[jokell82]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

So is there BluRay support in OSX if you buy an external drive?

In OS X? No. In Toast? Yes.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

How do you figure HD DVD's max is 51Gb? They already have a 51Gb disc in the approved spec, does Blu-Ray have anything higher?

The 51GB disc is a triple layer one sided disc (correct if wrong). They had an almost impossible task of creating a triple layer sandwich with HD-DVD. Blu-ray's density is higher at 25GB per layer and has faster read/write times because of the data density. 200GB discs were in the labs and well written about in the media 18 or so months ago.

TDK: Ok, we're done with the 200GB recordable Blu-Ray - Engadget

TDK Reveals Prototype of 200GB Blu-ray Disc

[Eug]

TL51 HD DVD isn't three plastic discs bonded together. It's two plastic discs bonded together, but with one of them being double sided. The manufacturing process is said to cost about 50% more than DVD-9.

200 GB Blu-ray exists in the lab, but will never exist for mainstream movies, and won't exist in any real way for personal use either as recordables, because of the cost. Similarly, I'd be surprised if TL51 HD DVD even got used for more than just a handful of movies, although there's actually a chance it would be used, considering it's actually an approved format. (BD200 is not and never will be.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

In OS X? No. In Toast? Yes.

To clarify, Toast can not playback Bluray movies.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Since you are more in favor of movie download distribution instead of on high data density discs this makes you a bigger hypocrite than ever. You should be saying the format that offers the most storage space and fastest read/write times is the best choice for "computers".

Fastest read/write times: Blu-ray
Highest actual and theoretical storage space: Blu-ray 50GB actual/200GB theoretical vs HD-DVD 30GB/51GB.
Mac industry support as a storage medium: Blu-ray. Support in Toast 8 and from drive suppliers such as LaCie.
Availability as a storage medium: Blu-ray recordable drives and discs are easier to find than HD-DVD.
Availability in personal computers: Blu-ray. Nine system manufacturers offer Blu-ray equipped systems versus only two for HD-DVD.

Yes, the Bluray disks are nice, but the software sucks. HD-DVD/iHD includes support for digital distribution (You can digitally distribute iHD based movies). The Bluray format does not support digital distribution as a distribution option. So why, as a proponent of digital distribution, would I ever support Bluray? Supporting HD-DVD supports the foundations of what could be the digital distribution format of choice. Besides, if I'm for digital distribution, why would I care at all about the specs of physical media?

Originally Posted by Eug 

The supposed request is from AACS, which is used on both HD DVD and Blu-ray.

To be fair, AACS on HD-DVD has been cracked multiple times, so I'm guessing they're less worried about security.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yes, the Bluray disks are nice, but the software sucks.

It's the discs that matter most importantly. Software can be updated to anything and always will be.

HD-DVD/iHD includes support for digital distribution

No it doesn't. You can't digitally distribute "a disc". The software layer isn't exclusive to the HD-DVD format so you can't use any software based excuses to claim superiority.

The Bluray format does not support digital distribution as a distribution option.

Blu-ray is a disc. You cannot digitally distribute discs anymore than I can download my newest car.

Besides, if I'm for digital distribution, why would I care at all about the specs of physical media?

You said "computer ready". As far as computers go, we also use discs for back up and storage purposes. HD-DVD doesn't hold a candle compared to Blu-ray.

TL51 HD DVD isn't three plastic discs bonded together. It's two plastic discs bonded together, but with one of them being double sided. - Eug

I checked just now and was correct. The 51GB is a triple layer disc. It's data density is far below Blu-ray's 25GB per layer. I don't know what planet you got your tech news from in order to confuse layers with plastic discs.

Toshiba Announces 51GB Triple-Layer HD DVD-ROM Disc

As you can see Blu-ray has far more superior specs for storage use and already has a better future roadmap. That's on top of its superior movie sales figures.

200 GB Blu-ray exists in the lab, but will never exist for mainstream movies, and won't exist in any real way for personal use either as recordables, because of the cost.

That's about as short sighted as thinking computers would never need more than 640k RAM. HD specs for consumer products will keep increasing in resolution and color depth every 10-15 years and will require more and more disc space until there is nothing but digital downloads. I highly doubt brick and mortar sales will go away though. The cost to the global economy if retail sales were seriously damaged would basically hurt everyone. It would mean a loss of jobs in many sectors. Discs are here to stay and will keep evolving to accommodate larger amounts of data. 1080P is peanuts compared to what we'll be watching in 2020. We'll have 4K digital cinema in 10 bit 4:4:4 color playing from discs that will be able to hold somewhere between 500GB and 1TB of data.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

$299 Samsung Player Sets New Low Price Record For Blu-ray | High-Def Digest

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It's the discs that matter most importantly. Software can be updated to anything and always will be.

