will triple and quad layer blu ray require a new player?

[Onceler]

I am wondering if these were included as part of the spec as there was talk of these at launch.

 

[Slick5150]

I'm not aware of any plans to use triple or quad layered Blu-Ray discs. But if they did, I'd imagine they could possibly upgrade the firmware to allow the laser to refocus.

 

[newnameman]

It's not gonna happen. Think about how long we've had DVD, yet no one's using triple or quad layer DVDs.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: newnameman
It's not gonna happen. Think about how long we've had DVD, yet no one's using triple or quad layer DVDs.

Bingo. Don't let the whole "3+ layers" thing influence your purchase at all. The only possible use I see for them is for the next generation of consoles.

 

[BassBomb]

theres no such thing as future proof

 

[Onceler]

yeah but they weren't talking about tripple or quad layers at DVDs launch,they were when blu ray launched

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Onceler
yeah but they weren't talking about tripple or quad layers at DVDs launch,they were when blu ray launched

The point is, nothing is filling up a double layer Blu-Ray at this point. Maybe there'd be a use on some TV series Blu-Rays or something that span multiple discs, but it'd be cheaper to print 2 or 3 double layers than 1 or 2 quadruple layer discs.

 

[0roo0roo]

its like a quad layer dvd. its in the spec. it was two sided. rarely if ever used, because its not worth the cost.
they'll just churn out 2 layer discs. the cost of adding a second disc is nothing compared to trying to mess with a 4 layer disc so theres no justification. in fact you gain more perceived value when you add a second disc to a package.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
in fact you gain more perceived value when you add a second disc to a package.

Wisdom

 

[Onceler]

no it is not 2 sides it is quad layer,you are thinking of HDDVD
when they demonstrated 4 layers they used a drive that was on the market,it was only different in the firmware
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Section...ails.aspx?NewsId=19493

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Onceler
no it is not 2 sides it is quad layer,you are thinking of HDDVD
when they demonstrated 4 layers they used a drive that was on the market,it was only different in the firmware
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Section...ails.aspx?NewsId=19493

i didn't say it was.
my point was that it is just as pointless.

 

[Onceler]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its like a quad layer dvd. its in the spec. it was two sided. rarely if ever used, because its not worth the cost.
they'll just churn out 2 layer discs. the cost of adding a second disc is nothing compared to trying to mess with a 4 layer disc so theres no justification. in fact you gain more perceived value when you add a second disc to a package.

it was two sided you said so you did say it

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Onceler

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its like a quad layer dvd. its in the spec. it was two sided. rarely if ever used, because its not worth the cost.
they'll just churn out 2 layer discs. the cost of adding a second disc is nothing compared to trying to mess with a 4 layer disc so theres no justification. in fact you gain more perceived value when you add a second disc to a package.

it was two sided you said so you did say it

Dude. Relax.

There aren't going to be any tri or quad layer Blu-Rays anytime soon, if ever.

 

[sswingle]

If it does happen, it will be so far down the road that players will be $40 each anyways.

 

[Obsoleet]

you'll never have to worry about this. bluray adoptation is way too low to ever warrant a whole new line of bluray players be sold to people who already have one. the format is almost dead as it is. dvd looks and works pretty well on hdtvs. im considering not even getting my own bluray player for my brand new '09 samsung plasma. dvds are fine and i cant imagine myself actually going out to get a bluray from the store when i can stream or rent movies thru so many services anymore.
so get a bluray player, you def don't have to worry about something like what you're describing.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Onceler

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its like a quad layer dvd. its in the spec. it was two sided. rarely if ever used, because its not worth the cost.
they'll just churn out 2 layer discs. the cost of adding a second disc is nothing compared to trying to mess with a 4 layer disc so theres no justification. in fact you gain more perceived value when you add a second disc to a package.

it was two sided you said so you did say it

ugh no.. i said its "like" a quad layer dvd.. in its pointlessness, not its physical layout. if you wish you can search the forum archive, i've discussed this before. you really suck at reading context eh? why would i mention it was two sided? so you wouldnt think i was implying that dvd was 4 layers in the same way as a bluray. get it? i was preempting some douchbag jumping in to point sh*t out but it seems you had to go at it anyways. blurays layer layout is in no way new to me in the slightest. and in any case the point of increased complexity/cost making it pointless stands.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
you'll never have to worry about this. bluray adoptation is way too low to ever warrant a whole new line of bluray players be sold to people who already have one. the format is almost dead as it is. dvd looks and works pretty well on hdtvs. im considering not even getting my own bluray player for my brand new '09 samsung plasma. dvds are fine and i cant imagine myself actually going out to get a bluray from the store when i can stream or rent movies thru so many services anymore.
so get a bluray player, you def don't have to worry about something like what you're describing.

Bluray is here to stay until internet connection speeds ramp up along with HDD storage space. We're simply not at the point where we can stream or download high quality movies efficiently. Services like Hulu still have occasional stuttering issues that no serious HT enthusiast would ever tolerate. BUT, that is definitely the future....downloadable content is the way we're headed for all media.

In regards to your other point, if you have a high quality system there is a noticeable difference between Bluray and DVD. I can easily see it and to me it's fully worth the price of the PS3 I bought to play Bluray movies. It may not be to you, but you're probably not an avid HT enthusiast.

