Talk:Holographic Versatile Disc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Release date[edit]

is there any word on when it comes out?19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Check the Links section...DaTARIUS has signed an agreement with InPhase to be their sole distributor of a product coming out in 2007 as 300GB WORM discs (with accompanying hardware), 600GB re-writable discs (and hardware) in 2008 and 1.6TB discs available by 2010. I always said HD and BD discs were not signifigant enough jumps and would fall by the wayside very quickly.

Of course, they still may keep a hold on the consumer video market...their size is ok for that, while HVDs will be more expensive, but absolutely vital for the IT industry. Grendelum 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

HVD Forum website says
Q When will HVD products be generally available?
A HVD drive and disc designed for enterprise market will be available starting summer 2006.
So now we know. Has anyone seen anything real working ? -- (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
IIRC the low density 200 gig discs were indeed released in late 06 early 07. 500 gig discs are currently being released. No word yet on whether or not they'll meet their 2010 projected release date for the multi-terabyte discs. Gopher65talk 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article states "although HVD standards were approved and published on June 28, 2007, no company has released an HVD as of November 2009." I'm from the future and they haven't been released by March 2010 either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Do you think the disks will be used for say the Ultra High Definition Video standard? 159753 11:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

According to that link, the HVD would only be capable of about 20 minutes of video. Moltovivace 01:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
That's uncompressed, I think. --Ctachme 14:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it can hold 11 hours of compressed Ultra High Definition Video (The 3.9 terabytes version) Uber555 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah compressed and it would take 3900GB of storage that's some HD Video (most normal HD have 500GB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:34, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Well, a 3.5 hour movie would be around 900 gigs with audio (both compressed). Assuming that 1.6 terabyte discs become reality (or the 3.9 ones), that would easily be enough space for LotR: tRotK + extras. And that's about the longest movie I ever intend to sit through:P. Gopher65talk 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


they would see better use in the gaming industry i think Gabrielsimon 11:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine that the gaming industry could find a use for that much available data storage in a game. The costs to develop a game with such expansive graphics, storyline, and cutscenes (among other things) would be astronomical and take years to create. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC).

  • To the above comment : Games are HIGHLY compressed. Mass Effect for the 360 for example had to be stripped down to fit on a DVD. If games were uncompressed they would take up 50-400 times the storage space. Textures alone can have a compression ratio of 1:100. Games without compression wouldn't require decoding. They would load much faster and run a lot smoother and faster. Not to mention everything would be ultra high resolution. A lot of games wouldn't need to be installed since the data is ready to be processed by the engine and requires no conversion. This means, on a PC you could put in a game and run it instantly, only creating save files (Which with a data transfer rate of 1gb/s would easily be possible). The costs to devlop such a game would be less since there wouldn't be a need to develop advanced compression and decompression techniques based on specific computer architecture.RAFAZUM (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As Bill Gates once said: "No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time." Drumnbach 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates also once said: "640kb will allways be enough"... (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No he didn't stop spreading lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

they used to say that about games basd off of CDs. Gabrielsimon 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see holographic discs as a mass-distribution medium. CDs, DVDs, HD-DVDs and the like are injection-moulded. One machine can produce hundreds of DVDs per hour, for pennies apiece. Holographic discs (I think) would have to be written one at a time. You can't distribute a game or a movie that way. Spiel496 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. One idea is multiple HVD's could be "burned" simultaneously by using one very powerful laser and one data page and a light splitter to simultaneously burn all the HVD's. Obviously lots of design issues to be solved before thats a reality, but if it works then say 100 HVD's could be burnt in one batch. Another thing is there is no limitation to a single burning head - multiple heads could be used to write the disks quicker. The problem you mention looks like it'll be a problem with many next-gen formats. (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they say the price will drop. Uber555 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes a factory of these machines could do it. Aside from that, the read rate would more then justify the use for anything if it is really 1 gig/sec. I mean come on... two seconds and POW! You have a modern first person shooter loaded to memory, no install needed. Hard drives need to get to this rate! - 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Future utility[edit]

If this got popular, they probebly wouldn't need another storage medium for decades. I wonder if they could make smaller discs which still hold terabytes of information. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 11:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC).