Ah, so your answer is if Bluray used something entirely different than the Bluray software spec that they'd be digital distribution ready. Great.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No it doesn't. You can't digitally distribute "a disc". The software layer isn't exclusive to the HD-DVD format so you can't use any software based excuses to claim superiority.

I think you should do some research. iHD (which is again, the software format for iHD) was designed for both physical and digital distribution. That's why Disney was involved with iHD.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Blu-ray is a disc. You cannot digitally distribute discs anymore than I can download my newest car.

Yeah. Um, ok.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You said "computer ready". As far as computers go, we also use discs for back up and storage purposes. HD-DVD doesn't hold a candle compared to Blu-ray.

Let me repeat this again for you in since you don't seem to get it.

I don't care about the physical media formats. I care about the software. I never, ever, ever, plan on burning things to optical discs. Ever. Ever ever ever. Therefore, I don't care about the capacity of Bluray. I care about which format works better when not on an optical disc, and guess which format wins?

How is a 50 gigabyte optical disc useful to me? It's only 50 gigabytes. My hard drive which I have at work which was given to me free was 500 gigabytes. I plan to get a new Mac in a few months that's probably going to have at least 2 terabytes total of disk space. So please explain to me how a 50 gigabyte disc is going to be remotely usable to me. Especially one that can be burned once. The only reason I remotely care about the physical media is because that's what the movie is going to come on for the time being, so as long as the movie fits on the disc, I really don't care about the disc capacity.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

As you can see Blu-ray has far more superior specs for storage use and already has a better future roadmap. That's on top of its superior movie sales figures.

Huh? HD-DVD's software is light years ahead of Bluray. Yes, Bluray can upgrade their software all they want, but it'll be a year or two before they catch up. Not to mention, Bluray discs aren't forward compatible with new features like Managed Copy, as where HD-DVD discs are.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

That's about as short sighted as thinking computers would never need more than 640k RAM. HD specs for consumer products will keep increasing in resolution and color depth every 10-15 years and will require more and more disc space until there is nothing but digital downloads. I highly doubt brick and mortar sales will go away though. The cost to the global economy if retail sales were seriously damaged would basically hurt everyone. It would mean a loss of jobs in many sectors. Discs are here to stay and will keep evolving to accommodate larger amounts of data. 1080P is peanuts compared to what we'll be watching in 2020. We'll have 4K digital cinema in 10 bit 4:4:4 color playing from discs that will be able to hold somewhere between 500GB and 1TB of data.

a) Bluray doesn't support anything higher than 1080p, so 1280p is a mute point. Whatever format will be for 1280p can have new discs anyway.
b) No one here is saying that things should just stop at 51 gigabytes, but the honest truth is optical media is today's Zip Disk. It's not going to be around much longer, it's more expensive than other forms of storage, and it's the slowest form of storage. It's only current use is delivering content. Anyone looking at it for a digital storage format is wasting their time. Optical discs are the worst format for digital storage out there.

[jokell82]

Seriously - who needs a 50gb optical disc backup? Especially when the 25gb discs cost 10 bucks a pop right now! My hard drive backups will work fine, thanks.

With hard drives so cheap, and flash drives becoming cheaper and larger (byte-wise) by the day, an optical storage medium is becoming more and more irrelevant.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I checked just now and was correct. The 51GB is a triple layer disc. It's data density is far below Blu-ray's 25GB per layer. I don't know what planet you got your tech news from in order to confuse layers with plastic discs.

Toshiba Announces 51GB Triple-Layer HD DVD-ROM Disc

You might want to check again. Yes, there are 3 layers, but only 2 discs are utilized, the point being easier manufacturing than using 3 discs. ie. Your original post claiming it was 3 single-sided discs is simply wrong:

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

The 51GB disc is a triple layer one sided disc (correct if wrong). They had an almost impossible task of creating a triple layer sandwich with HD-DVD.

The ironic and amusing part is that the explanation is right in the link you yourself posted:

The new disc shares the same disc structure as standard DVD and previously announced HD DVD formats: two 0.6-mm thick discs bonded back-to-back. This time-tested physical structure offers proven volume manufacturing at little cost increment.

-----

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

$299 Samsung Player Sets New Low Price Record For Blu-ray | High-Def Digest

Unfortunately, it's only a Profile 1.0 player, and AFAIK it can never be updated to Profile 1.1. ie. It's obsolete. Somebody getting a Blu-ray player might want to consider the 40 GB PS3 for $399 (that is if you can tolerate the lack of IR). Profile 1.1 support for the PS3 should be coming soon. I suspect the PS3 may be able to get Profile 2.0 support eventually too, but I'm not sure.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Seriously - who needs a 50gb optical disc backup? Especially when the 25gb discs cost 10 bucks a pop right now! My hard drive backups will work fine, thanks. .

