Up from the current 25GB/layer.
Unsure if it requires different discs but existing readers/burners can use this with a firmware update.
Might allow more video per disc, though, as I don't have any BD, IDK if movies often even fully consume a single layer. Maybe if BD becomes a popular data storage format perhaps...
Story:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3977
Ahh... wonder what this means for gaming. For example, MGS4 had to be compressed to be fit into one disc.
Different structure>? because i read about 100gig blu-ray disc's.
wiki Wrote:Its main uses are for storing high-definition video, PlayStation 3 video games, and other data, with up to 25 GB per single layered, and 50 GB per dual layered disc prototypes. Although these numbers represent the standard storage for Blu-Ray drives, the specification is open-ended, with the upper theoretical storage limit left unclear. 200 GB discs are available, and 100 GB discs are readable without extra equipment or modified firmware. The disc has the same physical dimensions as standard DVDs and CDs.
feinicks Wrote:Ahh... wonder what this means for gaming. For example, MGS4 had to be compressed to be fit into one disc.
I haven't seen a multi-disk game in a while.
completely uncompressed with many different audio track on a Blu-Ray, and special features, im quite sure they take up about 30GB, so this might take the film down to single layer discs to make it cheaper to buy and manufacture discs.
This just seems like more for PS3. It could mean "degraded quality" aspects on 360 may be more evident in future games.. after all, the PS3 was made to be future proof.
Vegetano1 Wrote:Different structure>? because i read about 100gig blu-ray disc's.
Quote:Quad-layer (100 GB) discs have been demonstrated on a drive with modified optics
So basically, it's done with 4x25GB layers. It's still 25GB/layer, whereas this is an actual increase in the layer size, so potentially 4x33.4GB = 133.6GB quad layer BD.
ProperBritish Wrote:completely uncompressed with many different audio track on a Blu-Ray, and special features, im quite sure they take up about 30GB, so this might take the film down to single layer discs to make it cheaper to buy and manufacture discs.
Uncompressed video is gigantic, so no. It will definitely be cheaper to manufacture, but the cost of discs to end users will most likely remain the same (pricing for movies etc were NEVER based on how much it cost to manufacture the actual product) - unless you're talking about piracy markets in various Asian countries.
BD-R(W) discs will get more storage for the cost, if they become popular.
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Quote:Quad-layer (100 GB) discs have been demonstrated on a drive with modified optics
So basically, it's done with 4x25GB layers. It's still 25GB/layer, whereas this is an actual increase in the layer size, so potentially 4x33.4GB = 133.6GB quad layer BD.
Awwww... no more tidy numbers :(
Senseito7 Wrote:ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Quote:Quad-layer (100 GB) discs have been demonstrated on a drive with modified optics
So basically, it's done with 4x25GB layers. It's still 25GB/layer, whereas this is an actual increase in the layer size, so potentially 4x33.4GB = 133.6GB quad layer BD.
Awwww... no more tidy numbers :(
nop, doesn't look like it. but damn at 133gb per disk, i could back up my whole computer onto one disk. think its time to buy a blu ray player...
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:ProperBritish Wrote:completely uncompressed with many different audio track on a Blu-Ray, and special features, im quite sure they take up about 30GB, so this might take the film down to single layer discs to make it cheaper to buy and manufacture discs.
Uncompressed video is gigantic, so no.
Uncompressed video? Like raw RGB? Lets do some rough estimates (probably not all that accurate, but you should get the idea).
Assume...
video length = 100mins = 6000 seconds
video fps = 25
total amount of frames = 150000
frame size = 1920x1080
size of each frame in raw RGB = 6MB (estimated by saving 1080p image in bitmap)
total size of video = 900000MB = 900GB.
Uncompressed video is just stupid though. Use a lossless codec instead. (Lossless video is also stupid too for that matter).