Blu-ray is king.

[her34]

Originally posted by: VisionxOrb
This thread also fails to mention that tri layer HD-dvd disk have been able to be produced with good success and its rumored that even the orignial toshiba hd-dvd player with original firmware support the disks unoffically. That brings the possible hd-dvd capacity up to 45 gigs vs the vaporware dual layer 50gb blu-ray.

triple layer is the vaporware as it may never be implemented. dual layer blu-ray is reality since last year.

and triple layer only solves the capacity limitiation of hd-dvd. it doesn't address the bandwidth limitation.

 

[Evilhomer99]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Tape has plenty of problems of its own - it requires large equipment, it still suffers from degredation, and seek time is bloody awful. The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

Find me the business of any significant size doing mass backup on BluRay?

 

[sparks]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Tape has plenty of problems of its own - it requires large equipment, it still suffers from degredation, and seek time is bloody awful. The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

I think I would need 200 BD disks per day to do my 10TB of daily backups, not quite cost effective wouldn't you say?

 

[hardcandy2]

And I believe the "commercial IT" sector is using offsite hard drives to do backups these days- tape and dvd's are too limiting for size, etc. Local businesses may be using tape,etc but for the corporate sector, from talking to various people, offsite servers are the way to go.
As far as Blu-ray versus HD-DVD, I like both and will use both.
I use Acronic True Image on a portable eSATA drive for backups

 

[protege5demon]

Originally posted by: VisionxOrb
This thread also fails to mention that tri layer HD-dvd disk have been able to be produced with good success and its rumored that even the orignial toshiba hd-dvd player with original firmware support the disks unoffically. That brings the possible hd-dvd capacity up to 45 gigs vs the vaporware dual layer 50gb blu-ray.

http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4907181?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

Might want to start looking things up before talking about vaporware. I'm not saying this is "affordable", but DL blu-ray discs exist and I can go pick one up in about 20 minutes if I felt like.

 

[xtreme26]

Originally posted by: kedlav

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Blu-ray can't lose the high-def format war.

Why?

It's too bloody useful.

Unlike normal DVDs, HD-DVD has pretty much no support for the desktop PC, and does not mark an advancement in storage technology.

Blu-ray, on the other hand, is an effective backup media, capable of storing 27gb now, with larger capacity discs soon to come. Sooner or later, much like CD-ROMs, we're all going to end up needing it anyway.

HD-DVD is in many ways a superior format at the moment - it's fine for 90% of HDTVs sold today, the players are cheap enough to produce, and even the media is less expensive - I'm more likely to buy a HD-DVD player than a blu-ray player because I'd rather buy a modestly price 720p 32" Olevia LCD and a HD-DVD player (about $900 total) than buy a HD-DVD player for use with my 13" Magnavox ($900.) However, HD-DVD will only last so long before blu-ray equipment becomes cheap - and when that happens, it's "hasta la vista, HD-DVD".

For the meantime, we have sony's PS3 pushing blu-ray - unlike the Xbox360, all PS3s have the new DVD standard built in, and many people are getting their first taste of truly high-def movies from the PS3 as a result.

As a side note, blue diode lasers (like those in blu-ray players) are really, really useful - they're also very new. Much like CD players (which, when first released, also cost $900 - just as much as a top-notch blu-ray player) in the 80's, the parts are a bit pricey to manufacture - but that will change very, very fast, with increased demand both from enterprise-level computing and for Sony's console.

First, HDDVD players are outselling BD players. Before the PS3, the rate was 3:1, figures haven't been updated since, though I assume its pretty close to parity now. Just as importantly, the attach rate for HDDVDs significantly exceeds that of BD, and this has only been growing as more BD players are selling to a market that traditionally has inferior attach rates(Playstations as only household player). Furthermore, as HDDVD addon drives are selling as an independent unit, it is likely they will have a higher attach rate than most PS3s. While volume is important, it doesn't mean squat if no one's buying the videos. Funny also how HDDVD is fine only for 90% of the TVs, when the Toshiba is, to the best of my knowledge, compatible with every TV on the market today, whereas PS3s have serious known issues that Sony may or may not be able to resolve with older HD sets. BD has a lot going for it, mostly studio support, but if the ship looks to be sinking(which it isn't on either side), the sharks at the movie companies will jump ship faster than you could imagine.

