Move over HD-DVD/BluRay, here comes HVD's (300GB). at DVinfo.net

Yi Fong Yu · August 4th, 2006, 07:51 AM

http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Article2881.phtml
^wow, just wow. the only barrier to entry is $120/disc and $15k for burner. yeah i know it's cost/GB, but still.

how many GB is uncompressed 1920x1080p? if they get upto 1.6TB, could that store 2 hours of 1920x1080p?

Zack Vohaska · August 4th, 2006, 09:26 AM

Well, anything can happen with technology, but as I see it right now, HVD stands no chance against BluRay...one being the price of the media right now (sort of like VHS vs. Beta). However, I don't think it's geared towards the consumer market or if they have any intentions of selling it there at all -- if anything, it's a great solution for filmmakers who need [somewhat] affordable storage -- if the price for the burner wasn't so rediculously outrageous, I could see many HVX users going out and purchasing this...then again, I could be wrong. It'd be a great alternative to archiving and storing P2 data.

Ah, new tech always comes with a price.

Mack Fisher · August 4th, 2006, 10:11 PM

I agree with Zack, VHS won due to price not quality I think history will repeat itself with HD-DVD and Blu ray. I dont know how well HVD will play into households but I can see do wonders for archival needs.

Greg Boston · August 4th, 2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mack Fisher

I agree with Zack, VHS won due to price not quality

It also won out because of longer recording time per tape. I was working in a video store back in the early 80's and most everyone I sold a VCR to selected VHS for that reason.

-gb-

Stephen Armour · August 20th, 2006, 03:34 PM

I can't for the life of me imagine WHY ANYONE in their right mind would pay $15000 for a recorder for a 300 GB media that will cost $120-$180, when a HDD costs the same, records data faster and doesn't need the $15K recorder!

Not to mention, if you pay a bit more, you'll get 750 GB TODAY and easily that 1.6 TB long before any optical media get's that storage amount!

I believe in good tech, but that seems absurd and like a dead-end street for the poor suckers that buy into it! Luckily it's to people like Turner...

Marvin Emms · August 22nd, 2006, 05:38 PM

The media may be viable for long term storage, hard disks are dodgy magnetic technology. Also optical media has bit errors, hard disks can totally fail, so over the long term holographic media may be more viable.

(quote from page)
"essentially a jukebox-in-a-cartridge of ten stacked 9.4-GByte DVDs, for a total of 940 Gbytes."

Umm.

Emre Safak · August 22nd, 2006, 06:13 PM

Like the article said, this will be a great successor to HD-DVD and BluRay come 2015. A decade of beta testing by cutting-edge enthusiasts will ensure that all the kinks in the format will be ironed out when the mass market is ready. Isn't it great that you can have a piece of the future today?

Stephen Armour · August 22nd, 2006, 10:31 PM

I'm more inclined to believe this will prove to be a foggy memory in the dustbin of "almost something good" history by 2015.

By then, at the current rate of advances, "long term storage" will simply mean movng masses of data to whatever current storage has the best cost/benefit at the time and making sure you have it backed up to the same for security. Just like now. When storage solutions reach the inevitable "petabyte, exabyte, zettabyte, yottabyte, etc..." regions, we'll still only care how much it costs vs performance vs available space. It seems these optical technologies are still pushing the yester-tech of the 90's to

It seems at the rate nano-sized (think molecular size) storage discovery possibilities are happening, any relatively slow, chemical-based optical tech will die a natural death within 10 years. Time will certainly tell.

Bob Hart · August 23rd, 2006, 10:49 PM

It is an irony but an achilles heel of both chemical imaging technology and electronic imaging technology is at this time based in the same weakness, the questionable permanency of coloured dyes.

George Ellis · August 24th, 2006, 03:46 AM

Actually, the replacement may come from Pioneer. Pioneer was working on UV LASER technology more than a year ago. I think it was more than a 20-25% improvement in space.

Jeff Sayre · August 24th, 2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Armour

It seems at the rate nano-sized (think molecular size) storage discovery possibilities are happening, any relatively slow, chemical-based optical tech will die a natural death within 10 years. Time will certainly tell.

