Forget Blu-Ray, ICL Holds The DVD Key

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-29 10:45am

DVDs could hold '100 times more'

Future DVDs could hold 100 times more information than current discs.

Imperial College London researchers in the UK are developing a new way of storing data that could lead to discs capable of holding 1,000 gigabytes.

It means that every episode of The Simpsons could fit on a disc the size of a normal DVD.

Lecturer Dr Peter Torok revealed the technique called Multiplexed Optical Data Storage (Mods) at the Asia-Pacific Data Storage Conference 2004 in Taiwan.

472 hours of film

DVDs are one of the most successful consumer products in history. Most DVDs have two layers and can hold up to 8.5GB.

Work is already well advanced on the next generation.

One technology, HD-DVD (High Definition DVD), can hold up to 30GB, while a rival format called Blu-ray offers 50GB of storage.

The technique developed by the Imperial College team could offer much more on a disc.

The researchers believe their technique could be used to create a disc with four layers, each with 250GBs - the equivalent of 118 hours of video per layer.

A four-layer DVD could hold one terabyte (1,000Gbs) of data, enough for 472 hours of film, or every episode of The Simpsons ever made.

The Mods technique is laser-based like existing DVD and CD technology. A disc is made up of tiny grooves filled with pits that reflect the laser as a series of ones and zeroes.

Reflected light

Current discs carry one bit of data per pit. But the researchers say that by using angled ridges in the pits, they can alter the way light behaves.

The end result is a way of encoding and detecting up to 10 times more information from one pit.

"We came up with the idea for this disc some years ago," said Dr Torok, "but did not have the means to prove whether it worked.

"To do that we developed a precise method for calculating the properties of reflected light, partly due to the contribution of Peter Munro, a PhD student working with me on this project.

"We are using a mixture of numerical and analytical techniques that allow us to treat the scattering of light from the disc surface rigorously rather than just having to approximate it.

"The future for the mobile device market is likely to require small diameter discs storing much information. This is where a Mods disc could really fill a niche," he said.

It could be some time before the technology makes it way into the living room. The Imperial College team believe it could take five years to perfect their technique, with a commercial version available by 2010, depending on funding.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-29 11:47am

Bring on the 3-D interactive porn!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-29 12:01pm

aerius wrote:Bring on the 3-D interactive porn!

I find that funny coming from you of all people.

But yes, having that much porn, wow. I mean, man wasn't destined to hold that much. It's dangerous.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-09-29 12:05pm

Wow, I bought some DVDs to back up my 9 gigs of porn to, and now THIS happens! Wow, information storage is gradually getting more and more excessive, it's really quite impressive.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-29 03:14pm

TDK was working on a similar technology for CD's a couple years back, although their system used fewer grayscale variations. In any case, it is interesting, but unless it is applied to higher density formats, five years from now it would be useless. Sony has already demonstrated that they can build 200GB Blu-Ray discs without the complex circuitry that this sort of technology would require.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-29 06:58pm

Nice. Remind me to not buy any new formats until they finalize something like this.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-29 07:03pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Nice. Remind me to not buy any new formats until they finalize something like this.

Did you read the article? This isn't anywhere near completion.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-09-29 07:55pm

I just want Blu-Ray to win out over HD-DVD.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-29 07:58pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I just want Blu-Ray to win out over HD-DVD.

It will. The PS3 is using it (which automatically gives it an install base of ~50 million) and even the Xbox Next seems likely to be using Blu-Ray at this point, despite the fact that it is a Sony creation.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-29 07:59pm

The Kernel wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Nice. Remind me to not buy any new formats until they finalize something like this.
Did you read the article? This isn't anywhere near completion.

Yes, I know. And I also know that my DVD's will be fine for quite a while.

Stravo wrote:I just want Blu-Ray to win out over HD-DVD.

Why is that?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-29 08:02pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: Yes, I know. And I also know that my DVD's will be fine for quite a while.

Your DVD's do not support high definition which is a good reason to push a next-gen spec. That said, 200GB of storage doesn't give an inherent benefits over 50GB for current hardware, so it's not likely to provide much incentive for products outside of mass storage.

Why is that?

Because it is a superior spec to HD-DVD perhaps?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-09-29 08:05pm

At this point, the definition on the DVD's is fine for me. I don't really see how much better they can get, really. If I notice a marked improvement, then maybe.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-29 08:12pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:At this point, the definition on the DVD's is fine for me. I don't really see how much better they can get, really. If I notice a marked improvement, then maybe.

Here's an experiment. Try turning the resolution on your monitor to 640x480 and playing a game, then do some browsing and other miscelanous activities. Then, move the resolution up to 1600x1200 (or 1920x1080 if you have a widescreen which, incidentally is the same resolution as next-gen DVD's). See the difference?

It is hard today to visualize the difference between standard definition and high def because even if you have an HDTV AND HD reception, most content out there is not well optimized for HD resolutions. If you really want to see a good example, watch a CG movie like Shrek on the HBO-HD channel or even better, go into a high end AV shop and ask to see a demo of DVHS. The difference is positively stunning.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-09-29 08:16pm

I want Blu-Ray to win because it seems more of a genuine solution to the next generation format over HD-DVD, because of it's format superiority and specifications. Everything I've read about HD-DVD makes it sound like it's cheating around the problem by just using higher capacity compression rather than a superior physical storage medium and reading method. To my ears, HD-DVD sounds like a lazy half-assed and cheap proposal.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-29 11:44pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
aerius wrote:Bring on the 3-D interactive porn!
I find that funny coming from you of all people.