Similar ignorance when writable DVDs first came out.

The ironic and amusing part is that the explanation is right in the link you yourself posted:
The new disc shares the same disc structure as standard DVD and previously announced HD DVD formats: two 0.6-mm thick discs bonded back-to-back

Now you're really as ignorant as jokell is Eug because in my previous post I had to ask what planet you got your tech news from in order to confuse layers with plastic discs. I had not brought up anything about the plastic disc manufacturing process. You still don't know the difference so what on earth made you feel qualified to talk about optical discs in such a patronising manner for over a year?

Facts are facts. Toshiba had a hell of a time trying to squeeze 51GBs on a HD DVD disc and had to use a poor triple layer process to do so because they couldn't develop anything like the 25GB per layer that Blu-ray has.

goMac: Bluray doesn't support anything higher than 1080p, so 1280p is a mute point. Whatever format will be for 1280p can have new discs anyway.

Blu-ray and HD-DVD can support any resolution encoding to the discs. The only limiting factor is disc space. And what the flying **** is 1280p? If you are referring to 4K then that for you information is a 4000 x 4000 pixel full frame wide image or 3840 x 2160 if they just want to double up from 1080p and maintain the same cropped widescreen ratio .

I know you HD DVD guys have a hard time seeing facts and sales figures correctly but really these last few responses from you made my day, week, month, year and lifetime. Can't wait to see your responses after the Xmas sales figures come out. I'd also love to see the look on your faces if you don't mind using your iSights.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Blu-ray and HD-DVD can support any resolution encoding to the discs. The only limiting factor is disc space. And what the flying **** is 1280p? If you are referring to 4K then that for you information is a 4000 x 4000 pixel full frame wide image or 3840 x 2160 if they just want to double up from 1080p and maintain the same cropped widescreen ratio .

No, they don't. Read the specs. If you burn 1280p to a Bluray disc and pop it in a player the player won't play it. (And what do you mean "what is 1280p?") If you stop and think about it, it makes sense. If a format supported any video encoded at any resolution, every player would at least have to be able to decompress that video. Bluray players today don't have the horsepower to playback video at 3840 x 2160 (even if they only output at a max of 1080p, they've still got to process that 3840 x 2160 frame and downscale it to 1080p). So when the Bluray committee laid out the spec, they stated that Bluray would have a max of 1080p. That way, manufacturers making Bluray players only had to make players powerful enough to read 1080p video from a Bluray disc.

If we suddenly introduced 1280p Bluray discs, the existing 1080p Bluray players wouldn't have the processing horsepower to actually read the 1280p video fast enough from the disc (and keep in mind, even if the player isn't going to display the video at 1280p it still has to read the 1280p track). At that point you have to make new players and differentiate the old 1080p Bluray discs from the 1280p Bluray discs, and at that point you've created two different formats. If you've gone ahead and created a second format, then there really isn't any issue with changing the disc anyway. This is why higher resolutions of video are a mute format. Even if Bluray can fit higher resolution video, no Bluray player can actually handle playing those discs with higher resolution video for technical reasons.

And this is a good thing. Because player manufacturers only have to build players fast enough to decode 1080p discs, they can keep buying the same hardware to make their players, and player prices go down.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

No, they don't. Read the specs. If you burn 1280p to a Bluray disc and pop it in a player the player won't play it. (And what do you mean "what is 1280p?") .

We were talking about higher capacity discs in the future and that by logic infers upgraded players too (in fact a software update alone could make a player resize any video as long as the onboard processor has the power to do so without skipping frames). Don't make excuses for your idea that 4K = 1280p.

And puleeze **** offf with your closed minded idea that consumers aren't capable of buying a new player in 2020 when discs will have 4K digital on them.

HD DVD is as dead as your, Eug and jokell's brain has been in that last few responses. Every prediction by you guys in this year long thread has come to nothing but wasted energy and hot air. Toshiba will give HD DVD up and invest money with the other companies for the higher specs that will come in the future and to make sure format wars won't happen again. And just to remind you, Toshiba makes money out of every PS3 sold so it is already making good money from consumers who want Blu-ray (along with a gaming console in this case).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

We were talking about higher capacity discs in the future and that by logic infers upgraded players too (in fact a software update alone could make a player resize any video as long as the onboard processor has the power to do so without skipping frames). Don't make excuses for your idea that 4K = 1280p.

