Where's Bluray XL single layer?!

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
When XL was announced for triple and quad layer I was hoping we'd finally also have the equivalent of the CD-R shift from 74min to 80min discs. 32GB per BR layer instead of 25GB would at least make the ratio going from DVD-R SL to BD-R SL slightly larger than the disappointing CD-R to DVD-R SL, rather than noticeably smaller.

But no, single layer XL is nowhere to be found. What's up with that?

Oh, where are the halcyon days of the switch from floppies to CD-R...
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I think optical media is going to phase out as a primary method of backup for consumers. Hard drives are cheap and reliable and provide on demand access without having to store large numbers of individual discs. It is also much simpler to backup one drive than many discs.

Storing 1TB worth of bluray discs is unwieldly, whereas keeping a bare of 1TB HDD (primary/backup) is by far easier to maintain.

In addition, in a price/GB comparison they are relatively close so if I had to choose between a shelf full of optical media versus a small stack of hard drives....well, you can see why blu-ray has been very slow to catch on in the backup market.
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
I don't know what the future holds for optical media, but they released specs for 3 and 4 layer XL discs. Single layer would be easier to manufacture, so why not?

As for what's the better for offline storage, HDDs definitely have benefits, but also disadvantages. An HDD can fail catastrophically, and with failed electronics it's going to be very difficult to get to the data. I'm just never at ease with HDDs for archive storage, it's like sitting on a time bomb. :) Optical discs degrade gradually, so you have time to act. And there's no media-electronics coupling.

40 BD-R SL discs for 1TB isn't too bad, and it'd be even better as 33 discs. If one of those prototype 1TBish disc types become a reality in the next few years, that's going to be a reasonable amount of storage for some years to come.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
No point in optical media when you can get 32-64 GB SD cards now.

Optical discs are so quaint and primitive. Ever had 1000+ high res photos on a optical disk and then switch to thumbnail view? Come back tomorrow and it might be done... vs pop in a SD card BAM thumbnails, scroll down BAM more thumbnails.
 
Last edited:

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
An HDD can fail catastrophically, and with failed electronics it's going to be very difficult to get to the data. I'm just never at ease with HDDs for archive storage, it's like sitting on a time bomb.

I think you have a point, but optical has the same weakness. I'm sure we've all taken a disc out of a case just to get CRC errors or in some cases not able to read the disc at all.

Bottom line, you need two of everything in order to mitigate risk. In my opinion, keeping 2 1TB hard drives worth of data is just a reliable as keeping 2 optical discs. In both cases you need a machine capable of reading them, else it's all useless.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
When XL was announced for triple and quad layer I was hoping we'd finally also have the equivalent of the CD-R shift from 74min to 80min discs. 32GB per BR layer instead of 25GB would at least make the ratio going from DVD-R SL to BD-R SL slightly larger than the disappointing CD-R to DVD-R SL, rather than noticeably smaller.

But no, single layer XL is nowhere to be found. What's up with that?

Oh, where are the halcyon days of the switch from floppies to CD-R...

The problem is that XL is incompatible with readers and players that don't support it. So there is little benefit in offering a size in between the 25 and 50GB SL and DL options and offering two types of SL and DL discs with added incompatibility will just muck up the situation. When the change happened on CD it was two things barely tightening the optics and writing closer to the edge of the discs. Those two minor changes helped them while maintaining compatibility with 90% of the players of that media out there. The edge writing is now a staple of all optical media since, and to fit 32GB they had rework the laser a lot more, which makes the tracks they make on the disc unreadable by players without the feature.

Also keep in mind that XL isn't about backing up data. Its Sony keeping the technology rolling forward in their expensive security markets where a small easy to catalog video capture recordings will need the expanded room now that security camera picture quality has increased. Sure there are bunch of other ways to use the disc, and better ways to manage the video information then discs, but either way XL is all about not waiting 10 years to increase capacity and this time not having to develop a proprietary optical disc for this task (which is where BD came from and why it is so much more expensive then DVD (and HD-DVD's) in the first place).
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
No point in optical media when you can get 32-64 GB SD cards now.
I'm not sure what I think of SD for archiving. They are removable, which is a plus, but they're also electronic (even if not active by themselves), and I recall reading about people's USB flash drives spontaneously becoming unreadable. I'm also not sure about long term flash data retainment. And while prices drop, it's still more expensive.

