Actual BD Capacity issue

[quexos]

Hello,

I have read negative stuff on blu ray among HD-DVD fans, which is expected of course.

but one comment took my attention and i wanted to share it with the blu-ray side. i just would like to know if it's any true. it's about the 50 GB capacity, here is what that person said:

"1. HD30 has about a 95% yield rate AT 100% capacity.
2. BD50 has about a 50% yield rate, but that is when only using 85-90% of the disc capacity which is about 44.5GB.
3. If BD50 mfg tries to use 100% of the capacity the yield is about ZERO, which means none can be made. This has to do with the process of spin coating the coating on BD discs. It uses centrifigal force and there is coating buildup at the outer edge which makes it too thick to be read by a player."

the basic question is can blu-ray actually store 50GB of data on dual-layer discs or can it not ?

Thanks

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by quexos

Hello,

I have read negative stuff on blu ray among HD-DVD fans, which is expected of course.

but one comment took my attention and i wanted to share it with the blu-ray side. i just would like to know if it's any true. it's about the 50 GB capacity, here is what that person said:

"1. HD30 has about a 95% yield rate AT 100% capacity.
2. BD50 has about a 50% yield rate, but that is when only using 85-90% of the disc capacity which is about 44.5GB.
3. If BD50 mfg tries to use 100% of the capacity the yield is about ZERO, which means none can be made. This has to do with the process of spin coating the coating on BD discs. It uses centrifigal force and there is coating buildup at the outer edge which makes it too thick to be read by a player."

the basic question is can blu-ray actually store 50GB of data on dual-layer discs or can it not ?

Thanks

yes it can as long as its a 50GB disc then the answer is yes it could but by doing that with either hd-dvd or blu-ray it takes away space that could be used for even better picture and sound

[56@Yamamoto]

Please read this thread, quexos.

>>https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

Actually, there are some over 49GB 'Non-SONY' titles. "Crank" has almost 49.9GB total disc usages. If your reading is a fact, these titles are out of commercial base from the beginning, aren't ?

Technically, even with 50GB full disc usage, BR's recording area has some margin to phisycal disc edge (same to CD or DVD). If this margin zone is zero in full used disk, indeed it is impossible to make 50GB volume disk, but the fact is not.

[Anthony P]

Pure BS like most "facts" you would get from HD DVD fans.

No disk is ever 100%, this happens because a disk has a lot of stuff on it and no one knows exactly how much will be needed when they start. Most times they try to over estimate (or to put it an other way, make it less then 100% as leeway) If you look at the titles there are way too many that fall above the different marks in the sand that they assume is true.

Even if one was gullible enough to believe them, take it this way, if we assume it is 10% then that means 45% or 1.5x the HD DVD, if the capacity is 20% then it is 40GB 1.33x HD DVD. Either way it is much more then HD DVD.

As for a Yield rate of 0, that makes 0 sense.

On the other hand, I am curious. Why do you care about yields? Does it affect you? You go to the store you buy a movie, that is available on both and has a BD50, will it be more expensive on BD?


PS no one knows the different yields, but note that there are many more HD DVD30 replication lines then BD50 and yet many more BD50s have been replicated to date. So there is something fishy in these yield claims by people paid to con others about the formats.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by quexos

Hello,

I have read negative stuff on blu ray among HD-DVD fans, which is expected of course.

but one comment took my attention and i wanted to share it with the blu-ray side. i just would like to know if it's any true. it's about the 50 GB capacity, here is what that person said:

"1. HD30 has about a 95% yield rate AT 100% capacity.
2. BD50 has about a 50% yield rate, but that is when only using 85-90% of the disc capacity which is about 44.5GB.
3. If BD50 mfg tries to use 100% of the capacity the yield is about ZERO, which means none can be made. This has to do with the process of spin coating the coating on BD discs. It uses centrifigal force and there is coating buildup at the outer edge which makes it too thick to be read by a player."

the basic question is can blu-ray actually store 50GB of data on dual-layer discs or can it not ?

Thanks

This is PURE bullshit and FUD... So do not worry

[reiella]

Given that I remember the source of this rumor...

No, really just flat out, no.

You can choose to believe anonymous sources through a biased filtered, or you can chose to believe the numbers Sony stands behind.

[Lord_Stewie]

i believe this link should answer your question.

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/r...leid=11420#ivb

[Papi4baby]

Can someone explain this better.
What i understand is that the OP says that the blu ray disc is 50GB but due to errors it ussually looses some of the capacity? So they lower the actual capacity to get less costers?

I didn't know disc were like that. I disc media is either good or bad, there's no happy medium? True or false? Pretty much you either get a good 50GB disc or a coster.
And about the replication % no one in the industry has come out and say the exact numbers for either side. HDDVD is thought to have a better handle on that, but Sony and the replicators on the blu side i think are probably as good as HDDVD at this point and time.

Wow that was fast. So i guess there are errors inside the disc also. Learn something new everyday.

[Anthony P]

Can someone explain this better.
What i understand is that the OP says that the blu ray disc is 50GB but due to errors it ussually looses some of the capacity? So they lower the actual capacity to get less costers?

a long time a go in a galaxy not so far far away. Someone found a better way to make disks. In essence you drop a blob of melted plastic in the middle and then spin it, the force of the spinning disk moves the plastic outwards and spreads in out more or less evenly. The spin rate of the disk and the consistency of the plastic are used to time what is needed for a uniform disk that has the depth needed. What happens is that most of that plastic is more or less uniform (this is for the top layers above the data) except that at the outer edge you have a bulge. If that bulge is big enough (still microscopic) and wide enough, it hits the data layer and then the last few rings are unreadable (the opposite can happen at the centre). The idea is that if you have less data and the few outer rings are not used then you don’t care if they are bulging. Because .6mm of plastioc has been done for so long the speed and timing are well known. But for BD those two optimal values need(ed) to be found.

[Papi4baby]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a long time a go in a galaxy not so far far away. Someone found a better way to make disks. In essence you drop a blob of melted plastic in the middle and then spin it, the force of the spinning disk moves the plastic outwards and spreads in out more or less evenly. The spin rate of the disk and the consistency of the plastic are used to time what is needed for a uniform disk that has the depth needed. What happens is that most of that plastic is more or less uniform (this is for the top layers above the data) except that at the outer edge you have a bulge. If that bulge is big enough (still microscopic) and wide enough, it hits the data layer and then the last few rings are unreadable (the opposite can happen at the centre). The idea is that if you have less data and the few outer rings are not used then you don’t care if they are bulging. Because .6mm of plastioc has been done for so long the speed and timing are well known. But for BD those two optimal values need(ed) to be found.

LOL, gee thanks for the story. Sounds familiar though.

I seen that on HiHD Panasonic videos they show a machine i guess doing the Blu hard coating on the disc it looked pretty nifty.

[Anthony P]

Sorry, maybe I missed something but you asked what the OP was talking about.

If there is bad data and you know a large portion of disks have bad data at a certain point, then just avoiding it on disks means that a bad disk just became good and your yields have gone up. That is what makes this BS FUD so enticing. Like a lot of it is based on a manipulation of truth and fact. If it is true that disks have issues at their extremes then limiting data to a bit smaller will help yields. Then they can hand pick some disks with lower content to try and support it. That is what makes most BS from the HD DVD side so powerful. Some dumb gullible person looks at the "facts" presented and does not bother to check them and find out (for example in this case) that many BDs are at much higher a GB% then mentioned.

Note, It is not just the hard coat, the same is true for CDs, DVDs and HD DVDs and they don't use a HC.