Um. 4k is not 1280p. Do you have a clue what you're talking about? I never said 4k and 1280p where the same thing.

If you're creating new upgraded players, then you can create new discs at the same time. There would be no reason to put 1280p or 4k content or whatever floats your boat onto a Bluray disc if a Bluray player can't actually play that content. It simply doesn't make sense. And given that this is probably the last hurrah for optical media, I'm not sure it really even matters.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And puleeze **** offf with your closed minded idea that consumers aren't capable of buying a new player in 2020 when discs will have 4K digital on them.

Well the laws of physics say that the consumer won't care because 1080p and 4k will look exactly identical unless you have a really huge screen, but hey, what do I know? The jury is still out on that whole physics and waves and light razzmatazz anyway.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

HD DVD is as dead as your, Eug and jokell's brain has been in that last few responses. Every prediction by you guys in this year long thread has come to nothing but wasted energy and hot air. Toshiba will give HD DVD up and invest money with the other companies for the higher specs that will come in the future and to make sure format wars won't happen again. And just to remind you, Toshiba makes money out of every PS3 sold so it is already making good money from consumers who want Blu-ray (along with a gaming console in this case).

Um. No, I hate to break it to you, but HD-DVD will never die. It's here to stay. Remember how I was talking about how the HD-DVD software format is not linked to the optical disc? Even if the HD-DVD optical discs die out, the HD-DVD specification will live on in digital downloads and other media. Heck, that's why Disney co-designed HD-DVD. Even though they aren't supporting the physical discs, they know that they are designing something that they can use for their digital downloads.

Bluray has tied itself to optical media, and they are going to go down with that ship. HD-DVD is much more future proof because the software specification was not designed just for physical media.

[PaperNotes]

HD DVD will RIP itself in 2008. It hasn't shifted enough discs to be worth keeping around. Stop making an arse out of yourself.

Well the laws of physics say that the consumer won't care because 1080p and 4k will look exactly identical

Any Photoshop artist, high res gamer or video editor on this forum will tell you otherwise.

Even if the HD-DVD optical discs die out, the HD-DVD specification will live on in digital downloads

So you admit the HD DVD disc will die. Thanks. You know that the last D in DVD stands for "Disc", right? You can't download a disc. Told you that before so shut up now. The digital content that is encoded on HD DVDs and Blu-rays isn't HD-DVD or Blu-ray specific. Don't even try to manipulate the discussion in that direction with that kind of misinformation. God, as if your 1280p = 4K wasn't stupid enough.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

HD DVD will RIP itself in 2008. It hasn't shifted enough discs to be worth keeping around. Stop making an arse out of yourself.

So you admit the HD DVD disc will die. Thanks. You know that the last D in DVD stands for "Disc", right?

Ah. So this is what your argument has devolved to.

I think it all hinges on Warner. If they go with HD-DVD, it will be a slow and painful death for Bluray, with Disney most likely going neutral pretty quickly. If Warner goes with Bluray, it will be a slightly quicker death for HD-DVD.

Regardless, we know that two studios have agreements that they must remain HD-DVD exclusive through 2008, so I don't think it's going to too outrageous to call bunk on your fanboyfest. Regardless of sales, HD-DVD won't die in 2008.

And I used the qualifier "if HD-DVD dies." I'm sure Wikipedia has a great article on the word "if" you may want to check out.

(Also learn the difference between a software and hardware format. Thanks.)

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ah. So this is what your argument has devolved to.

I studied psychology. Don't even waste your time playing that game with me like you did with others on this forum who you threatened to sue because they made you feel bad. That was weak man. Every time you deny it a new round of private messages fire away behind your back.

I think it all hinges on Warner.

They're already in talks with Howard Stringer/Stinger/Stinkey/whatever and are waiting for the Xmas sales figures to see how bad it is with HD DVD sales. This was in the news during the last week.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I studied psychology. Don't even waste your time playing that game with me like you did with others on this forum who you threatened to sue because they made you feel bad. That was weak man. Every time you deny it a new round of private messages fire away behind your back.

This again? I've never threatened to sue anyone on these forums. I don't think I've ever even reported anyone on these forums. I think we've been over this before in this thread.

(Also I've studied psychology too. Yay?)

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

They're already in talks with Bryan Singer and are waiting for the Xmas sales figures to see how bad it is with HD DVD sales. This was in the news during the last week.

As I recall, Warner is looking at the HD-DVD standalone player sales, which so far have been beating Bluray's standalone player sales this holiday season.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Similar ignorance when writable DVDs first came out.

Oh give me a break. When DVD-Rs came out there were TONS of uses for them. There just is NOT a need for a larger optical storage format on the computer. No one will use it for backups due to the high costs and low write speeds, and for sending files to someone it is much faster to use the internet.