This certainly is were cutting-edge research into quantum dots (qubits) is heading. Although the time frame of consumer or even industrial equipment based on this research is unknown.

Greg, this seems like it escaped from Area 51. But since qdot research is real and healthy, I thought I could slip it in without being sent back to the secret lab. :)

August 4th, 2006, 07:51 AM	#1
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	Move over HD-DVD/BluRay, here comes HVD's (300GB). http://www.dvd-recordable.org/Article2881.phtml ^wow, just wow. the only barrier to entry is $120/disc and $15k for burner. yeah i know it's cost/GB, but still. how many GB is uncompressed 1920x1080p? if they get upto 1.6TB, could that store 2 hours of 1920x1080p? __________________ bow wow wow

August 4th, 2006, 09:26 AM	#2
Zack Vohaska Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 74	Well, anything can happen with technology, but as I see it right now, HVD stands no chance against BluRay...one being the price of the media right now (sort of like VHS vs. Beta). However, I don't think it's geared towards the consumer market or if they have any intentions of selling it there at all -- if anything, it's a great solution for filmmakers who need [somewhat] affordable storage -- if the price for the burner wasn't so rediculously outrageous, I could see many HVX users going out and purchasing this...then again, I could be wrong. It'd be a great alternative to archiving and storing P2 data. Ah, new tech always comes with a price. __________________ -Z-

August 20th, 2006, 03:34 PM	#5
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	Why would you WANT to pay $15000 and $120-$180? I can't for the life of me imagine WHY ANYONE in their right mind would pay $15000 for a recorder for a 300 GB media that will cost $120-$180, when a HDD costs the same, records data faster and doesn't need the $15K recorder! Not to mention, if you pay a bit more, you'll get 750 GB TODAY and easily that 1.6 TB long before any optical media get's that storage amount! I believe in good tech, but that seems absurd and like a dead-end street for the poor suckers that buy into it! Luckily it's to people like Turner...

August 22nd, 2006, 10:31 PM	#8
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	Successor in 2015 or dim memory? I'm more inclined to believe this will prove to be a foggy memory in the dustbin of "almost something good" history by 2015. By then, at the current rate of advances, "long term storage" will simply mean movng masses of data to whatever current storage has the best cost/benefit at the time and making sure you have it backed up to the same for security. Just like now. When storage solutions reach the inevitable "petabyte, exabyte, zettabyte, yottabyte, etc..." regions, we'll still only care how much it costs vs performance vs available space. It seems these optical technologies are still pushing the yester-tech of the 90's to It seems at the rate nano-sized (think molecular size) storage discovery possibilities are happening, any relatively slow, chemical-based optical tech will die a natural death within 10 years. Time will certainly tell.

August 4th, 2006, 10:11 PM	#3
Mack Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 158	I agree with Zack, VHS won due to price not quality I think history will repeat itself with HD-DVD and Blu ray. I dont know how well HVD will play into households but I can see do wonders for archival needs.

August 22nd, 2006, 05:38 PM	#6
Marvin Emms Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 204	The media may be viable for long term storage, hard disks are dodgy magnetic technology. Also optical media has bit errors, hard disks can totally fail, so over the long term holographic media may be more viable. (quote from page) "essentially a jukebox-in-a-cartridge of ten stacked 9.4-GByte DVDs, for a total of 940 Gbytes." Umm.

August 22nd, 2006, 06:13 PM	#7
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	Like the article said, this will be a great successor to HD-DVD and BluRay come 2015. A decade of beta testing by cutting-edge enthusiasts will ensure that all the kinks in the format will be ironed out when the mass market is ready. Isn't it great that you can have a piece of the future today?

August 23rd, 2006, 10:49 PM	#9
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,477	It is an irony but an achilles heel of both chemical imaging technology and electronic imaging technology is at this time based in the same weakness, the questionable permanency of coloured dyes.

August 24th, 2006, 03:46 AM	#10
George Ellis Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Suwanee, GA Posts: 1,241	Actually, the replacement may come from Pioneer. Pioneer was working on UV LASER technology more than a year ago. I think it was more than a 20-25% improvement in space.