What is Digg?284 Comments
- kinseyincanada, on 10/17/2007, -31/+169oh for ***** sake lets just stick with DVD's
- Notsafetoeat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+108one scratch and you lose like 100GB
- treelovinhippie, on 10/10/2007, -6/+111Lets fix up our Internet infrastructure and get some decent bandwidth... then we won't need to get high-def content on flimsy discs, just stream HD over a 100mbps-1gbps net connection. It's possible (and already being done in some places), just needs the infrastructure in place.
- EDmAN, on 10/10/2007, -8/+109I don't see this replacing HD or Blu-Ray, this technology is great, but I really don't think movie companies are going to want to have 950+ Gigs left over on a disk. Blu-ray is currently big enough, and this technology might be used to replace things like tape backups, or HD- surveillance maybe... Plus they will probably be extremely expensive... maybe 100+ $ a disk
- obviouslyshane, on 10/17/2007, -15/+8809 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- gamer31, on 10/10/2007, -2/+66By selling them for more then it costs to make them
- Sk8SkaNJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+54Why is this in video games? article makes no mention of them.
- DFENS, on 10/10/2007, -3/+47It says 2 to 3 years away from being on shelves. That means it is completely irrelevant to the BlurRay and HDDVD battle.
- Cygnus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+43Direct Link: http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/hi-fi-and-audio/other-playback-and-recording-formats/news/how-to-fit-1tb-of-data-on-one-cd-sized-disc?articleid=1665250963&source=rss
Oh, and this is a Dupe: http://digg.com/tech_news/How_to_fit_1Tb_of_data_on_one_CD_sized_disc_800Gb_prototypes_already_made - woogley, on 10/17/2007, -1/+40I'd rather have a 3.9TB HVD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc - Johnny1337h4x0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Even though I do agree about the cost of the disks, I don't agree about the space left over. The current Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disc videos are still being compressed. A larger format disk could significanly reduce or even remove compression.
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Here's an idea. The article says the discs are comprised of 200 5GB layers. Why not just manufacture the discs in "reasonable" sizes by using less layers. Right now, there isn't really a HUGE need for 1TB optical discs, and you know damn well they'd be extremely expensive. But if they released 50 or 100GB discs, that would be fantastic. Then a few years down the road they could add additional layers and release larger discs, and plan for forwards/backwards compatibility within the drives way ahead of time. Hell they could still even sell the 1TB discs if there was demand for them, but to keep cost down for both consumers AND companies, they could just offer smaller versions.
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24not compressing video is a huge waste of space. after a certain point you'll never see the difference anyway. better to use good compression and add data redundancy on the disc.
- quomen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Yeah.. it's pretty pointless because the big bottleneck of these two mediums are not the space constraints, but the data transfer speeds.
Typical sensationalist digg title.. - iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20????, duh.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19so would having sex with a girl.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I don't see the wasted space as a problem. People will always find ways to fill up as much space as you care to give them. No, the thing blocking adoptions is that the movie studios, manufacturers, etc have already put huge amounts of time and resources into Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. They're not going to abandon them when they've barely gotten off the ground. The one place that this has any real possibility is in computer storage, since you don't have to worry about having available content right away, and you can have a plug-n-play drive rather than having to build an entire appliance around the technology
- MScrip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17How on Earth do you watch old reruns on your TV? Or regular TV in general?
- vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20Agreed, seeing as how you can fit two hours of 1080p h.264 + AC3 on a DL-DVD, whats the point of HD-DVD or Bluray?
- nyx210, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22And I guess 640KB is enough for you?
- asdfrewq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Solid State is a redundant step. Logically, the next advancement should be moving towards online streaming/downloads. Physical media is a thing of the past. Quality will, at first, be a step backwards from hd-dvd/blu ray, but so long as they stay within the standard dvd quality range people will flock to it. Assuming they don't burden the consumer with horrendous DRM, that is... Come to think of it, this will never happen. Sigh.
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15This is retarded on so many levels. When you compress already compressed videos, yeah it's going to look even more like crap, what do you expect? Compression doesn't necessarily mean it has to look worse though. When you zip a file, does it lose data? No. And studios trying to get good quality compression are going to spend LOTS of man hours tweaking every single second to get it to look fine, they don't just use some automatic freeware app...
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -9/+23That's what they said (and are still saying) about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.
