Reporting a 128G capacity on a single Blu-Ray disc...
Full Story...Very competitively priced as well--should be appealing,truenorthQuote from: truenorth on May 06, 2012, 09:06:34 AM
Very competitively priced as well--should be appealing,truenorth
Not so appealing is the cost of disks. You won't get a cake box of 100 for 20 dollars! At the moment I cannot find any quad-layer (128 GB) media of any type in Britain, but on eBay rewritable triple layer BD-RE (100 GB) disks cost 80 UK pounds (around 128 US dollars), and triple layer BD-R (write once) 100 GB disks are around 65 pounds. For around the cost of a 100 GB rewritable I can get a 128 GB pen drive on Amazon. That's right now, and flash memory is getting cheaper. Even before this, the cost of disks compared with cheap computing (i.e. transcoding) power and flash memory-enable media players explains why I have not bothered to buy any Blu-ray equipment.
"Build it and they will come" = next phase more availability and competitive pricing on the recordable media. Remember it is NOT available yet. Can't imagine that Pioneer will allow the product to be long on the market before the issue you note is addressed.truenorthQuote from: truenorth on May 06, 2012, 11:13:57 AM
Can't imagine that Pioneer will allow the product to be long on the market before the issue you note is addressed.truenorth
I agree the technology is interesting, but I just have my doubts that optical media is the way of the future.
For movie distribution, Blu-ray has not set the world on fire. One reason is the relative cost of Blu-ray and DVDs and that
MANY people don't think there is a worthwhile reason to upgrade their home players and TVs. Not only are the movies more expensive to buy or rent, even if people have a 720p or 1080p TV, many people won't see much difference between decently upscaled DVD and native 1080p material. Given the angular resolution of most people's eyes, honestly unless you have a very large big-screen TV and plan to sit very close to it, most people won't notice the difference at all. The human eye can differentiate to around 1 minute of arc, which at 4 metres (the width of my
LIVING room) translates to approx 1.25 millimetres, or about 20 pixels/
INCH. An HDTV has a resolution of 1920 pixels wide; at 20 pixels/inch this yields 96 inches--which means for a TV set smaller than 2.5 metres (around 8 feet) wide, the pixels won't contribute anything when I'm sitting 4 metres away, unless I have exceptionally good eyes. (I don't.) Even at 480i, with 720 pixels horizontally, at that distance, a 42 inch monitor will have roughly 20 pixels/inch, which is right at the edge of many people's perceptions.
As for data storage, I hardly ever burn disks any more. I have a dozen pen drives in sizes from 64 GB down to 4 GB, and around 6 TB of hard drive space spread around 8 internal,
EXTERNAL and NAS drives. I am not sure why I would want a 128 GB RW disk, given the cost, but also because a scratch could lose me that much more data than the data I already don't burn onto DVD-RW. And don't get me started on dual layer! Maybe for data backups in business these disks would be a handy increase in capacity, but that is hardly the mass market that is going to drive prices down.
The cheapest 128 GB solid state drive that I could find was £88.99 including tax on Ebuyer. Add a SATA caddy and you have a viable alternative to quad layer BD-RE optical for many purposes.
From Salmon-Trout
Quote
players explains why I have not bothered to buy any Blu-ray equipment.
Maybe because for the price of the recorder and a pack of blank disks one can buy a 1 TB internal hard drive. And its rewritable. And faster.