And usb flash drives are taking over as the portable format of choice.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Now you're really as ignorant as jokell is Eug because in my previous post I had to ask what planet you got your tech news from in order to confuse layers with plastic discs. I had not brought up anything about the plastic disc manufacturing process. You still don't know the difference so what on earth made you feel qualified to talk about optical discs in such a patronising manner for over a year?

It's already posted, but I'll post it again, since you are trying to backtrack.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The 51GB disc is a triple layer one sided disc (correct if wrong). They had an almost impossible task of creating a triple layer sandwich with HD-DVD. Blu-ray's density is higher at 25GB per layer and has faster read/write times because of the data density. 200GB discs were in the labs and well written about in the media 18 or so months ago.

Just for completeness' sake, here is a more complete description:

"The newly developed ROM disc has a single-sided, triple-layer structure (see attachment). Each layer stores 15 gigabytes of information. Triple-layer discs can be easily produced by back-to-back bonding of a 0.6mm-thick dual-layer disc and a single-layer 0.6mm disc."

(Click the link for more info.)

----------

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I studied psychology. Don't even waste your time playing that game with me like you did with others on this forum who you threatened to sue because they made you feel bad. That was weak man. Every time you deny it a new round of private messages fire away behind your back.

Again, captured for posterity.

[jokell82]

There's a bit of confusion between you two. Papernotes' original statement was that it's three layers on one *side* of a single disc. Eug is talking about how the layers are formed onto the disc itself. Neither of you are wrong (although you need to take a chill pill Papernotes - we're talking about disc formats, it's nothing to get worked up over).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

There's a bit of confusion between you two. Papernotes' original statement was that it's three layers on one *side* of a single disc. Eug is talking about how the layers are formed onto the disc itself. Neither of you are wrong (although you need to take a chill pill Papernotes - we're talking about disc formats, it's nothing to get worked up over).

I'm just countering the FUD of "almost impossible task of creating a triple layer sandwich with HD DVD". Yes, it's a more difficult process than DVD-5, but it's not that much more difficult than making DVD-18 since it's based off the same method.

The first commercial DVD-18 came out in 1999 by the way, almost a decade ago. It is The Stand.



In other words, while it's a difficult process, it's actually easier to make DVD-18 than it is to make BD50, and TL51 is basically the same process as DVD-18 but just with tighter tolerances.

[starman]

WTF is "1280p"? There isn't even a wikipedia entry for it. Doing a Google search brings up people mistaking 1280p for 1080p.

As for "no use" for an HD optical writer, I have 22 GB of family pictures. I like to make backups and take a copy to work in case something happens. Now, am I supposed to buy a new hard drive and bring it to work? That seems like a waste considering you can't get a hard drive under 80 GB nowadays.

And btw: it's "moot" point, not "mute" point

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

WTF is "1280p"? There isn't even a wikipedia entry for it. Doing a Google search brings up people mistaking 1280p for 1080p.

As for "no use" for an HD optical writer, I have 22 GB of family pictures. I like to make backups and take a copy to work in case something happens. Now, am I supposed to buy a new hard drive and bring it to work? That seems like a waste considering you can't get a hard drive under 80 GB nowadays.

And btw: it's "moot" point, not "mute" point

I don't know about 1280p, but there is a 1440p...

What is your backup solution now? Are you just taking your chances? For important stuff I have a hard drive in a fire-proof safe, and I don't feel the need to take that off-site. The problem with optical backups is that they degrade, so making long term backups on them is simply irresponsible.

And once the internet connections catch up backing up those pictures to online storage would be a much better solution than either a hard drive or optical storage.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Oh give me a break. When DVD-Rs came out there were TONS of uses for them. There just is NOT a need for a larger optical storage format on the computer. No one will use it for backups due to the high costs and low write speeds, and for sending files to someone it is much faster to use the internet.

And usb flash drives are taking over as the portable format of choice.

Originally Posted by starman 

WTF is "1280p"? There isn't even a wikipedia entry for it. Doing a Google search brings up people mistaking 1280p for 1080p.

As for "no use" for an HD optical writer, I have 22 GB of family pictures. I like to make backups and take a copy to work in case something happens. Now, am I supposed to buy a new hard drive and bring it to work? That seems like a waste considering you can't get a hard drive under 80 GB nowadays.

I agree. Recordable optical media definitely has its uses. I have a 4 GB USB pen drive, but it's not as if I'm going to send my iDVD project to my friend in another city on a $50 USB pen drive, when I can burn it to a 20 cent DVD-R.

