it will need a new drive design to read this new generation of disks.. We already had that fight with VCD vs DVD...People actually started buying DVD drives because their CD drives were not able to read the new format.


RE: Player compatibility?
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
CD: CD
DVD: CD, DVD
BD: CD, DVD, BD
BDXL: CD, DVD, BD, BDXL

looks neater :P

"This comment is apparently spam and we do not allow spam comments." w00t


BLU-RAY is good seller???
By Dr of crap on 4/6/2010 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
Since when has the blu-ray even come close to selling what the DVD first did. It's not a big hit, and I think it will never be. Movies are over priced, and I noticed that the DVD still come out and have move selections then the blu-ray. I'll wait for faster HD downloads.




RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By bplewis24 on 4/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By T2k on 4/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By juserbogus on 4/6/2010 1:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
nice straw man... the first post was comparing adoption rates "selling what DVD first did". so, you are wrong. Blu-ray has had a slightly better adoption rate than DVD... do some research once in while


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By seamonkey79 on 4/6/2010 1:30:14 PM , Rating: 3
Blu-Ray is selling less than 15% compared to DVD... within 5 years, DVD was selling 90% compared to VHS.

No, Blu-Ray has NOT had the adoption rate that DVD had. Even now, while quite a bit better off than it was, they're still lagging far behind where DVD was.


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By Noliving on 4/6/2010 11:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure seamonkey? I remember dvd's outselling vhs in 2003 6 years after it was introduced.


By geddarkstorm on 4/6/2010 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Um, if you look at DVD growth when it was first introduced (back in ol' 1999 ish), and compare it to Blu-Ray, the two are nearly indistinguishable in how they've advanced. So far, anyways. And DVD was against VHS. It's rather curious how fast Blu-Ray has taken off against a similar older product and backwards compatible players. People are really into "latest and greatest" new tech mentality these days.


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By tallcool1 on 4/6/2010 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Movies are over priced
Actually I think movies are not overpriced when compared to music!
Look at the production cost to make a movie vs what it cost for an artist to record a album. Compare that with what you pay for a movie vs a CD.
New Movie: $15-$20
New Music: $10-$15

Either the movie companies are giving us a great deal or the music companies are over charging.


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 1:16:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Look at the production cost to make a movie

Which movie? Avatar? Or Clerks?

quote:
Either the movie companies are giving us a great deal or the music companies are over charging.

Or music is a different product: The average CD is listened to far more often than the average movie is watched. In terms of use extracted from the product, a CD is far more cost effective.


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By HotFoot on 4/6/2010 4:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the music CD is probably of greater value in the perspective of hours of entertainment. Then again, it's totally different. You put in a movie and pay nearly 100% attention to it for two hours. With music, sometimes I do actually just sit and listen to an album, but that's rare. It's usually on in the background.

Anyway, the post before yours was about price compared to production cost. Either way you look at it, it's not terrible value. $20 for a movie I'll watch every once in a while or $15 for 45-60 minutes of music I'll play tens or hundreds of times. Different experiences, but in both cases it's a reasonable price.


RE: BLU-RAY is good seller???
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
have you looked in the special boxes.. there are movies for like $9.. it an ok price for a BD IMHO.


Prices Please
By Shig on 4/6/2010 10:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
Those capacities are awesome, but not if one disc will end up costing you 30$ or more.

NAND flash is comin' for you optical media.




RE: Prices Please
By Yawgm0th on 4/6/2010 11:17:56 AM , Rating: 2
The pricing will no doubt be ridiculous, especially to use it for archiving.

Optical storage has always been attractive for archival and backup purposes except for the cost. You can get tapes at greater capacities for less money and rotate them. The cost for a good automated optical backup system is also pretty astounding.


RE: Prices Please
By HotFoot on 4/6/2010 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's very hard to make the case, even years ago, for optical backup. An external HDD is more compact, more versatile, and much easier to maintain, while offering what I would guess is much higher reliability.


RE: Prices Please
By animemaster on 4/6/2010 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 3
The advantage for optical has always been longevity not bootstrap from failure. You want to put something in an archive that will probably never be accessed but you want to be sure it will work if you need it you go with optical. Even then there is stratification and specialty products like discs that have plastic that will stand up better to time. The new bluray will fit right in there.

Hard drives break down nand flash will develop tin whiskers optical will still have a place on this planet for at least 20 more years.


RE: Prices Please
By jls2691 on 4/7/2010 10:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
I've worked in IT and truthfully, any non-magnetic media will be problematic over time. The biggest issue isn't longevity of the media itself, but instead is the accessibility of the data on the media over long periods of time.