- dumpling, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Here's something startling that could end the HD war: charging $29.98 for 2 Fast 2 Furious.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14No they didn't. From the very beginning there was a definitely known need for extra storage over that of a DVD. Many big time movies were coming with 2 or more disks. And that was just regular def movies with the extras. The same is not true for the step up from Blu Ray to these. There are only so many extras that directors/producers are going to put into DVDs. Most of the disks will go unused.
Quite frankly, absolutely NO ONE is expecting these to be used for movies, or probably even for home users. At least not for many, many years. - Dested, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17I know these comments always get dugg down, but that was the funniest thing ive read on here in a while.
- Chicken2nite, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Still, one disc for an entire Star Trek series in high def... That would be pretty nice
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12That is the critical step, yes.
- therealknewman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13are you kidding? move on to solid state already
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Cool. Now we can watch the amobea that sits on the gnats ass that rides on the dog's nose. Still aint nothing on tv worth watching.
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13willynilly, seek anger management. You have a good point, but you don't have to be so hostile..
- jedioniram, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11TV might be the reason, how about full seasons of shows in HD on a single disc?
- Rodman930, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"On a 1TB disc, you could store 212 DVD-quality movies, 250,000 MP3 files or 1,000,000 large Word documents."
But the real question is, how many Libraries of Congess can it hold? - therealknewman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9alrite thats enough of these silly optical mediums... lets roll out with the solid state already
- Dgen_X, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10While it is a good idea...I will NEVER support media-less media...
Because the provider will ALWAYS own the media, not the consumer, even though the consumer pays for it. If I'm going to pay $20-$30 for a movie I want to be able to toss it on my shelf and be sure I can watch it in 3 days/weeks/months/years. *****, want to take a trip down memory lane when you hit 85...do you think that Comcast will still be offering that copy of Harold and Kumar go to White Castle on demand, in 30-55 years? - BrandonMills, on 10/17/2007, -4/+13Another standard for the format war? :{ Nooooo!!!
- rebrad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Well after 800GB of DRM you'd at least have 200GB to play with.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The stuff dreams are made of.
- sofa0ne, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8After working in the electronics industry as a electronic test technician for 9 years I can tell you that from a manufacturing point of view there is always something better more improved than what is being released to the public at any given time. I can say that planned obsolescence is part of the game. Eventually things improve in someway and justify a move to the new product so the cycle never stops.
You can never have enough (Fill in the blank), be it bandwidth, storage space, power, etc.
ramble ramble...*sigh - emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There's a difference between HD and digital. Digital itself doesn't really make the quality any better, and you're right, most HD broadcasts are compressed to hell. The only channel I find that has a half decent HD picture is DiscoveryHD sometimes, the rest are pretty much always crap, although they are a bit better than standard TV. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies on the other hand are able to look absolutely stunning if the studios put the time into careful compression. Sometimes you get a crappy release, most of time it's still leaps and bounds better than DVD, and in some instances the quality just blows my mind.
- darkyplasma, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10How are they going to make profit?
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I just want to see any one of these "next generation" discs be released as 8cm standard size and see them finally kill off the 12cm discs we've been living with for 25 years now. It's beyond stupid that we still can't get a copy of standard software or a movie on a disc that fits in your shirt pocket. I'm really tired of the marketing drones trying to make people think "you're getting more and that's why our product price is so high" by sticking with the absurdly oversized 12cm discs. We should have converted years ago to pocket-sized optical ROM media.
- Genma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7there are lossless forms of compression that have 0 effect on the output and still make a huge difference in the amount of space required to store and reproduce it.
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Obviously there's a very noticeable different between a DVD and a Blu-Ray, but good DVDs still look good. I usually don't mind watching them at all, even though I have the means to play HD movies.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7What the ***** are you talking about? Seriously, I'm curious.
- denhamcoote, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11and 640k will be more than enough for anyone...
- latpack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6it suddenly makes sense!
- Kavok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Uhm - HD-DVD can also deliver plenty of space if you're going to use the "We don't really need Xgigs of space arguement, product Y is plenty"
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You have no idea what you're talking about, there are a lot of movies released on both formats which look almost flawless. Granted studios don't ALWAYS take the most care with releases, but most of them are very good. The VC-1 codec properly used is excellent, although some Blu-Ray releases are still using crappy mpeg-2. Have YOU actually seen a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc?
And lets say you put uncompressed video on the disc. Do you have any idea how fast it would need to spin in order to keep up with the film? It would probably explode. - awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Remember MiniDisc by Sony? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-MD
Little discs similar to CD's but in square cases. In actuality, there is no real reason why CD's have to be out of a case like this, except to be more vulnerable to scratches. -
Show 51 - 100 of 280 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is