That's where Blu-ray's biggest advantage comes in: 25 GB discs. HD DVD's 15 GB discs are OK, but not as nice as 25 GB discs. (50 GB and 30 GB discs for the respective formats will remain expensive for a very long time.)

Furthermore, my personal backup methodology uses BOTH hard drives and optical media. I will backup to a hard drive, but then make secondary backups of portions of the data on optical media. For the really, really important stuff, I make yet another secondary backup, but move it off-site.

Originally Posted by goMac 

To be fair, AACS on HD-DVD has been cracked multiple times, so I'm guessing they're less worried about security.

That doesn't make sense. AACS has been breached on both formats, but AACS is designed to be updated each time it's breached. You can be 100% sure that the studios are very interested in maintaining AACS security on both formats.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well the laws of physics say that the consumer won't care because 1080p and 4k will look exactly identical unless you have a really huge screen, but hey, what do I know?

I predict that the consumer optical formats will terminate at 1080p, or something close to that. Beyond that, it's simply a waste of time and effort. 1080p already looks glorious on an enormous screen, and with current 1080p technologies, screen door is no longer an issue with any reasonable seating distances. Furthermore, no broadcast standard will be going above that in a very, very long time.

4K could see itself making its way into some commercial theatres, but that's a different kettle of fish, and it probably won't even be on optical media anyway.

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I don't know about 1280p, but there is a 1440p...

What is your backup solution now? Are you just taking your chances? For important stuff I have a hard drive in a fire-proof safe, and I don't feel the need to take that off-site. The problem with optical backups is that they degrade, so making long term backups on them is simply irresponsible.

And once the internet connections catch up backing up those pictures to online storage would be a much better solution than either a hard drive or optical storage.

Magnetic media can degrade as well... but more importantly, it's not that uncommon for HDs to undergo catastropic failure. Furthermore, it's a heluvalot easier to erase data on a HD than it is on a DVD-R.

As for optical backups and degrading, they are considered an archival format. Well-stored optical media will last decades. I know, because I have CD-Rs more than a decade old, and they work just fine.

The key however is to use good quality media with reasonable burn speeds. Basically all my Apple DVD-R stuff is fine after many years, but some of the bargain basement stuff I've tried went belly up very quickly. (I only use the bargain basement stuff for short term copies, etc.)

I used to pay top dollar for Mitsui CD-R. People thought I was nuts, because they refused to sell CD-Rs faster than 24X, yet they cost twice as much as 48X media from other brands. Guess what? All my Mitsui CD-Rs work perfectly to this day. The same cannot be said for some of my friends' CD-Rs.

[icruise]

Any responsible backup method uses multiple types of media. I have several hard disks that I use for backing things up, but I know all to well that hard disks can die with little or no warning, and suddenly everything is gone. I do use DVD-R for archiving things, but the huge bottleneck is the capacity. DVD-R just doesn't hold enough. I think people are too quick in dismissing the usefulness of a large-capacity optical storage medium. Just being able to send a large amount of data to someone without using huge numbers of discs (or god forbid, a hard disk) would be very useful.

[Eug]

I haven't switched my main machine over to Leopard yet. (I need to use a couple of things that are not yet fully compatible with Leopard.)

However, when I do, I will have:

1) Standard hard drive backup
2) Time Machine backup
3) Optical disk backup

Right now I use #1 and #3. However, I think #1 and #2 are complementary, as their philosophies are different, and thus a standard backup hard drive and a Time Machine backup drive won't have the exact same data on them.

I agree with icruise on #3 though. DVD-Rs are simply too small (and there are other issues with using dual-layer DVD-R). I would like to have 25 GB Blu-ray discs as a backup medium. I would be satisfied with 15 GB HD DVD-R, but obviously the extra 10 GB on 25 GB BD-R would be a bonus for personal data backups.

[starman]

Yup. Why waste all that money on a hard drive when you can use an optical drive? And before anyone screams "the price of the burner is too high", I'm sure that the cost of losing my kids' pictures far outweighs the monetary cost of a drive.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Yup. Why waste all that money on a hard drive when you can use an optical drive? And before anyone screams "the price of the burner is too high", I'm sure that the cost of losing my kids' pictures far outweighs the monetary cost of a drive.

"Waste" money on an hard drive? I saw a 300 gig IDE hard drive at Best Buy yesterday for $50. For the price of a burner you can buy quite a few hard drives. (Not to mention the current prices of Bluray/HD-DVD media are pretty high too...) Prices for the media and burners will go down, but so will prices for hard drives. Optical disks are pretty low capacity too. And finally, optical discs are not great for rewriting, and they really suck for incremental backups.

I'm not sure why one would need different kinds of backups. I'm more worried about having data backed up in different physical locations. That way if my house burns down for example, I still have a backup at work...

