Sony Developing 300GB Blu-Ray Successor

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Adam Jensen:
What the fuck? This isn't good news. We were supposed to be moving away from disc technology!

Are you being sarcastic? Because dropping discs completely would be a dumb idea.

Dindril:
Well, as they said, this is for professional use. I don't expect this to be used commercially for a long while. At least not until the next console generation. These are likely only going to be used on the business side of things for a long while.

It depends on weather, as Tiberius says, it's a new disc format or rather an improvement on the current bluray system. If it can play on current BR players (which would be the smart move) then it'd just be a higher capacity BR disc. If it's a new format all together (which it sounds like) then yes a new drive is required and it wont be in consumer hands for quite awhile, assuming it ever takes off.

TiberiusEsuriens:

My thoughts exactly. While it's a neat idea, Blu-Ray itself has barely been adopted yet - most people still stick to DVDs. Also, 3x the storage is not nearly a big enough leap for people to really care about. Floppies, disc, DVD, blu-ray; these have all had a leap of several magnitudes (~100x boost). The next major format will only change when people start sharing terabytes if we follow Moore's Law, otherwise this will go the way of laserdisc, betamax, and HD-DVD.

On the otherhand, if they can manage to get Blu-Ray players to read them as well, they'll simply become BluRay+, just like Sony did with the original compression updates. Originally ~14GB, they somehow got the same discs to hold ~33GB, then ~100GB.

I agree completly, if it's some new format then it'll be a long time if ever before it replaces Bluray, which itself has taken long enough to get it's foot in the door.

Adam Jensen:
What the fuck? This isn't good news. We were supposed to be moving away from disc technology!

For long-term and enterprise storage, discs can be much more durable and easier to archive, not to mention that it is far more affordable than flash storage, at least for now.

There are always going to be people (like me) that like having physical copies of Games, Movies and TV Shows. I have a large collection of Movies and TV Series on DVD, and i would never trade it for a reliable streaming service, even if my broadband was super-fast with no usage cap. Streaming services are perfectly fine if you want to watch something new that maybe a friend recommended, or just to sample something you're not sure about, but for things i really like, i can't buy them from Amazon or the local supermarket fast enough.

This is just the next step in what i think is a great product, small, light, and durable. Maybe in a few years something else will appear to take its place, like credit card sized storage, but until then...

Long live Optical Discs.

Adam Jensen:
What the fuck? This isn't good news. We were supposed to be moving away from disc technology!

And what do you suggest for long term storage then?
I use DVDs. The only reason i use them is storage (i dont have a blue ray drive okay?). But they saved my life a few times already.

Adam Jensen:
Digital download is not the only alternative to discs. Why not a USB based storage device? OK, not necessarily USB, but something like that. Something more durable and faster than a disc.

USB sticks? yeah, that may work as a plan B if discs were to somehow dissapear. Cards? they are already only fit for mobile devices, and even then its much better when they use their own HDDs. heck, mobile devices always were the extremely late adopter when it comes to storage space anyway. "you got 10 mb. what is this you want more? nope we dont make such models.". well at least now it begins to get 2-4gb internal storages. Disc is very durable when it comes to longevity. As for speed neither USB nor cards can compare. maybe USB3 could.

gigastar:

Adam Jensen:
What the fuck? This isn't good news. We were supposed to be moving away from disc technology!

Its the same thing with HDD and SSD.

The former is still around purely because its way ahead in sheer capacity.

and relaiability. and longevity. and price. SSD is a great drive on paper. in reality however so far it is a total failure.

bringer of illumination:
What in the bloody hell takes up 300 gigs that you would want to put on an optical disc?

Backups.
I counted last year - i got 660 DVDs for backups and long term storage. its starting to take a bit too much space.

Irridium:
That would mean downloading 300gb.

Good christ even saying that puts a chill down my spine. And a chill down my ~70kb/s connection.

And thus publishers defeated the pirates by making the movies files too big to download for anything but shitty cinema-cam.[/quote]
because stuff like bluerayrip that tales 1400mb does not exist right?

Griffolion:
Erm, why is this news?

But hey, at least Sony remaining commited to physical media means these kinds of leaps for all of us. Though I wonder exactly what 300GB would mean for media at this point? Would that be enough for uncompressed 4K movies with uncompressed 7.1 channel sound data? Dayum, that's an experience.

a truly uncompressed (full frame) 1080p video takes around 4-5GB per minute. a truly uncompressed 1080p movie would not fit on this proposed 300 GB drive. All videos you see on blueray are compressed, msot people never see uncompressed videos in thier entire lives, most people never need to as completely umcompressed videos are needed only when you cant work with higher resolution than the end product your making and need to recode the thing multiple times. In fact, dvds use quite terrible compression method to be honest.....

Strazdas:
USB sticks? yeah, that may work as a plan B if discs were to somehow dissapear. Cards? they are already only fit for mobile devices, and even then its much better when they use their own HDDs. heck, mobile devices always were the extremely late adopter when it comes to storage space anyway. "you got 10 mb. what is this you want more? nope we dont make such models.". well at least now it begins to get 2-4gb internal storages. Disc is very durable when it comes to longevity. As for speed neither USB nor cards can compare. maybe USB3 could.

