Hazuki Ryu
Regular
why would they need more than 50 gb of space? Dont think even next gen will
It is PS3 able to read 4 layer BD ?
- Thread starter Deloix
- Start date
djskribbles
Legend
i agree. by the time they need more, the PS4 will be available.
I somewhat agree, though It's still questionable - the same rule applies here as it does with RAM. Devs can always use more of everything, and that won't really ever change. Even fifty years from now, it'll likely still be the same.
Somewhere, right now, there's probably atleast one dev, quipping about storage limmits of even double layer Blu-Ray, and even giving them eight times more isn't going to satiate their "need". So it's not unforseeable that another generation from now, someone's going to complain that 200GBs is by far, not enough for their ideas to live inside.
Somewhere, right now, there's probably atleast one dev, quipping about storage limmits of even double layer Blu-Ray, and even giving them eight times more isn't going to satiate their "need". So it's not unforseeable that another generation from now, someone's going to complain that 200GBs is by far, not enough for their ideas to live inside.
There is always the spec and the intent of the engineers, but there is always some overzealous cut costing guy that manages to fubar stuff
Not that I believe it happened with PS3 BD hardware, but until there is a FW that does it, its better to just wait and see, instead of assuming that it will work
It's not your bad english. It's our bad english. There is no good english, what do you expect from a language that's main claim to fame is that it is essentially descended from every other language, and can leave no rule unbroken?My bad english
Not really. the BD ROM technical specs don't have information on more than 2 layers. More layers than that would have to be proposed, standardised, ratified, injected, inspected, infected.. you get the idea.
Also, it's not as simple as just refocusing the laser. Every layer you have to read through increases the reflection, and the read errors that you will have, the layers don't magically become invisible when the laser refocuses.
The difference between a working lab sample, and a mass produced disc is vast. For instance, I've seen a 10 layer 47GB DVD, actually working. It's amazing what you can do when cost and resources are not an issue.
(Oh, and they have 3 lasers. Infra-red for CD, Red for DVD, and Blue for BD)
It's not your bad english. It's our bad english. There is no good english, what do you expect from a language that's main claim to fame is that it is essentially descended from every other language, and can leave no rule unbroken?
Not really. the BD ROM technical specs don't have information on more than 2 layers. More layers than that would have to be proposed, standardised, ratified, injected, inspected, infected.. you get the idea.
Also, it's not as simple as just refocusing the laser. Every layer you have to read through increases the reflection, and the read errors that you will have, the layers don't magically become invisible when the laser refocuses.
The difference between a working lab sample, and a mass produced disc is vast. For instance, I've seen a 10 layer 47GB DVD, actually working. It's amazing what you can do when cost and resources are not an issue.
(Oh, and they have 3 lasers. Infra-red for CD, Red for DVD, and Blue for BD)
I think you'll find the English language is full of complex rules, vocab and own words, whether derived from other languages or not. There is a correct and non-correct way to speak it.
Thanks for the rest of your info.
Heh, of course it does. Which "correct" way are you referring to? British English, US English (If so, which sub-dialect, a sentence can be correct or incorrect depending on whether you live in Washington or South Carolina), South African Standard English?
English has many dialects, and many spelling differences, and many grammar differences, it all depends on where you live.
Even the rules that everyone agrees with have more exceptions than pretty much any other language. If "bough" is pronounced "bow", why is "rough" not "row"? Speaking of "bow" and "row", did I mean "bow" as in arrow, or "bow", which you do to the queen? "row", as in "rowboat" or "row" as in a fight?
Just because we imbibed these crazy rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions from birth, doesn't mean we should assume they're natural, or even the "right" way of doing it. I'm always amused at the crazy rules English has, but that's due to me having two first languages, with the second one having almost no exceptions and much saner rules.
A while ago when 4 layer disks were mentioned, being compatible with current players/drives (obviously including PS3) was mentioned.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19493
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19493
Dominik D
Regular
Small note: devs could use more bandwidth. More storage capacity with the same read speed seems like bad idea to me. That isn't going to change for the PS3 though (unless it gets new BR drive).
It´s very unlikely we will ever see anything usefull coming from 4 layer discs. The competition is gone, the bitrate vs space is about ok for movies. And Sony can still hit the 360 over the head with 7 times more space. Going up to 14 will not achieve anything important in PR terms.
That being said, i would love commercial 4 layer movie discs, at least as long as the transfer rate doesnt suffer on the 3+4 layer
That being said, i would love commercial 4 layer movie discs, at least as long as the transfer rate doesnt suffer on the 3+4 layer
Hey wait a sec, they could fit an entire season of Miami Vice on one disc! I say that only half jokingly though, it would be great for tv series, or movies like the James Bond collection, etc. I sure hope 100gb blu-rays for movies and tv shows becomes a reality someday.
I would kill small hamsters for the original Miami Vice series remastered in HD
As i said, i would be worried that the transfer rate would have to suffer.
Yeah I think 4 layer is probably overkill in the near future.
Just a question though, *IF* they can make PS3 read 4 layer discs reliably, what is the implication to performance since presumably the head should travel shorter distance now to seek and read the same amount of data ?
In other words, will we have faster seek and read time ? (We don't have to fill up the entire 4 layer disc to reap this benefit).
