[jvd]

I changed the name a bit. This thread is to discuss the merits of blueray , new ways to fit more data using red lasers and hardrives.... I guess whatever else you guys can think of that will fit in this thread tittle. Also reasons why they might make it into next gen systems and why they might not.


Please respect everyones thoughts and arguements . Also please post with proper english language .


Also do not poke fun at my spelling.


Have a good day.

[Jabjabs]

Just because you say it's "Offical" doesn't make it so... but I'm not complain'n at all, this topic is needed.

Ummm... blue-ray good.

Will they be in next gen machines is hard to tell at this moment, they may still be a little to costly, although there is the question of weather 9GB discs (of 18GB if they are double sided) would be able to sustain next gen machines?

That's my contribution to this topic for now.

[Captain Chickenpants]

Do we need blueray yet?
Using PC games as a reference the biggest I have seen in terms of storage was Baldurs Gate, lots of CD's but it came on 1 DVD, what other games even come close?
Unreal 2, Splinter Cell etc seem to use 3 discs at most.

CC

[Deepak]

Let me ask it again. Who invented and who owns Blue Ray technology? Will companies need to pay some royalty for using it?

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Deepak

Let me ask it again. Who invented and who owns Blue Ray technology? Will companies need to pay some royalty for using it?

just like DVD's, a group of companies invented it (Sony is one of them). therefore, yes, ANY DVD sold has royalties payable to Sony and whoever involved in the creation of it. that means that microsoft pays a bit to Sony for every copy of their games sold. it is so for every songle DVD sold on the planet. i think it's like that for CD's as well....

[Captain Chickenpants]

Originally Posted by Deepak

Let me ask it again. Who invented and who owns Blue Ray technology? Will companies need to pay some royalty for using it?

A quick google turns up this http://www.matsushita.co.jp/corp/new...n020219-4.html.
It looks like they are targetting video mostly, and not really mentioning any pure data applications, does this mean that it has poor random access seek times? Will it be suitable for anything other than video?
CC

[Grall]

Originally Posted by Captain Chickenpants

It looks like they are targetting video mostly, and not really mentioning any pure data applications, does this mean that it has poor random access seek times? Will it be suitable for anything other than video?

If it has a spiral track structure like CDs (and as far as I know, DVDs), access times are likely to be as crap for BR as for other optical media. I read that the spiral track was neccessary in the early 80s for cost reasons I heard (a data buffer big enough to handle track switches wasn't cost effective it seems), but this is not a problem anymore, not when a whole megabyte of DRAM costs like a nickle.

*G*

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Grall

If it has a spiral track structure like CDs (and as far as I know, DVDs), access times are likely to be as crap for BR as for other optical media. I read that the spiral track was neccessary in the early 80s for cost reasons I heard (a data buffer big enough to handle track switches wasn't cost effective it seems), but this is not a problem anymore, not when a whole megabyte of DRAM costs like a nickle.

*G*

THATS QUITE INTERESTING.... if they dont use a spiral track, then what would they be using? i thought a spiral track was the only way to store things on a disc....

[Captain Chickenpants]

I suspect a spiral track structure would be used for the same reasons as on a DVD, one of the main things would be layer changes, on a DVD the track spirals in on one layer, and then out again on the other layer, so on a layer change you only need to refocus the laser, (even then you tend to get pauses on most DVD players).

CC

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Captain Chickenpants

(even then you tend to get pauses on most DVD players).

CC

that is just laziness... i mean u'd think that at least on PS2 with all that RAM they would buffer the data so that at change of layer u don't get a short pause....

[chaphack]

I shall add my fill on why BR might not be the best solution. Take note, my stance will still be the same, at best, a cheap read-only BR UMD lens for PS3. Things are a bit haphazard, so do bear with it.


-23~27MB of single sided BR storage space is great! BUT do we need that much? More storage is always cool but looking at latest PC games, many of which does more impressive gfx than their console counterpart and i have yet see one that takes mucho DVDs.....unless of course we speak of those with lengthy high defination CGI movies, even such console games dont take mucho DVDs.... 1080p FMVs(Square!) next gen you say? COOL! But are those even necessary...? By next gen, i hope to see really minimal FMVs and more realtime cinemas, not to mention how many gamers are equiped with full HDTVs. IMO a dual layer double sided DVDs are pretty cool(~18MB) and should be cheaper(DVD pressing factories are so prevalent today).


