Maybe this will improve their movies :http://www.news4gamers.com/ps3/News-6613.aspx
Man, about time, lets see what they can do with 50 GBs?
Man, about time, lets see what they can do with 50 GBs?
Sony is finally delivering 50GB BluRay Discs!
- Thread starter JoeSp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 4K
Beats me! 
Hope they will eventually. And I hope they will be able to match the PQ of HD DVD one way or another.
I personally don't care which format wins, as long as it delivers the PQ at least on par with present HD DVDs, but not like the first Blu-ray releases.
I would really hate to see Blu-ray win just because of the number of PS3's sold and continue using MPEG-2 on single-layer discs for all future titles. That would be a nightmare!
Hope they will eventually. And I hope they will be able to match the PQ of HD DVD one way or another.
I personally don't care which format wins, as long as it delivers the PQ at least on par with present HD DVDs, but not like the first Blu-ray releases.
I would really hate to see Blu-ray win just because of the number of PS3's sold and continue using MPEG-2 on single-layer discs for all future titles. That would be a nightmare!
JoeSp said:
Two different disc types, the BD-R is recordable, the BD-ROM (read mass produced, movies) are stamped on a production line where the BD-R is written to by a laser. The latter is way too expensive and time consuming to use for mass production.
Ilya said:
Ah, then it must be for that BD recorder. You know, the one that doesn't play BD movies at all.
But at least it's a crazy expensive yet unproven backup technology, sporting a very sensistive optical medium, with way slower speed than a much cheaper yet much-much bigger capacity, highly resistant tape technology, famous about its decades-long proven reliability. Yippy.
Last edited:
T2K:
I've made similar arguments that even the 100GB quad layer media isn't sufficient for enterprise level backups to Blu-Ray. Glad to see someone else has seen through the smoke and mirrors.
Hell, with the amount of data I'm starting to monkey with around my house, it's not really practical for me either ;-)
Cheers,
I've made similar arguments that even the 100GB quad layer media isn't sufficient for enterprise level backups to Blu-Ray. Glad to see someone else has seen through the smoke and mirrors.
Hell, with the amount of data I'm starting to monkey with around my house, it's not really practical for me either ;-)
Cheers,
Well, for small businesses such as where I work, 100Gb would be fine- even 50GB for the next few years. We use maybe half of an 80GB tape today, and I look forward to an eventual move to disk. I might try USB HD backups also, but you wouldn't want to carry that back and forth to off site storage much. Tape is too slow and unreliable. I expect disk will become cheaper, faster and longer lived. And take up a LOT less storage space. Maybe those HVDs will actually come to market.
navychop:
I agree it's theoretically nice for smaller businesses. But I think that multiple hard drive backups (as cheap as they're getting) are really a better option for you.
But tape is neither slow nor unreliable in the big data centers where I deal with stuff.
I agree it's theoretically nice for smaller businesses. But I think that multiple hard drive backups (as cheap as they're getting) are really a better option for you.
But tape is neither slow nor unreliable in the big data centers where I deal with stuff.
I like the speed of hard drive backups. But they are a bit delicate and bulky, compared to discs and tapes, to carry offsite regularly.
Nice for you in big data centers. I've had to work with quarter inch and later the Travan variants, and had problems. No errors reported, mind you, just no such file in the backup, or unreadable. The wear problem was addressed by throwing money at it. Now I use DLT, which I hope is more reliable. But surely disc backups will get faster and outdistance tapes in this price range. I'd love to do an "over lunch" backup rather than an "overnight."
Since the vast majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, I daresay there is a very large market for a backup solution that improves upon tape in speed, reliability, ruggedness and size. A lot of us could be put out of business if we didn't have off site backup storage and something unfortunate happened to the workplace.
The disc could be BD, HVD, or next year's nano platter for all I care. Just provide the improvements at reasonable cost. I HOPE to see something next year in the 50 plus GB range. But I've had to upgrade capacity twice in the last 6 years, so maybe I'd better hope for 100 GB.
Nice for you in big data centers. I've had to work with quarter inch and later the Travan variants, and had problems. No errors reported, mind you, just no such file in the backup, or unreadable. The wear problem was addressed by throwing money at it. Now I use DLT, which I hope is more reliable. But surely disc backups will get faster and outdistance tapes in this price range. I'd love to do an "over lunch" backup rather than an "overnight."
Since the vast majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, I daresay there is a very large market for a backup solution that improves upon tape in speed, reliability, ruggedness and size. A lot of us could be put out of business if we didn't have off site backup storage and something unfortunate happened to the workplace.
The disc could be BD, HVD, or next year's nano platter for all I care. Just provide the improvements at reasonable cost. I HOPE to see something next year in the 50 plus GB range. But I've had to upgrade capacity twice in the last 6 years, so maybe I'd better hope for 100 GB.
I view BR as an ideal backup medium. I will probably buy a BR drive when they drop below $500 (i.e. second generation). We used exabyte tapes for a long time, but the drives break down, and the tape was inconvient.
John Kotches said:
Exactly. Nobody in his right mind would enjoy to pay $1K for an unreliable, unproven yet slow and very expensive technology.
navychop said:
Hard drives are not bulky for years now. A regular 2.5" mobile housed 120GB unit fits into your pocket.
Delicate - you bet it is. But BR will just as delicate, thanks to it's very thin layer.
First rule is always verify your backups. Second is have two copies if your data is so sensistive, one on-site,. one off-site.
[quote
Now I use DLT, which I hope is more reliable. But surely disc backups will get faster and outdistance tapes in this price range.