That's why I said "move away from disc technology". We should work on developing new, more efficient ways to store data.

Strazdas:

and relaiability. and longevity. and price. SSD is a great drive on paper. in reality however so far it is a total failure.

Depends on the market segment, I know that servers with SSDs (NAND) have not had the same failure rate as consumer oriented ones and have had fewer compatibility problems.

Longevity has only been a problem on paper so far, people with consumer SSDs (Samsunb 830 256 GB) have been writing to them at 25 GB/day for months without any sign of degradation (from HardOCP, currently unable to find the link). The failure rate that is given on their respective NAND flash say so and so many 1000 writes before they fail, that is worst case scenario and only at a 3% failure rate per given amount of writes.
Anand(tech) has also addressed the failure rate issue, they haven't found any problems either (outside of firmware problems), unless you will use TLC NAND for business/calculation servers where SLC is intended.

Adam Jensen:

Strazdas:
USB sticks? yeah, that may work as a plan B if discs were to somehow dissapear. Cards? they are already only fit for mobile devices, and even then its much better when they use their own HDDs. heck, mobile devices always were the extremely late adopter when it comes to storage space anyway. "you got 10 mb. what is this you want more? nope we dont make such models.". well at least now it begins to get 2-4gb internal storages. Disc is very durable when it comes to longevity. As for speed neither USB nor cards can compare. maybe USB3 could.

That's why I said "move away from disc technology". We should work on developing new, more efficient ways to store data.

But discs are the most efficient way to store data that we know. sure, invent new one if you will, but dont attack the most efficient one before you done that.

Boris Goodenough:

Strazdas:

and relaiability. and longevity. and price. SSD is a great drive on paper. in reality however so far it is a total failure.

Depends on the market segment, I know that servers with SSDs (NAND) have not had the same failure rate as consumer oriented ones and have had fewer compatibility problems.

Longevity has only been a problem on paper so far, people with consumer SSDs (Samsunb 830 256 GB) have been writing to them at 25 GB/day for months without any sign of degradation (from HardOCP, currently unable to find the link). The failure rate that is given on their respective NAND flash say so and so many 1000 writes before they fail, that is worst case scenario and only at a 3% failure rate per given amount of writes.
Anand(tech) has also addressed the failure rate issue, they haven't found any problems either (outside of firmware problems), unless you will use TLC NAND for business/calculation servers where SLC is intended.

Except that SSDs so far seems to have a realistic lifespan of around 1-2 years. also 25gb/day is small. for example yesterday my HDD went though around 90 GB traffic. Though granted majority of that was read. 1000 writes is a very small number, especially when runing on systems where you rewrite many files often (for example logging).

Strazdas:

Except that SSDs so far seems to have a realistic lifespan of around 1-2 years. also 25gb/day is small. for example yesterday my HDD went though around 90 GB traffic. Though granted majority of that was read. 1000 writes is a very small number, especially when runing on systems where you rewrite many files often (for example logging).

Then I would have lost both my SSDs by now if 1-2 years was realistic. Honestly I haven't heard about this problem before do you have any links? Because the calculations and programs I have seen will put most SDDs at daily usage of around <10 GB/day at around 8-10 years continuous use.
SSDs are for OS and programs, HDDs are for storage, for the regular consumer anyway.

You know, from Sony's description of the disc, it sounds like they're not marketing it towards regular consumers who want to put a movie on it, but rather at industrial scale use; as they say, for cloud storage capacities, movie makers, etc.

In which case, I guess it makes more sense to create a 300GB disc in the online storage day-and-age... Though I wouldn't really know, considering I don't have a clue how those things work :P

RicoADF:

TiberiusEsuriens:

My thoughts exactly. While it's a neat idea, Blu-Ray itself has barely been adopted yet - most people still stick to DVDs. Also, 3x the storage is not nearly a big enough leap for people to really care about. Floppies, disc, DVD, blu-ray; these have all had a leap of several magnitudes (~100x boost). The next major format will only change when people start sharing terabytes if we follow Moore's Law, otherwise this will go the way of laserdisc, betamax, and HD-DVD.

On the otherhand, if they can manage to get Blu-Ray players to read them as well, they'll simply become BluRay+, just like Sony did with the original compression updates. Originally ~14GB, they somehow got the same discs to hold ~33GB, then ~100GB.

I agree completly, if it's some new format then it'll be a long time if ever before it replaces Bluray, which itself has taken long enough to get it's foot in the door.

this is very much the market butting heads with the originators of these formats. they'd be cranking out new formats as hard as they could if they could get away with it. many of the big players even talked openly about it being a means to "renew revenue streams" (ie get people to buy the same stuff more than once) during the first generation change overs to disc media and they envisaged something like a new format every so many years almost casually buuuuuut there are other forces at work which thankfully counter that intent.

virtually no one being able hear better than a CD being one for example and the actual content producers conflicting desire for a stable and high penetration "install base" for them to aim product at being another.

frizzlebyte:

Adam Jensen:
What the fuck? This isn't good news. We were supposed to be moving away from disc technology!

