| Discuss this article! |
There are more user comments available, read them here |
| SGSeries2 (Junior Member) 10 November 2004 5:56 |
|
|
Maybe they'll call it a U-Ray disc. :)
Pioneer- "Would you like fries with that? How 'bout the kitchen sink?"
|
| Ghostdog (Senior Member) 10 November 2004 7:53 |
|
|
I doubt any game in the near future will even begin to stress the capacity of 2nd generation DVD´s (I´m thinking Blu-Ray here) so I don´t think the game industry should even be involved in the discussion.
But how about 500GB discs for backups? That is a whole lot of space. In a few years we will have 500GB+ hard-drives. An entire backup on a single disc would to me be very convenient. Not to mention corporations or the audio/video-industry.
|
| Linkeui (Newbie) 11 November 2004 5:42 |
|
|
500gb...... hmmmm... how big are hard drives at the moment?.... whats gonna happen to them?... SICK!!
|
| jonobrien (Newbie) 11 November 2004 6:00 |
|
|
When DVDs were first announced no one knew what they would do with all that space.
Even when DVDs became available, it took a year before they became mainstream. People just had no use for them and just kept buyinf CD burners and CD-Rs.
Now 4.7GB is getting inadequate.
Think back further.
There was a big gap between floppys and CDs, but even so, it took a long time for CDs to take off too. OK, so the first Microsoft Office version needed about 20 floppys, but other than that, all games at the time fitted onto a few floppys to install from. And what was the point of this new fangled CD thing? At first the only benefit was to put videos in between levels, but the majority of the game was still pretty small.
Now you are all saying "I doubt any game in the near future will even begin to stress the capacity of 2nd generation DVDs", well d'uh, not in the near future, but in 3 years time we'll be frustrated by BluRays small size and in 5 years we'll be filling up 500GB discs and be looking back thinking "by golly, once upon a time I used to fit a game or an office suite on a single DVD".
I used to have a computer that had more memory imaginable, it had a whole 1MB!! I couldn't beleive how much memory 1024KB was, kicked ass over the 64KB machines. Now 1GB is becoming the norm. It's not unreasonable to think that 512GB of RAM will be standard by 2010 or so. With entry level servers having 16GB of RAM today, 512GB of RAM is not that far away, and I am used to expecting my storage media to have plenty more storage capacity than my RAM. So by 2010 I'd think a 500GB optical disc will be so "yesterday".
|
| Soulreave (Junior Member) 12 November 2004 6:18 |
|
|
500GB, wow!@!
hmm. i wonder if that disc could replace harddrives in years to come
|
| brent1a (Junior Member) 12 November 2004 6:23 |
|
|
Probably not too logical of an idea as I don't see removeable media drives ever surpassing or even equalling the access times and read rates of a hard drive. You'll probably see a 1TB HDD within the next 5 years and a 500GB disc would only be used for archiving.
|
| SGSeries2 (Junior Member) 13 November 2004 8:39 |
|
|
The thing is, hd improvements haven't been that great in the past year or so as far as performance and storage increases, aside from the new serial port. I have yet to see a big advantage of that compared to the parallel ports of "old". Maybe it's the magnetic technology. Maybe they should move away to electric or photokinetic technology to improve hd performance and capacity. (Oh, wait, that's lasers, nevermind that last one. ;) ) I am impressed how far they've gone with magnetic platters though.
|
| cwoodell (Inactive) 14 November 2004 3:27 |
|
|
I seem to remember asking exactly this same question some 10-12 years ago when I ordered a MASSIVE 512MB hard drive for my new 486 computer system. "What can I possibly ever do with that much storage?" Nobody knew then either. Of course the question is still applicable to that drive. The only difference is that now there is an answer. "Use it as a paperweight"
|
| Ghostdog (Senior Member) 14 November 2004 4:17 |
|
|
Hey, I still have a working Nokia PC at my summerhouse. 40MB of storage!
