10.6 years of HD Video on a single DVD?

[DaveLembke]

http://theconversation.com/more-data-storage-heres-how-to-fit-1-000-terabytes-on-a-dvd-15306

 I would have to see this to believe this, but interesting read. The most storage capacity I read about was 6TB on a single Holographic Disc as seen here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

1000TB on a single Disc just seems far to far of a leap in breakthrough technology.

[Geek-9pm]

1000TB on a single Disc just seems far to far of a leap in breakthrough technology.

Years ago some were saying that holographic technology would blow away anything.
Current recordings methods on DVDs are way below the limit.
Bear in mind, they are talking about light waves, not huge particles that are  much larger than a wavelength.

Still, like you say, Believe it when you see it.

[BC_Programmer]

100% false. a DVD cannot store that much information because a DVD wouldn't be the medium being used. If their new tech could be used with DVDs, then we could use CD's as DVDs for the same reason. But we can't. It sounds more like a completely new Optical Disc technology.

[Geek-9pm]

Did you tread the article? Nowhere did it say the DVD had to be made in a new way. It is the recording technology.
I am sure they mean a blank DVD that is later pressed, not burned. The master is made with the new technology. The pressings use the same die as the other stuff. It is only the master that is different. The blanks are made from the same material as before.
If the article said the DVDs are a new technology, where did they say that?

[BC_Programmer]

Nowhere did it say the DVD had to be made in a new way. It is the recording technology.

A recording technology that doesn't use 640nanometer lasers and etch using pits that are 0.74micrometers apart is not DVD.

I am sure they mean a blank DVD that is later pressed, not burned.

And in order to be called a DVD it needs to be within the spec, which means the pits have to be 0.74Micrometers apart, which they won't be because the very purpose of the technology is to use a shorter wavelength and denser recording.

The master is made with the new technology. The pressings use the same die as the other stuff. It is only the master that is different. The blanks are made from the same material as before.

If the article said the DVDs are a new technology, where did they say that?

They "said" it when they mentioned using a smaller wavelength and denser recording.

[Geek-9pm]

I understood DVD to be a medium, not a specification.

...Some specifications for mechanical, physical and optical characteristics of DVD

If you have a disc that meets the above specs, but it has several orders more capacity, does it somehow violate the above specs? What if it does have the same pit size and the same wavelength, but has more capacity, how does it violated the specs. And why would  shorter wavelength violate a spec. Wavelength is not a characteristic of a medium. And how is pit size a intrinsic  quality of a medium?

They make  grapes  that have no seeds, but they are still grapes.

The article said they would use conventional materials for the discs and the playback lasers. Only the recording method is different.

Dual-layer recording (sometimes also known as double-layer recording) allows DVD-R and DVD+R discs to store significantly more data

A dual layer is still a DVD, right? Four layer? 1200 layers?  The number of virtual layers is established in the  mastering process. The layers would be optical, not physical.

[BC_Programmer]

I understood DVD to be a medium, not a specification.

You understood wrong. DVD is a set of specifications.

If you have a disc that meets the above specs, but it has several orders more capacity, does it somehow violate the above specs?

Yes. That "somehow" depends how they gave it more capacity.

What if it does have the same pit size and the same wavelength, but has more capacity, how does it violated the specs.

It would violate the spec by being larger, for one thing. (The DVD specification references the Original Red-Book Standard for Audio CDs for the physical dimensions of the disc). the only way to store more data using the same pit size and the same wavelength would be by using more area.

And why would  shorter wavelength violate a spec.

Because the spec gives a wavelength? the CD Specification lists 780nm; the DVD specification lists 635/650nm; Blu-Ray Discs use 405nm. If something doesn't use a 780nm laser, it isn't a CD; if something doesn't use a 650nm Laser, it's not a DVD; if something does use a 405nm Laser, it's not a Blu-Ray Disc. each one has it's own specifications for other things, All refer back to red book for the physical dimensions, as far as I'm aware. CD's must have a track pitch of 1.6microns; DVDs must have a track pitch of 0.74 microns. If something differs from the specs, it's not really what the specs are describing, is it?

