http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/07/pioneers-blu-ray-disc-hits-400gb/

16-layers -- that's how many layers it takes to the hit the center of a 400GB Blu-ray disc, pops. That's 25GB per layer just like those dual-layer 50GB discs available for retail. Best of all, the technique used by Pioneer is expected to be backward compatible with existing Blu-ray gear since the specs and lenses required for pickup are identical. The prototype is read-only for the moment but R&D's on it so let's give them some time to work it out.

Update: Now that the English press release is out, it's less clear whether the new media -- whenever it might come to market -- will work in existing Blu-ray players or not. While "it is possible to maintain compatibility between the new 16-layer optical disc and the BD discs," players would seemingly require a modified optical pick-up mechanism to see the data. We'll learn more on July 13th when Pioneer discusses the breakthrough in detail.

Press Release (Japanese Only)

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080707/pioneer.htm
http://pioneer.jp/press/2008/0707-1.html

I doubt this will ever go into production, considering the work to get 2 layers become economical viable.

And not much content needs 400GB per disc.

I doubt this will ever go into production, considering the work to get 2 layers become economical viable.

And not much content needs 400GB per disc.

Even if you are correct this proves that the format has potential to expand, and of course this will drive the prices down of the smaller and "economically viable" - like you said smaller media which we use -> 50GB, later the 100GB variant.

But lets get real, you are wrong. :)

Even if you are correct this proves that the format has potential to expand, and of course this will drive the prices down of the smaller and "economically viable" - like you said smaller media which we use -> 50GB, later the 100GB variant.

Only if its backward compatible. Adding more layers isnt something new, to make it work for massproduction is a different matter.

Pioneer Succeeds in Developing World's First 16-Layer Optical Disc (http://pioneer.jp/press/release193.html)

For multilayer optical discs, it has been difficult to obtain clear signals from each recording layer in a stable manner due to crosstalk from adjacent layers and transmission loss. Utilizing the optical disc production technology that it has developed in the DVD field, Pioneer solved these problems by, among other things, using a disc structure that can reduce crosstalk from adjacent layers, resulting in a 16-layer optical disc that can playback high-quality signals from every layer. "Optical disc production technology that it has developed in the DVD field"

I wonder if this is somehow related...

Korea Verification Seminar for DVD and HD DVD (http://www.dvdforum.org/format-vtf.htm)

August 7, 2008, 13:00 – 16:10

6. DVD Download Drive/Disc Verification and Contents of Test Specification

Mr. Naoharu Yanagawa, Pioneer Corporation
Chair of SG6 of TSTF

All LOTR Extendeds on one disc? ;)

Why would they spend the cash on R&D if they don't plan to produce it?

A 400GB disc with studio's still releasing movies with DD+ on them.:D

Amazing... everyone dismissed the idea that triple layer HD DVD's would work but are incredibly optimistic that the 1st gen Blu-Ray standalones will play 8 and 16-layer discs without issue.

I think what this does do is bring optical storage back from out of the relics closet. Nowadays tape and disc based storage tend to dominate. (Honestly, most home users I know use USB external drives for backup. Most businesses, of course, still use linear tape.)

All LOTR Extendeds on one disc? ;)

Why would they spend the cash on R&D if they don't plan to produce it?

Researches must research something. ;) They still being paid.

But the point is that its never wrong to research, even if it doesnt translate into a final product. But the result of that research may be used in other areas.

So even if the tech doesnt make BD400 a reality, it could very well make something else a reality.

It could just as well yield beneficial technologies/processes to further the yield developments on "plain" 2 layer discs.

It would be nice to have entire seasons of tv shows on one disc but I bet it won't happen because consumers will see more value in a multiple disc package

Amazing... everyone dismissed the idea that triple layer HD DVD's would work but are incredibly optimistic that the 1st gen Blu-Ray standalones will play 8 and 16-layer discs without issue.
:).

There have been many announcements in these areas that work in the lab, but never in practice. For example, there was a company which went out of business which built multi-level DVDs. So instead of a 1 and 0 representing a single bit, you could have multiple bits in each pit. Worked great in the lab, and they even worked with Philips to make a higher capacity BD disc out of it. But the company went out of business because in a real factory, you couldn't get the pit sizes to be accurate enough.

Likewise there has been announcements of DVDs with up to 256 (!) layers. Again, could be shown to work on paper but in real world, no.