First off, take medical information, which is needed to be kept for 10 years after a person dies. If all of their medical info is to be kept from their earliest Dr. visits, that is over 100 years.

Similar issue for EPA/DNR-related data. Must be kept for >75 years.

What media readers compatible with that media will be available that long? And if you kept an old device around, what computer systems + OS + drivers + "player" software would be available to make the data accessible?

These are real problems faced by real businesses every day. Frankly, spinning disks are still the best long-term solution because as this media/technology "ages", the data stored on them gets migrated to new media/technology as just part of every-day business practices. This migration tends to be very high-speed and can be done at a much lower cost (comparatively). Sure, you could migrate data with optical and/or tape media too, but the cost (time, energy, etc) to migrate these is prohibitive (in my experience).

In reality, either media type *could* work, but my experience with IT budgets and projects has shown me that the idea of migrating lots of "off-line" data to newer media tends to never get done (though there are exceptions).


RE: Prices Please
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 3:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
you can still buy Stonecake (pre-LP 78rpm) and LP players today.

I guess we dont really have any 100 years old computer format yet.. Stoncakes would be the closest thing, and those players can be found today. This format was invented in 1887.

Searched for an 8" floppy drive, this is a truly ancient computer format, invented in 1969. Found a reader on Ebay for $375. Ok these will be very hard to find outside of a museum in 60 years probably. But they are from an era where computers where hardly common and cost a small fortune.

Todays standard formats like cd/dvd/bd have shipped many millions of readers. Even long after holographic discs or flash memory becomes the standard, you will most likly be able to obtain an old optical reader.


HD-DVD lost because....
By Alexstarfire on 4/6/2010 12:28:22 PM , Rating: 1
This'll be no less than the third time blu-ray specs will have changed since it's inception. Each time requiring most users to buy new blu-ray devices. This one sounds like EVERYONE will have to buy a new device for this as a firmware upgrade won't help when you simply need a more powerful laser.

Before anyone comments that this isn't meant for consumers, like several have attempted to point out, I suggest you read the article again. At least the IH-BD are directly intended for the consumer. I imagine even then 100/128 GB discs will be as well, though probably mostly towards computer use and not movie use. Someone mentioned they may use them for 3D movies..... but that makes no sense. 3D movies don't really use up that much more space.

I hope everyone enjoys having to buy a new blu-ray player. I think I'll wait until the next format comes out before switching from my DVD player. No sense in wasting money after all.




RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By FastEddieLB on 4/6/2010 1:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
Just because it's being marketed "for the consumer" doesn't mean everyone's going to need to get a new Blu-Ray player. They WILL on the other hand need to get a new Blu-Ray BURNER in order to use these optical storage disks (you know, just like Data DVDs!). Maybe you should take your own advice and read the article before posting; nowhere did it say the new specification would replace current Blu-Ray movies or PS3 format games.


RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By SPOOFE on 4/6/2010 3:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Good points; this is more akin to CD-R's moving from 4x to 8x and then 16x, et cetera, than it is moving from CD-R's to DVD-R's.


RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By Alexstarfire on 4/6/2010 6:34:29 PM , Rating: 1
No.... just no.


RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By Alexstarfire on 4/6/2010 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how it could mean anything else with the IH-BDs. Players won't be able to read it and it seems obvious that's the stuff that's going to be played in BD players.

I think you should also read the article again because no where in the article did it say it wasn't.


RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By RXUYDC on 4/7/2010 12:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No sense in wasting money after all.


You can get a blu-ray player for less than $200 now, which is probably not much more tha the cost of a pack of this new media. Really, buying a new player is inevitable, anf two years from now will be $150 from Costco. Not really a driver in the discussion, all-be-it not very environmentally friendly...


RE: HD-DVD lost because....
By Silver2k7 on 4/10/2010 5:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
"This'll be no less than the third time blu-ray specs will have changed since it's inception."

IIRC the CD-Burner was first called a WORM drive (Write once read many).

CD-R have gone through lots of changes and additions to the format also 600MB/650MB/700MB/800MB/900MB discs.


Now BD is an even bigger waste of time and money.
By Xaussie on 4/7/2010 6:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
BD hasn't really caught on compared to DVD for quite a lot of reasons.

1. Most people can't see any difference on movies.
2. DRM is a nightmare and mostly prevents people watching their own movies on computers.
3. The audio on most BD movies is 16 bit 48KHz. DVDs at 24 bit 96KHz compressed sound much better IMHO.
4. DVDs are easy to copy (for backup purposes). By the time you copy a BD you've spent the cost of a new copy.
5. There seems to be an obsession with 2.4:1 format for BD which means I can see a lot more detail on a 52" LCD from a 1.7:1 DVD.