|
| cwoodell (Inactive) 14 November 2004 5:15 |
|
|
Hey, I don't dispute that the old stuff still works with the software that was designed for it. However, based on the fact that we're both on afterdawn.com and discussing 500GB disks we may both want to do more than these old systems can handle. If you've been around computers long enough to still have a 40MB hard drive you have seen that whatever size is available some software guy will need it all and ask for more. It'll all get used in fairly short order.
|
| jonobrien (Newbie) 14 November 2004 5:20 |
|
|
cwoodell, and when you say "massive", you probably don't mean in physical size as well - would the 500MB drives have been "half-height" drives (which at about 1.5" high and 5.25" width - the same size as CD/DVD drives today) would be big compared to today's 1" high standard 3.5" wide drives or laptop 1cm high and 2.5", 2" or even 1.8" wide drives.
But if you want to talk about a paperweight, a 1.5" high drive were called half-height drives for a reason - the original drives were about 3" high by 5.25" wide. Now THEY were massive. I had a 40GB full-height drive. Wow, the capacity it had! I could copy dozens of floppy disks onto it (5.25" floppy's of course - I think they held 320KB at the time).
|
| cwoodell (Inactive) 14 November 2004 5:48 |
|
|
You are correct "MASSIVE" referred to the data storage capacity not tne physical size. It was, and still is, a half height drive. I too remember putting many of my old floppys on the thing and thinking how amazing it was that they all went on it with lots of room to spare. But while we're reminiscing don't forget that those 320K floppys were double sided double density. The single density single sided disks in my old Atari 64 were 180K and that was the ONLY mass storage the machine had except of course for the even older cassette tape drive.
|
| krylonONE (Newbie) 2 December 2004 22:12 |
|
|
500GB...thats alot of storage. Exactly what is the full need of this type of optical disc besides backups and so forth is still uncertain for common use. I guess its like a life long continuance of keeping whats yous.
|
| blakorkyd (Newbie) 10 December 2004 19:37 |
|
|
Well, I bought a 250GB extetnal hard drive recently for storage of files so I would have something with a little extra room. Well, 6 months down the road I ran out of that room. I have been in consideration of a terabyte drive, and I still remember when my 800 MB external seemed massive. I think converting my music collection changed all that.
|
| william01 (Inactive) 12 December 2004 1:38 |
|
|
Well that sounds good but that would mean the whole dvd structure would have to be re-confiqured to be compatable with these new 500GB optical disc. Dose that mean dvd become obsilet and replaced by optical dvd.Another new collection to be collected dame still getting use to the idea when I decided to change from collecting VHS to DVD wow.So whats that mean about 65 movies on 1 optical Disc not depending on the price and weather the conversion software from DVD to optical is free of course but wait lets not forget about the copy wright laws ahh dam well thats technology for ya keep up or get left behind good luck all and have fun with it before it changes again.
|
| dvdshow (Newbie) 27 December 2004 3:27 |
|
|
Believe it or not you'll need all that space and more. I remember when the massive 40MB hard drives came out and people said exactly the same things about it as there're saying about Pioneer's 500 GBdisk.
|
| zbigniew (Newbie) 28 December 2004 6:21 |
|
|
500gb is about right for an 'accurate' digital projection of a movie originally shot on 35mm film. The best scans at the moment of top hollywood films, (recently with the newly-bought James Bond back catalogue) have been done using 4000x1000 resolution for each frame, which some people think gets all the information/'grain' for each picture. These scans are to make digital master copies, not for plain old DVD!
So that's 4000x1000 = 4mb
4mb x 24 (frames per second) = 96mb per second
96mb x 60 (seconds per minute) = 5,760 mb (6gb) per minute
6gb x 60 (minutes per hour) = 360 gb per hour.
Sorry for being a smarty pants- I just love seeing all those exact numbers :)
So anyway, if you're looking at these numbers, and thinking, wow, so a DVD is between 4.5 and 9 gb, how can they do the film right with that little data? The answer is, that they don't. VHS seems to get more data in a film, than DVD, indeed, a simple TV transmission (8mb per second) gets way more in the frame. still all fairly nice to watch though!