Pioneer says they are borrowing techniques from DVD. If so, why not make a 16 layer DVD and have it be backward compatible with current DVD players? Heck, let it be incompatible: a 16-layer DVD would have 72 gigabytes of capacity if you changed nothing. Put in HD DVD's modulation technology and you could approach 100 Gigabytes+!

So something tells me this is no different than chest pumping and stuff like JVC's hybrid BDs which never made it past papers at conferences.

I think what this does do is bring optical storage back from out of the relics closet. Nowadays tape and disc based storage tend to dominate. (Honestly, most home users I know use USB external drives for backup. Most businesses, of course, still use linear tape.)
The drives and media will be quite expensive if this format does make it to market. Without mentioning these factors, it really is not anything of note.

It would be nice to have entire seasons of tv shows on one disc but I bet it won't happen because consumers will see more value in a multiple disc package

I've seen this said a lot but Warner had at least one 2-disc HD DVD release that they condensed onto a single BD50, so... There is also the "smaller is better" philosophy lately with cell phones, iPods, even HDM cases vs DVD cases.

I doubt this will ever go into production, considering the work to get 2 layers become economical viable.

And not much content needs 400GB per disc.

Ditto. And I doubt it will ever become a consumer writeable either. I still remember hearing them talking about making DVDs that could handle over 30gbs, but none ever came to fruition. Pretty much stopped at 2 layers.

I think 3 layers is the realistic max we will see on BD. After that, we are looking at something else.

All LOTR Extendeds on one disc? ;)

Why would they spend the cash on R&D if they don't plan to produce it?

You could probably do it on BD50 in VC1. Would be pretty tight.... but may be doable.

Of course then they won't be able to sell you three movies.

But lets get real, you are wrong. :)
dude, even at blu-ray.com, whenever there is mention of these BD-100, BD-200 technologies, prominent and respected industry members of that forum state that no movies will ever be released on such discs. the yields would be way too poor and stability problems way too high when you go beyond 2 layers for it to be remotely practical (as evidenced by DVD-18s, for example).

Instead of these pointless technology demos they should concentrate on bringing a decent full featured player to the market at a reasonable price.

Instead of these pointless technology demos they should concentrate on bringing a decent full featured player to the market at a reasonable price.
Exactly!

Instead of these pointless technology demos they should concentrate on bringing a decent full featured player to the market at a reasonable price.
Now that would be worthy of a press release!

Would the defect rate be a lot higher with so many layers? So much room for error.

400 gigs !! wow !!

Wasn't some company working on a way of extending each layer of a Blu-ray from 25 GB to 33 GB? BD-66 has a nice ring to it and would seem easier to implement than some crazy 16 layer disc.

Amazing... everyone dismissed the idea that triple layer HD DVD's would work but are incredibly optimistic that the 1st gen Blu-Ray standalones will play 8 and 16-layer discs without issue.
That might be because triple layer HDDVDs have already failed before.. with triple layer dvds. While 8+ layers was always a possibility the BDA was touting.

That might be because triple layer HDDVDs have already failed before.. with triple layer dvds. While 8+ layers was always a possibility the BDA was touting.
I know that triple layer HD DVDs were created in a lab. Do you know that 8-layer BDs were created the same way? Hint: they were not :p.

Aside from data storage, what good are these anyway.

Just add another disc. I imagine it would be cheaper and the rental companies would prefer it that way.

Alot of DVD main features were pushing its storage a 6-8 gbs with a few hitting 10 which required two disks.

With VC1 and AVC, I can probably list on my hands the number of movies requiring more than a BD25 for just the main feature.

If given the choice between a 3+ layer disc and higher compression, I would go with the higher compression from a business standpoint.

The only argument that I could understand is if we were going to use a lossless codec like Jpeg2000 or go with 4K.... but that will most likely not happen.

But we are a long way off from that. People don't even want to pay $25-35 for a BD50 movie let alone a BD400. In fact, I wonder how many people would be willing to pay $20 for a BD25 with the main feature and lossless (in VC1/AVC depending on the length) or $30-35 for a BD50 with the same old rehashed 480i special features.

They need to concentrate on cost cutting at this point. IMO.

Just add another disc. I imagine it would be cheaper and the rental companies would prefer it that way.How? Shelf space saving is too obvious to miss for anyone with sane mind.