Personally I just wish they'd give up on the whole thing as an expensive mistake and cut their losses.




By BansheeX on 4/8/2010 5:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Most people can't see any difference on movies.


That's utter shash. DVD cannot saturate what we are capable of perceiving, blu-ray comes much closer to achieving that.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=11...

The real reason the upgrade path is slower is because DVD didn't require a display upgrade to realize the benefits over its predecessor. BD does.

quote:
2. DRM is a nightmare and mostly prevents people watching their own movies on computers.


lol? I've seen no evidence suggesting that blu-ray's DRM has been more problematic for users than DVD's DRM. And despite all the fearmongering HD-DVD folks were peddling about its sophisticated nature, it has been defeated just like CSS and tools to make limitless rips run rampant. Wake up.

quote:
3. The audio on most BD movies is 16 bit 48KHz. DVDs at 24 bit 96KHz compressed sound much better IMHO.


Yeah, and 96-bit color is 4x better than 24-bit. Care to do a double blind test? Human anatomy has limits on what it can perceive, and if you don't stop at those limits, you're incurring massive space and bandwidth costs for absolutely no benefit. Tell Mr. Snake oil salesman to go screw himself, mkay?

quote:
4. DVDs are easy to copy (for backup purposes). By the time you copy a BD you've spent the cost of a new copy.


DVD burnable media and drives were just as prohibitively expensive when they were introduced.

quote:
5. There seems to be an obsession with 2.4:1 format for BD which means I can see a lot more detail on a 52" LCD from a 1.7:1 DVD.


This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A film's aspect is it's aspect, it doesn't change between formats. My guess is that you invested a crapton of money into DVD and are trying to convince yourself and others that BD is a waste of time. In reality, they should give up on DVD. The resolution for video and heavily compressed audio clearly doesn't saturate human perception.


By Xaussie on 4/8/2010 8:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
1. That's utter shash. DVD cannot saturate what we are capable of perceiving, blu-ray comes much closer to achieving that.

If I take an image say from a Phase One 60.5MPixel digital back and enlarge it enough it will clearly have more visible resolution than my 12 MPixel Nikon D3. That doesn't mean if I print it as a 4x6 at my local photolab it will look any better.

At normal viewing distance (about 15ft) on a 52" Samsung 7 series LCD neither my wife or I could tell you whether a DVD or BD was playing (and we do own both players). As a professional photographer I'm not ignorant of image quality, but at the end of the day on normal live full motion video there just isn't a discernible difference (DVD upscaled to 1080p of course).

2. The real reason the upgrade path is slower is because DVD didn't require a display upgrade to realize the benefits over its predecessor. BD does.

Yet the success of HD LCD TVs has far outpaced BD installations. Shouldn't the two go hand in hand?

3. I've seen no evidence suggesting that blu-ray's DRM has been more problematic for users than DVD's DRM

Okay, I have a 30" NEC 3090 (with DRM support), a Sony BD drive and Cyberlink BD software and an NVidia graphics card (with BD support). Can I play BD on my computer ... no, because after all that the graphics card is Dual-Link or DRM compliant but not both at the same time - so my choices are go single link (1280 x 800) or pay Slysoft $100+ to defeat the DRM. Yes it really is a problem!

4. Yeah, and 96-bit color is 4x better than 24-bit. Care to do a double blind test?

So we can see unlimited resolution but can't hear beyond 16 bit, that's why all modern recordings are mastered at 24bit 96KHz. Yes I can tell the difference. Granted not everyone is going to be able to but the point is BD is a downgrade! Why downgrade the audio when you've just increased the capacity by 5x ... hmmm... I smell DRM rearing it's ugly head again. Apparently we can't be trusted with uncompressed 24 bit master quality audio ... I might use it to start a bootleg soundtrack shop.

5. DVD burnable media and drives were just as prohibitively expensive when they were introduced.

Yes but back then it was the only way to copy a movie. Now you can do it for 25c a disk ... why do I need BD again ???

6. This post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A film's aspect is it's aspect, it doesn't change between formats.

You've never seen the message "This movie has been formatted to fit the aspect ratio of your TV". If you're going to watch your movies as a 480p stripe in the middle of your TV ... why is it again that we need 1080p BD movies???? I don't consider 500+ blank lines an enhancement to my movie viewing experience.


By BansheeX on 4/11/2010 8:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but at the end of the day on normal live full motion video there just isn't a discernible difference


Then you have horrible eyes or are sitting way further back than the average person. Even the difference between 480p MPEG2 broadcast and 720p MPEG4 broadcast is staggering.

quote:
Yet the success of HD LCD TVs has far outpaced BD installations. Shouldn't the two go hand in hand?


