No more DvD's

[Fez Wizardo]

Hello Blue Ray

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

Replacement for DVD unveiled


16:50 19 February 02

The world's Big Nine electronics companies have swallowed corporate pride and agreed on a single standard and name - Blu-Ray - for the next generation video and computer optical disc. Although good for the consumer, they are putting the future of their fledgling recordable DVD systems in jeopardy.
Blu-Ray is backed by Hitachi, LG, Matsu****a (Panasonic), Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony and Thomson. Only Toshiba, the main inventor of DVD, and JVC, which has a vested interest in VHS, are missing.

The new format will use a blue laser for recording and playback. A single-sided 12 centimetre Blu-Ray disc stores 27GB of computer data, records 13 hours of broadcast TV or holds 2 hours of High Definition video.

Prototypes already exist, and have been demonstrated by Philips, Sony and Panasonic. Licensing for manufacture begins within a couple of months and the first Blu-Ray recorders could go on sale next year.


Bad news


This could be very bad news for the three rival and incompatible recordable DVD systems, DVD-RAM (Panasonic), DVD-RW (Pioneer) and DVD+RW (Philips), which are just going on sale.

All use a red laser, with 650 nm wavelength, and can only store 4.7 GB on a single sided DVD. TV recording time is only one hour in best quality mode, and two, three or four hours with compromised pictures. Data capacity is inadequate for non-stop backup of a PC hard drive. The data transfer rate, around 10 Mbps, is not fast enough for high quality video.

A blue laser, with a 405 nm wavelength, can focus light more tightly into a smaller spot and so cram more data on a 12 centimetre disc. The data streams at 36 Mbps, which is fast enough for HDTV. As with recordable DVD, the recording is made in a phase change coating. Blu-Ray uses a very thin layer, 0.1 millimetres thick, to stop any tilt of the disc optically distorting the laser beam.


Everything is different


The 27 GB capacity will increase later to 50GB, thanks to dual layer discs, proposed by Panasonic.

The Blu-Ray group is still discussing whether the disc can be naked or must be housed in a protective cartridge.

Existing CD and DVD players and recorders will not be able to use Blu-Ray discs. New Blu-Ray players will need infra-red, red and blue lasers if they are also to play all kinds of CD and DVD recordings.

Speaking from the press launch in Tokyo, Chris Buma of Philips, says: "Except for the size of the disc, everything is different".


Barry Fox


BETAMAX VS VHS PART II!!!!

[mightymose]

Damn!!!! Laurie or Spuds, any comments?

[spudracer]

What was not mentioned was the fact that these new systems run at a cool $2,000, if I'm not mistaken.

Don't go throwing your collection away just yet. :D

[mightymose]

Well at least I won't have to worry about it for awhile then... LOL. I still enjoy my tapes, so I doubt I'll completely disregard DVD's b/c a new system comes out :)

[spudracer]

I think it will be a long long long long looooooooooooooooong time before DVDs are totally out of the picture.

[mecurdius]

definatly dvd's are the new video tape, changing it again wont work.

[Guy]

I spent so much money on my 30 DVDs! I feel betrayed by the studios.

[mightymose]

Agreed. The studios spent a lot of time and money hyping DVD's and seem to have commited to the format for quite some time. I really can't see them turning their backs on us DVD addicts like they did on the Laser discs... might have a riot on their hands :)

[Yoda]

Yes, there's little to worry about, IMO. There's just too much of a DVD community at this point. It's massive. I'm not worried about my DVDs become obsolete in the least. They're far too engrained into all of us already. I'd be shocked outta my shoes if such an attempt was even made, let alone if it suceeded.

[spudracer]

They won't ditch DVDs...not since the price of players has come down so much.

Everything about them is so affordable now that they're more mainstream than they were say 2 years ago.

[The Silver Bullet]

Who cares?

The Gamecube is coming, and I'm not ditching my 64. I love it too much. So a new video player thing is coming? So? I'll keep my DVD's and my player and one day I'll watch the films I love so.

If everyone is so concerned about such things, ultimately, you need to stop buying ANYTHING. Because a day later, it'll have nicer lacing, shinier silver, more cushions, better graphics, whiter paper, leadier graphite pencil, and a truckload more RAM.

Everything is out of date.
Love it! Enjoy it! Just don't worry about it!

[spudracer]

:laugh: Exactly Silver.

[Fez Wizardo]

I'm more worried about how I'm going to be able to download 28gigs worth of data.

They better reduce costs of T3 connections.

Although I'm sure someone will come up with decent compression software like DivX.

shoot. did I just say that out loud.

Dvd's have driven the prices of VHS down to about £3-£5 for a decent flick. That is very cheap. If blu-ray can do that to DVD's I can die richer.

[spudracer]

Amen to that

[mecurdius]

Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Who cares?

The Gamecube is coming, and I'm not ditching my 64.



i agree with everything else you said, but video game systems are different. You plan on them coming out and me and most of the people i know save up for them and get all excited.

[B&W]

The Gamecube is coming, and I'm not ditching my 64.
Gamecube sux compared to the X-Box or PS2.
And then again my computer (which i bought before any of the above 3 machines came out) is more/at least as powerful.