I think this is interesting, but not for the effect it will have on the movie industry. Simply put, data storage needs have roughly followed Moore's law just like transistor count. I remember when we installed the first 32k of expansion memory in our old trash 80. We had a whole 128K! We would never need more right? The same concept has happened with physical storage. The first floppy disk I used held 360 kB (This was approximately '82). Since then, it has grown to the 4.9GB DVDs and just now entering the 50GB BluRay market. If computers continue to grow in complexity, storage space will need to as well.

At this point, there are basically 2 ways to go with existing technology. Go to shorter wavelength lasers or add more layers. That is why this research is done. I bet the same type of research is being carried out with new lasers as well. The companies will see which is economically viable and that will be the production technology for 5-10 years down the road. The layered concept is interesting to me because it would mean we set out along the path of moving away from 2d storage and into a realm of 3d storage. So far no economically viable method for this has been discovered. If this disk could be made economically viable, it would be very cool in my opinion.

So not necessarily a benefit to those of us who love movies, but still a very cool concept.

How? Shelf space saving is too obvious to miss for anyone with sane mind.

I think you are missing the point. Stargate on DVD = 5 rentals per season.

I think this is interesting, but not for the effect it will have on the movie industry. Simply put, data storage needs have roughly followed Moore's law just like transistor count. I remember when we installed the first 32k of expansion memory in our old trash 80. We had a whole 128K! We would never need more right? The same concept has happened with physical storage. The first floppy disk I used held 360 kB (This was approximately '82). Since then, it has grown to the 4.9GB DVDs and just now entering the 50GB BluRay market. If computers continue to grow in complexity, storage space will need to as well.

At this point, there are basically 2 ways to go with existing technology. Go to shorter wavelength lasers or add more layers. That is why this research is done. I bet the same type of research is being carried out with new lasers as well. The companies will see which is economically viable and that will be the production technology for 5-10 years down the road. The layered concept is interesting to me because it would mean we set out along the path of moving away from 2d storage and into a realm of 3d storage. So far no economically viable method for this has been discovered. If this disk could be made economically viable, it would be very cool in my opinion.

So not necessarily a benefit to those of us who love movies, but still a very cool concept.

There are the ones they are working on:


Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) is an optical disc technology that would hold up to 3.9 terabytes
3D optical data storage is the term given to any form of optical data storage in which information can be recorded and/or read with three dimensional resolution. No commercial product based on 3D optical data storage has yet arrived on the mass market, although several companies are actively developing the technology and predict that it will become available by 2010.
Protein-Coated Disc (PCD) is a theoretical optical disc technology which would in principle allow storage of up to 50 Terabytes on one disc.
An Ultra Density Optical disc or UDO is a 133.35 mm (5.25") ISO cartridge optical disc which can store up to 60 GB of data though up to 500 GB has been speculated as a possibility for UDO


There are other possibilities.

Interesting though when you think about it. We went from optical ticker tape to magnetic media and are still using optical ticker tape in a way with DVD/HDDVD/Bluray. :D

I believe it when I can go to a store and buy a 400GB BD disc. Something tells me it wont happen.

From way back in 2005...
Ricoh Co. has developed technology that paves the way for the commercialization as early as 2008 of a 200-gigabyte optical disc, which could store 18 hours of high-definition television programming.

This huge leap forward in recording capacity from the current single-layer DVD's 4.7GB is made possible by increasing the number of data recording layers to eight.

Even next-generation DVDs, such as Blu-ray discs and HD DVDs, have only two data recording layers because having more normally results in light reflected from other layers interfering with reading.

The new technology sidesteps this by filtering out the offending light through the use of a special glass plate developed by Photonic Lattice Inc., which was set up to commercialize technology developed at Tohoku University

Where is that today?

Solid state will be the way to go...

Solid state will be the way to go...

Been hearing this for years. It won't happen for some time. Magnetic is the current mainstream size winner with optical being in 2nd and solid state being 3rd. It was that way 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago.

at 3.50 per gigabyte, a terabytes worth would run you $3500 or a 50gb would be $175. ouch


Disadvantages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_state_disk)