-Transfer speed of BR is what 36Mbps, cool again! BUT current cheap DVD drives are doing 12X or so, that makes it about 15Mbps. Fast forward 2/3 years, we might have 24X DVD drives, that makes about 30Mbps. Not too shabby.


-Rewriteability. Yummy! BUT then prices of rewriteables have always been much higher than read only. It also brings in many other complications such as durablity. We have seen many accounts of PS2 games-X-movies. Now we are gonna stress the PS3 lens even more? Again, do causal gamers need such fancy features that will bring up the console price and/or down the console durability?


-Sony did give us DVD for PS2. Yes and it was pretty much on the evolution curve. ie. The time was right. DVDs were very much accepted, costs were dropping and games were taking up mulitple CDs. Can we say the same of BR 2/3 years time?


-Fully function BR capable PS3 for $299! Cant wait! Lets face it, it is not going to happen. Sony, as bad as their current financial condition, has already invested millions on R&D, new plants and all. Throwing more features will hike up the price. Think about it, PS1/PS2, nothing that were ultra feature wise. PS1 was a simple 3D system with norminal 2X CDROM, PS2 was even worst...Then we have PSP, people were expecting cool rewriteability, cheap game prices and a cheap PSP. AFAWK presently, that most likely not gonna happen...


More if i have the time to thinketh!

[pcostabel]

Originally Posted by chaphack

I shall add my fill on why BR might not be the best solution. Take note, my stance will still be the same, at best, a cheap read-only BR UMD lens for PS3. Things are a bit haphazard, so do bear with it.


-23~27MB of single sided BR storage space is great! BUT do we need that much? More storage is always cool but looking at latest PC games, many of which does more impressive gfx than their console counterpart and i have yet see one that takes mucho DVDs.....unless of course we speak of those with lengthy high defination CGI movies, even such console games dont take mucho DVDs.... 1080p FMVs(Square!) next gen you say? COOL! But are those even necessary...? By next gen, i hope to see really minimal FMVs and more realtime cinemas, not to mention how many gamers are equiped with full HDTVs. IMO a dual layer double sided DVDs are pretty cool(~18MB) and should be cheaper(DVD pressing factories are so prevalent today).

"640k ought to be enough for everyone"

-Transfer speed of BR is what 36Mbps, cool again! BUT current cheap DVD drives are doing 12X or so, that makes it about 15Mbps. Fast forward 2/3 years, we might have 24X DVD drives, that makes about 30Mbps. Not too shabby.

Faster DVD transfer == faster RPM, which is technically more complex
than denser data packing. And of course, nobody stops Sony from using a 2X BR if they want to.

-Rewriteability. Yummy! BUT then prices of rewriteables have always been much higher than read only. It also brings in many other complications such as durablity. We have seen many accounts of PS2 games-X-movies. Now we are gonna stress the PS3 lens even more? Again, do causal gamers need such fancy features that will bring up the console price and/or down the console durability?

The PS2 problems are anedoctal at best and there is no reason why
the same problems should affect PS3. Wether or not BR will be rewritable in PS3 remains to be seen, but considering that a rewritable BR means no need for an HD, it might actually bring down the cost.

-Sony did give us DVD for PS2. Yes and it was pretty much on the evolution curve. ie. The time was right. DVDs were very much accepted, costs were dropping and games were taking up mulitple CDs. Can we say the same of BR 2/3 years time?

Sony wants BR in PS3 to estabilish it as a standard, not just to sell PS3.

-Fully function BR capable PS3 for $299! Cant wait! Lets face it, it is not going to happen. Sony, as bad as their current financial condition, has already invested millions on R&D, new plants and all. Throwing more features will hike up the price. Think about it, PS1/PS2, nothing that were ultra feature wise. PS1 was a simple 3D system with norminal 2X CDROM, PS2 was even worst...Then we have PSP, people were expecting cool rewriteability, cheap game prices and a cheap PSP. AFAWK presently, that most likely not gonna happen...

