300GB Blu-Ray Successor by 2015

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,321
Country
United Kingdom
Isn't 300 GB too much?

An interesting discussion.

If screens stay the way they are and people do shift to smaller formats then quite possibly. However if the media types pull their heads out of their arses and decide to sell me entire runs of TV shows, filmographies of actors/directors on a single disc.
I am not hopeful here though as similar such things have been quite possible to do for some time now in all sorts of things and it has not really happened. Granted there is a huge inertia in terms of decades of IP licensing preventing it from working that way but hey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

Veho

The man who cried "Ni".
Former Staff
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
11,373
Trophies
3
Age
42
Location
Zagreb
XP
40,824
Country
Croatia
When the devil are they going to accept that discs were outdated the instant that affordable flash memory could exceed 16GB!!!
The moment flash memory actually becomes cheaper than discs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TripleSMoon

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,321
Country
United Kingdom
The moment flash memory actually becomes cheaper than discs.
I actually ran the numbers the other month and they did not come out too bad
http://gbatemp.net/threads/rumor-wiikeÜ.347139/page-9#post-4627422
Probably still margin destroying but enough to sit up and take note. Doubly so if you are faced with figuring out how to handle a random read across 300 gigs of disc and loading time requirements.

Flash memory faces somewhat bigger problems though
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/12/nand_shrink_trap/
 

McHaggis

Fackin' Troller
Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2008
Messages
1,749
Trophies
0
XP
1,466
Country
VP9 will probably end up like VP8, an alternative that failed to gain widespread adoption. Google pretty much abandoned VP8 when they picked H.264 for HTML5.
Just a few (possibly pedantic, but that's just who I am) nitpicks here.
  • Google don't control the HTML standard, the specification is formulated by WHATWG whose committee members consist of representatives from at least Apple, Opera, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla and Adobe. Google didin't pick anything for HTML5 because they don't have that level of control.
  • The HTML specification doesn't standardise a common encoding format for the web, each vendor has to choose which formats their browser will support.
  • Google didn't abandon VP8. In fact, when WebM and VP8 came under attack from patent owners, Google used money from their own pocket to obtain a transferable, royalty free license for WebM that will last forever. Essentially this means that anybody can use WebM for free. I'd hardly call digging deep to protect your format abandoning.
  • Several of the major browsers, including Firefox on Linux, Chromium and Opera, don't support H.264 out of the box because it's not a royalty-free format. Separately downloaded, royalty-paid codecs are required to play H.264-encoded videos in those browsers. Support for H.264 was also planned to be dropped from Google Chrome.
  • VP9 support was added to Google Chrome dev channel about a month ago. No sign of H.265 support even though it's been an accepted standard for over 6 months.

Bearing all that in mind, WebM and VP8 is still a more ideal format for the web than MP4 and H.264. The more you know, and all that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shakirmoledina

Veho

The man who cried "Ni".
Former Staff
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
11,373
Trophies
3
Age
42
Location
Zagreb
XP
40,824
Country
Croatia
For those of you bellyaching about how technology is getting needlessly better and "Is there really a need for 4K?" Why would you want us to stop advancing?
Because we're advancing in the wrong direction. Where's my personal jetpack? :angry:

;)
 

PityOnU

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,182
Trophies
1
XP
1,614
Country
United States
Ugh!:glare: More discs!?!
When the devil are they going to accept that discs were outdated the instant that affordable flash memory could exceed 16GB!!!
All the bloody clutter discs give is driving me up the wall, and its a pain trying to keep them in good condition!!

The cost of manufacturing disks is still far below the cost of manufacturing flash memory.

That's why home consoles all use disk-based distribution instead of cartridge-based.
 

calmwaters

Cat's best friend
Member
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
1,718
Trophies
0
Location
happy land
XP
461
Country
United States
...

I haven't considered that path of logic. Go on.

Because our advancing technology consists of making discs and flash memory that have as much storage space as possible. Why can't they work to turn our cars into electric vehicles or invest in the rocket industry to give us jet packs? Or create ways to make our cars that will never need new tires? That would open up more room to study other technological wonders.
 

BORTZ

DO NOT SCREENSHOT
Supervisor
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
13,243
Trophies
3
Age
34
Location
Pittsburgh
XP
15,982
Country
United States
Veho is right
if by the end of 2015... we don't get the hoverboard and the flying cars, I will loose all my faith in technology

Then I suggest not looking up how close we are to hoverboards and other things.

Because our advancing technology consists of making discs and flash memory that have as much storage space as possible. Why can't they work to turn our cars into electric vehicles or invest in the rocket industry to give us jet packs? Or create ways to make our cars that will never need new tires? That would open up more room to study other technological wonders.

Uh, most of those things are already being worked on. well at least the electric car. Jet packs are incredibly impractical. There have been some but nothing to write home about.
 

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,689
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,085
Country
Belgium
Since when are we against visual detail? Since when are we against technology advancement?
I'm against visual detail the moment it's not bringing any more added value to the movie. And in this case, I'd say this distracts more than anything. It's hard to engage in a movie if all you see is actors go from one piece of scenery to the next (what are they doing in that cellar? Oh...wait...I think that's supposed to be an ancient tomb).

I don't know who this "we" is that is against technology advancement, but it sure as hell doesn't include me. And I'm not sure why you're bringing it up either (you don't honestly believe that because I prefer DVD's over blu-ray, I somehow disapprove of the gazillion other technological advancements...right?).
 

PolloDiablo

Madre de Dios! Es El POLLO DIABLO!!!
Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
3,858
Trophies
2
XP
2,945
Country
United States
Then I suggest not looking up how close we are to hoverboards and other things.


facepalm.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: BortzANATOR

calmwaters

Cat's best friend
Member
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
1,718
Trophies
0
Location
happy land
XP
461
Country
United States

Well they could work on making the electric car more affordable. Jet packs are really practical: no more driving your car to work. And all you need is a suit like what Buzz Lightyear has. Only, instead of looking at the ground, you look straight ahead. But the suit has to be lightweight so it doesn't fail that much. I'd shoot for making the person and the suit weigh 300 pounds. But they're not going to do this because it's too expensive.

All I can think of for the hoverboards are four magnets in the board corners that repel the ground to make the board rise an inch or two off the ground. I'm not sure what would happen if you tried to go on the grass... I'm open for ways of keeping your balance on the thing too.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: https://youtu.be/MddR6PTmGKg?si=mU2EO5hoE7XXSbSr