Price – as of mid-2008, flash memory prices are still considerably more costly per gigabyte than are comparable conventional hard drives: around USD 3.50 per GB[8] compared to typically less than USD 0.40 [3] for mechanical drives.
Capacity – although currently far lower than that of conventional hard drives, SSD capacity is predicted to increase rapidly, with experimental drives of up to 1 TB in test.[9][10]
Higher vulnerability to certain types of effects, including abrupt power loss (especially DRAM based SSDs), magnetic fields and electric/static charges, in comparison to normal HDDs (which store the data inside a Faraday cage).
Limited write cycles – flash-memory storage will often wear out after 300,000-500,000 write cycles[citation needed], while high endurance flash-memory storage may have an endurance of 1–5 million write cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a computer [4]. Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place. This problem is being improved all the time, with consequent increases in expected lifespans. Today's drives can last up to 20 years with average usage.[11] An example for the lifetime of SSD is explained in detail here. SSDs based on DRAM, however, do not suffer from this problem.
Slower write speeds – as erase blocks on flash-based SSDs generally are quite large, they are far slower than conventional disks for random writes,[12] and in some cases for sequential writes.[5] SSDs based on DRAM do not suffer from this problem.
Lower storage density – hard disks can store more data per unit volume than DRAM or flash SSDs, except for very low capacity/small devices. With the introduction of smaller technology node processes, the storage density of SSDs is expected to rapidly increase in the near future.[citation needed]

Anyone remember hearing about the FMD-ROM all the way back from 2000. They were talking about over 100GB discs with red lasers and over 1 TB with blue.

Thread rolled back to remove bickering. Remain on topic and stay civil.

Quick question. If you want multi-layered media, especially 3D layers, then why discs? Why not cubes? (Or spheres even.) :confused:

...because it then could not fit inside a dvd case, silly! :p

Quick question. If you want multi-layered media, especially 3D layers, then why discs? Why not cubes? (Or spheres even.) :confused:
Because if it was optical media like Blu-ray, if it wasn't circular it would be harder to read with a laser by spinning it? I suppose cubes my work if you weren't spinning it and the cube was like flash memory and not read by a laser by spinning it.

A couple of spinning mirrors would probably make it possible to scan any part of a stationary cube/sphere.

Quick question. If you want multi-layered media, especially 3D layers, then why discs? Why not cubes? (Or spheres even.) :confused:Wasnt that in a movie?

I think it bears reason that a genuine 3D storage media will present similar challenges in 3rd-dimension associated signal strength/focusing and 3rd-dimension associated media yields as any multilayer strategy. If we cannot eventually lick the multilayer issues (beyond the established dl config) in signal acquisition and manufacturing yields, then I doubt a full-out 3D-based media would be any more feasible.

With any of these multi layer optical formats that are to be used to put movies on . . .

Can you make them for less than $5, at a rate of 10 per minute with a yield rate greater than 80%?

If not - it won't happen.

With any of these multi layer optical formats that are to be used to put movies on . . .

Can you make them for less than $5, at a rate of 10 per minute with a yield rate greater than 80%?

If not - it won't happen.

Good point. We seem to get a new one of these every few months (like the Ricoh 200GB disc from back in '05 that I mentioned above). I think they are usually either just for proving a concept, building some marketing hype, a way to say mine's bigger (like the 100+ inch plasmas we see every year), or all 3.

+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?

For any content that runs under 138 minutes it would be really pointless to release
on something else then a BD50.

+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?

For any content that runs under 138 minutes it would be really pointless to release
on something else then a BD50.

Super HD/Quad HD/4K - that would be what you put on these discs . . . IMO.

CEM's are already showing the displays (abiet they are very expensive - but then so was HDTV back in 1998) at trade shows and Westinghouse has made available a 56" (?) SHD panel - for 50 grand.

You can laugh at the price buit the original Pioneer 50" PDP HDTV was 25 grand.

Super HD/Quad HD/4K - that would be what you put on these discs . . . IMO.

The problem would be the bitrate. Since the bitrate is an effect of the data you can put one one layer, increasing the layers will not boost the bitrate.

Super HD/Quad HD/4K - that would be what you put on these discs . . . IMO.

CEM's are already showing the displays (abiet they are very expensive - but then so was HDTV back in 1998) at trade shows and Westinghouse has made available a 56" (?) SHD panel - for 50 grand.

You can laugh at the price buit the original Pioneer 50" PDP HDTV was 25 grand.

I don't think studios would be too keen on selling their movies in the Super HD/Quad HD/4K formats. Just like they wouldn't want people to be able to buy the masters for a sale price of $19.

+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?

The only use I could realistically see for this is not in the home video industry.

Brandon

The problem would be the bitrate. Since the bitrate is an effect of the data you can put one one layer, increasing the layers will not boost the bitrate.