I'm sure we've all taken a disc out of a case just to get CRC errors or in some cases not able to read the disc at all.
I don't think this has ever happened to me with CDs or DVDs. I can't be sure all my media is readable, but I'm yet to encounter such a failure. Maybe part of the reason is that I check the data right after writing it, and I use quality media almost exclusively.

The problem is that XL is incompatible with readers and players that don't support it.
That's the nature of progress. It's not like multi-layer XL is any more compatible. I just want the standard to include single layer as well.

I don't know what Sony's motives are, but I'm all for more capacity, particularly when it's a minor update to an existing standard.

So there is little benefit in offering a size in between the 25 and 50GB SL and DL options and offering two types of SL and DL discs with added incompatibility will just muck up the situation.
I don't like DL. Expensive, and even though I have no real data, I'd assume also less reliable due to the layer bonding process.

Another media type is no different from the 74/80min CD situation, and still better than DVD-R vs DVD+R.

(which is where BD came from and why it is so much more expensive then DVD (and HD-DVD's) in the first place).
I think it was more expensive because it's a more radical change of technology. But I rather have 25GB discs than 15GB, even if those 15GB are cheaper initially.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
I don't know why software is even sold on optical, when a 4GB thumb drive is like $3 retail let alone at cost in the millions for software distribution.
 

boochi

Senior member
May 21, 2011
983
0
0
Optical media isn't going anywhere. What do you think would happen to all the hard drives and flash drives if a man-made EMP went off in the atmosphere or an epic solar flare produced the same effects? The hard drives and flash drives would be toast and the optical media would likely be unaffected.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
That's the nature of progress. It's not like multi-layer XL is any more compatible. I just want the standard to include single layer as well.

I don't know what Sony's motives are, but I'm all for more capacity, particularly when it's a minor update to an existing standard.

I don't like DL. Expensive, and even though I have no real data, I'd assume also less reliable due to the layer bonding process.

Another media type is no different from the 74/80min CD situation, and still better than DVD-R vs DVD+R.

I think it was more expensive because it's a more radical change of technology. But I rather have 25GB discs than 15GB, even if those 15GB are cheaper initially.

Again, XL is incompatible, its a new brand. So why sell a disc that is of lower capacity then the max capacity of the more widely support version. It doesn't make sense. XL is going to be a much more expensive disc. It's easy to sell it for much more because of the doubled up capacity. But selling a 32GB version for more then a 50GB disc, just means only people with durability concerns that might not be grounded in reality would buy the 32GB versions. XL is never going to supplant and because of the use case that is pushing the technology really coexist with BD SL and DL.

The Motives matter because it will explain why there isn't going to be wide spread adoption. Sony developed BD from technology that they had been selling for years in the Japanese and really high end surveillance market. As 720p and 1080p and color capturing goes up, Sony needs the capacity to increase. When they finally published BD as a standard suite, they started using that for these businesses. So to keep up, they need to sell more upgrades. Now they have gotten more parties involved displacing the cost and eating some of the overhead, where it can have more uses. But in its heart XL is just a write once PVR media. For everyone else its an addon to BD and BD E. You don't add on by offering a size smaller then what you are already offering. And again, since these are a different technology created for an extended use case its never going to see the production that BD E has gotten, and honestly even that is being held back, to keep the media more expensive so that people don't use it to write ripped and or downloaded movies to it.

As for DL, I get it. Specially back in the old days before software was smart about it there were dozens of DL writing issues. As for the bonding. These are always supposed to last a century, but even if not that, decades. I don't know what your writing, but chances are decades from now 90-99% of that information will be little use for you.

As for media deviation. It's not anything like the two. CD 74-80 was pretty much exactly the same disc. If you took a plextor that allowed over writing, you could get a disc that held about 750MB, whether you used a 650 or 700MB disc. 700MB basically as part of its digital label told software that you could write more to it, nothing else. DVD-R and DVD+R was completely different, because it only affected the writer you choose and not where the results could be read. Slightly different burning algorithms and writable reflective materials. But the end result was a DVD that if you wrote video could be read in any DVD player and Data in any ROM. XL is closer to DVD-RAM then anything else, which if you remember the caddy system was designed for exactly like what I am talking about now direct write PVR. Guess what the media stayed expensive, pretty much died out, and then they add it to other writers for legacy reasons more then anything.

