TDK stacks 10 layers on a single 320GB disc
By Richard Lawler 
posted Oct 2nd 2009 4:27PM
posted Oct 2nd 2009 4:27PM
[Via Hot Hardware]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
okay and what would you use that much space for o.o
my God imagine ps3 games on that
Right, because that extra storage space is making ps3 games so superior to their 360 counterparts.
@streetfights
GTA4 was gimped because of the limited storage of the 360's DVD drive
@streetfights
killdamnzade never mentioned anything about the 360.....
Funny how the PS3 version of GTA4 is the most technically inferior, because of the slow Blu-Ray drive in the PS3, it requires a mandatory 4gb install, LOL!
See MGS4.
Its true, GTA4 is the worst on the PS3, lowest resolution as well as the mandatory installation.
BTW, I am a PC fanboy, not 360 fanboy.
Fuck you Nerdi Desi, I have all 3 versions, and the PC version(I get 50FPS avg) has serious probs, the PS3 version and 360 versions are both ok, but the PS3 wins because of the controller. And the res is the same on PS3/360.
oops I accidentally pressed your low-rank button... sorry!
Just when I was about to write off optical.
sh!t... I pressed it too. Something screwy is going on here.
Sweet, now instead of wasting 5Mbps of bandwidth on Blu-ray movies, they can waste 10-15Mbps! Movies will look even more the same as ever!
TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!
Storage media is good for more than just movies.
hell yeah to that!
Say Toy Story in 3D today
was brilliant!
Saw* god damnit >.
Sorry, I don't trust optical media for long-term storage. Been burned too many times there. We have better options now.
>> @hexydes @ >> "Sorry, I don't trust optical media for long-term storage. Been burned too many times there. We have better options now."
Like spinning mechanical hard disks?
Or should we go back to tape drives?
I agree with hexydes. Optical storage media sucks unless pressed. It only stays good for about a year and then you have to re-burn it. Give me a HDD any day over a burnt disc. It'll last much longer than either BD or SSD.
@ Michael
there are other options, less fragile ones, faster to copy to ones, ones that won't die on your shelf just by sitting there and even ones that don't require 20 discs just to back up the smallest (1tb) hdd's available now. Cheaper ones as well. Also ones with higher density and even ones that let u change the data on them like a hdd. Oh yeah and cheaper and safer to ship to ur client. Talking of the client even ones they will be able to read since penetration of bluray readers into the pc market is minimal.
Ur basic 32gb flash drive for example sits nicely against a 50g bluray disc. Safer, longer lasting, cheaper, more flexible, readable, faster, non mechanical, unlikely to die from exposure to sunlight, cheaper to ship and ur client will be able to access the data.
Sony has a excellent track record in introducing useless optical formats that fade away into the dust. Bluray is no exception.
Its alright... I did too....
It still blows my mind how lasers can focus on multiple layers.
Really? Of all the things you can blow your mind with?
*focus*
Did my comment blow your mind too?
It still blows my mind that they are showcasing this technology when other companies have been announcing it 5-6 years ago as well... and still, to this day, these 10-layer discs are as real as our futuristic flying cars, promised by the great "Back to the Future" movies!
it's a problem with the gigawatts, there is just not enough!
i pressed it on purpose.
Screw it attention wh*res!.
Its cool because:
The moar space then the merrier.
But..
Sadly i don't think you can buy (in a near future) a burner to use such amount of space, neither to buy a cheap media to do it.
And to think I've been throwing away the free disc that come with every spool that I buy.
LOL
So.....much.......porn!!!!!
Haha your avatar fits the words so well :D
+1
YAOD: Yet Another Optical Disk!
I'm only interested if our current Blu-Ray drives can read these higher capacity disks.
That's great that I can now cut through 10 dvd's at a time, but what if I set to "kill"?
Strange that my negative button turned into a check with 'voted' next to it. Sadly I don't think your comments get any dimmer.