Who said PS3 will be $299?

[Fafalada]

More storage is always cool but looking at latest PC games

Nonsense - looking at PC games for storage is like looking at console games for ram requirements. Both are way below cutting edge at this point.
Incidentially biggest PC games right now are also console ports, which should tell you something about (i)relevance of your argument.

Edit: But I disgress, pcostabel put it much more eloquently and to the point then I did with that quote. 640kb indeed...

-Transfer speed of BR is what 36Mbps, cool again! BUT current cheap DVD drives are doing 12X or so, that makes it about 15Mbps.

Actually this is wrong on two counts.
First, 12x DVD is ~16MBytes/s or roughly 128Mbps.
Which brings me to the other point - 1x speed of BR is woefully insufficient (and certainly not particularly cool) for the kind of data use people are advertisting it here for.
Anything less then 4xread for a BR drive in 2005 console I will consider as poor. (which I guess gives more room for argument that BR just isn't gonna cut it in a console, but I'll leave that to others to discuss).

[marconelly!]

BluRay's speed is a huge issue, IMO. That thing, right now is damn slow for something that has to fill 256-512MB of RAM. I assume they might made 4-8X BluRay's though, just like it happened with every other popular optical media.

Using PC games as a reference the biggest I have seen in terms of storage was Baldurs Gate, lots of CD's but it came on 1 DVD, what other games even come close?

There are already a few console games that consume double layered DVDs. With possibility to use 720p video streams in games, even more high res textures and such, DVD is not going to cut it anymore. It *will* cut it for many games, that's for sure, but not for all of them, and I'd rather have larger format than a game distributed on several discs.

Besides that, BluRay is supposed to be a replacement for VHS. It's made to record video strams, both regular and HDTV.



In the locked thread, JVD mentioned some 100GB DVD technology that is not fully made yet. Can someone give me a link to it, as I don't feel like searching through that large thread :\

[Quaz51]

CDx1 = 1.2 Mb/s
DVDx1 = 11.1 Mb/s
BRDx1 = 36 Mb/s

DVDx16 ~ BRDx5

[zurich]

Originally Posted by Quaz51

CDx1 = 1.2 Mb/s
DVDx1 = 11.1 Mb/s
BRDx1 = 36 Mb/s

DVDx16 ~ BRDx5

(megaBITS)

[Quaz51]

yes Mbit of course

[function]

A few quick and dirty calculations show that assuming that the PS3 has 256MBs of main RAM (who knows, it may have more), filling three quarters of it at 4xBR would take [EDIT] 10.667[/EDIT] seconds, assuming everything was ordered so as to make seek time insignificant.

This is about twice as long as filling a similar proportion of the PS2's memory would take.

I don't know what the roadmap for BR development shows (anyone?) but what kinds of speeds are we talking about by the end of 2005? I know comparisons to CD and DVD drives are unpopular, but the CD and DVD drives seen in consoles have always been a fair bit slower than high or top end PC parts, even on the consoles launch day.

The thing I'm thinking about is - yes - cost.

Originally Posted by pcostabel

Wether or not BR will be rewritable in PS3 remains to be seen, but considering that a rewritable BR means no need for an HD, it might actually bring down the cost.

In terms of functionality, I don't think a BR device can [totally] replace a HDD. If Sony want the PS3 to become the home media hub, it needs to have software on the machine (in a similar fashion to the Xbox). What's more, it needs to be able to store a fair amount of this software, and it needs to be upgradeable and patchable.

After playing a game you don't want to have to put in a disk to load up the web browser (isn't Sony friends with AOL?), or DVD player, or TV recording software, or latest version of Playstation Live! etc. Xbox Live is a good example (hopefully) - the software has already been updated for it, but this process is supposedly mostly transparent to the user (not used Xbox Live myself), and features like messaging and chat can be updated centrally without worring quite as much about versions on older games.