There probably will be 8cm discs which can store 1.25 TB. {{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Parts of this article seemed poorly written, so I made a couple changes... didn't add anything. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

Start using headings[edit]

This article seems a bit biased. If these have such huge capacity and such fast write-speed, why aren't they common? Is it just price, or are there still some problems in need of fixing before these become mainstream? NPOV, people, not just the info in the companies' advertisements.Twilight Realm 00:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Probably because it's still in the research phase. Even if it was completed it would still take years to gain widespread use because of (probably) very high manufacturing costs compared to DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.--DA Roc 01:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, could somebody please add an explanation what's holding up this disc standard? Peter S. 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You should read the article. It's still being researched. {{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The same thing could be said about FiOS or Genome Splicers. If its so great why don't we have it in all our homes. It takes time for a technology to mature. I'm suprised we get something like this by 2006.-- 00:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was talking to a gentleman who works in the military and from what he was saying, this type of data storage has been in use in the military for a couple years. The problem is cost more than anything else. The drives that read the "discs" cost in the upwards of around 7,000 - 10,000 USD. Its the same as any technology. Military -> Commercial -> Consumer.
"This sort of technology" is still in the research stages, and can't be used by anyone. I suspect your conversationee was talking about something else entirely. Tim 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it could just be a cover-up sort of thing... 02:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very likely that the reason is that we currently do not have the technologie to mass produce theses types of discs. Just about everything that isn't mass produced has a higher cost attached to it. What it comes down to is, could a compagny make money by selling discs of this format? If the production cost is higher then what the targeted custumer is willing to pay, or able to pay, then it is not commercialy viable. In this case, who is the target? Like most format, the initial target will likely be the high end market, while the mid to long term target would be the average middle class worker. When your aiming for a large market which isn't nescessairly rich, not being able to mass produce is a problem. Technology will have to improve before theses can be widely found in stores.
(Enalung (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)).

Delft University of Technology[edit]

I recently heard that the Delft University of Technology was working on something like this. But I see no reference to that here. Is that a different project? DirkvdM 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

HVD To Solve Chess[edit]

This technology could be instrumental in the effort to solve chess. Chess tablebases take up a huge amount of space, the HVD could potentially solve the space problem. Dionyseus 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're talking 1050 legal positions, according to Computer chess. That would exceed the capacity of an HVD by a factor in the vicinity of a duodecillion. In point of fact, it will be physically impossible to store all possible chess positions on the planet Earth, since that only consists of around 1050 atoms. And finally, the computational complexity of solving all those positions is utterly prohibitive with current technology; if we had a billion computers solving a billion positions per second, it would take 1032 years for them to solve chess, ten sextillion times the age of the universe.

Or, in short, these aren't going to help a whole lot. ;) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

With the development of Spintronics we will get closer though. —jS 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What is so hard in solving chess and how do you "solve" it what does the word solve mean? 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If you solved chess you would know the best first move for white. (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In this regard "solving" means being able to see every possible move from start to finish, every single variation. Once we have solved chess, it would be impossible for god himself to win. Not that we can ever do it though... =P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


The HVD looks like gold on one side. Maybe "technology pimps" would end up wearing them. :-) {{Template:NazismIsntCool/sig}} 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibibytes or Gigabytes[edit]

Is gigabyte the right term? giga refers to the decimial system while Gibi refers to binary. So Would that make the correct term Gibibyte?

Gigabyte is the common term at this time, regardless of technicalities. My guess is that "this is an encyclopedia for the masses, not a technical journal" applies.