Wavelength is not a characteristic of a medium. And how is pit size a intrinsic  quality of a medium?

DVD is a Specification created and maintained by the DVD Forum.

They make  grapes  that have no seeds, but they are still grapes.
And they make wine with grapes, but you need to follow specifications in order to give the resulting wine certain names.

The article said they would use conventional materials for the discs and the playback lasers. Only the recording method is different.

I don't know. the source material doesn't seem to provide that with much weight. Arguably my first impression of the source material is that it is a bunch of nonsense, given the amount of technobabble. I do note that the source article seems to directly contradict that presupposition, in that it says that in order for the technique to work, new polymer resins with two chemical activation channels would need to be developed. Much of the source article discusses possible arrangements of "conjugated ketones" and "D-π-A-π-D class of non-linear dyes" to hypothesize on that.

I like this quote:

They have electron-donating diakylamino groups and carbonyl groups as the electron-withdrawing (acceptor) group that also allows hydrogen abstraction for subsequent initiation of free radical polymerization.

Sounds like an advert for those stupid bracelets that remove "free radicals" from the body.

It sounds like they are talking about a new recording method; no different in comparison to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD than DVD is to CD (Or Blu-Ray is to HD-DVD, for that matter). This recording method improves on current techniques by finding a way to use an even lower wavelength of light to allow a more dense packing of pits on the surface of the disc. It will require new Drives (obviously) and new Media (for numerous reasons).

Think about it. Why would you be able to write or read a DVD with this new format, but not wrote or read a DVD with a CD-ROM drive? Pretty much the same differences.

[Geek-9pm]

It would violate the spec by being larger, for one thing. (The DVD specification references the Original Red-Book Standard for Audio CDs for the physical dimensions of the disc). the only way to store more data using the same pit size and the same wavelength would be by using more area.

Please do the math for me. What is the size of the usable surface area of the standard DVD. How many half wave spots could be on the entire surface without overlap.

[BC_Programmer]

Please do the math for me. What is the size of the usable surface area of the standard DVD. How many half wave spots could be on the entire surface without overlap.

None. as the source article states there is a requirement for the polymerization to occur at all with the shorter wavelength. I could ask you the same question; if CD's uses a 780nm wavelength laser, how much more data can you store on a cd if you use a 650nm Laser? The question is a non-starter: you cannot store more data on a CD by using a shorter wavelength laser, because in the Rewritable/Recordable case, even with a new drive, the CD-R/CD-RW won't be able to be polymerized with the new wavelength, and the materials involved simply won't present a readable resolution.

You can do it by stamping new discs, as you've already said. They did this. These "new CDs" don't work in any CD-Drive. They are called DVDs and they are readable only in DVD drives. It's the same story with this new storage technique, which is in fact an extension of Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, rather than DVD itself. In this case, a standard DVD will not be recordable using the new technique simply because (according to the article) the wavelength in question requires a specific chemical composition engineered for the wavelength and technique (half the sourced article discusses this). As far as a "stamped" disc is concerned, it would be difficult to call it a DVD (or HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray Disc) since it doesn't actually work in any of those drives. It's the equivalent of calling a DVD a CD because with stamped discs the difference is primarily in the track pitch- but that would be misleading since no Compact Disc drive can read a DVD (unless of course it is also a CD-Drive).

[Geek-9pm]

OK, I gave you a thank you.
But what wavelength will they use?
What base materiel will they use?

Going from about 8 gaga byte to hundreds of tetra bytes is BIG jump.
Are you saying it is only the wavelength?

120 nm — greatest particle size that can fit through a ULPA filter[citation needed]
120 nm — diameter of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) [3]
125 nm — standard depth of pits on compact discs (width: 500 nm, length: 850 nm to 3.5 µm)
180 nm — typical length of the rabies virus
200 nm — typical size of a Mycoplasma bacterium, among the smallest bacteria
300-400 nm — near ultraviolet wavelengt

[BC_Programmer]

OK, I gave you a thank you.
But what wavelength will they use?
What base materiel will they use?