As far as data backup, well, the only place it sells in significant volume is within the commercial IT sector, where expensive 50GB discs are not the ideal medium for backing up data when reliable, cheaper tape medium is available. Fanbois like yourself, as well as nerds like myself will not buy BD media in sufficient numbers for this to be a driving force for the adoption of the media, its only a small bonus that's a drop of water in the big ocean...

fanboys? hahaha where did he ever bash hddvd to make it seem like blu ray pwns hddvd in everyway...i think you're the fanboy in this case

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Tape has plenty of problems of its own - it requires large equipment, it still suffers from degredation, and seek time is bloody awful. The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

As an added bonus, 50GB+ discs will be on the market not too long from now - that's more than comparable to a tape cassette.

Staging from disk to tapes is about the latest "major innovation" in enterprise backup solutions.
Keep anywhere from 1-2 TB and up of S-ATA based storage for near line storage and stage it out to your tape library as it ages and/or the disk fills up, for fresh backups(which is what the vast majority of restores are), you'll get faster backups than with tape or optical discs, and you get the benefits of large tape libraries as well.

And a 50 GB disc isn't anywhere near modern tape medium.
LTO-3 is out now and can hold 400 GB of data uncompressed on one tape, I'd wager by the time 50 GB BD discs become readily available, LTO-4 will be out with the capacity increased to 800 GB.

Tape will be around for a long long time unless some new revolutionary technology comes out, and I very much doubt that when(if) it eventually gets replaced, it will be by optical discs.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Tape has plenty of problems of its own - it requires large equipment, it still suffers from degredation, and seek time is bloody awful. The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

As an added bonus, 50GB+ discs will be on the market not too long from now - that's more than comparable to a tape cassette.

Staging from disk to tapes is about the latest "major innovation" in enterprise backup solutions.
Keep anywhere from 1-2 TB and up of S-ATA based storage for near line storage and stage it out to your tape library as it ages and/or the disk fills up, for fresh backups(which is what the vast majority of restores are), you'll get faster backups than with tape or optical discs, and you get the benefits of large tape libraries as well.

And a 50 GB disc isn't anywhere near modern tape medium.
LTO-3 is out now and can hold 400 GB of data uncompressed on one tape, I'd wager by the time 50 GB BD discs become readily available, LTO-4 will be out with the capacity increased to 800 GB.

Tape will be around for a long long time unless some new revolutionary technology comes out, and I very much doubt that when(if) it eventually gets replaced, it won't be by optical discs.

Its pretty clear he made up that statement to defend his position, and didn't realize exactly whom he was talking to

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
Tape has plenty of problems of its own - it requires large equipment, it still suffers from degredation, and seek time is bloody awful. The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

As an added bonus, 50GB+ discs will be on the market not too long from now - that's more than comparable to a tape cassette.

Staging from disk to tapes is about the latest "major innovation" in enterprise backup solutions.
Keep anywhere from 1-2 TB and up of S-ATA based storage for near line storage and stage it out to your tape library as it ages and/or the disk fills up, for fresh backups(which is what the vast majority of restores are), you'll get faster backups than with tape or optical discs, and you get the benefits of large tape libraries as well.

And a 50 GB disc isn't anywhere near modern tape medium.
LTO-3 is out now and can hold 400 GB of data uncompressed on one tape, I'd wager by the time 50 GB BD discs become readily available, LTO-4 will be out with the capacity increased to 800 GB.

Tape will be around for a long long time unless some new revolutionary technology comes out, and I very much doubt that when(if) it eventually gets replaced, it won't be by optical discs.

Its pretty clear he made up that statement to defend his position, and didn't realize exactly whom he was talking to

But I'm bored waiting for my laundry to finish

I also wrote the exact opposite of what I really meant in the last paragraph...this isn't a good day for me...
Bah, I wrote all kinds of things wrong...crap

 

[Fox5]

Bluray won't take off for recordable technology.
Dual layer HDDVD disks hold around 30GB and are cheaper than a single layer 25GB blu ray disk. Of course, dual layer dvds haven't even taken off as a mass market item yet, 95% of all recordable media sold is single layer dvds or cds, because dual layer costs too much. HD-DVD will take over because it will be cheaper than blu-ray, and for all intents and purposes is an equivalent technology from a consumer perspective.
Portable harddrives are also picking up in volume and can hold far more than blu ray and have usable performance as a storage drive rather than just as a backup drive.