Gibibyte is a kind of artificial term. At first, KB, MB, GB, TB were defined and used by computer specialists, where K is 1024, and everything is obviously bound to powers of two. Later some dishonest manufacturers started to use the 1000 definition of K, which counts for 7.5% for GB. Since SI defines K as 1000, it's formally permissible, but the computers can never move to 1000 without complication. So "kibi, mebi, gibi, tebi" and associated terms were introduced, as purely artificial ones, for distinction. As far as I know, nobody uses them except when specifically discussing 1000/1024 prefixes, and no one is probably going to use them. So, gigabyte in computers generally means what is today formally called "gibibyte". When discussing estimates and approximates, there's clearly no need for the obscure "gibibyte" term. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Gibibyte is very necessary to disambiguate between the archaic interpretation of gigabyte. People who use gigabyte to mean gibibyte are defying ISO standards. Regardless of gigabyte's historical meaning, it is precisely one billion bytes. The SI interpretation of kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte, etc... came about as computing evolved higher level platforms that mask the computer's intrinsics. --RITZ 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Except roughly 0.1% of people know or care what a 'gibibyte' is (not to mention that it's a stupid name). The ISO may not like it, and a few people may be on some mystical crusade to convert the planet, but gigabyte means 1073741824 bytes. This is like trying to change the meaning of 'mile' to be a thousand meters, and particularly stupid when pretty much every computer on the planet has a memory size that's a power of two, not a power of ten... like people really want to have to deal with buying 1.073741824 gigabyte DIMMs. Mark Grant 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not just false and ignorant, it is quite insulting. Maybe you are on "some mystical crusade to convert the planet" but it is an absolute certainty that gigabyte does NOT mean "1073741824 bytes". Not now and at no time in the past. Period. Not by formal definition and not by common usage. Go out on the street and ask a thousand people "how many bytes are in a gigabyte" and the most common answer is going to be "a lot", followed by things like "a thousand megabytes" and/or "a billion bytes". There's going to be tiny, vanishing minority of nerds who might say something like "1024 megabytes" or maybe even "1024 times 1024 times 1024 bytes", but there will be ZERO people giving you the answer "a gigabyte is 1073741824 bytes". With certainty. WP is (supposed to be) descriptive not prescriptive, and thus the proper meaning of the word "gigabyte" is what people use the word to mean: a billion bytes. As important as techy-nerds seem to imagine themselves to be, you do not get to redefine the words of the English language -- only we, the speakers of that language get to do that and we do it by usage and by usage a "megabyte" is "a million bytes". At best someone might translate the word to "about a million bytes". But no living person on the planet says "megabyte" and actually means "1048576 bytes". (<- As a matter of fact, I had to resort to a calculator to even figure out that number there.) Iron Condor 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Dudes, seriously, it's not that hard and it carries plenty of both historical and judicial precedent (and it has nothing to do with wat ignorants think, which is why there is so much judicial precedent, especially in the US). Think of the metric system (which actually makes sense)... How much meter is a kilometer? How much ton is a megaton? How much watt is a terawatt? THIS is exactly why it's not only perfectly legal to say a gigabyte is 1000 megabyte but it's even very logical.
The gibibyte and so on were invented to deal with the fact that a computer calculates using not base-10 (10^9 = giga) but to base-2 (2^30 = giga in binary -> gibi). Look it up: [1]. That's why this debate is as useless as the Lilliputian-Blefuscan war.
The question remains valid though, what exactly do they mean? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer. Indeed, Ecma's recently released standards remain mum on this. But, in the light of industry practice, I'd say gigabyte is in fact the correct term.
I was wondering whether GB in this article refers to 1000^3 or 1024^3 bytes. This discussion addresses the question but doesn't seem to answer it. Does anybody know? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I have heard nothing about this particular case, but for DVD-Rs they use Gigabytes not Gibibytes. 4.7 sounds bigger than 4.3. I imagine that his body uses the same rational. Without evidence to the contrary, it's always a good bet to assume that they will use the number that makes their product sound the best. Especially if another format war is brewing. Still, it'd be nice to have a source. I can't find out. I don't think one exists yet.Gopher65 (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be seeing that we just don't know. That's a sorry state of affairs isn't it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


I changed some of the parts about InPhase's competing media, and removed an erroneous part about InPhase releasing a HVD disc in 2006. Seeing as InPhase is working on an entirely separate standard, maybe it should get it's own article, or maybe this article should be renamed to include all holographic standards?