Just a question though, *IF* they can make PS3 read 4 layer discs reliably, what is the implication to performance since presumably the head should travel shorter distance now to seek and read the same amount of data ?
In other words, will we have faster seek and read time ? (We don't have to fill up the entire 4 layer disc to reap this benefit).
Discs are read as the laser moves on its track. It switches layers at the edge of the track and the laser moves in the opposite direction to read the next layer. Switching layers at a given laser position is a lot slower... just look at early DVD players that had trouble switching layers during a movie. The problem has been lessened, but it's still inherently slower.So what do you mean by traveling a shorter distance? Compared to DVD's red laser the advantage should be obvious, but with respect to multiple layers, you're not making sense.
So what do you mean by traveling a shorter distance? Compared to DVD's red laser the advantage should be obvious, but with respect to multiple layers, you're not making sense.
Ah ! I thought switching layer does not involve mechanical movement (switch at edge of the track and move in opposite direction), only refocusing the laser. If switching layer is very slow, then all the more 4 layer discs do not seem worthwhile to me.
EDIT: Now I remember people were saying DVD9 is slow when switching layer.
Last edited by a moderator:
AlStrong: What I think he's suggesting is to have the data for, say, a single level spread out over four different layers, all within a very small physical section of the disc, instead of having it all on a single layer where the laser has to track further in order to read it all. The read head wouldn't have to move very much, it could simply refocus to a different layer on the fly, theoretically reducing load times by a fair margin without having to increase the spin speed of the disc.
It's a good idea, though.. maybe they should think about implementing that at some point, especially in regards to raw data transfer rather than streaming a single media file (aka a movie).
I wasn't aware of the limitation of having it refocus only at the end-points of the track, though. Obviously that's the standard when watching a film or streaming continuous data in a similar fashion, but it seems a bit limiting when you think about using multiple layers for pulling a relatively small bundles of files.
As for the benefits? Data storage is an obvious one, for backing up data from a PC or server, transporting large amounts of data, etc. You could fit nearly an entire season of high-definition TV on a single disc, depending on the compression and episode length. All three LOTR Extended Editions on a single disc. A two-disc Star Wars box set, one for each trilogy, plus boatloads of special features on each disc.
Benefits for games? Not so much. Hideo Kojima was apparently quoted as saying a 50GB Blu-ray disc is too small for MGS4, but I have a funny feeling he was either mistaken (i.e. filled a 25GB disc) or was badly misquoted by the press. I guess we'll find that one out when the game's released. Surely someone will pop it into a PC and give us a number.
It's a good idea, though.. maybe they should think about implementing that at some point, especially in regards to raw data transfer rather than streaming a single media file (aka a movie).
I wasn't aware of the limitation of having it refocus only at the end-points of the track, though. Obviously that's the standard when watching a film or streaming continuous data in a similar fashion, but it seems a bit limiting when you think about using multiple layers for pulling a relatively small bundles of files.
As for the benefits? Data storage is an obvious one, for backing up data from a PC or server, transporting large amounts of data, etc. You could fit nearly an entire season of high-definition TV on a single disc, depending on the compression and episode length. All three LOTR Extended Editions on a single disc. A two-disc Star Wars box set, one for each trilogy, plus boatloads of special features on each disc.
Benefits for games? Not so much. Hideo Kojima was apparently quoted as saying a 50GB Blu-ray disc is too small for MGS4, but I have a funny feeling he was either mistaken (i.e. filled a 25GB disc) or was badly misquoted by the press. I guess we'll find that one out when the game's released. Surely someone will pop it into a PC and give us a number.
Well, keep in mind that data is laid out as a spiral starting from the inner track. If you split the sequential data across the multiple layers over a shorter radial distance, you'd be spending more time switching layers than just moving the head,. For a linear game, that would be terrible.
Refocusing the laser isn't trivial... there's a delay incurred trying to align the laser beam appropriately so that there's no interference between the other layers. Can you not imagine the complexity to do that "seamlessly"?
It'd be like trying to climb a set of stairs up and down all the time instead of just walking across the room to take an elevator.edit: aligning the laser to try and read higher layers is difficult enough... remember, you're shining the laser beam through three other layers that you don't want to read, and you want reflection/absorption from only one of those layers to indicate your 1s and 0s. Shining the laser is one thing, but then you need that light to also traverse backwards through the mediums to the head detector.
For all intents and purposes, switching tracks mid-spiral can be considered an additional seek time, perhaps more so if you want to use the capacity of the disc efficiently by backtracking. It just doesn't make any practical sense! Recall the spiral... data is being read in one direction, and now you're asking to go in reverse.. The data layout would be quite hellish, switching between the spiral directions....
I think devs have better things to do and easier options like redundant data...
Right, if the 4 layer disc offers no performance improvement in reading the same/larger amount of data, then it is only a storage size advantage. Only MGS4 is said to "exceed" the 50Gb limit today after massive development effort. So it's still pretty far out.
But such layer switching hassle certainly puts the straight 25Gb BR disc in more positive light. Rather than investing in 4 layer firmware, Sony should invest in a combined HDD + Blu-ray streaming framework (like the one Insomniac put together).
But such layer switching hassle certainly puts the straight 25Gb BR disc in more positive light. Rather than investing in 4 layer firmware, Sony should invest in a combined HDD + Blu-ray streaming framework (like the one Insomniac put together).
Similar threads
- Locked