If I spin the disc faster - can't I increase the bit rate?

If I spin the disc faster - can't I increase the bit rate?

Yes you could, but how reliable would it work at 3X. Its just not that it should be able to reach 3X, it must reach it fast enough.

Yes you could, but how reliable would it work at 3X. Its just not that it should be able to reach 3X, it must reach it fast enough.

A buffer between the laser read head and the processing IC's?

A buffer between the laser read head and the processing IC's?

My knowledge in this area is very limited. But I was refering to that it takes some time for drives to reach the higher readingspeed, and to be a practical for movieplayback you dont want to wait for the drive to pickup speed.

But there should be others that knows this better then me.

With the recent development of 500 GB prototype Blu-ray disc hitting across 20 layers, do you think the encoders can be configured or re-programmed to take the bit rates beyond the current threshold of 54 Mbps or can this be done only when BDA makes amendments to the current bit rate specifications and approves it ? :confused:

With the recent development of 500 GB prototype Blu-ray disc hitting across 20 layers, do you think the encoders can be configured or re-programmed to take the bit rates beyond the current threshold of 54 Mbps or can this be done only when BDA makes amendments to the current bit rate specifications and approves it ? :confused:
BDA would have to approve any changes like this by creating a new profile. Otherwise, that content crashes current players/decoders.

Since these new formats are likely not backward compatible anyway with current optical readers, you are really talking about a brand new format with new physical layers and "logical" ones above it.

BDA would have to approve any changes like this by creating a new profile. Otherwise, that content crashes current players/decoders.

Since these new formats are likely not backward compatible anyway with current optical readers, you are really talking about a brand new format with new physical layers and "logical" ones above it.

Thanks Amir. Pioneer announced that the 500 GB discs are compatible with current Blu-ray drives found in computers, players, and recorders. Do you mean to say that that the current decoding logic in the players will have checks like If (bit rate > 54 Mbps) then throw Fatal_Error() ? :D

Thanks Amir. Pioneer announced that the 500 GB discs are compatible with current Blu-ray drives found in computers, players, and recorders.
Even if one takes the original assertion as fact, there are a number of things that are likely to break. For example, I guarantee that there are a lot of hard coded assumptions about there only being two layers.

As I noted, the spec I am sure stipulates only two layers so no player has any obligation to be able to read beyond that.

Do you mean to say that that the current decoding logic in the players will have checks like If (bit rate > 54 Mbps) then throw Fatal_Error() ? :D
I am saying it does not have such a check! So as a result, the decoder will choke on the content (dropping frames/losing audio sync) or outright crash as it has never been tested in that mode.

+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?

For any content that runs under 138 minutes it would be really pointless to release
on something else then a BD50.
If the transfer rate were increased along with the capacity you could explore higher total bitrates for audio and video. You may even approach a point where lossless video were possible. If not that, then 4K video, deeper color options (xvYCC, Deep Color, etc), and/or higher frame rates (60/120fps). If they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility they could stick a standard BD on the first two layers (as per usual) then place extended data on the additional layers (which only compatible players would see/use).

While it seems unlikely, I'd love it if they adopted one of these extended layer schemes and started supporting it in hardware (otherwise we'll never see software support; literally a chicken/egg scenario here).

+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?


Porn? :D

If the transfer rate were increased along with the capacity you could explore higher total bitrates for audio and video. You may even approach a point where lossless video were possible. If not that, then 4K video, deeper color options (xvYCC, Deep Color, etc), and/or higher frame rates (60/120fps). If they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility they could stick a standard BD on the first two layers (as per usual) then place extended data on the additional layers (which only compatible players would see/use).

While it seems unlikely, I'd love it if they adopted one of these extended layer schemes and started supporting it in hardware (otherwise we'll never see software support; literally a chicken/egg scenario here).
Extended (layered) schemes are quite attractive as you mention from consumer point of view. Alas, from hardware point of view, they require dual decoders -- one for the base layer and one for the extension. This is the case for DTS-HD audio today and see the slower adoption of that as one of those reasons.

It is a little ironic that Pioneer believes the primary applicability or demand for these high volume Blu Rays will be to store streaming video which is expected to become common place!