  • It isn't actually InPhase that is doing it, but DaTARIUS. See my above comments (and hopefully my addition to the article if it doesn't get removed) that has time tables and file sizes (300GB to 1.6TB in 2010). Let's talk about that ;¬) Grendelum 03:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Other competition[edit]


I doubt that, this one has got 3.9Terabits when that things got 1Tb

Higher Storage Capacity Options[edit]

Stabilizing Ferroelectric Materials

Poorly written sentence[edit]

I removed the following sentence:

(For comparison, the red laser in a consumer CD-R or DVD-R drive is 0.1–0.25 watt)

It's rather poorly written. Firstly CD-Rs use infrared lasers. Secondly, it's not clear to me what it's talking about. Is it talking about the power of the laser used for reading or for writing? If it's for reading, we should be talking about the laser in CD-ROM and DVD-ROM drives. Of course, CD-RW drives and DVD+/-RW drives also have a laser but AFAIK the laser is higher power and the high power is needed/used for writing (when reading it uses less power). If it's for writing, then we should refer to them as CD-RW and DVD+/-RW drives or something like that since that's what they're commonly referred to as and make sure we're clear it's for writing. Regardless, is the 1w green laser currently the laser power needed for HVD for reading or for writing? Clearly we should be comparing apples to apples so the laser power should be either reading or writing (or both) for both. Also, I'm guessing BluRay and HD-DVD blue laser power is probably similar but we need to be clear. Nil Einne 12:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Expected by June '06[edit]

Seems strange that something is "expected" by june '06 since it's past then. Chris M. 23:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC) it is the fall of 2013 now ,and i have'nt even heard of this product in the market either any work(research) being done on this project.. is it still on the move ? i guess .. not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What is this list?[edit]

the company's in the development of holographic disks or better know as the HVD alliance Markthemac 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New standards and names incorporated[edit]

I changed the piece about the standards, reflecting the changes and the final approval of the Ecma standards.

Also, the HVD Alliance website is emptied, it's all moved to HVD FORUM. Changed that too.


It says this early in the article:
"The HVD also has a transfer rate of 1 gigabit/s (125 megabytes/s)."
However, in the Storage capacity in context section, it reads:
"The transfer rate is at an average of 1 gigabyte/second, or 1024 megabytes/second, around 380 times the transfer rate for current 16x DVD storage."
Can someone can clarify which one it actually is?
jS 23:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I want one. 3900GB would cost around min. 1000€ :D you know this might be a good reference to how great of an improvement that would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: it says here that it transfers at one gigabyte per second. If I read correctly, the article says one gigabit/125 megabytes? Confirm anyone? Cybersteel8 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Access Speed.[edit]

The opening paragraph states 1gigbit/s access times (125mb/s) yet the next paragraph stated 1 gigabyte/s access times.

They can't both be right, im inlined to think the first one. Anyone know? Neosophist 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

just noticed this was tagged last month, my bad. Someone should fix it or at least remove both references until a speed is determind? Neosophist 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus and systematic bias[edit]

What is this line? "Current models are being mass produced by Maxell and shipped to TV stations across the country."

What country? I live in Norway. Is it being shipped to TV stations across Norway?

Well, who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this line because its obscure (what country? why ship to TV stations?) and unverifiable. Rotsor 06:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that it is true that it's being shipped to TV stations for archiving purposes. Where exactly these stations are, i'm not sure but i would assume america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


  • The HVD forum site seems to be quite silent from end of 2006.
  • The Optware link results in site under maintenance. Just a case?

--Cantalamessa (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Is there any news on this anywhere? I'd like to see this page updated, but I haven't seen any news articles on this for a while.Gopher65 (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some news: InPhase finally to phase in holographic disk

Edit: Also there's a picture at Engadget: InPhase to finally ship Tapestry 300r holographic storage solution in May (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like one of the 2 remaining technical problems with HVDs has now been solved. The sole remaining issue is the high price of lasers of sufficiently high power. One down, one to go;). Muwhahahaha. Gopher65talk 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The BBC just had an article about these discs. they called it micro-holographic discs. GE unveiled a 500 gig disc. (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Blu-Ray will be obsolete soon[edit]