Its going to be more expensive because they want it to be. They are not going to go DVD media like crazy with it and by keeping the media expensive they can also keep supporting hardware expensive. Sony owns all the important patents for this, they won't license a manufacturer to produce media or drives where it will push down the price. This is going to be a competition less product, aimed a particular use cases, and not as a general use product.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
Optical media isn't going anywhere. What do you think would happen to all the hard drives and flash drives if a man-made EMP went off in the atmosphere or an epic solar flare produced the same effects? The hard drives and flash drives would be toast and the optical media would likely be unaffected.

While I respect your desire to maintain access to your files in the event we enter a major war with another superpower or suffer a catastrophic natural disaster, I think we can agree that we are talking about data that, while important, won't upset the natural balance of the universe if it's lost. We'll have bigger things to worry about if those types of events happen. :)
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
But selling a 32GB version for more then a 50GB disc
A hypothetical 32GB SL would likely be cheaper to manufacture than a 50GB DL. Look how long DVD DL took to become reasonably priced.

You don't add on by offering a size smaller then what you are already offering.
Maybe that's the reason. But I still hope. :)

DVD-R and DVD+R was completely different, because it only affected the writer you choose and not where the results could be read.
There were a lot of reading compatibility issues as well. Most writers supported both, but reading was more of a problem, particularly for standalone players.

XL is closer to DVD-RAM then anything else
I read some about the low level specs of XL vs non-XL. There are more differences than 74min vs 80min CDs, but as far as I can tell it's the same basic media as non-XL, so much more similar than DVD±R vs DVD-RAM.

Sony owns all the important patents for this
The Bluray Disc Association is more than just Sony, BTW.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
A hypothetical 32GB SL would likely be cheaper to manufacture than a 50GB DL. Look how long DVD DL took to become reasonably priced.

Maybe that's the reason. But I still hope. :)

It's not just manufacturing cost. Its production amount. The hypothetical BDXL would cost more, less people would buy it because less people own the burners for it. If production ever increased then the costs in theory would decrease to that point. But its a vicious cycle. There is little hardware support because of the media costs and production, there is low media production because there isn't much hardware support. Usually to break out of this there has to be a legitimate reason for the change. That ignores the outside actions taken to keep costs up.

There were a lot of reading compatibility issues as well. Most writers supported both, but reading was more of a problem, particularly for standalone players.

Part of that was how it was burned. Nero for example let you write both as DVD-ROM and then had more support in players. Also the amount of players that had an issue were small in numbers and usually the cheapest ones out there. BDXL is not supported at all in the 60 million players and PS3's. Not supported in the 10-15 million computer drives. BDXL won't have the chance that DVD's had for the same reason that Sega CD died. The market has to much regular BD adoption, to make another format with limited use cases become the popular media type.

I read some about the low level specs of XL vs non-XL. There are more differences than 74min vs 80min CDs, but as far as I can tell it's the same basic media as non-XL, so much more similar than DVD±R vs DVD-RAM.
There is nothing that different in any of the media. But its part of the problem. CD 80 minutes was trivial in the differences to how the media was written to the discs and none of it was affected by laser pitch size. DVD same thing. The laser stayed the same, the basic requirements of the laser for successful writing of the information was changed and the format for writing files was completely different for DVD Ram. BDXL takes all of the same techniques and changes the lasers pitch to increase capacity per disc by almost 50%. That is never going to work in current hardware. That was a design choice. To again artificially control the use of the media forcing the purchase of drastically more expensive hardware and to keep adoption rate small so that they don't have to worry about production (which they primarily want to keep on regular BD production), or competition bringing pricing down trivializing the spec.


The Bluray Disc Association is more than just Sony, BTW.

Oh sure. But almost all of the actual media patents are own by Sony. They are/were the largest faction along with Philips pushing BDXL and it has been worked on since well before the first quad layer showing in 2005. Sony has always promised, and something regularly ignored during the format war higher hardware and media costs and higher profits for manufacturers, studios, and media companies that joined them. Along with a more flexible and growing security features. This is there way doing that. Now that BD has gotten 6 years later down to DVD costs, they have worked together to produce a media support by most of the companies, a controlled environment, where they can make expensive hardware/media, that stays expensive, because they don't need to worry about adoption rate. Keep in mind that Sony kind of owed them this after the PS3 became the cheapest and most compatible BD player for the first 4-5 years of BD's existence. Something that pissed off a lot of manufacturers that choose BD because it was going to be more expensive and therefore profitable. They didn't want to be competing at $100-$200 price points within 2 years like Toshiba had outlined for HD-DVD. They didn't want to have to compete against and eventually re-brand Chinese players like they did with DVD players. One of the reason Toshiba got a lot of Chinese support.