For features associated with the machine, rather than with a particular game, a HDD makes sense. You could use internal flash ROM or some other solid state rewriteable media, but once the amount of software you want to run on your home broadband box starts increasing this becomes more and more expensive.

Plus, one of the most annoying things about a VCR is scrambling for a tape at the last minute. If I've got a state of the art Tivo style device, I expect to be able to press a button and have it record until I can find a disk to put something on.

Plus, if you've got a 4X BR device to load from it might be a good idea to have a HDD to cache data to.

Edited, because o' sloppy maths.

[Psychogenics]

What other Formats are out there besides the popular BR,JVD said MS had 100gigs of data but I doubt it will make it to market.....and besides that I do think that Blu-ray will be in the PS3 because I honestly think Sony will charge $400 for the PS3......the HDD might purposely be small like 30-40 gigs to make the consumer buy the upgraded version which would come in 100gbs-150gbs.....But thats MO.

[Panajev2001a]

By 2005 they expect to have 18 MB/s of bandwidth and 50 GB Re-Writable discs...

Plsu, find me a DVD+-RW that can Re-Write at DVD 12x

[pcostabel]

In terms of functionality, I don't think a BR device can [totally] replace a HDD. If Sony want the PS3 to become the home media hub, it needs to have software on the machine (in a similar fashion to the Xbox). What's more, it needs to be able to store a fair amount of this software, and it needs to be upgradeable and patchable.

Hmmm, good point. I forgot that PS3 will likely be more than just a game machine... However, Sony could come up with two different models, one purely for gaming and one for media hub, like the PS2 and PSX.
In that case, the gaming-only PS3 could do without an HD and cost less.
They could also sell the HD separately, like for the PS2.

[jvd]

First off i just want to post my reasons why i think blue ray wont make it to the market.


1) This format is plagued with problems. Blue lasers (i think they are purple actually right ?) are very hard to make and they are having bad yields on the bluerays. The answer for this isn't in sight yet. hopefully it will be soon because i wouldn't mind the tech.

2) Blueray might still be very expensive (I am not talking 3k . I'm talking about anything over 50 bucks and it most likely wont make it into the ps3.) This will take away money from other parts that could use it. For instance if yields are bad on the cell chip at certian meghertz . Or even the gpu they are using.

3) Dvds still have alot of life in them. We see with simple mods the current dvd players will be able to use 100gig discs with barely any cost added.

4) A writable format is just begging to be abused by the pirate scene . Imagine how much worse it would have been if the dreamcast had a gigarom burner built in.


Those are my reasons why. Please feel free to pick at them or even throw support to them.

[Psychogenics]

Originally Posted by jvd

First off i just want to post my reasons why i think blue ray wont make it to the market.


1) This format is plagued with problems. Blue lasers (i think they are purple actually right ?) are very hard to make and they are having bad yields on the bluerays. The answer for this isn't in sight yet. hopefully it will be soon because i wouldn't mind the tech.

2) Blueray might still be very expensive (I am not talking 3k . I'm talking about anything over 50 bucks and it most likely wont make it into the ps3.) This will take away money from other parts that could use it. For instance if yields are bad on the cell chip at certian meghertz . Or even the gpu they are using.

3) Dvds still have alot of life in them. We see with simple mods the current dvd players will be able to use 100gig discs with barely any cost added.

4) A writable format is just begging to be abused by the pirate scene . Imagine how much worse it would have been if the dreamcast had a gigarom burner built in.


Those are my reasons why. Please feel free to pick at them or even throw support to them.

First off I tought that the most DVD-Red laser can only read up to 18gigs and not more because of instability,But don't you think that if there was a cheaper way of doing 20+gigs Sony and many other big companies would kill to have that format......Stability is Key here because Blu-ray is made so that the laser reads info at a very close proximity Without faults.And secondly I know piracy is on the rise but if you could limit the way Burning is done on the PS3 or may other devices wouldn't Piracy be cut down.?The only reason piracy exist is because the public doesn't know how it effects them.....If like in 8mile you add feathers that pirates can't copy the public will want the original instead of the crap that pirates sell.