the victory against HD DVD is insignificant

keep your dvd players —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC) this wont effect blu ray dvd , u see ur need a special player with a green and red lazer , thats gonna cost a lot , blu ray is perfact for 20 years easy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenkolo (talkcontribs) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For mass storage Bluray is woefully insufficient, and in fact is more expensive on a per gig basis than even already existing HVD discs, never mind the newer, cheaper, larger size discs that are in the pipeline. When the writers start to drop from their current absurdly expensive price down to something more reasonable (~1500 bucks I'm thinking) then you'll start to see HVDs (or a similar technology from a competitor) supplant DVD writers on computers. However, while Bluray is too small and too expensive for mass-storage, even it is too big for current "high-definition" content, if you are using reasonable lossless compression. 50 gigs is easily more than what is needed. There is simply no need to have 200 gig or 1.6 terabyte discs at the current time. Maybe when lithographic (or is that hololithic? That's not a word yet, but I have a feeling it will be.) TVs with extreme resolution start to become popular that will change... mmmmmmmm quasi-3D... but for the moment nothing bigger is needed in the consumer video disc market.
But yeah, don't buy a Bluray writer for your computer. They're already obsolete. Wait a few years for the HVD writers to drop in price, then pick up one of those. Sony should never have forced that format war; it pushed back the *real* launch of HD discs until one format won the war. Now, because of Sony's obstinance, Bluray won't be as successful as a combined format would have been:(. Silly stubborn Sony. Gopher65talk 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally. Blu-Rays might be fine for storing just audio and video (their main purpose), but for storage needs (Just like a CD or DVD)they are already obsolete. You can already buy hard drives near 1TB for a fairly cheap price per GB, and as made obvious by this article there are optical disc technologies out there that will have to wait a long time because of the "HD-DVD/Blu-Ray" war. I bought a 500GB SATA hard drive over a year ago for just a hundred dollars... and I have to buy an external one if I wanted to backup any of my data. You can forget using optical discs. Also, prices are rediculous still for Blu-Ray. I was in a store today and saw the cheapest one for $200. There was also a $300 model. You just add-on another $100 and buy a PS3 at that rate. Cody-7 (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Update 03/03/09: I just bought a 1TB hard disk for $99 in Decenber. So double the storage is already cheaper than it was just a year and a half ago. -- Cody-7 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I bought a 1 terabyte external Seagate drive for 112 bucks... and this was at Best Buy, which is more expensive than a lot of other places. Gopher65talk 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look who was wrong 4 years ago. In the meantime, HDTV adoption has become widespread, and Blu Ray, which has become the only physical media for 1080p video offers hi-def 3D at a superior quality over streaming (the infrastructure just isn't there and people also still like to physically own things they pay for). Unsurprisingly, Blu Ray now has a 25% share of the home video market, 40% of the sales of newly released movies go towards Blu Rays. The price of 50GB BD-Rs has come down to ~$3.60 USD per disc. That means, for Blu Ray the price per Gigabyte now is $0.078 USD, whereas the price per Gigabyte for DVD-R now is $0.069 USD - a negligible difference. The price for PC Blu Ray writers is below $100 USD. At the time of this writing, Blu Ray is the only media for long term storage of large amounts of data (eg. hi-res video and images). Properly stored, BD-Rs are expected to last at least 30 years, possibly 100; no HDD lasts that long. At present, there is really no alternative. While I have no doubt that HVD would be a good format, don't expect it to be introduced any time soon. None of the companies that backed Blu Ray have even the slightest interest (or reason) to make another switch for the next couple of years. Until Ultra HD becomes the norm (which could take until 2020 or longer), there won't be much demand for a larger physical format, and even then Blu Ray might still be enough: "On July 20, 2010, the research team of Sony and Japanese Tohoku University announced the joint development of a blue-violet laser, which will help in creating Blu-ray discs with a capacity of 1 TB (dual layer)." The next generation of video game consoles (Wii U, PS4, Xbox 3) will all feature a Blu Ray based storage format. In summary: Go ahead and buy a BD drive for your PC. Blu Ray won't be obsolete any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, HVDs certainly aren't going to make it to mass market, unfortunately. I wonder if the format war between HDDVD and Bluray took the wind out of their sails?
But I still put nearly everything I own on HDDs and, more recently, SSDs (with multiple backups. HDDs are super cheap, so I keep 4 backups because I'm paranoid;)). I've owned a Bluray player for 2 years, but I've only bought 4 Blurays, and all but one were out of the 5 dollar bargain bin at various retailers. I stream (legally, either paid (netflix, etc) or "free" advertising supported content (Crackle, etc)) a good deal of what I watch, and what little I can't stream I get through... other means. Those other means are fast becoming as unnecessary as my Bluray player though.
I do have one critique of your statement above: Blurays will last 100 years, but only in a temperature controlled, moisture free, low oxygen high argon environment. The 30 to 40 year figure is if you keep them in a moisture controlled (humidifier and dehumidifier both working when necessary, as some people do to keep their homes nice), dark area with few temperature fluctuations. If you keep them under your TV in normal conditions, they should last a good 20 years, maybe a bit more. If you leave them by your window, you're looking at a 2 to 5 year lifetime, depending on the exact conditions. Overall they have pretty similar survivability to DVDs, which is good. The first few Blurays they released for testing died very quickly, and that was worrisome at the time. Fortunately those issues have now been solved. — Gopher65talk 02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and a quick note: writable Blurays are no more durable than writable DVDs. The higher numbers are for the unburnable Blurays, not the ones you store data on. Generally you're looking at a lifetime of less than 10 years. I've had writable DVDs fail after only a couple years for no apparent reason. I've discovered to my chagrin that they are not a good long term solution for data storage. A decent set of two external harddrives with the same data on both is a far better solution... and it's cheaper. — Gopher65talk 02:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

