Holographic Disc to Store One Terabyte of Data

Status
Not open for further replies.
late to the party, but...

aaaaa00 has got it covered - there`s no way BR is compatible with whatever-they-decide-to-call-this (HVD).

It`s really interesting that they are relying in interference fringes - any small scale defect (> 1/4 wavelength) would result in total data loss for that pattern. They`d better have one hell of a ECC scheme.

I really like the CCD-readout idea though - that`s some ridiculous data throughput they`ve got. :D
 
aaaaa00 said:
sunscar said:
Hence my addition that a hardware addition would possibly be required.

Additional hardware that will certainly cost more than the blue laser diode and probably all the other optical hardware put together, maybe?

By the way, CCD array? Are you talking about colinear holographic tech or something different? It isn't the same as dual-beam interference holography, for read or write.

Maybe it would be a good idea to examine the technology description and the diagrams on optware's own website.

tech_zu03.gif


If the explanation on the optware web site is correct, colinear holographic recording arranges bits of data into pages, then records whole pages to the disc as multiple holographs. These holographs are stored in tracks on the disc, and the head of the disk is positioned with an optical servo, using a different light frequency and a special layer on the disc so it doesn't interfere with the holograms.

Writing is done using a digital micromirror device (DMD). A DMD is a tiny 2D array of mirrors which are electrostatically controlled and can be turned on or off. These are not cheap -- they're the same things that drive HDTVs and digital projectors that cost thousands of dollars.

You have a single source laser that is split into a reference beam and an information beam. You reflect the information beam off the DMD device, then interfere it with the reference beam, then expose the media to this resultant beam. The key innovation is not that there aren't two beams (there are) but that the two beams are colinear, instead of at different angles. Regardless, the end result is a hologram image of the 2D data page recorded onto the media.

tech_zu05.gif


To recover the data, you shine the reference beam onto the surface of the media, which reconstructs the original image from the stored interference pattern. You then capture the image using a 2D image sensor (which is also relatively expensive -- it's basically the key component of a digital camera).

tech_zu04.jpg


So frankly, I don't see any way to make a BRD drive read one of these without adding massive amounts of hardware, so much so, that you wouldn't really call it a "BRD drive" anymore but an "HVD drive with BRD backwards compatibility". ;)

[ Reference: http://www.optware.co.jp/english/tech.htm ]

I suspected something like this when I read another report,which went into more detail.I just wasn't really sure.

One thing concerns me about this,however.Seeing how this is completely new technology,wouldn't it,as well,have to be approved by Hollywood in the very same way of Blu Ray or HD-DVD? I would think so.But,I don't believe this format will be competing with the Blu Ray format,though,but more like other DVD formats on the market.I could be wrong.
 
The question I have is would this be aimed at Hollywood as a market right from the start? Maybe for gold master discs, but probably no way for general distribution, would be a little pointless. They could place days of HD quality video on one of those, or a few hours at ten times the image resolution and sound quality, but no TV would handle that. The only place the idea wouldn't be completely insane is high-performance computing or data-intensive simulations. I think gaming is starting to fit in with both of those areas, so I guess that too.


Later

Iridius Dio
 
That is nothing compared to the resolution you would need for a decent holographic display.
 
Holographic display... are you refering to a stereoscopic display, or a true holographic voxel type display? In that case (voxel) wouldn't we be talking about voxel volume? A cubic field about 1000x1000x1000 would need effectively 1,000,000,000 voxels (basically 3D pixels or volume elements). Hard to find anything right now that'll even drive something that quality... 60 frames per second = atleast 60 billion voxels per second, but damn would it be frikkin sweet. What would you store the data on is what I wonder, similar holo-optical disc only using violet LED for the writer? Some form of intelligent, inferencing media?


Later


Iridius Dio
 
Someday we will have 3d molecular memory that stores exabytes or even a lot more, ofcource it wont happen soon but it is theoreticaly possible so it will happen.

Anyways the real reason for this post is im wondering what a holographic display actualy is?
They show some floating images in movies sometimes but that doesnt explain much, how does the image actualy get there? Is there some hardware always in the viewangle of the image you see?
I read it has something to do with interference? But i dont know what that is so it doesnt help me much :)
So can someone give me some basic explanation please? :)