[chaphack]

"640k ought to be enough for everyone"

More is good of course...but we have to look at other factors too. JVD 100GB modded DVDs sound interesting.

Faster DVD transfer == faster RPM, which is technically more complex
than denser data packing. And of course, nobody stops Sony from using a 2X BR if they want to

Faf puts it better. Bits Bytes suxxor!

Sony wants BR in PS3 to estabilish it as a standard, not just to sell PS3.

But SCEI wants to sell PS3, the more the merrier. BR as a standard does not depends solely on Sony.

Who said PS3 will be $299?

Ah! Thats where the suck might come from.

Incidentially biggest PC games right now are also console ports

And the only console port(s) that taketh most space is MGS2. One dual layer singe sided DVD. Most of them are still at 2-4 CDs. A better compression scheme might help?

By 2005 they expect to have 18 MB/s of bandwidth and 50 GB Re-Writable discs...

But will it make it cheap to the PS3?



I wonder how much the PSX will cost. A 1000? 2000? Sure the supporters will claim it is meant to be a high end lifestyle product, but what is stopping Sony from selling it cheaper? It is just a PS2, with a Tv turner, DVD burner and HDD...norminal parts, nothing cutting edge...

[Vince]

Originally Posted by chaphack

I wonder how much the PSX will cost. A 1000? 2000? Sure the supporters will claim it is meant to be a high end lifestyle product, but what is stopping Sony from selling it cheaper? It is just a PS2, with a Tv turner, DVD burner and HDD...norminal parts, nothing cutting edge...

It's called market supported profit taking - a concept that appears elusive to people here. Not that people here actually care about the finer points aslong as they can get a half-assed argument rooted in ignorance against said supporters.

Originally Posted by chaphack

Lets face it, it is not going to happen. Sony, as bad as their current financial condition, has already invested millions on R&D, new plants and all. Throwing more features will hike up the price.

(1) How is their current financial condition in anyway, shape, or form - "bad"?

(2) And I realise that the common ideology around here is that added features (even when integrated in set-piece IC's necessary for the primary task of the device) increase costs, but this just isn't true.

I realise that the interner allows every Tom, Dick and Harry to vent his beliefs on others and pretend to know it all, but companies such as Sony have entire groups trained in Economics and applied mathmatics that do nothing but budget, catagorize and count the proverbial beans... day in and day out. This is the real world - one in which the talking about Blu-Ray's inclusion and it's current R&D within the Group show that it's proboblity of use has been deemed acceptable by not only the first tier engineers working on Blu-Ray, but it's been acceptable to the SCE demands comming down from Okamoto with regards to preformance. Then then finacial people get involved and project costs before they let Kutaragi loose.

You see although the internet allows a bunch of people with no skill in basic Microeconomics/Price Theory to preach about product costs, and it lets a whole bunch of people with no idea about the macroeconomic world to predict how the market will ultimatly accept or deny a good and the flow of money - it doesn't mean there aren't other people out there laughing at you.

So when articles like this - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9053 - or this - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7078 - emerge and permiate the conversation, it shows just how lacking people are. This is similar to what you're currently doing Chap, you're creating problems with Blu-Ray because of your bias against a specific company, you can stand an inert comment concering it and as such will make ridiculous comments like "-23~27MB of single sided BR storage space is great! BUT do we need that much?" or "-Fully function BR capable PS3 for $299! Cant wait! Lets face it, it is not going to happen" not based on sound rational that you can empiracally back-up, but rather a manifestation of your bias.

Or do you see how people such as PC-Engine or Chap keep finding Blu-Ray alternatives that will take the world by storm and throw the inevitable wrench into the entablished Blu-Ray coalition and by extention Sony and then trickle down to PS3? First it was just DVDs, then it was the now dead AoD, then back to just DVDs, now it's this phantom DVD+ which is suspect as Mfa stated and begs the question, Where is it? In the words of Goose I believe, I looked left... Hollywood looked right... I asked Hollywood, "Where'd he go?"...Hollywood said, "WHERE'D WHOOO GOOOOO???"
The whole situation concerning anything posted in this manner is shady.