Sharp Releases Triple -Layer BR Recorder

[BShanahan14rulz]

I'm not anti-3D. I'm anti 'current technology' 3D.

Ok, this I quite understand. Perhaps I was misunderstanding those others too about their enmity towards 3D movies

 

[oic0]

Interesting, the blu-ray disks cost about as much as a 1tb hard drive... Id rather get my movies on that, then I can use the spare space to start a datacenter

I've hated blu-ray ever since it was released. Its always been over hyped and overpriced. The only thing good to come out of it has been the diode development

 

[JohnD]

Sorry for continuing this off-topic conversation, however I am a professional compressionist so this discussion about file size and bitrate compels me to reply.

You cannot discuss how much space a movie will take with a variable bitrate encode. You can make it fit at any size - quality is the variable. You either do the math and fill the disc, or as one of our studio clients require, set a quality threshold to all your films and then file size is the variable (as picture content determines complexity and thus bitrate).

3D encoding for Blu-ray uses MVC, an extension of MPEG-4 Part 10/AVC, which typically requires about 50% more space, not double. There are many methods of encoding 3D, however we're discussing it relative to Blu-ray.

If anyone would like to talk shop about compression, I'd be happy to have an off-topic discussion in PM.

As to higher powered 405's, bring 'em on! Someday I'd love to have a 1W+ 405 burner...

 

[qumefox]

Interesting, the blu-ray disks cost about as much as a 1tb hard drive... Id rather get my movies on that, then I can use the spare space to start a datacenter

I've hated blu-ray ever since it was released. Its always been over hyped and overpriced. The only thing good to come out of it has been the diode development

You show your age with this statement heh. Obviously you weren't around when CD's were originally released... or DVD's initial release. The 'hype' and 'pricing' is no different than it was for those technologies when they were new.

 

[flogged]

Ah, OK.

So how powerful are the 405nm diodes on this 100gig unit?

 

[aryntha]

You show your age with this statement heh. Obviously you weren't around when CD's were originally released... or DVD's initial release. The 'hype' and 'pricing' is no different than it was for those technologies when they were new.

Heh, I've always been involved in work in data-intensive fields and yes, I can say this definitely:

I paid ~$1000 for my first CD-R in ~1998. ($980, HP 4020i).

I paid ~$1000 for my first DVD-R in ~2001. ($1076, Pioneer DVR-S201)

I paid ~$1000 for my first BD-R in ~2006. ($1005, Panasonic - Still have it.)


If you look at inflation, initial prices have actually gone down.

 

[chipdouglas]

the price of the home 3d glasses alone is a put off. so for a family of 6 to sit together and watch a 3d movie it will cost aroun 1000usd in glasses. what a joke

michael

 

[qumefox]

I paid ~$1000 for my first CD-R in ~1998. ($980, HP 4020i).

Ah, the good ol 4020i... Did yours end up with the spring problem that wouldn't let it burn more than half a disc without making a coaster too?

 

[ZRTMWA]

That price is way too high. How many people does Pioneer/ Sharp think are in their market reach? I wonder what the difference is between the two players that makes them $1000 apart. I don't think the average, or even most of the advanced hobbyists are willing to spend $2000 on a BDR.

 

[mitbrown]

Anyone else think this could mean 16x 405 nm?

It doesn't necessarily mean a higher burn speed, It means another layer is used in burning and reading the disk, giving it much higher storage capacity.


I would assume that the extra layer also means it has a more powerful diode, but that's only my speculation.:shhh:

 

[oic0]

Heh, I've always been involved in work in data-intensive fields and yes, I can say this definitely:

I paid ~$1000 for my first CD-R in ~1998. ($980, HP 4020i).

I paid ~$1000 for my first DVD-R in ~2001. ($1076, Pioneer DVR-S201)

I paid ~$1000 for my first BD-R in ~2006. ($1005, Panasonic - Still have it.)


If you look at inflation, initial prices have actually gone down.

"First Look: First Blu-ray Burner Is Impressive
PC World tests show that Pioneer's BDR-101A lives up to the Blu-ray hype.
Melissa Perenson, PC World
Apr 28, 2006 8:00 pm"

I know time passes faster as you get old and all... , but blu-ray burners aren't new tech any more. Anyhow, its not so much the drive prices that bother me now, its the media. Like I said, if they can't produce a burnable disk for less than the price of a mechanical hard drive with motors, magnets, circuits, multiple high density platters, metal housing, circuit boards, chips, connectors, all of those different complex parts... then they seriously need to just ditch the entire effort. Its like making a scientific breakthrough allowing a bicycle to seat two for only slightly more than the price of a car.

 

[rpaloalto]

This is most certainly good news for us fans of the 405nm diode. I was waiting to here news like this. Lets hope this does bring a more us a powerful diode, 16x

As far as 3D movies go. I too hope it is a passing fad and is only reserved for a few special blockbuster movies per year, like Avatar.

My issue with these 3d movies, is in the cinematography.
In order to full take advantage of 3D filming. The cinematography has to use specialized techniques. Like using overly excessive layering of the foreground and background. Excessive speed or use of panning the camera, and other non natural compositions.
This can ruin a film very quick, especially if your watching the so called normal version, or at home.
If this fad does stay, I hope they let some of the over the top emphases of the 3D aspect die down a bit, and just shot the film in a more natural way.