If you think those
50GB Blu-ray blanks are asking a bit much from the ole wallet, and haven't found a Blu-ray burner without all sorts of issues to begin with, TDK is moving forward anyway with its latest
twist on Blu-ray technology. It's only fitting that the same folks bringing us the
200GB variety have announced their plans to drop a smaller, more compact version, and that's precisely what happened at today's CEATEC festivities. The 8-centimeter recordable disc handles 16.5GB on a single layer, and is being designed for next generation camcorders, such as the ones
Hitachi's been showing off at the same show. Although nothing definitive has been said, the groundwork has apparently been laid for a dual-layer variety (that's 33GB for those still counting) to hit shelves in the even-more-distant future.
[Via
Ubergizmo]
posted Oct 5th 2006 5:49PM
But the "information" about the capacity of a 8-cm BD (16.5GB/33GB) is actually - completely wrong!
Even an 8cm DL BD has less than 16.5GB, because it is ... 15.5GB! ;-)
Look to the BD Faq by Hugh Bennett:
http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11420
The guy knows what he says.
So, which idiot tells that one layer has 16.5GB? How could this even be, compared to 25GB for 12cm?
An 8cm disc has about 1/3 of the capacity of a 12cm disc. It doesn't matter if it is CD, DVD, HD-DVD or BD, because this is the difference in disc area.
Maybe Engadget should check its "sources" a little bit better?
I won't post more on this, because these are the facts. You can't argue with this.
Now it is time for Sony to create a UMD-BD
im a hd hvd guy down with blu-ray !!
Haha, even mini-BR discs has more space than standard HDDVD...
Remember Betamax was better quality than VHS and look who won.
Dedicated to "Treolvr":
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6909/pana13tx9.jpg
Blu-ray basically owns HD-DVD in terms of support. But I guess you just hate Blu-ray for the sake of hating something.
I want the the size of quarters
Yes, because of porn.
now, theoretically couldnt hollywood sell movies on these bite sized guys? maybe not full HD, but at least better than DVD quality.. sounds like a good idea to me... cos isnt smaller and more compact the way technology of this sort is SUPPOSED to progress? just a thought.
I think it is still up in the air as to which format will win. History has shown that whether a product is technologically better than another, or has more or less support than another, does not guarantee its success or failure. So, at this point, it is still a "wait and see" game.
http://www.lunareclipse.com/?blu-ray-quad-calendar
As for Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, I don't give a flip either way. Blu-Ray looks really great for data backup, as three Blu-Ray discs could hold my entire harddrive. :P
One question though: are the small ones cheaper than normal sized?
I'd say so, but you never know.
Nice. Can't wait for the new Blu-ray camcorder lineups.
Hey! I want this now for data, music and movies and forget that huge phyisicly oversized 12cm format for everything. I am sitting here looking at all the storage boxes I have and spindles I have for CD's & DVD's... and it just takes up to much room. Lets all go to the 8cm format and then the manufactures can keep uping the capacity to 200TB or whatever to there hearts content!
Did God hear my prayers?!
> I want the the size of quarters
Not yet there - but we are on right track.
UMD-BD would be a good idea - but I sort'a feel creepy about Sony.
Memory Stick was one of the first and one of the best. (Probably even now it is best.) Yet, Secure Digital due friendly licensing terms had won over all crowd. And where MS is now?
In other words, I would rather believe in UMD-HD-DVD rather than awaiting for Sony's blessing for UMD-BD.
Good, now where are the Blu-Ray UMDs?