Well if games and movies end up utilising all that storage capacity then I think physical media may not be going away as quickly as we thought.
Sony Developing 300GB Blu-Ray Successor
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cue all the Sony haters saying that this will fail like all the other Sony formats. Somehow no one remembers Sony's other failed formats like CD and 3.5" floppies. Not like anyone ever used those in the 90s.
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
It's a bit silly to pull statistics from the times when consumer SSD tech was still new. In more recent times SSD's from Samsung, Intel, and Crucial have far lower failure rates than HDD's from Western Digital, Samsung and Seagate. [http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.co.nz&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/881-6/disques-durs-3-5.html&usg=ALkJrhhFviQNBkLCAW5-GYn_HyBwN6IWQg]crepesack said:
crepesack said:
Uncompressed video takes up a huge amount of data anyway -- 300 gigs wouldn't hold much uncompressed standard def video, let alone HD or 4K. There isn't a digital video standard on the market (At least for consumers) that uses uncompressed video. DVD uses MPEG 2, and Blu-Ray uses MPEG 4.Ishigami said:
OT: I'm more curious about how they did it than anything else. There has been talk for years about an optical format that would use holograms, so that the data would be stored in three dimensions instead of two, greatly increasing the amount of available storage space. I wonder if Sony is finally going to follow through on what various fly by night operations have been promising for the last decade?
It wouldn't happen anyway. Like I said on the facebook comments, if only the companies who owned these things would allow that to happen. There was a lot of talk when Blu-Ray was announced of putting an entire TV series on one disc in standard def (which if it's old and shot on video, that's all it exists as anyway), but it never happened because season boxed sets of DVDs made more money.bringer of illumination said:
I mean it kind of makes sense, why sell the series as one (presumably between $20 and $100) purchase when you could sell multiple seasons, each in that price range?
Uhm shelf life isn't the same as failure rate. HDDs hold data pretty much indefinitely. SSDs will die with time. Additionally data recovery form HDDs is significantly easier than with SSD.Yuuki said:
And as for the seek times/speed I was told the wrong information. There's no need to be rude on this board.
Are you being sarcastic? Because dropping discs completely would be a dumb idea.Adam Jensen said:
It depends on weather, as Tiberius says, it's a new disc format or rather an improvement on the current bluray system. If it can play on current BR players (which would be the smart move) then it'd just be a higher capacity BR disc. If it's a new format all together (which it sounds like) then yes a new drive is required and it wont be in consumer hands for quite awhile, assuming it ever takes off.Dindril said:
I agree completly, if it's some new format then it'll be a long time if ever before it replaces Bluray, which itself has taken long enough to get it's foot in the door.TiberiusEsuriens said:
For long-term and enterprise storage, discs can be much more durable and easier to archive, not to mention that it is far more affordable than flash storage, at least for now.Adam Jensen said:
There are always going to be people (like me) that like having physical copies of Games, Movies and TV Shows. I have a large collection of Movies and TV Series on DVD, and i would never trade it for a reliable streaming service, even if my broadband was super-fast with no usage cap. Streaming services are perfectly fine if you want to watch something new that maybe a friend recommended, or just to sample something you're not sure about, but for things i really like, i can't buy them from Amazon or the local supermarket fast enough.
This is just the next step in what i think is a great product, small, light, and durable. Maybe in a few years something else will appear to take its place, like credit card sized storage, but until then...
Long live Optical Discs.
This is just the next step in what i think is a great product, small, light, and durable. Maybe in a few years something else will appear to take its place, like credit card sized storage, but until then...
Long live Optical Discs.
And what do you suggest for long term storage then?Adam Jensen said:
I use DVDs. The only reason i use them is storage (i dont have a blue ray drive okay?). But they saved my life a few times already.