You're making the same mistake as most analysts. If BD expenditures have to come after a $2k expenditure, is it any wonder that many people don't or can't spend more on BD immediately after spending $2k on the TV? Money doesn't grow on trees and DVD didn't have to deal with that circumstance at all.

quote:
Okay, I have a 30" NEC 3090 (with DRM support), a Sony BD drive and Cyberlink BD software and an NVidia graphics card (with BD support).


You are using an extremely niche desktop display. Delivering HDCP content at resolutions higher than the blu-ray itself (0.1% of the display market) was probably the furthest thing from manufacturers' minds. Deal with it. For someone who spent that much on a pc display, $100 for Slysoft is a drop in the bucket. I don't like DRM either, but I'm not going on hunger strike when it's so friggin easy to defeat.

quote:
So we can see unlimited resolution but can't hear beyond 16 bit, that's why all modern recordings are mastered at 24bit 96KHz.


No, we can't see unlimited resolution. No physical format beyond BD is likely to succeed. It is to video what CD was to audio. We also can't hear the difference between 16 and 24-bit considering the same master. That's why SACD and DVD-Audio failed to supplant CDs. DVD is mostly 16/48 like BD, so I don't even know what you're driveling about here claiming BD isn't an upgrade. DVD's aggressive lossy compression removes a lot of perceivable information. Most BDs have lossless tracks and it is very easy with decent equipment to tell the difference, particularly in newer movies.

quote:
You've never seen the message "This movie has been formatted to fit the aspect ratio of your TV". If you're going to watch your movies as a 480p stripe in the middle of your TV ... why is it again that we need 1080p BD movies???? I don't consider 500+ blank lines an enhancement to my movie viewing experience.


I still have no idea what you're talking about. You mean the black bars? Movies are shot in a multitude of aspects, usually all wider than 16x9 to some degree. The only way to display them in a less wide television WITHOUT distorting or cropping the image is to have black bars.


How do these discs hold up over time?
By BigToque on 4/6/2010 1:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know that when CD-R was first released, discs could last about 10 years (+/- a few depending on the conditions it was stored in).

Do BD-R discs last longer? I was sort of under the impression that if you were serious about data backup, tape was pretty much your only real option. Is this not the case?




By Dorkyman on 4/6/2010 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not the case.

Of all the CD-R and DVD-R blanks I've bought over the years (and I have a closet full of empty cakeboxes; maybe someday I'll find some use for them), the only ones that physically failed were from a box of 10 from "GQ" (ironically standing for "Great Quality") back in 1999. The aluminum top layer of the CD began to flake off in your hands.

All the others are physically holding up fine. Wait, I need to amend that; a few of my Ritek DVD-R disks are showing much higher bit errors now. But on the fora I inhabit that's a well-known trait of that brand. Never a single issue with Taiyo Yuden or Verbatim.


I guess I better get moving...
By callmeroy on 4/6/2010 11:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
LOL they are talking about a new Blu Ray standard and I still haven't bought a "regular/current" Blu Ray player...

I was going to twice...but life happens...had to spend the money on a new clothes washer one time and then I had to play catch up on bills the next time I thought about one...




Great news!
By jabber on 4/6/2010 1:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another change that chances are, will have ramifications for the domestic market down the line.

Yes another change that makes me want to delay purchasing a BD player for another year.

Hopefully give it another year or so and I wont need to buy one at all. Still havent really felt like I'm missing out so far.




Reliable Multi-Layer
By Slaimus on 4/6/2010 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
Dual layer DVD writers and media have been out for many years, and a lot of times it is still hit and miss. I wonder if 3 and 4 layer media can really be reliably written by consumer drives.




No sh*t?
By marsbound2024 on 4/6/2010 8:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Enhancements include larger capacity discs."

Couldn't tell that by the headline at all! :)




By MadAd on 4/6/2010 11:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
Just blisterpack the films and albums onto a memory card and confine optical disks to their rightful place in history.




MP3s and the future
By drycrust3 on 4/7/2010 4:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
Wow ... imagine how many MP3s you'd get onto this disk.

But seriously, I do wonder about the need for a DVD with such a specification considering a 16 GB SDHC card goes for around $40 US and SDHC has an upper capacity limit of around 128 GB. It would be far simpler to install, much easier to carry, much less prone to data corruption, and is pretty much current technology.
In addition, with advances in Broadband and the like, it won't be unreasonable to expect people to download whatever is going to be on that disk than to buy it from a store.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith












botimage
Copyright 2011 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki