And the price of the media/expensive coasters in training will be . . . ?

I'm sorry, but how does this technically impressive but inherently unstable layer cake compete against inexpensive, stable, and fast hard drives?

Priced a BD disk recently?

i.e. the PS3 ?

It sure sounds that way... Looks like the 360 is getting REALLY left behind... 6GB for the 360 (2.8GB of every 360 disc is "security data" according to Microsoft), 50GB on PS3, with the prospect of 10x that amount...

Sweet..

By the time such discs reach beyond the prototype stage, the next console generation will likely all have BD drives in them, rendering the whole argument moot.

Are you proposing that the capacity of the disk makes the games console better?

If so: thank you for your insightful analysis.

WTF have games consoles got to do with this news?

Fanboi for fanboi's sake methinks.....

>How does this technically impressive but inherently unstable layer

>cake compete against inexpensive, stable, and fast hard drives?

You think the first hard drives were big and stable? Or any other technology for that matter?

>Priced a BD disk recently?

Uh, yes. A 25GB BD goes for about $12 now, prices already dropped since last year's $20.

A BD has a shelf life of approximately 200 years, a HD doesn't get anywhere close and it's subject to mechanical failure.

As a professional photographer I rather burn a few coasters and have my photos safely backed up on several BD than several HDD.

You know, not everybody needs storage to save their illegally downloaded games, videos and music.

8 months ago HD-DVD were claiming they had the highest capacity because they had a *prototype* 51Gb triple-layer disc. Just goes to show that sticking with DVD technology wasn't going to last in the long run.

By the way, turning a blu-ray article into a PS3v360 rant is unnecessary. Are you really that insecure about your favourite console?

Just because they can make them that big doesnt ever mean they will become mainstream. Wasnt the orginal DVD supposed to have a maximum capacity of 17gb (Double Sided / Double Layered) yet to my knowledge it never got mass produced or used.

You can get a 500GB hard drive now for £45, plus a tenner for a USB enclosure.

Thats got to be cheaper, faster and safer than this thing.

Optical media is dead for now, wake me up when they perfect holographic mega-storage.

"Are you proposing that the capacity of the disk makes the games console better?"

No, but having a smaller drive makes for worse games. Clearly you cvan never have enough disk space...

But will it ever get produced and used?

Not if the RIAA or the MPAA are permitted to have any say in the matter.

"You know, not everybody needs storage to save their illegally downloaded games, videos and music."

Thank you very much for that in-depth analysis that clearly proves that just because someone prefers a different storage method than yours then they must obviously be criminals. I'll go and turn myself in right now.

"Pioneer launched a 400GB Blu-ray disc just last month" - don't be an idiot James.

They did no such thing.

Pioneer announced it was possible and that they achieved it, not that they launched the damn thing.

Launching implies it's ready and will soon be in the shops, when it's nowhere near.

Stop scaremongering reg, get your facts right!

The same "technology" that allows the extra layers in Blu-Ray would have been possible with HD DVD with enough research and investment. The two technologies, as we've banged on about for long enough, are virtually identical for all practical purposes. The one that won simply had backers with more vocal and financial clout that's all.

Both were as future looking as the other, although neither really are that future looking as they're missing the boat entirely with the shift to online media. Optical media is short lived. Give it 10 years and RIP.

All of this is theoretical though. As said, even if these were produced, a 500gb hard disc would be cheaper!

P.S. 51gb HD DVD was a reality and ready for production. 400 / 500 gb BD is just a lab demo.

Maximum storage capacity ever released: blu-ray 50Gb, HD-DVD 30Gb.

Raw data transfer maximum bitrate: blu-ray 53.95Mbit/s, HD-DVD 36.55Mbit/s

Video maximum bitrate: blu-ray 40.0Mb/s, HD-DVD 29.4Mbit/s

More storage capacity + higher bitrate = more backers = WIN

The 51Gb HD-DVD was never produced, and the question of whether it would even be compatible with existing players was never answered.

excellent, more storage..;)

cheers,

bill

stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum

I cant be bothered to figure it out, or even see if i can find the figures to do that...

So can someone tell me how long it would take to burn 500GB to one of these prototype discs....?

Assuming (poorly) that we can burn these disks at 8x (as the latest BD burners are), that would take over 200 minutes or about 3 1/3rd hours.

Aaah nice to see you are still bitter about HD-DVD demise and making the same old pro HD-DVD comments. As AC pointed out the 51gb disc was in fact only at lab prototype stage and if you can be bothered to do enough background reading and digging about in the specialist technical press, it is very clear to see that R&D for product advancements stopped with HD-DVD quite some time before the Tosh pulled the plug. The claim to the press of it been production ready was rubbish. It wasn't.

In short mate, what you said is very incorrect regardless of the practicalities, or indeed every day feasibility, of this 500gb BR disc.

Storage flamewar! 3, 2, 1 - fight!

Seriously, people... I know this is the internet, but some things just aren't worth fighting about.