[Eug]

BTW, right now for burning the only viable option is Blu-ray.

The burners are very expensive as is the media, but at least they're available. The burners are about $500 and the 25 GB discs are about $10. (The 50 GB discs are about $30.)

For HD DVD, the burners are extremely rare, and the 15 GB HD DVD-Rs cost as much as 25 GB BD-Rs anyway.

Originally Posted by goMac 

"Waste" money on an hard drive? I saw a 300 gig IDE hard drive at Best Buy yesterday for $50. For the price of a burner you can buy quite a few hard drives. (Not to mention the current prices of Bluray/HD-DVD media are pretty high too...) Prices for the media and burners will go down, but so will prices for hard drives. Optical disks are pretty low capacity too. And finally, optical discs are not great for rewriting, and they really suck for incremental backups.

So, when was the last time you sent a $50 bare drive with family pix to your sister?

I'm not sure why one would need different kinds of backups. I'm more worried about having data backed up in different physical locations. That way if my house burns down for example, I still have a backup at work...

Single hard drives are not considered an archival format by most. It's an Their main advantage is their rewritability. I'd rather trust high quality optical media than a hard drive, if it's going to be sitting in the closet for 10 years.

I personally think optical-Rs write-once drawback is actually an advantage in practical use. A closed optical disc can never be altered. So any data on there is permanent... for the life of the disc. The same cannot be said for hard drive backups. Have you never deleted anything on a hard drive by accident?

Anyways, for the time being I will stick with hard drives and DVD-Rs.

BD-Rs (and HD DVD-Rs) will drop quickly in price, so there's not much point in spending $500 on the burner in 2007 when it will be half that next year.

[starman]

Backing up on a hard drive is OK, but surely not a preferred media format. For one thing, IDE? I don't have a computer that uses IDE anymore except my PC. Both Macs at work and at home are SATA, not IDE.

And where the HELL did you see a $50 IDE 300 GB drive at BB? I can't find anything cheaper than $169.
BestBuy.com - Search Results

Are you sure you weren't looking at hard drive ENCLOSURES?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, when was the last time you sent a $50 bare drive with family pix to your sister?

When would I have more than 8 gigs of family pictures to send? An 8 gig thumb drive is about the same price as a Bluray disc (with prices falling at about the same rate as Bluray media). Bluray falls into this strange place where it's way too large for most average sizes of data sets, but it's way to small to handle completely backing up all my information.

And of course sending my sister a Bluray or and HD-DVD means that she'll need to have a drive to read one of those forms of media. A thumb drive works with any computer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

And where the HELL did you see a $50 IDE 300 GB drive at BB? I can't find anything cheaper than $169.

Nope, it was a drive. I was in Best Buy yesterday picking up a Harmony remote for a gift, and I was looking at getting an external hard drive for my mom for Christmas. (She does a lot of Aperture work, and she doesn't have backups, so I wanted to get her an external drive for Time Machine.) After looking at external drives, I remembered I already had a spare hard drive case at home, so I looked at the IDE (not SATA) drives and found a 300 gig drive for $50. I didn't buy it though.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by goMac 

When would I have more than 8 gigs of family pictures to send? An 8 gig thumb drive is about the same price as a Bluray disc (with prices falling at about the same rate as Bluray media).

What? The cheapest 8GB thumbdrive on newegg.com is around $50. A recordable blu-ray disc is around $10, and holds three times as much.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

When would I have more than 8 gigs of family pictures to send?

So, in other words, you use optical media then?

Originally Posted by goMac

An 8 gig thumb drive is about the same price as a Bluray disc

Not even close.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So, in other words, you use optical media then?

Hmmm?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not even close.

A few co-workers picked up a 8 gig thumb drive at Radio Shack a few months ago for around $30.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by icruise 

What? The cheapest 8GB thumbdrive on newegg.com is around $50. A recordable blu-ray disc is around $10, and holds three times as much.

a) Bluray disks are around $20.
b) They're write once.
c) They're an extremely slow form of media.

[starman]

goMac:

Please tell me the coordinates of the alternate universe you're in.

EDIT: "8gb thumb drive" on radioshack.com yields ZERO results.

Cheapest 8GB thumb drive I found in a quick google search: $51.

EDIT EDIT:

Found this on radioshack.com

RadioShack.com - Computers: Drives & storage: Removable USB flash drives: Sandisk SDCZ6-8192-A11 8GB ReadyBoost Cruzer Micro

An 8GB thumb drive for $150

Maybe your friends used the 5-finger discount?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by goMac 

A few co-workers picked up a 8 gig thumb drive at Radio Shack a few months ago for around $30.