Porn is the driving force behind new technologies. Without porn, we wouldn't have multi-angle DVDs, high-speed internet, and streaming internet video among other things. All hail the power of porn!

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-09-30 02:46am

Everything I've read about HD-DVD makes it sound like it's cheating around the problem by just using higher capacity compression rather than a superior physical storage medium and reading method.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray make use of a blue laser as their reading mechanism. High-capacity discs are no problem... I remember them inventing a 200-gig disc the size of a quarter, several years ago, but it was useless because they didn't have anything that could READ it.

Both also make extensive use of compression technologies. It'd be stupid not to... raw DV video takes up gigabytes of space for just a few minutes (totally uncompressed video is even worse)... even a Blu-Ray disc wouldn't be able to hold more than twenty minutes of HD video. Video compression is absolutely necessary, even with higher capacity discs, and especially with HD.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-30 02:56am

SPOOFE wrote: Both also make extensive use of compression technologies. It'd be stupid not to... raw DV video takes up gigabytes of space for just a few minutes (totally uncompressed video is even worse)... even a Blu-Ray disc wouldn't be able to hold more than twenty minutes of HD video. Video compression is absolutely necessary, even with higher capacity discs, and especially with HD.

Blu-Ray doesn't require NEAR the level of compression of HD-DVD.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-09-30 03:04am

I know that Blu-Ray uses compression. Jesus, do you think I'm stupid?

HD-DVD's means of high capacity is emphasising compression over actual increased storage space, which is what Blu-Ray is actually doing. HD-DVD's methods to me seem half-assed and lazy compared to BR, which actually appears to address the the issue.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-30 09:13am

OTOH, HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture and can be done so with minimal modifications to existing lines. There are always compromises to be made. Its use of MPEG4-based codecs also means that it can effectively use space much more efficiently than the MPEG2-based DVD.

Of course, BD-ROM has a variety of different codecs as well.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-09-30 11:12am

Why don't they just combine them? The ultra-compression from HD-DVD, and the higher capacity of Blu-ray. That would be a DVD that fits a whole stinking LOT.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-30 11:21am

Praxis wrote:Why don't they just combine them? The ultra-compression from HD-DVD, and the higher capacity of Blu-ray. That would be a DVD that fits a whole stinking LOT.

BD-ROM has implemented MPEG4 and Microsoft's VC9 as well as MPEG2. I should note that VC9 is now an open format, one of the prerequisites to being accepted in either HD-DVD or BD-ROM.

It will also be extremely difficult if not virtually impossible to crack (unlike DVD's CSS, it uses a competent encryption algorithm, in this case AES).

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-09-30 08:10pm

I know that Blu-Ray uses compression. Jesus, do you think I'm stupid?

Do you really want an answer to that question?

HD-DVD's means of high capacity is emphasising compression over actual increased storage space, which is what Blu-Ray is actually doing. HD-DVD's methods to me seem half-assed and lazy compared to BR, which actually appears to address the the issue.

If there's no discernable difference in image quality (and I don't know if there is or isn't, as neither product is available), what does it matter? A smart person wouldn't care HOW the product is delivered to them, just the apparent quality.

I guess I DID wind up answering your first question, after all. Or maybe you did for me.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-30 08:20pm

SPOOFE wrote: If there's no discernable difference in image quality (and I don't know if there is or isn't, as neither product is available), what does it matter? A smart person wouldn't care HOW the product is delivered to them, just the apparent quality.

I guess I DID wind up answering your first question, after all. Or maybe you did for me.

You don't get this do you? Both specs support the WM9 codec; the most efficient codec currently supported for HD resolutions. Do you know what that means? It means that Blu-Ray can support twice the bitrates of HD-DVD due to the extra space. Therefore it is the superior spec.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-09-30 08:35pm

You don't get this, do you? IF IT DOESN'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT, then it doesn't matter.

Do you need me to explain what the word "if" means? I had hoped I wouldn't need to teach anybody here basic English, but if I need to....

EDIT: Allow me to explain. A 256-kbps Mp3 has twice the bitrate of a 128-kbps Mp3. 256-kbps is the superior quality. However, 128-kbps is the standard at which most people rip their Mp3's (and a few crazy people even go as low as 96, or even 64).

Why is this?

Because most people don't notice a discernable difference with the improved quality.

So why have that improved quality if it's going to be wasted?

THAT is why I took issue with Spanky's original content: Higher compression at lower space is not inherently a bad thing. All that matters is IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE for the end user.

Get it now?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-09-30 08:45pm

My biggest concern is backwards compatibility. I have no intention on tossing out my current library (unless they rerelease some of the newer movies in HD format which current DVD does not really allow) for a new format. This isn't like the VHS-to-DVD switch. For the most part whats currently on DVD can't be improved anymore.