Editors: Is there any way you can setup a ranking so low that the comment completes its fade into obscurity?
I'm so glad there are more companies out there look at the current DVD technology and seeing how much it can be improved. With TDK able to hit 320gigs on a Disc and GE just earlier this year was around 500gigs and now hitting over 1TB. I'm glad there is going to be options for moving from DVD to Blu-ray or going from Blu-ray back to DVD or not even jumping to Blu-ray and just see how the future looks in Disc storage in the next 2 years.
How will digital storage look in 2 years? About the same as it does now. They had working 50GB discs back in 2000, and plans to improve that to a terrabyte. The technology has been around for nearly a decade and it hasn't changed anything yet. I'm betting we'll start to see this in use in another 5-10 years...which is pretty sad really. It should _not_ take two decades to go from working prototype to consumer product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Multilayer_Disc
Anyone else a bit annoyed with these promises of a brighter, more capacitive future, and yet not being able to pick these discs up? I'm all for the future, but god damn I hate knowing I can't get future stuff NOW.
Did anybody see a box above egghead???
Ugh. It's called FMD, and they had working prototypes at COMDEX in 2000.
*snore* yet _ANOTHER_ company claiming to have invented technology that's been around for nearly a decade. And It wasn't exactly a new idea back then either, though AFAIK they were the first to actually make one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Multilayer_Disc
Interesting that upon reading the development section of that page it says it was pulled due to being a hoax.
While it essentially gets more storage on the disc like this method, it sounds like they aren't using the same tech.
Well... I believe this might be a step closer, I guess..
Just imagine tossing away all those crappy compression formats (like the one on BluRay Movies) and supporting 9 Gb x264 movies for the same (well.. almost the same) quality.
Anyone could stuff the whole ..say... Disney cartoon collection on just 1 320 Gb (or maybe 2) on HiDef :)
Now we need a reader that can read all that info and put it on screen :D
That would be the '!'
What convenience. You can write 320 GB of data in 13 hours or so.
Test
Negative attention is still attention, y'know.
Whatever spin you put on this, it's old technology being upgraded to increase its capacity.
Before some nerd tells me I'm wrong (and they will), there is an economic dimension which cannot be ignored. i.e. just how much will the drive and the spare discs cost? If it's too much, then, whatever spin you put on it, the thing simply won't sell.
Currently a 1TB hard drive is about $100 (and falling).
Buy a 'stage rack' and you can plug these things in at will, meaning that you could have a shelf full of reliable storage with no compatibility problems whatsoever (hard discs are still the main storage of all computers and all the evidence is that this is likely to be the case for as far as can be seen into the future). Also, very little - if any - risk of deterioration of contents. Unlike all cd, dvd, blu-ray and the like. Also ask your self this one How long are Sony et al going to continue to make this thing? Only as long as it sells, then, they'll introduce some totally incompatible storage method as a replacement in order to stimulate sales. Seagate can't do this, doesn't need to to do it and certainly won't do it - unless of course they suddenly develop a need for Japanese style business suicide.
Blu-Ray is a blind alley technology, it still isn't selling in anything like the quantity its predecessors sold (dvd and cd) despite journalistic hype. It might be 'better' - whatever that is! But then, so is a Ferrari and a Bentley - but I can't afford those either.
Great , just make it available soon !
I don't even use dual layer DVD's because they cost about 5x what regular DVD-R's cost. Dual Layer BD-R's will never be ubiquitous let alone ten layer.
At this point I have to agree with whoever mentioned hard drives being much cheaper for storage. I just saw a 1.5TB Seagate external drive for $120 the other day. Optical media is becoming increasingly pointless.
Put all of Star Wars onto one disc and some one will buy it. Why drop a dime on a multi layer blu-ray disc when you can go get an external drive?
Why do they keep showing these things off. They should get round to releasing some of them!
Beta, MiniDisc and UMD will soon have some company.