USB sticks? yeah, that may work as a plan B if discs were to somehow dissapear. Cards? they are already only fit for mobile devices, and even then its much better when they use their own HDDs. heck, mobile devices always were the extremely late adopter when it comes to storage space anyway. "you got 10 mb. what is this you want more? nope we dont make such models.". well at least now it begins to get 2-4gb internal storages. Disc is very durable when it comes to longevity. As for speed neither USB nor cards can compare. maybe USB3 could.Adam Jensen said:
and relaiability. and longevity. and price. SSD is a great drive on paper. in reality however so far it is a total failure.gigastar said:
Backups.bringer of illumination said:
I counted last year - i got 660 DVDs for backups and long term storage. its starting to take a bit too much space.
And thus publishers defeated the pirates by making the movies files too big to download for anything but shitty cinema-cam.[/quote]Irridium said:
because stuff like bluerayrip that tales 1400mb does not exist right?
a truly uncompressed (full frame) 1080p video takes around 4-5GB per minute. a truly uncompressed 1080p movie would not fit on this proposed 300 GB drive. All videos you see on blueray are compressed, msot people never see uncompressed videos in thier entire lives, most people never need to as completely umcompressed videos are needed only when you cant work with higher resolution than the end product your making and need to recode the thing multiple times. In fact, dvds use quite terrible compression method to be honest.....Griffolion said:
That's why I said "move away from disc technology". We should work on developing new, more efficient ways to store data.Strazdas said:
Depends on the market segment, I know that servers with SSDs (NAND) have not had the same failure rate as consumer oriented ones and have had fewer compatibility problems.Strazdas said:
Longevity has only been a problem on paper so far, people with consumer SSDs (Samsunb 830 256 GB) have been writing to them at 25 GB/day for months without any sign of degradation (from HardOCP, currently unable to find the link). The failure rate that is given on their respective NAND flash say so and so many 1000 writes before they fail, that is worst case scenario and only at a 3% failure rate per given amount of writes.
Anand(tech) has also addressed the failure rate issue, they haven't found any problems either (outside of firmware problems), unless you will use TLC NAND for business/calculation servers where SLC is intended.
But discs are the most efficient way to store data that we know. sure, invent new one if you will, but dont attack the most efficient one before you done that.Adam Jensen said:
Except that SSDs so far seems to have a realistic lifespan of around 1-2 years. also 25gb/day is small. for example yesterday my HDD went though around 90 GB traffic. Though granted majority of that was read. 1000 writes is a very small number, especially when runing on systems where you rewrite many files often (for example logging).Boris Goodenough said:
Then I would have lost both my SSDs by now if 1-2 years was realistic. Honestly I haven't heard about this problem before do you have any links? Because the calculations and programs I have seen will put most SDDs at daily usage of around <10 GB/day at around 8-10 years continuous use.Strazdas said:
SSDs are for OS and programs, HDDs are for storage, for the regular consumer anyway.
You know, from Sony's description of the disc, it sounds like they're not marketing it towards regular consumers who want to put a movie on it, but rather at industrial scale use; as they say, for cloud storage capacities, movie makers, etc.
In which case, I guess it makes more sense to create a 300GB disc in the online storage day-and-age? Though I wouldn't really know, considering I don't have a clue how those things work
In which case, I guess it makes more sense to create a 300GB disc in the online storage day-and-age? Though I wouldn't really know, considering I don't have a clue how those things work
thats the thing. on paper SSDs are great.Boris Goodenough said:
In realiy, modern SSDs have a 2000-3000 writes burnout as opposed to the hailed 100.000. IF you didnt loose your SSD after 2 years, you either did not use it a whole lot or just got lucky. i got a HDD that spins for 10 years now, does not mean average HDD life isnt 3-5 years.
Ok, let me rephrase, I haven't heard about SSDs failing in the numbers you are describing and I read about 6 tech sites almost each day.Strazdas said:
Also the 100k is for some of the early generation Single Level Cell NAND.
And as I said earlier those 1000-3000 writes for MLC is at a 3% failure rate, so at 2000-6000 writes the failure rate would be 1-(1-0.03)^2 ~ 6% failure rate.