YA you're right, I hear people buying 8 gig thumb drives all the time to send family members 8 gigs of photos.

[jokell82]

Who is sending all of these gigs of photos to anyone???

[icruise]

Originally Posted by goMac 

a) Bluray disks are around $20.
b) They're write once.
c) They're an extremely slow form of media.

If by "around $20" you mean "$10" then yes. (We're talking about buying several discs at a time here. If you want to buy only one disc, you will pay a bit more -- around $15.)

I defy you to find an 8GB thumbdrive for $10, or even $20.

[starman]

To be fair, when you use an 8MPx camera with RAW, the files get rather large.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

YA you're right, I hear people buying 8 gig thumb drives all the time to send family members 8 gigs of photos.

I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, but this is exactly what my mother does actually, and I don't think she's having any capacity issues.

Originally Posted by starman 

To be fair, when you use an 8MPx camera with RAW, the files get rather large.

Sure, but how often is someone going to move a very large amount of RAW photos around? I could see large numbers of RAW files being moved around inside an organization, except that organization probably has a LAN...

For moving a few hundred RAW photos, a broadband connection or a thumb drive is fine.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

To be fair, when you use an 8MPx camera with RAW, the files get rather large.

Yes, but to be fair, you're not sending those photos to anyone in your family. You put them up on Flickr and they see an 800x600 copy of it.

I can't see any scenario where I have to send 8 gigs of *anything* to anyone I know in the near future (barring piracy scenarios). Might it be necessary in the future? Sure, who knows. But in the next year or two? I don't think so.

[starman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Yes, but to be fair, you're not sending those photos to anyone in your family. You put them up on Flickr and they see an 800x600 copy of it.

I can't see any scenario where I have to send 8 gigs of *anything* to anyone I know in the near future (barring piracy scenarios). Might it be necessary in the future? Sure, who knows. But in the next year or two? I don't think so.

I send RAW to my dad in Florida so he can have better than some sh*tty 800x600 pic.

[icruise]

So are the HD-DVD backers (Eug excepted) seriously arguing that more capacity is unnecessary? Lots of people have argued that in the past about computer-related things, and they've always been wrong. I know that I personally would love to be able to burn my iPhoto library or the entire run of a TV show without using 10+ discs. And things are only going to require more capacity in the future. I remember only a few years ago when a DVD-R seemed huge. Not anymore.

[starman]

BTW: The Lite-On burner dropped to $444

Newegg.com - LITE-ON Black 12X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 4X DVD+R DL 12X DVD-R 6X DVD-RW 12X DVD-ROM 32X CD-R 24X CD-RW 32X CD-ROM SATA 2X Blu-ray Disc Triple DVD Burner - Retail

[Eug]

I'll probably buy a Hi-Def media burner when:

The drives are $199.99 or less.
The media is $5 or less.

I predict this will occur by the end of 2008.

I'd prefer BD-R burning because of the higher storage, but I'd prefer HD DVD-R since then I could burn projects that would work on my HD DVD players. ie. Either one will do, but price is very important.

At $5 a disc, I wouldn't be burning too many of them, but fortunately, disc prices historically usually drop fairly quickly from the $5 level to the under $2 level.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by icruise 

So are the HD-DVD backers (Eug excepted) seriously arguing that more capacity is unnecessary?

They are but then at the same time they like to boast that HD-DVD also has 51 gig disks on the way which is higher than BR.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

They are but then at the same time they like to boast that HD-DVD also has 51 gig disks on the way which is higher than BR.

I am of the opinion that TL51 is a publicity stunt. It will only rarely be used for movies, if ever. That's fine, since DL30 is fine more the vast majority of movies.

However, for computer data storage, 25 GB > 15 GB is definitely advantageous.

ie. These are two different scenarios. I think HD DVD has the superior implementation for commercial movie releases. However, I think Blu-ray has the superior technology for personal computer storage.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by icruise 

So are the HD-DVD backers (Eug excepted) seriously arguing that more capacity is unnecessary? Lots of people have argued that in the past about computer-related things, and they've always been wrong. I know that I personally would love to be able to burn my iPhoto library or the entire run of a TV show without using 10+ discs. And things are only going to require more capacity in the future. I remember only a few years ago when a DVD-R seemed huge. Not anymore.

I'm not arguing that capacity is unnecessary, I just think that optical media for computers is on the way out *regardless* of how much space is on it. Very few people right now have a need for something with higher capacity than a DVD-R (hell, dual layer DVD-R discs still aren't standard because people don't seem to want/need them).

Will the need eventually be there for a way to send larger files? Of course, I don't think anyone would argue that. But it's not happening soon and by the time it does get here I think optical media will be irrelevant.