Don't read if your not open minded.

[Mikeblu]

Now I know I'm probably gonna get yelled at (I have detecors for getting yelled at it happens to me so much) even so I'm gonna spoiler guard it;

[Show spoiler]but I thought with this

Also behind closed doors at CES 2007, Ritek revealed that they had successfully developed a High Definition optical disc process that extends the disc capacity to 10 layers. That increases the capacity of the discs to 250 GB

I thought if they made a 4K BD but encoded the standard 1080p version onto the first 2 layers so that would be readable with ordinary blu players, and then on the remaining 200GB put a 4K version for speicail players then whats the harm, ordinary get 1080p and anyone that wants it gets 4K.

And to anyone that says its not gonna happen ect ect it already has, OK not exactly but the 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 standards are very similar to this cos your 1.0 can play the film, 1.1 can do the interactive stuff and 2.0 can access online 3.0 can do 4K. So yell at me if you must

[fronn]

Just because something was made once or twice in the lab, doesn't mean it's financially suitable for mass production.

I don't think Ritek would even claim that it would be practical now, if ever even.

Blu-ray is already getting close to the limit of practicality when considering production. And that's where it should be.

Every layer you add reduces the yield at an exponential rate. By the time you hit layer ten you may as well start a coaster company to go with it -- "stack of 50 coasters with every 10 layer disc purchase!"

[helius]

I would imagine the first two layers of a 10-layer disc are not the same as the two layers on a double-layer disc. I don't think existing players could play them.

[nycomet]

You might have more success putting a 10-layer cake into your BD player.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by nycomet

You might have more success putting a 10-layer cake into your BD player.

I put this layer cake into my BD player just fine.



...but on an on-topic note, while this technology is still in its infancy now, I still think it wouldn't be able to work with what we currently have. 4k is still a LONG way from being in the public's hands. I'm open minded and all, but its just not that economically feasible as the above poster said. Free coasters, anyone?

[jw]

hurry up, buy the domain name so we can start a forum and discuss it
Itll be pink vs purple instead of red/blu

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by JJxiv1215

I put this layer cake into my BD player just fine.



...but on an on-topic note, while this technology is still in its infancy now, I still think it wouldn't be able to work with what we currently have. 4k is still a LONG way from being in the public's hands. I'm open minded and all, but its just not that economically feasible as the above poster said. Free coasters, anyone?

10 of em?

[Anthony P]

like mentioned, the issue is neither the player nor compatibility (worst comes to worst you name it something else and consider them different formats). The issue is two fold.
1) rule of absorption and refraction, a certain % of the light needs to be passed through (to the lower levels) and a certain needs to be bounced back so that it can be read. So with each level you need two things a stronger laser and a way to leave more light through it. (so increased cost)

2) with each layer the yields decrease a lot. Think about it, even this simple example shows that. Every layer needs to be good or the disk is bad, so a mistake in L1 the disk is bad, L2 the disk is bad... L10 the disk is bad. Even if you assume that each layer has the same probability of being bad (which they would not) you just increased the probability of a bad disk by a lot.


PS I also never saw where they actually produced a playable 10 layer BD. All I remember them saying is that in theory it should be possible.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by fronn

Just because something was made once or twice in the lab, doesn't mean it's financially suitable for mass production.

Bingo... We have flying cars and Space Shuttles these days, right? Just because they exist, doesn't mean we'll all be flying them.

Which is good, actually. The last thing I want to see is a Space Shuttle cutting me off during my morning commute with one of those stupid F***ing white Apple stickers on the window.

(With apologies to Apple fanatics everywhere. I'm no fan of Apple, Starbucks, or SUV's. Not because of the actual products or companies, but because of the sense of Elitism that many of their purchasers exhibit. ...Tools.)

(That would go double for all the Space Shuttle purchasers)

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Mikeblu

I thought if they made a 4K BD but encoded the standard 1080p version onto the first 2 layers so that would be readable with ordinary blu players, and then on the remaining 200GB put a 4K version for speicail players then whats the harm, ordinary get 1080p and anyone that wants it gets 4K.

Combo discs!? We all know what folks around here thought of them back in the HD DVD era (kidding).

Perhaps we'll see 250GB discs made commercially feasible in a decade or so.

Hitachi was touting a prototype 100GB drive last year: http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/10/03...ay-disc-drive/

They were also working on 200GB discs as well.

[Beta Man]

If they go into production with something like this, I'll gladly purchase whatever necessary hardware to get this in my home...... Technology is great.... I don't see why a threat to Blu-Ray would be bad, if it's a better technology....

[helius]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

If they go into production with something like this, I'll gladly purchase whatever necessary hardware to get this in my home...... Technology is great.... I don't see why a threat to Blu-Ray would be bad, if it's a better technology....

Woosh! That's the sound of you completely missing the point of the above posts.