It baffles me when people talk about the future of storage capacity. It's great that a CD, or DVD can maintain data for "100 years" (unproven, of course). Well, it doesn't matter if it can be proven. The technology 100 years later will be unable to read the data off of such an archaic format.

Writable disks can't hold anywhere near that, lifespan is actually only about 5 to 10 years. (I believe rewritables are a bit heartier)

 

[BladeVenom]

Holographic drives have already started shipping, and they are using 300 GB discs.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

Digital video is even worse - high-def camcorders, which are now dropping in price to the point where any television studio can afford one, can use an absurd 27mb/s for COMPRESSED video - that's only 30 minutes on a dual-layer blu-ray disc, or roughly three minutes on a standard DVD-R. (And don't get me started on uncompressed video - 323mb/s!)

http://red.com/workflow.htm

As a side note, I would like to point out that I think HD-DVD is a great format for watching movies - I'd rather buy a HD-DVD than a blu-ray disc, partially due to my dislike of sony.

Not sure why you mentioned Red Cinema's workflow. I am a Red fanboy and been onboard when Jim Jannard first started disclosing what was coming down with Red via DvInfo Net. But so you know, you have it listed incorrectly (your math is right). RAW is 323 MB/s not Mb. Grahme Nattress and team are getting compression at 27MB/s, which is sustainable on SATAII without much heartburn. That is 4k at 60p. Red also will do 2k at 120p.

As for TV stations being able to afford HD before, that is not true. The cameras they use for ENG (Electronic News Gathering) have always been > $20-40k while the studio cameras were >$90k. Add a live broadcast truck and you could retire The more expensive stuff is all the freaking broadcast equipment. The realtime Character Generators for titles cost an arm and a leg as they have to mix the video signal and overlay it with the text as a new stream. And they don't sell thousands of them, so cost even more.

And so we get the price right, the Toshiba A1 HD-DVD standalone player was $499 at Fry's about a month ago. The A2 ships this month.

 

[sparks]

My company buys LTO tapes by the thousands, Optical disks will never be cost effective enough to displace that.

 

[Oyeve]

Betamax was superior to VHS in every way yet it still loss the tape war. Primarily due to Sony being stupid for not lettng other companies make Betamax units until it was too late and for the public choosing VHS' 8 hour SLP over Beta's 5 1/2 hour capacity. I personally dont care who wins as I am not going HDTV until a real standard appears and the quality of the TVs are up to my spec. I will wait and see how LaserTV, due this year, pans out. Supposed to look twice as sharp as Plasma with half the thickness and twice the life.

 

[sparks]

At this point there is no clear leader, HD-DVD is selling more movies, but there is more studio support for BD. If I were a content provider, I would master my HD content for the lowest common denominator, which is 30GB. They both utilize the same codecs so I can use the same video files for either. It would lower the costs of supporting both formats. Lets face it its not about technical superiority, its about the green. HD-DVD movies are selling better, the players are cheaper and up until recently their quality has been superior to their BD counterparts (Tru-HD and DD+). BD also has to overcome the public perception of the term "DVD", they know what that is and their assumption is HD-DVD is the next defacto standard.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: VisionxOrb
This thread also fails to mention that tri layer HD-dvd disk have been able to be produced with good success and its rumored that even the orignial toshiba hd-dvd player with original firmware support the disks unoffically. That brings the possible hd-dvd capacity up to 45 gigs vs the vaporware dual layer 50gb blu-ray.

...well, wow. You're right! I'm amazed that they managed to squash so much data on there. Perhaps this will last us until UV lasers are released.

I guess that blu-ray might be the next DAT tape: Great format, but the way that it's used is just silly.

Originally posted by: bsobel

The "commercial IT sector" has been backing things up on DVDs for ages for exactly this reason - and, from what I've heard, it's being adopted pretty fast as the new best way to back up data.

No they have not in any large scales. I work for the largest backup software provider in the world, we know what our customers are using

For backing up data, tape is great. However, using it as one uses a CD does not work well at all. (Once again, the seek times are awful.) As I've said before, tape is not appropriate for storing media - constantly winding it back and forth will cause it to wear out quickly.

