Sharp Reveals Triple-Layer Blu-Ray Discs, Burners

Status
Not open for further replies.

theguy82

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2006
28
0
18,580
0
Isn't there another company (I forget which) that claims to store 300 or 400 GB of data? I heard about this like 2 years ago. So if ever this comes out, would make Sharp's tech a little behind...
 

smashley

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
48
0
18,580
0
This just may be a conspiracy theory, but does anyone else think that this is not much of a leap in technology and that these companies 'reveal' this 'new technology' that's really been in existence for a while to force people to by new hardware ever couple years? Like four or five layers will be released this time next year? Kinda like Gillette just adding another blade to their razors ever now and then, like its impossible to do more than that until some sort of technological breakthrough is made.
 

jimkiler

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2006
6
0
18,510
0
TDK or someone was showing 8 layers so 200GB BD before BluRay drives were released. I thought this BDXL is a commercial format not meant for consumers.
 

dilbert

Distinguished
May 11, 2004
7
0
18,510
0
Too little, too late?

How can a 100GB disc help me in "archiving large amounts of sensitive data, video and graphic images" when I have several terabytes of it?
 

shloader

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2001
92
0
18,580
0
Yeah this is odd. I would like to have seen a link, at least, pointing me to where and when Blu-Ray became 33.3GB per layer. Common understanding is 25GB per layer. I too remember TDK showing proof of concept with quad layer 100GB discs while stating 200GB per disc is hardly unreasonable. As of yet it's simply unnecessary.

Dilbert... I second that. A few of us would like 256GB discs already.
 

03flat4

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2006
15
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]dilbert[/nom]Too little, too late?How can a 100GB disc help me in "archiving large amounts of sensitive data, video and graphic images" when I have several terabytes of it?[/citation]

because I think it's for movies mostly, not archival of terabyets..use tape or just get hard drive redundancy if you have that much data to backup.
 

tharkis842

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
32
0
18,580
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_ray

"In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray Disc (containing 16 data layers, 25 GB each) that will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. Its planned launch is in the 2009–10 time frame for ROM and 2010–13 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray Disc as soon as 2013."

Not so new after all. Took your sweet time, Sharp. Now lets see how long it takes prices to come down.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
33
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]smashley[/nom]This just may be a conspiracy theory, but does anyone else think that this is not much of a leap in technology and that these companies 'reveal' this 'new technology' that's really been in existence for a while to force people to by new hardware ever couple years? Like four or five layers will be released this time next year? Kinda like Gillette just adding another blade to their razors ever now and then, like its impossible to do more than that until some sort of technological breakthrough is made.[/citation]
I believe it's a yes and no. They do have to make new technology work very well anytime everywhere, so it takes them some time from research to product. But it doesn't make sense to launch a 5x increase in performance when you can launch a 1.5x increase and still improve sales (that is, unless the competition launches this 5x increase).
 

pochacco007

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2008
96
0
18,580
0
what are you going to do with a disc that can write 50gb+ worth of data?! you'll might as well buy a portable hard drive 250-500gb, which are cheaper, rewritable and faster than a blu-ray!

the cheapest blu-ray writer is $100 and $40 for a 50gb rewritable disc. $150 for a drive to write 50gb!

you can get a 2.5" portable hard drive for less that $100, which will do the job faster and cheaper.

so all in essence what does this mean?! blu-ray sucks and there's really no use for it! sony made a wasted investment!
 

The Greater Good

Distinguished
Jan 14, 2010
115
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]what are you going to do with a disc that can write 50gb+ worth of data?! you'll might as well buy a portable hard drive 250-500gb, which are cheaper, rewritable and faster than a blu-ray!the cheapest blu-ray writer is $100 and $40 for a 50gb rewritable disc. $150 for a drive to write 50gb!you can get a 2.5" portable hard drive for less that $100, which will do the job faster and cheaper. so all in essence what does this mean?! blu-ray sucks and there's really no use for it! sony made a wasted investment![/citation]

Just because you don't see the need for Blu-ray, doesn't make it a "wasted investment". An optical disk (if stored correctly) will last MUCH longer than any mechanical hard drive. If you need proof, take a hard drive (that has your data) in an external enclosure and throw it around your house. Drop it from 3-4 feet a few times. Now, take a BD in a case... and do the same thing.
 

pochacco007

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2008
96
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]The Greater Good[/nom]Just because you don't see the need for Blu-ray, doesn't make it a "wasted investment". An optical disk (if stored correctly) will last MUCH longer than any mechanical hard drive. If you need proof, take a hard drive (that has your data) in an external enclosure and throw it around your house. Drop it from 3-4 feet a few times. Now, take a BD in a case... and do the same thing.[/citation]

disc are just as bad as hard drives. scratches, for instance, are just as bad as a hard drive hitting the floor . so your arguement about hard drives being bad isn't really supportive. you're considering "stored correctly" that the disc will last. if "stored correctly" with a hard drive, it'll be better then the disc [faster transfer, rewritable, portable and convenient thngs you don't find in a blu-ray]. the blu-ray is a wasted investment. those who spent money on a blu-ray burner and thought it would be better than a dvd burner, you're dead wrong. you wasted money, both the investors and the consumers.
 

tokenz

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2006
206
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]The Greater Good[/nom]Just because you don't see the need for Blu-ray, doesn't make it a "wasted investment". An optical disk (if stored correctly) will last MUCH longer than any mechanical hard drive. If you need proof, take a hard drive (that has your data) in an external enclosure and throw it around your house. Drop it from 3-4 feet a few times. Now, take a BD in a case... and do the same thing.[/citation]

The problem with cd, dvd, and bluray, is that the medium degrades over time. Especially writable. Hard drives and especially flash based will out last a disc media. There are all sorts of stories about archival quality disc media that is supposed to last 20 years or better lasting one. So keep storing all you important files on bluray. I will trust my raid array, and my back up drives that are sitting on a shelf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Streaming Video & TVs 0
Danielcx Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
D Streaming Video & TVs 0
C Streaming Video & TVs 2
D Streaming Video & TVs 0
T Streaming Video & TVs 20
K Streaming Video & TVs 0
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
Browser6 Streaming Video & TVs 1
MukhlisM Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
T Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
W Streaming Video & TVs 5
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 10
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 28

ASK THE COMMUNITY