[mjbethancourt]

Ten layers.
Wasn't "too many layers" among the many problems with HD-DVD?
That's all HD-DVD really was, an unstable DVD with too many layers, played on an upscaling DVD drive.
I'd prefer that Blu-ray not go down that road. A better medium should come along before they have to resort to that. 4K will come in a different package, not a blue one.

[owa]

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'd love to have that capacity for archiving data, backups, etc. but I'm not sure I'd want it used for movies. I guess if it's backward compatible, kind of like S-VHS and VHS, I'd be okay with it. Hopefully they'd wait until blu-ray is more established though. At this point, it's bound to cause more confusion and I think they should avoid that as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Beta Man

If they go into production with something like this, I'll gladly purchase whatever necessary hardware to get this in my home...... Technology is great.... I don't see why a threat to Blu-Ray would be bad, if it's a better technology....

I'm usually all for new and improved technology as well but with something like this (a format), I don't think it's a good idea. Technology is *always* improving so at some point you have to say, this is what we're going to use (this is the standard) and then run with it. Otherwise, nothing gets established and you also risk alienating consumers.

[quexos]

Me i'm open minded hehe, proof of that is my blog

But seriously, isn't the multi-layer technology one that is foreseen for the next generation of holographic discs ?

[blu2]

Originally Posted by owa

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'd love to have that capacity for archiving data, backups, etc. but I'm not sure I'd want it used for movies. I guess if it's backward compatible, kind of like S-VHS and VHS, I'd be okay with it. Hopefully they'd wait until blu-ray is more established though. At this point, it's bound to cause more confusion and I think they should avoid that as much as possible.

I'm usually all for new and improved technology as well but with something like this (a format), I don't think it's a good idea. Technology is *always* improving so at some point you have to say, this is what we're going to use (this is the standard) and then run with it. Otherwise, nothing gets established and you also risk alienating consumers.

One has to expect that in ten years or so there will be something "new" available to make a play to replace/displace Blu Ray. All this prototyping and exploratory work done today is just a precursor to something we might (or might not) see commercially available down the pipe.

It was about 3 years after DVD launch that there were the 1st Blu Ray prototypes (if wikipedia is to be believed).

[navychop]

"Every layer you add reduces the yield at an exponential rate. "

This current "wisdom" might not hold up for the future. Perhaps deeper layers will be of a sufficiently different technology to where failures increase, but not at such a high rate.

That being said, I rather doubt we'll see it, much as I once craved 200 GB BDs for backups. Perhaps some version of holographic disc will catch on. Or perhaps BD will be the last mass market optical disc. Solid state is moving up rapidly.

We might know in 10 years or so.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Mikeblu

Now I know I'm probably gonna get yelled at (I have detecors for getting yelled at it happens to me so much) even so I'm gonna spoiler guard it;

[Show spoiler]but I thought with this
I thought if they made a 4K BD but encoded the standard 1080p version onto the first 2 layers so that would be readable with ordinary blu players, and then on the remaining 200GB put a 4K version for speicail players then whats the harm, ordinary get 1080p and anyone that wants it gets 4K.

And to anyone that says its not gonna happen ect ect it already has, OK not exactly but the 1.0, 1.1 and 2.0 standards are very similar to this cos your 1.0 can play the film, 1.1 can do the interactive stuff and 2.0 can access online 3.0 can do 4K. So yell at me if you must

The problem is bandwidth. 40Mbps video isn't really enough for proper 4K movies. That is Blu-ray's limit. What you are hoping for is beyond the technical capability of Blu-ray.

[Anthony P]

This current "wisdom" might not hold up for the future.

math is math

if we assume that 9 times out of 10 layers are good (and we forget everything else then the yields for 1 layer is 90%, 2 layers 81%, 3 layers 72.9, L4 = 65.61, l5 = 59.049, l6 = 53.1441, l7 = 47.82969, l8 = 43.046721, l9=38.7420489 and l10 = 34.86784401

now yields would not be that easy (since there would also be a none layer based issue) but the layer issues will always be exponential because math tells us the probability of a bad layer will be N^L where N is the yield per layer and L is the number of layers. The full equations would most likely be something like X+Y(N)^L where
X= constant (i.e. none layer related yield)
Y= constant (i.e. help to get the right %)
N= yield per level
L= layers.

so the equations could look (made up for an example) something like .4+.5(.95)^L
and then 1L will have yields of .88, 2L .85 and 10 layers .7. You can up play X and down play Y and make N->1 but you will always have N^L

[Mikeblu]

Originally Posted by navychop

"Every layer you add reduces the yield at an exponential rate. "

This current "wisdom" might not hold up for the future. Perhaps deeper layers will be of a sufficiently different technology to where failures increase, but not at such a high rate.

That being said, I rather doubt we'll see it, much as I once craved 200 GB BDs for backups. Perhaps some version of holographic disc will catch on. Or perhaps BD will be the last mass market optical disc. Solid state is moving up rapidly.

We might know in 10 years or so.

Yer I'm keeping a close eye on HVD (holographic versatile disc) I mean 3.5TB on a disc, madness.