For long-term and enterprise storage, discs can be much more durable and easier to archive, not to mention that it is far more affordable than flash storage, at least for now.

they are also cheap...pennys cheap...once the plants have been up and running a few years.

which means all the rest of the price you pay for a film or game is fat juicy profit.
(minus the flimsy plastic box and sheet of colour printed A4 or whatever ofc).

crepesack :

Yuuki:

crepesack :
SSDs have terrible shelf lives.

It's a bit silly to pull statistics from the times when consumer SSD tech was still new. In more recent times SSD's from Samsung, Intel, and Crucial have far lower failure rates than HDD's from Western Digital, Samsung and Seagate.

crepesack :
Additionally high rpm hdd approach the speeds of SSD easily.

Uhm shelf life isn't the same as failure rate. HDDs hold data pretty much indefinitely. SSDs will die with time. Additionally data recovery form HDDs is significantly easier than with SSD.

And as for the seek times/speed I was told the wrong information. There's no need to be rude on this board.

You have been misinformed, SSD's lose the ability to have new data written to them but the data that is already on them as long as you haven't deleted it by choice will remain permanently. Think of it like a HDD becoming a CD-ROM with age.

Boris Goodenough:

Strazdas:

Except that SSDs so far seems to have a realistic lifespan of around 1-2 years. also 25gb/day is small. for example yesterday my HDD went though around 90 GB traffic. Though granted majority of that was read. 1000 writes is a very small number, especially when runing on systems where you rewrite many files often (for example logging).

Then I would have lost both my SSDs by now if 1-2 years was realistic. Honestly I haven't heard about this problem before do you have any links? Because the calculations and programs I have seen will put most SDDs at daily usage of around <10 GB/day at around 8-10 years continuous use.
SSDs are for OS and programs, HDDs are for storage, for the regular consumer anyway.

thats the thing. on paper SSDs are great.
In realiy, modern SSDs have a 2000-3000 writes burnout as opposed to the hailed 100.000. IF you didnt loose your SSD after 2 years, you either did not use it a whole lot or just got lucky. i got a HDD that spins for 10 years now, does not mean average HDD life isnt 3-5 years.

Strazdas:

thats the thing. on paper SSDs are great.
In realiy, modern SSDs have a 2000-3000 writes burnout as opposed to the hailed 100.000. IF you didnt loose your SSD after 2 years, you either did not use it a whole lot or just got lucky. i got a HDD that spins for 10 years now, does not mean average HDD life isnt 3-5 years.

Ok, let me rephrase, I haven't heard about SSDs failing in the numbers you are describing and I read about 6 tech sites almost each day.
Also the 100k is for some of the early generation Single Level Cell NAND.
And as I said earlier those 1000-3000 writes for MLC is at a 3% failure rate, so at 2000-6000 writes the failure rate would be 1-(1-0.03)^2 ~ 6% failure rate.

While the tech-porn side of my brain gets all warm and fuzzy at this the logic sides questions this. Sony while having a mountain of financial problems flushes even more resources into a system of extremely questionable value. This isnt the 90ies anymore, with disks being the end-all of the market. While many lacks access to high speed digital the market is a lot more divided these days and trying to get back the DVD boom era isnt going to benefit Sony methinks. Besides what thing are going to use that much space besides maybe 4k vids? If you want to get back in the black Sony start working on a practical holodeck. :)

Boris Goodenough:

Strazdas:

thats the thing. on paper SSDs are great.
In realiy, modern SSDs have a 2000-3000 writes burnout as opposed to the hailed 100.000. IF you didnt loose your SSD after 2 years, you either did not use it a whole lot or just got lucky. i got a HDD that spins for 10 years now, does not mean average HDD life isnt 3-5 years.

Ok, let me rephrase, I haven't heard about SSDs failing in the numbers you are describing and I read about 6 tech sites almost each day.
Also the 100k is for some of the early generation Single Level Cell NAND.
And as I said earlier those 1000-3000 writes for MLC is at a 3% failure rate, so at 2000-6000 writes the failure rate would be 1-(1-0.03)^2 ~ 6% failure rate.

There are no realiable failure rate statistics. as this fine article will show you, no relaiable failure rates are known and studies are all over the place. However user reviews and datacenters replacing them much more often than HHDs speaks another story.
And 6% failure rate is massive for data storage.

As person who has photography as hobby and shoots raw, yes my files are just huge. Working with them in the best quality after light room 4.. it is all huge.

So a 300Gbyte storage format is good news. Not joking I already switched to blu-ray for backups of my images. maybe it will take another 6 years but 300Gbyte is good news to come. Also for those who make gameplay videos, lets plays reviews, do you know how big 1080p files are? Yeah they are HUGE!

I wonder if there will be a day when there are movies and games so massive, you have to submit for written approval from your ISP to download them.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.