[/bquote]
Khm, you couldn't be fruther from truth - similarly priced tape technologies are FAR FASTER than BR or HD-DVD.
I do, on daily basis.
There's no such thing. Tape is far more reliable than *anything* can come from optical world, let alone it's cheaper and faster.
A lot of you need to educate yourself on backup technologies instead of making confident but utterly wrong decisions, due to your lack of knowledge.
You really need to refresh your knowledge on tapes.
FYI: DLT is a very old, outdated technology. I use the last DLT IV drive - 40/80GB per tape - for years now.[/b]
LTO is at its 3rd generation - 400/800GB per tape - now and it writes faster than your hard drives can read.
I did this already few months ago but here's a quick cost comparison again:
Here's a new LTO-1 drive for $300: http://cgi.ebay.com/Hp-Ultrium-230-...ryZ51090QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
One 100/200GB tape costs $15 or a dozen for $140 and will be fine for decades.
(In case you don't have a SCSI card you can get a sufficient one for $20...)
This drives will write at 20MB/s, approx 7X faster than your $1000 Blu-Ray recorder will.
If you choose to go with LTO-2, the drive goes around $700-800 - still $200 cheaper than Blu-Ray - and writes 15x faster than your $1000 Blu-Ray recorder will.
LTO tape, like DSL or other tape technologies, has no moving parts inside and lasts for years.
mike123abc said:
Blu-Ray is probably the worst possible backup medium.
It's much more sensitive to scratches than even an average DVD disc and bears literally zero reliability when compared to tape, waaaaaaay slower than tape but much more expensive.
It's your constitutional right to waste your money on silly things...
Any electronics fail and Exabyte or Blu-Ray drives are no execptions. However Exabytes have a proven reliability which, it's safe to say already, will far exceed of such a delicate technology like Blu-Ray's reliability.
Ehhh what??
Tapes are smaller than discs.
There is a hard coating on the BR so less likely to scratch compared to DVD. Now only long term studies will show if it works or not. Quality optical media designed for archiving can out last tapes. TDK claims their professional line of BR media lasts over 50 years.
The problem you always have is that it is more likely you will not be able to read the media any more because you have to find a backwards compatible drive. I have reel to reel tapes from 20 years ago. Not many places have drives any more that can read them. Copying them to new media every so many years is really the only solution. Which negates the arguments about media format longevity.
The problem you always have is that it is more likely you will not be able to read the media any more because you have to find a backwards compatible drive. I have reel to reel tapes from 20 years ago. Not many places have drives any more that can read them. Copying them to new media every so many years is really the only solution. Which negates the arguments about media format longevity.
mike123abc said:
No, there isn't. IIRC TDK promised it a year ago and it's still has yet to be delivered .
Which makes it unproven, yes, unlike tape technology.
Who told you this fairy tale?
It's actually vica versa.
TDK also claimed he will have dual-layer discs by now, triple-layer by the end of 2006, all with special coating...
all of these has to show up yet. These things make TDK look very similar to Sony, I have to say this.
It's business, not technolgical problem, we know that. However modern tape drives like LTOs all backward compatible. IIRC VXAs too.
Besides the archiver/manager should follow these things and if one technology disappears forever - about once in every 20 years -, he should order the transfers in time.
Well, those are not 'tapes' in the same manner we use 'tape' nowadays (=tape cartridge), rather reels... and I'm pretty sure you can buy a working unit on ebay, it was only 20 ys ago, that's 80s only. Heck, I can find plenty of working unit of my first home computer from 82...
Exactly.
Which is true for everything, not only tapes.
Imagine somebody who wants to find one of those Olympus optical drives 10 years from now... PS: In fact I'm thinking about buying an LTO for home... currently I'm using DLT 40/80 but while *one* LTO-2 tape or *two* LTO-1 would hold *ALL* of the 21 James Bond 007 episodes in HD, 6-7 would be required from DLT... the only problem I dropped SCSI from my new machine, I want silence.
A compromised solution could be an internal IDE, single 5,25" Exabyte VXA-2 drive - kinda slow, 6/12MB/s - and its 80/160GB tapes - but each tape costs ~40, very expensive... Man, a tape for LTO is around $12...
A compromised solution could be an internal IDE, single 5,25" Exabyte VXA-2 drive - kinda slow, 6/12MB/s - and its 80/160GB tapes - but each tape costs ~40, very expensive...
Man, a tape for LTO is around $12... 
Tape is a good backup medium. Where DVD does better is for archiving files for random access. If you back up a 4GB of data on tape and need a file from the last half of that tape, you have to scan through the tape until you get to the file. Off the DVD (HD DVD / BR), its accessible like a hard drive and quickly files the necessary files.
I've used tapes for many many years. I've found that in the long term, tapes are not near as reliable as I've had with CD / DVD etc. Way too many times have I gone back to a backup two of three years and have not been able to read it anymore.
I would also point out that most tape drives I've seen always over state their read write rates. Even thought it say you can write at 20MB/sec, if the disk is limited to reading of only 10MB/sec, then you'll get 10MB or less on the writing to tape.
I've used tapes for many many years. I've found that in the long term, tapes are not near as reliable as I've had with CD / DVD etc. Way too many times have I gone back to a backup two of three years and have not been able to read it anymore.
I would also point out that most tape drives I've seen always over state their read write rates. Even thought it say you can write at 20MB/sec, if the disk is limited to reading of only 10MB/sec, then you'll get 10MB or less on the writing to tape.
Last edited:
