VMD formerly FMD is now reality.

[NANOTEC]

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=17027

I've been a fan of FMD back when Constellation 3d was still in existence. Since then the FMD technology took a slight change and became VMD using some of the same principles that FMD did. It looks like it's finally going to be a consumer product after 5+ years.

 

[Rolf N]

How is this different from HD-DVD?
Does the market need yet another "standard" format in that capacity/performance/etc range? The BluRay vs HD-DVD battle isn't totally over either.

 

[NANOTEC]

How is this different from HD-DVD?
Does the market need yet another "standard" format in that capacity/performance/etc range? The BluRay vs HD-DVD battle isn't totally over either.

Well it's different in that it it's superior to both HD DVD and Blu-ray as an optical disc. It allows multiple layers like BR yet it can uses existing DVD replication equipment like HD DVD. It can already hold 40GB using red laser(very cheap) 4 layers.

 

[Guden Oden]

Red laser = low density = slow data transfer rates = high RPM = noisy, fragile, power-hungry.

BR >>> this tech.

 

[Rolf N]

Well it's different in that it it's superior to both HD DVD and Blu-ray as an optical disc. It allows multiple layers like BR yet it can uses existing DVD replication equipment like HD DVD. It can already hold 40GB using red laser(very cheap) 4 layers.

I can somewhat see the point against BR, but then it doesn't look like HD-DVD was enough to kill off BR and this is more complicated than HD-DVD. You may be able to reuse the same laser diode (like HD-DVD, unlike BR), but if there are more layers on the disc, you need a new and more complicated (adjustable?) lens. Disc manufacturing will also be more difficult if you use more layers.

I have my doubts that this really works out. The only strong points I see about this are the reuse of the laser diode, and that it's not Microsoft's idea -- which allows some hope wrt DRM policy, the push towards the WMV format and the whole problem of Java vs .NET vs whatever for interactivity.

Economically it's all the red laser diode. Yay.

 

[NANOTEC]

Red laser = low density = slow data transfer rates = high RPM = noisy, fragile, power-hungry.

BR >>> this tech.

Well of course, but the point is it's gets high capacity with minimal cost using red laser. The number of layers can scale higher too with minimal increase in cost. Finally it can use blue laser too at which point it blows BR off this planet.

I can somewhat see the point against BR, but then it doesn't look like HD-DVD was enough to kill off BR and this is more complicated than HD-DVD. You may be able to reuse the same laser diode (like HD-DVD, unlike BR), but if there are more layers on the disc, you need a new and more complicated (adjustable?) lens. Disc manufacturing will also be more difficult if you use more layers.

I have my doubts that this really works out. The only strong points I see about this are the reuse of the laser diode, and that it's not Microsoft's idea -- which allows some hope wrt DRM policy, the push towards the WMV format and the whole problem of Java vs .NET vs whatever for interactivity.

Economically it's all the red laser diode. Yay.

The VMD players will only be $150.