 

[fireandicefuel]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Wrong forum and as someone here for over 2 years you should know better.

haha

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: fireandicefuel

Originally posted by: bsobel
Wrong forum and as someone here for over 2 years you should know better.

haha

The thread was originally in Highly Technical (thats when that comment was made) we since moved it here to GH. In the future, if you have nothing to add, feel free to stay out of the thread.

 

[randomlinh]

you're reasoning is heavily flawed. The cost of blu-ray, right now, is over HDDVD. That is a SIGNIFICANT factor for the masses. With that said, HDDVD ain't cheap either. It is not a prime time for HD material to take over DVD. Neither one can be claimed "king." The PS3 is an abysmal sale right now since, well, it's a GAMING console. No one buys it for the "cheap" blu-ray player. And the good games aren't here yet. And $600 is a lot to ask for a starting price.

Not to say the PS3 isn't good for a HTPC gaming type box.. but I don't believe the masses are ready for that. They can barely figure out and understand windows....

As far as backing up... you put waaaay too much emphasis on it. At best, home users will use it for back up. I only use DVD as a tertiary backup because I'm broke.. ha. Anything of true value though is also duplicated at work. Speaking of work... our backups are disk and tape based. I don't forsee any optical media in the near future as anything useful in the corporate type world

 

[QuantumPion]

I just hope somebody wins, as opposed to a stalemate like the SACD/DVD-A war leading to neither taking hold.

 

[Evilhomer99]

Pffff, All of you guys have it way wrong. We all know LASERDISC is king, now if you will excuse me, I'm going to watch Aladin on my Laserdisc player............

 

[sparks]

LG is creating a hybrid player and Time Warner is creating a hybrid HD/BD disk so in a sense, someone will win, whichever technology is cheaper to manufacture will probably win out.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: sparks
LG is creating a hybrid player and Time Warner is creating a hybrid HD/BD disk so in a sense, someone will win, whichever technology is cheaper to manufacture will probably win out.

I think the hybrid disks and the combo players will make this a non issue (much like dvd+ vs dvd-). Just a little noisy in the meantime, but 2 years from now I think the majority players handle both and the studios master for the least common denominator (as far as mastered size)

Bill

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Here's how I see it:

There is no "war." Blu-ray v. HD-DVD is likened to the Betamax v. VHS conflict, but that is a flawed analogy. A better analogy would be DVD+R/W v. DVD-R/W, which was resolved by drives adapting to both technologies. Even DVD-RAM, which was almost dead in 2005, capped a revival in 2006 as integration became cheaper and therefore standard.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD will both have their place, with no true winner, provided of course that dual-format drives eventually become available. HD-DVD appears to have a popularity advantage with the home theatre sector, while Blu-ray operates exclusively in the PC arena. That trend will hold true for some time, I'd imagine, but regardless of what happens, neither technology will be stamped out as was betamax.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
There is no "war." Blu-ray v. HD-DVD is likened to the Betamax v. VHS conflict, but that is a flawed analogy.

Indeeed! The two home VTR formats could not have been more different whereas the two HD disc formats could not be more similar. They use the same codecs and essentially the same hardware to read physically similar (and one might say mechanically identical) discs.

However as the importance of the physical medium is rapidly becoming "quaint" the real concern is increasingly about the consumer's license for playback on a variety of hardware so even the player itself becomes less important.

But even putting that aside, the home movie tapes of ye olde 1970's were not sold to consumers but rather priced exclusively for rental, were not available after a few months but rather lagged theatrical releases by years, degraded with use rather than maintaining their value and had no practical way to be exchanged person to person worldwide or rented or licensed as today -a consequence of both compact, easily mailable mediums and the internets.

Moreover, the consumer market itself was not as large then but then not as fractured either. This time around there is already a popular preceding home format (DVD) and more viable competion in significant chunks of the world market from the likes of EVD & FVD.

And yes, either (or any) blue-violet laser format could serve a niche in the writable market just as UDO has for half a decade (or less so PDP) but again, even if we put that aside and just concentrate on home video there are enough factors contributing to a situation where no physical format today is assured a resounding success but at the same time is neither doomed to rapid extinction.