Personaly, think multidirectional pixels would be a good way for 3d displays.
Ofcource with static pixels you would need very high res pixels wich means the subpixels would have to be to small, atoms just arent small anough.
But i think it could be done eventualy with low res pixels that can change direction angle about a few pixels vertical and horizontal.
Cameras would track the eyes 3d possition and the pixels would be alined so there is never more than one eye in the same subpixel.
All subpixels an eye is looking in would have their color calculated based on the exact possition of the eye meaning you have analog directional resolution, as the eye moves in the angles the pixels would move with them until you have moved 1angle pixel width and then it would switch back one pixel width so youre in the next subpixel.
All subpixels without eyes in them would display the average color of that angle range.
This way it would seem as if the environment you see is realy behind the display, for example if a flashlight would be aimed in your room it would light up the room exactly like it would when it was realy there.
For it to be realistic with a sun shining trough the hole in your room you would need very high brightness pixels ofcource but this might be possible in the future.
With the eye tracking cameras i actualy have very small ones in mind that would be even smaller than the pixels, there could be thousands or millions low res cameras in the display that would have a very high combined level of detail.
From those cameras a high detail 3dimensional representation of the room could be calculated and your room would also light up the virtual world so you could also shine flashlights into the environment, you could also see someone elses room trough the hole.
I think if the pixels are small anough even your focus on objects at different distances could be completely realistic.

I think this would be better than the holographic displays ive seen in movies since those always are transparent, i think it would be very nice to have a 5x2.5 meter display like this in your house :).

I think this will probably require advanced molecular assembly, so its not for the near future :( It would also require petaflop computers to have optimal quality so it would have to wait for that anyways.
 
sunscar said:
Holographic display... are you refering to a stereoscopic display, or a true holographic voxel type display? In that case (voxel) wouldn't we be talking about voxel volume? A cubic field about 1000x1000x1000 would need effectively 1,000,000,000 voxels (basically 3D pixels or volume elements). Hard to find anything right now that'll even drive something that quality... 60 frames per second = atleast 60 billion voxels per second, but damn would it be frikkin sweet. What would you store the data on is what I wonder, similar holo-optical disc only using violet LED for the writer? Some form of intelligent, inferencing media?

But only a tiny fraction of these 1 billion voxels are opaque.
Even the current 2D buffer + ZDepth would be enough for a somewhat limited holographic image. For the real thing you may need several layers and views(from X,Y and Z) or some other clever way to store only the opaque pixels.
 
That's true too, any voxel that is obscured within 3D space doesn't need to be drawn, so a Z-buffer of sorts could be used to bring down the draw requirement.

If anybody's wondering.

In essence, for the drawing of a cube that is 100x100x100 voxels you wouldn't need 1,000,000 voxels to be rendered, just the ones on the surface (the box is hollow), you would need 600 voxels instead.


Later


Iridius Dio
 
Well actually I meant just what I said, a holographic display ... as in a 2D display with high enough resolution to be able to display the tiny zone/fresnel-lenses which build up a hologram :)
 
BigGamer X said:
"with a transfer speed of one gigabyte per second (40 times the speed of DVD). "
That's what has me excited!! :devilish:
oh yeah :D 8) .. that aspect of this new storage medium has been the most underrated thus far, IMO.....

1 GB/s is a huge transfer rate...

for comparison, the Western Digital Raptor 74 GB hard drive (currently one of the world's fastest SATA hard drives) has a sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/s ....
 
"with a transfer speed of one gigabyte per second (40 times the speed of DVD). "


That's what has me excited!! Twisted Evil
oh yeah Very Happy Cool .. that aspect of this new storage medium has been the most underrated thus far, IMO.....

1 GB/s is a huge transfer rate...

for comparison, the Western Digital Raptor 74 GB hard drive (currently one of the world's fastest SATA hard drives) has a sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/s ...

Back from the dead.. (Freaky, the last post on this thread was on Sept 11th)
 
Wunderchu said:
BigGamer X said:
"with a transfer speed of one gigabyte per second (40 times the speed of DVD). "
That's what has me excited!! :devilish:
oh yeah :D 8) .. that aspect of this new storage medium has been the most underrated thus far, IMO.....

1 GB/s is a huge transfer rate...

for comparison, the Western Digital Raptor 74 GB hard drive (currently one of the world's fastest SATA hard drives) has a sustained transfer rate of 72 MB/s ....

I don't believe that speed, if true that would be amazing *prays it somehow makes it into a next-gen system*
 
london-boy said:
GwymWeepa said:
I don't believe that speed, if true that would be amazing *prays it somehow makes it into a next-gen system*


Oh u can pray... ;)

I just dream of massive games that lack load time...why oh why must new technology take so much time to implement.
 
GwymWeepa said:
london-boy said:
GwymWeepa said:
I don't believe that speed, if true that would be amazing *prays it somehow makes it into a next-gen system*


Oh u can pray... ;)

I just dream of massive games that lack load time...why oh why must new technology take so much time to implement.

It doesn't. You just have to be able to afford it :devilish:
 
london-boy said:
GwymWeepa said:
london-boy said:
GwymWeepa said:
I don't believe that speed, if true that would be amazing *prays it somehow makes it into a next-gen system*


Oh u can pray... ;)

I just dream of massive games that lack load time...why oh why must new technology take so much time to implement.

It doesn't. You just have to be able to afford it :devilish:

Hey it takes time to make money lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top