Ok, to pre-empt the obvious "OMG! All of Star Trek on one disc!!" comments:
For pressed discs, which is what "All of Star Trek on one disc" would be, this is a less than desirable technology.
Yields from multilayer discs make them less desirable the more layers they have. For the most part, the reason most DVDs are dual layer is necessity, not preference, and the more layers you add, the more costly it becomes exponentially. (If any layer fails, you have to throw out the whole disc, despite the successful pressing of the other layers.)
If this type of technology was useful, then Hollywood would be knocking on HD-VMD's door, and the DVD Forum would have just added layers to DVD instead of going to blue lasers for HD DVD. We'd have had sub-$100 HD players since 2005.
Now, for RECORDABLE discs, this is a very, very, useful technology. Given the one-off nature of recordable images, the occasional write error is not so much of an issue as long as the error is detected in time and the data is written to another part of the disc.
But pressed discs? I just don't see this taking off.
There has been alot of R&D & currently. I'm sure there has been failed layers, with more R&D that could be iron out. I'm just hoping for 4k,6k,8k films on blu ray. New layer technologhy could come out that holds more infomation per layer.
Well no one is going to blame them for aiming low. I'd like to see studios put more effort into using the full capacity of a BD50 before they start plans on how to use a BD400.
Seeing that there is supposedly still a very high failure rate for dual layer discs, I have a hard time believing that this is going to be viable at a price most people would be willing to pay.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
squiggleslash @ Dec 2nd 2008 9:30AM
Ok, to pre-empt the obvious "OMG! All of Star Trek on one disc!!" comments:
For pressed discs, which is what "All of Star Trek on one disc" would be, this is a less than desirable technology.
Yields from multilayer discs make them less desirable the more layers they have. For the most part, the reason most DVDs are dual layer is necessity, not preference, and the more layers you add, the more costly it becomes exponentially. (If any layer fails, you have to throw out the whole disc, despite the successful pressing of the other layers.)
If this type of technology was useful, then Hollywood would be knocking on HD-VMD's door, and the DVD Forum would have just added layers to DVD instead of going to blue lasers for HD DVD. We'd have had sub-$100 HD players since 2005.
Now, for RECORDABLE discs, this is a very, very, useful technology. Given the one-off nature of recordable images, the occasional write error is not so much of an issue as long as the error is detected in time and the data is written to another part of the disc.
But pressed discs? I just don't see this taking off.
img eL @ Dec 2nd 2008 9:58AM
There has been alot of R&D & currently. I'm sure there has been failed layers, with more R&D that could be iron out. I'm just hoping for 4k,6k,8k films on blu ray. New layer technologhy could come out that holds more infomation per layer.
WebDev511 @ Dec 2nd 2008 10:56AM
Well no one is going to blame them for aiming low. I'd like to see studios put more effort into using the full capacity of a BD50 before they start plans on how to use a BD400.
Seeing that there is supposedly still a very high failure rate for dual layer discs, I have a hard time believing that this is going to be viable at a price most people would be willing to pay.