So like I have said all along. BDXL even without influence would have a hard rode ahead of it for adoption. The fact that the people in charge of BDXL don't want it adopted, to keep price high, is another. Not having a SL version is just one example. They plainly don't want BDXL confusing people at that size, they don't want to have to compete on media prices, and they want people to buy expensive media.
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
I'm going to wait 1-2 years to see if XL SL is added to the standard, and only then proclaim BD-R is an official disappointment. :) I don't think DL is going to be priced right in the foreseeable future.

Hopefully future holographic or other media will do it right.

BTW, how's BD-R medium/long term reliability so far? After getting used to low-level error scanning of DVDs, not being able to assess media quality on BD-R is a limitation.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
I'm going to wait 1-2 years to see if XL SL is added to the standard, and only then proclaim BD-R is an official disappointment. :) I don't think DL is going to be priced right in the foreseeable future.

Hopefully future holographic or other media will do it right.

BTW, how's BD-R medium/long term reliability so far? After getting used to low-level error scanning of DVDs, not being able to assess media quality on BD-R is a limitation.

Don't know maybe someone else can answer that. I am getting my first BD-E drive now. Keep in mind that the BD group is no matter what going to keep BD prices higher then DVD got. They don't want to see the same thing happen with DVD happen to BD where people were more likely to rip/download movie, because the media to write to was so inexpensive.
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
I think prices now are dictated by the market rather than any specific company, and they're not so bad already. Verbatim LTH can be had for about $1, and normal discs for $1.5. SL, of course. :)
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
I think prices now are dictated by the market rather than any specific company, and they're not so bad already. Verbatim LTH can be had for about $1, and normal discs for $1.5. SL, of course. :)

Yeah but most movies come out on a DL50 disc meaning it would be annoying and difficult specially with no easy to use shrink tool, to use SL as easy burning tool. The media companies outside Phillips and Sony really only care about volume and they will price it down as long as its profitable. But part of that is making sure it is profitable. You can't lower media costs down to that level, if you can't sell them, and you can't sell them if there the market isn't buying them, and the market won't buy them if there isn't hardware penetration, there won't be market penetration if the hardware prices remain high. Hardware prices will be kept inflated, partially by not offering competing media and media sizes, where no matter what the prices are on BD media they can keep BDXL prices higher because the overall capacity is higher. With BDXL SL, they A.) will have a hard time selling it at price above DL50 considering it holds more. B.) Keep BD DL50 looking like an option in there target market for BDXL.

In the end it does them no good to offer a BDXL SL disc. Even if there wasn't a behind the scenes push to control BDXL prices. It could be cheaper then BD DL50 in the long run, it would only cause confusion and pricing worries in the short term. But again they never wanted BDXL to run side by side with BDE. Its a higher capacity recording medium aimed specific backup protocols. You don't offer more by offering less.
 

sheh

Senior member
Jul 25, 2005
247
8
81
I don't know how commonly movies are DL vs SL, but anyway my interest in BD is mainly for data/archival. I was looking recently at my DVDs and thought it'd be nice to cut the numbers of discs to 1/6 (XL SL). But maybe 1/5 is something too. :)
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Whats wrong with the pressed discs the movies came on?

I don't get this hoarding mentality people have when it comes to having to download, burn, and archive everything under the sun.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
I don't know how commonly movies are DL vs SL, but anyway my interest in BD is mainly for data/archival. I was looking recently at my DVDs and thought it'd be nice to cut the numbers of discs to 1/6 (XL SL). But maybe 1/5 is something too. :)

First 50 or so movies were mostly SL, but for the most part even the most feature lacking movies still go above 25GB. Part of it is Resolution, 1080p would ~250GB an hour. Crappy $10 movies with no options still hover around 50GB because it means less intervention in creating the BD encode.

So easiest way to keep BD to BD piracy from happening is to keep DL media costs inflated.