Extended (layered) schemes are quite attractive as you mention from consumer point of view. Alas, from hardware point of view, they require dual decoders -- one for the base layer and one for the extension. This is the case for DTS-HD audio today and see the slower adoption of that as one of those reasons.
This multilayer scheme, and one of the others preceding it from Hitachi I believe, boasted full compatibility with existing hardware. The implication being that software would need to be revised to support it. If they intend to up the max total bitrate, they might as well create another profile/level and handle compatibility that way.

There shouldn't be any need for dual decoders, since everything is just like BD is now, only with more/extended codec support. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. =)

This multilayer scheme, and one of the others preceding it from Hitachi I believe, boasted full compatibility with existing hardware.
That has always been claimed. Yet no product exist in reality to back those claims. On paper, I can show perfect manufacturing of something. In a real factory, that is harder :).

Currently, 2-layer BD remains a difficult process (relative to DVD let's say). So until I see that being a walk in the park, it is kind of hard to swallow many more layers being so :).

The implication being that software would need to be revised to support it.
I take their word that drive firmware could be updated to do so. It is the rest of the system I worry about breaking when capacity increases so much. Even on drive firmware, who do you think is brave enough to try to upgrade that part of their player and break compatibility with hundreds of titles potentially?

If they intend to up the max total bitrate, they might as well create another profile/level and handle compatibility that way.
Exactly my point :).

There shouldn't be any need for dual decoders, since everything is just like BD is now, only with more/extended codec support. Unless I'm misunderstanding something. =)
I think there is a misunderstanding. I was commenting on layered video coding. Not layered physical storage of bits on disc. In layered video coding, you have two streams compressed which need to be decompressed and combined to say, render 10 bits out of 8 and 2-bit streams. Such a think would require two decoders.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I was commenting on layered video coding. Not layered physical storage of bits on disc. In layered video coding, you have two streams compressed which need to be decompressed and combined to say, render 10 bits out of 8 and 2-bit streams. Such a think would require two decoders.
Ahh, my method would be simpler: use the normal 50 GB (accessible by all hardware) to contain the usual BD content. Then use the additional 450 GB to store a separate copy of the film using these fancier/newer features (but in no way would these rely on the other content in the first 50 GB). I probably used the word "extension" somewhere and that might have caused confusion.

Ahh, my method would be simpler: use the normal 50 GB (accessible by all hardware) to contain the usual BD content. Then use the additional 450 GB to store a separate copy of the film using these fancier/newer features (but in no way would these rely on the other content in the first 50 GB). I probably used the word "extension" somewhere and that might have caused confusion.
That would work.

Makes you wonder if they can do that with 20 layer BD, why they can't put a DVD layer below BD-50....

That would work.

Makes you wonder if they can do that with 20 layer BD, why they can't put a DVD layer below BD-50....

Umm, I'm spitballing here but maybe cause they're completely different formats read by different lasers? (JVC's prototype non-withstanding)

How many DVDs with a CD layer are there?

Umm, I'm spitballing here but maybe cause they're completely different formats read by different lasers? (JVC's prototype non-withstanding)

How many DVDs with a CD layer are there?

Hybrid SACDs are essentially the same thing. The SACD layer is like a DVD layer (same laser and structure) and it has a CD layer as well

Hybrid SACDs are essentially the same thing. The SACD layer is like a DVD layer (same laser and structure) and it has a CD layer as well

Actually SACDs are similar to CD in that they aren't 2 discs glued together. This probably helps CD players read the CD layer.

Actually SACDs are similar to CD in that they aren't 2 discs glued together. This probably helps CD players read the CD layer.

Hybrid SACDs still have the DVD layer (high density layer) plus the usual CD layer.

Hybrid SACDs still have the DVD layer (high density layer) plus the usual CD layer.

Not talking about the layer, that the disc is not 2 discs bonded together, like CD & BD. I have about 15 SACDs, 12 DVD-Audio, and 10 DualDiscs.

The problem with 3 & 4 layer HD-DVDs and BDs wasn't that they couldn't get them to work in the real world. It was that they couldn't get them to work in the real world in the time frames they needed to to win the war.

If they could get this or similar tech to work in say 5 years you might have some thing that gives the optical disk extra staying power. I'm not saying it will happen or is even likely. I'm just saying it doesn't have to happen today. Keep in mind that you don't have to go back very far on this board to find posts stating that BD-50 will never be economically viable. Real world conditions would make manufacturing impossible etc.

Perspective.


Quote:
+ What are you going to put on a disc like this?
Porn?

Just think of it. All the porn on the internet on only 1,000,000,000,000,000 disks. :)