By the way does anyone know if they'll make Blu-Ray Drives for the computer while they're at it? Cause a disc that will hold 50Gb of data would be mean!

[spudracer]

Probably not at first, but they would eventually. You're not thinking of the cost of these things though.

You're saying "50gb, WOAH", you're not thinking about the cost of these systems. $2,000 WOAH!!

[Yoda]

Gamecube sux compared to the X-Box or PS2.
And then again my computer (which i bought before any of the above 3 machines came out) is more/at least as powerful.
Pshaw. My GameCube is amazing. GREAT games. Very addictive. PS2 is formidable...but X-Box...well, GC rolls right over it.

As for the computer: well, sure, but it can freeze up. :) My GameCube runs smoothly. Hey, to each their own...I love GameCube, though.

[mightymose]

I have an X-box and am loving it... The only reason I didn't get the Gamecube is b/c Nintendo focuses so much on the younger market that a lot of time they seem to be lacking in the kickass shoot 'em up type games. I know that I always felt a bit left out when I had a 64 and everyone else had a PS2 (though Bond on 64 is still the greatest game of all time!). One thing I will say for Nintendo... they know how to get more out of their system then any other developer out there. The graphics are amazing, despite the fact that their processor isn't as fast as the X-box (same thing with the 64 and Super Nintendo).

[spudracer]

mecurdius took the liberty of starting a thread in the Intermission: Miscellaneous Chat forum on gaming systems. :)

[B&W]

You're saying "50gb, WOAH", you're not thinking about the cost of these systems. $2,000 WOAH!!

Wouldn't DVD systems have initially cost more than 2 grand?
but having said that, I wish 'those guys' (they know who they are) would just increase the DVD technology 'cause so many people own DVDs.

Anyone remember those cds the size of records that held movies on them? They cost so much and people were scared that the technology wouldn't stay, so hardly anyone bought them which meant those who did, were screwed.

[spudracer]

You mean Laserdisc?

Holden has a library of them so I wouldn't go shaking your finger at them. :D

[Holden Pike]

Yes, I have over 600 LaserDiscs (those big record-sized CDs with movies on 'em), with more trickling in all the time, thanks to eBay. I wouldn't say I'm "screwed" at all. I have a durable high-end video format and an extensive library, including such movies as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Empire Strikes Back, letterboxed with terrific sound. These are movies that still have no release date for DVD, yet I've been enjoying them since about 1993. And of course there are dozens of others, from blockbusters to the obscure, that are not on DVD yet either (and some of the more obscure discs may 'never' be).

When you say "hardly anyone bought" LaserDiscs, that's true. Hardly anyone bought LDs except those of us who were diehard film nuts and home theater enthusiasts, those of us who take films and our collections seriously. You couldn't buy LDs at Wal-Mart or the local supermarket, that's true, and the cost per disc was definitely higher (aout twice as much as a DVD). Yet because it was a true collector's format, there was never any debate about whether films should be released in the original aspect ratios, if there should be insulting copy-guard protection encoded, or if extensive supplemental materials were cost-effective for the studios.

In many ways, I miss the good ol' LaserDisc days. If having the film library I have means I'm somehow "screwed", then I consider myself very happily screwed. You know, kinda like Prom night.

[spudracer]

:laugh::rolleyes::laugh:

Holden your comebacks to someone bashing something you like are always hilarious.

[B&W]

I wouldn't say I'm "screwed" at all.

Yeah i just meant that you can't keep building your collection after you spent how much on those 600 films?
And its gonna be pretty hard if you wanna turn those LaserDiscs into digital format onto your computer before they get scratched, isn't it?

[spudracer]

If you take good care of them you have nothing to worry about. :)

[B&W]

O.K. anyways can you tell me how much 600 of those Laserdiscs would cost?

[spudracer]

Well if an average LaserDisc cost twice that of a DVD (around $20).. Take $60 x 600. :)

:eek: Do you realize how much money you have their Holden!? :eek:

Came out to around $36,000

[Holden Pike]

Some of my 600 LDs I got for as little as $7-$15. Others were as much as $130 (Criterion's Brazil was that much new). Some were gifts, and a good many were bought used (especially the last few years, obviously). But the bulk were somewhere between $30 and $40, I'd say. That averages out to more like $21,000 spent on LDs between 1993 and 2002 - let's say $2,300 per year.

And yes, that is an obscene amount of money. And that doesn't even begin to factor in the over 500 DVDs I've acquired since Christmas of 1997. This is why I use the Capra quote as my signature (see below). I often joke that an addiction to heavy drugs would have been cheaper in many ways - certainly long-term, as spending that much on Heroin would have either killed me or landed me in jail by now.

But I enjoy 'em, so what the hey. Like any good collector/addict, I don't ever stop to add it up and think about how much I've spent over the years.


And as for digitally transferring my LDs to some other format, there isn't any need. They are very durable. I've only lost one to damage (a small crack) in all these years. They play as good as ever.


So there. :yup:

[spudracer]

Where's a clapping smilie when you need one. I wish I there was a way I could memorize that speech and tell it to anyone who ever judges my addiction with buying DVDs. :D