>"Generally you're looking at a lifetime of less than 10 years." That is not true. I have talked about this with several experts; for instance Verbatim (Mistubishi Chemical) confirmed that they expect writable HTL BD media (inorganic dye) to last 30 years or more. I own several Verbatim Azo dye CD-Rs written as early as 1995 (=17 years ago), they were stored properly and still work perfectly. Note that Azo dye is organic, and thus much more light sensitive than HTL BD-Rs; so there is no reason to assume that BD-Rs won't outlast CD-Rs. Of course if you buy cheap no-name discs, then you get what you pay for. Hdds certainly are more convenient (speed-wise) than optical discs, but to really be on the safe side you need to migrate your data to new drives every 5 years and keep multiple copies, which makes the price per GB much higher than using BD-Rs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

10 TB is NOT 1 petabyte[edit]

Can whomever manages this page please fix this? (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, but what was stopping you from fixing it? (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing, I guess - I just didnt want to step on someone elses toes (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What Colour LASERs?[edit]

In the first paragraph, the disk is described as having data read by a green laser, while tracking is done by a blue laser. In the second paragraph, however, we are talking about green for data and red for tracking. My question is this: RED OR BLUE? I know it's a simple find & replace job, but I don't know enough to determine which colour is correct. (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all very interesting to me i'm just waitiing for this technology to actually become a reality, but the answer to your question is that the red laser is used to read the data in a normal cd/dvd medium however with blu-ray it uses blue laser hence why its called blu-ray

Lucidica Support

35 Kingsland Road, Shoreditch, London E2 8AA 0844 414 2994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed a 'sentence'[edit]

Removed the bellow from Competing Technologies, clearly it shouldn't have been there. Also I've just realised there are a few typos through the article. Will go through and correct.

"ge has had holographic storage disks since 2009 capable of being played with curent blueray systems, this artical needs to be fixed. disk player costs should be ~$120-500 and discs should be <$50 (cheaper than bluerays to produce and record)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote lede[edit]

Among other things, the article lede claimed planned release dates of 2019 and 2020, without references. It's unlikely that any technology company would announce a release date so far in the future. Using WikiBlame I found that these dates were successively pushed forward from 2008 by IP editors in July 2009, October 2009 and December 2009, none of them providing a reference or even so much as an edit comment. I see no reason to think these editors knew what they were talking about, and some reason to think that they didn't.

Please fix my rewrite. It's still pretty bad. But I think it's better. -- BenRG (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


in that HVD_logo.svg on the right, holographic is spelt incorrectly, as 'holograpic' -- (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is HVD dead?[edit]

Is it safe to say HVD is a vaporware project? The official website has been either a blank page or a domain park since 2012216.73.201.25 (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know for whom it could be safe to say that, but not us, because we're an encyclopedia. WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTALBALL And that's an external link, not a reference. It seems very strange and unfortunate that the web site would be down. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)