Cheers, J
|
| SGSeries2 (Junior Member) 28 December 2004 8:55 |
|
so, you're saying that vhs has higher quality than dvd, but dvds don't wear out, and normal tv transmissions are way better than dvd? tv transmissions also have audio in them as well. You have to take into account that a good portion of space is dedicated to audio as well. stereo audio nonetheless. dvds, I thought, were/are supposed to peak at 1mb of data per second. naturally, a lot of them don't, and that's supposed to include audio, no?
so, anyways, 4mb doesn't even include audio. That's why dvds use a compression algorithm in order to compensate for its size. High quality audio is a very important factor too. You can understand my concern why they should dedicate more space to better video and audio rather than extra features and the like. (Lossy codecs realistically don't compensate for much anyway, in my opinion. Not that I don't use them myself, mind you.)
@360 gb per hour, a typical movie would be 540+ without even including, say, dts quality sound, but I guess since they usually keep that on separate cds/dvds anyways, it wouldn't be that big of a deal for archiving.
Besides, that's not really important right now to consumers, since the highest resolution for HDTV is 1080x1920; roughly half that size. Even the best lossless algorithms wouldn't be able to cut that down all the time and still maintain a 1000x4000 picture for later generations. But hey, that'd leave plenty of room for extras, eh? (egh.)
'course, talking to a photo representative just briefly, a true comparison of an actual 35mm snapshot photo to a digital one would have to be an estimated 25gp. Translate that one! (hehe. :))
sorry for the long post.
|
| SGSeries2 (Junior Member) 28 December 2004 21:25 |
|
|
erm, correction, 25MP
|
| william01 (Inactive) 29 December 2004 9:32 |
|
|
Thankyou I to like to see the correct numbers or facts but didnt think I would need to go into great detail Nice one though.
|
| SGSeries2 (Junior Member) 29 December 2004 12:37 |
|
|
hey, who knows, maybe the movie industry'll eventually decide that 35mm video is not good enough, and use a newer analog standard so that you'll need at least a 500+ terabytes of storage space instead of 500+ gb. Heh, that would be the day.
|
| lajr1980 (Inactive) 29 December 2004 13:04 |
|
DAMN! WE ARE REALLY LIVING IN THE INFORMATION AGE!
500 GB might not be enough LOL!! Perhaps 1000 Terabytes = 1 Petabyte of storage...
LA_JR :O)
|
| stratusxp (Newbie) 15 January 2005 6:25 |
|
|
Wow is all I can say. But like each person has thier own views, I agree with all sides. At this time it is hard for us to comprehend a 500 gb video or game. But like others say 10 years ago my 486 was a 5k machine with beuty and a whopping 515mb of storage. So in 10 years 500gb may be like cds are today for storage or even floppys. In the mean time though Im gonna stick with Blu-ray.
Im pretty sure thatll be the next mainstream standard and cost about the same as dvd's do today. 25GB seems good enough for me for both storage and video quality. I wish dual layer dvd-rs would come down in price :) so i can utilize 8.5gb
|
| SirSmasho (Newbie) 3 April 2005 5:44 |
|
|
Who remembers those old cartridge games that had 500+ games? Like the old NES HoneyBee and stuff like that. In the near future, are we going to have U-Ray "Mega Game Disks"? I can see the tag line now: "Play all the oldy but goody games of times long passed. See what it was like to play before integrated neuro pathway synaptic synchronization imaging!"
|
| cwoodell (Inactive) 3 April 2005 7:50 |
|
On 10 Nov. 2004, (5 months ago) Ghostdog posted to this thread the following. "In a few years we will have 500GB+ hard drives". Just to show how fast technology sometimes moves Hitachi has announced the release of a 500GB hard drive. A few years comes awfully quickly!!
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120102,00.asp
|
| Ghostdog (Senior Member) 3 April 2005 10:57 |
|
|
Yep, apparently people can´t get enough of that sweet storage space.
|