Going from about 8 gaga byte to hundreds of tetra bytes is BIG jump.
Are you saying it is only the wavelength?

My understanding is that this is actually more of an advancement of HVD, (Holographic Versatile Disc). Which could store about 10TB on a 10cm disc (a bit bigger than our current CD's DVDs). It's still a big jump in storage, but the different technique is sort of like the change to perpendicular recording; with Hard Drives, that switch practically quadrupled drive capacities. I'm still not really sure how this new tech would work, being that I cannot get through a paragraph in the source article without my eyes glazing over.

[DaveLembke]

I'm still not really sure how this new tech would work, being that I cannot get through a paragraph in the source article without my eyes glazing over.

LOL   

[Geek-9pm]

Other news sites are repeating then story and having a hard time being serious. It is so absurd.
So then, instead of comparing DVDs, what if it were Ducks.
You have a duck, I have a duck. they look they same. Both waddle when they walk. Both quack and flap the wings. Th e main difference is what they weigh.
Yours is abut 25  pounds.
Mine is close to 25  tons. Try and pick up my duck.

Get the point here? going from about 10 giggle i byte to the next logical step should be, let;s say, maybe  one tetra byte. A two order magnitude expansion, would be possibly plausible. . But the article is talking about magnitudes so high it's hard to comprehend. Like a 25 ton duck.
If storage size were related to physical weight,  the Super 'DVD' would require a forklift to carry it. It is hard to say that with a straight face. 

There is something really missing in this story.
X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers. Are they going to use X-Rays? I don't think so.

[BC_Programmer]

Other news sites are repeating then story and having a hard time being serious. It is so absurd.
So then, instead of comparing DVDs, what if it were Ducks.
You have a duck, I have a duck. they look they same. Both waddle when they walk. Both quack and flap the wings. Th e main difference is what they weigh.
Yours is abut 25  pounds.
Mine is close to 25  tons. Try and pick up my duck.

Get the point here? going from about 10 giggle i byte to the next logical step should be, let;s say, maybe  one tetra byte. A two order magnitude expansion, would be possibly plausible. . But the article is talking about magnitudes so high it's hard to comprehend. Like a 25 ton duck.
If storage size were related to physical weight,  the Super 'DVD' would require a forklift to carry it. It is hard to say that with a straight face. 

There is something really missing in this story.
X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers. Are they going to use X-Rays? I don't think so.

well, we went from 1.44MB floppies to 650MB CD-R's and CD-RW's in a "single bound", and 650MB CD-ROM discs to 4.7GB DVDs. The new tech claims a bigger jump, but I don't think it's entirely unimaginable.

Also, they might be talking about Raw storage; in those terms a CD-ROM actually stores about a Gigabyte of data, including the ECC stuff that is specified as part of the "format" of the disc layout. DVD has some ridiculous amount I can't remember (standard 4.7GB stores a total of something like 10GB or something). So they might be trumping the numbers to appear larger by stating the raw storage capacity of the new tech. Still very large and a huge jump in storage, but not entirely unimaginable. Though, as has been said, I'll believe it when there is a consumer available disc and drive for these that people can buy.

[Geek-9pm]

BC, you touched on 'Holographic' storage. Unlike 3-D images, Holographic data storage is a method of using holograms to store data, not images per se.
The adds a whole new dimension, no pun please. Holographic recording has 3 or 4 orders of magnitude beyond conventional binary ones and zeros.It depends on what error rate and speed you want. Even so, it is faster and denser than burning pits in a surface. But Holographic Digital Storage**  is way beyond the scope of what most of us want to read. Really boring reading. Lost of math.

Let's see if they can don it. Then we will read about it.

** A tean in Stanford did it. Back in '94.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/94/940804Arc4171.html