 

[Modelworks]

No they are not part of the spec and if added current players would not be able to read them.
The reason is because of the way layers work requires each layer to be deeper in the disc , and to read that layer you need a very precise laser. Bluray already is very close to the surface with the second layer just a bit deeper. The lasers required for triple layer did not exist at the time the standard was created. They are just now coming out of design, which means that even if you they start right now to build a player around it for more layer support, by the time it makes it through the process it will be years.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
you'll never have to worry about this. bluray adoptation is way too low to ever warrant a whole new line of bluray players be sold to people who already have one. the format is almost dead as it is. dvd looks and works pretty well on hdtvs. im considering not even getting my own bluray player for my brand new '09 samsung plasma. dvds are fine and i cant imagine myself actually going out to get a bluray from the store when i can stream or rent movies thru so many services anymore.
so get a bluray player, you def don't have to worry about something like what you're describing.

Bluray is here to stay until internet connection speeds ramp up along with HDD storage space. We're simply not at the point where we can stream or download high quality movies efficiently. Services like Hulu still have occasional stuttering issues that no serious HT enthusiast would ever tolerate. BUT, that is definitely the future....downloadable content is the way we're headed for all media.

In regards to your other point, if you have a high quality system there is a noticeable difference between Bluray and DVD. I can easily see it and to me it's fully worth the price of the PS3 I bought to play Bluray movies. It may not be to you, but you're probably not an avid HT enthusiast.

I'm not an avid HT enthusiast. Just enough to know that a plasma > lcd. My Samsung PN50B650 makes standard def content, and DVDs look great. Not even sure if my dvd player upscales, I don't think it does.
I enjoy movies and music but my opinion is definitely the one of the average consumer (albeit better educated on technology). If I had more than a $1,500 tv, and a couple thousand in audio equipment I'd probably feel bluray a worthy addition.
TVs with good standard def scalers look pretty good. I get 1080/720 channels over the air and I don't mind basic SD cable channels, but not usually, my tv makes most things look great.

 

[mmntech]

Bluray can already hold something like 17 hours of 1080p video on a dual layer disc. Not many things use DL discs right now. Even Sony's professional HD XDCAMs use 23gb BD discs. The only think I can see triple and quad layer discs being used for is permanent mass archival.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
I'm not an avid HT enthusiast. Just enough to know that a plasma > lcd. My Samsung PN50B650 makes standard def content, and DVDs look great. Not even sure if my dvd player upscales, I don't think it does.
I enjoy movies and music but my opinion is definitely the one of the average consumer (albeit better educated on technology). If I had more than a $1,500 tv, and a couple thousand in audio equipment I'd probably feel bluray a worthy addition.
TVs with good standard def scalers look pretty good. I get 1080/720 channels over the air and I don't mind basic SD cable channels, but not usually, my tv makes most things look great.

Listen man, you don't have a magic TV. Yes, it can make standard def look good, but it ain't going to look like a Blu-ray with a good transfer. Sorry.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
you'll never have to worry about this. bluray adoptation is way too low to ever warrant a whole new line of bluray players be sold to people who already have one. the format is almost dead as it is. dvd looks and works pretty well on hdtvs. im considering not even getting my own bluray player for my brand new '09 samsung plasma. dvds are fine and i cant imagine myself actually going out to get a bluray from the store when i can stream or rent movies thru so many services anymore.
so get a bluray player, you def don't have to worry about something like what you're describing.

Does it make you feel better when you lie to yourself? Blu-ray is definitely here to stay and is doing VERY well. Digital downloads do not offer the same quality as BD, so quit trying to pretend it is an apples to apples comparison. It's not. If you want the best quality, there is no other choice but Blu-ray.

 

[omoto1]

Those of you who are still part of this forum, I wanted to give some information about it.

Blu rays are sold regularly, but not as much as DVD's and CD's. There is such thing as a double layered, triple layered and quad layered blu ray. The problem with the double, triple and quad is that the lens has issues reading the disc. If the surface is slightly smudged, the blu ray won't read right causing errors on the discs. I currently have a LG CD/DVD/Blu ray combo drive that does single layered CD's, single and double layered DVD's and single, double, and quad layered blu rays. CD's 700mb, DVD's 4.8gb-8.3gb, blu rays 25 GB - double layered blu rays 50 GB - triple layered blu rays 100 GB - Quad layered blu rays 130 GB. It's a weird set up with the blu rays because when they add 10 GB. Japan now happens the 300 GB 15 layer Blu-ray. They are now in experimental production with the 7 TB HVD holographic video disc. Who is going to use 7 TB? It's probably only going to be the big businesses. The single and double layered blu rays are regularly used currently by the PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4 and the Xbox. I have been using the single and double layered blu rays for the passed year and I am satisfied with them aside from a few glitches.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

The point is, nothing is filling up a double layer Blu-Ray at this point. Maybe there'd be a use on some TV series Blu-Rays or something that span multiple discs, but it'd be cheaper to print 2 or 3 double layers than 1 or 2 quadruple layer discs.

You do not know what you are talking about. Sure, you can reduce the quality of a long movie so that it doesn't exceed the limits of dual-layer BD but then the backlash will result. And the second (I think) Fantastic 4 movie used dual-layer and it was a short movie (92 min on DB50), but that was because the high bitrate (29.14Mbps)--and the movie looked great. To presume no title would benefit from a storage capacity of >50GB is silly.

For comparison sake the 2005 release of the original F4 was on BD25, had a running time of 106 min with a lousy bitrate of 16.52 Mbps.

 

[Kartajan]

The only real rule of storage on any medium: The size of content will expand to fill it. How that happens - data rates, audio formats, video formats, bonus features, camera angles, VR, whatever..