Report, edit, etc...Posted by TERRAINFIGHTER on 2006-05-29 at 17:26:58
QUOTE(Lithium @ May 29 2006, 07:04 AM)
I hope you read the entire thing before you post.
That statement meant that there is no need to limit ourselves in developement.
As some people were saying that "they do not need such things as a disk with 54 GB". Baka. Nonsense.
[right][snapback]495133[/snapback][/right]
That statement meant that there is no need to limit ourselves in developement.
As some people were saying that "they do not need such things as a disk with 54 GB". Baka. Nonsense.
[right][snapback]495133[/snapback][/right]
Actually, what I meant is we don't need it yet
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-05-29 at 18:32:15
Don't worry. Bluray disks wont be out until like 2010 on PC.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by yoni45 on 2006-06-02 at 17:04:50
QUOTE(Lithium @ May 29 2006, 04:31 PM)
Don't worry. Bluray disks wont be out until like 2010 on PC.
[right][snapback]495475[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]495475[/snapback][/right]
Is that right? Blu-ray capable drives are already on the next Sony Vaio laptop model
QUOTE
I think that Blu-Ray will be able to hold the maximum quality for any movie in existence, perhaps HD-DVD too. However, they already have prototype disks that can hold in excess of 100 GB of storage.
Blu-Ray discs can be layered. A quad-layer Blu-Ray disc will hold over 100GB, and even 8-layered blu-ray discs are possible that would hold over 200gb...
TDK has apparently already made a working 200 gb model with 6, 33 gb layers...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-06-02 at 20:26:50
That's bigger than my damn harddrive.. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-06-02 at 23:06:43
And Intel already has tested 22 nm chips. Does that mean the technology is reliable? No.
I've seen Blu-ray drives for the PC for about $1,000 US.
Blu-ray FAQ
However, a 50 GB disc can reportedly hold 9 hours of HD video. HD-DVD should be more than capable of delivering entire movies at capacities including 90 GB. source I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but for this little bit of info, I couldn't be bothered to search elsewhere. It's too late (I have SATs tomorrow).
I've seen Blu-ray drives for the PC for about $1,000 US.
Blu-ray FAQ
QUOTE
which should allow the storage capacity to be increased to 100GB-200GB (25GB per layer)
However, a 50 GB disc can reportedly hold 9 hours of HD video. HD-DVD should be more than capable of delivering entire movies at capacities including 90 GB. source I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but for this little bit of info, I couldn't be bothered to search elsewhere. It's too late (I have SATs tomorrow).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by yoni45 on 2006-06-03 at 03:58:18
QUOTE(Felagund @ Jun 2 2006, 09:06 PM)
And Intel already has tested 22 nm chips. Does that mean the technology is reliable? No.
This isn't that much of a stretch... dual layer is available, triple layer is also available for HD-DVD, so why not 6 layers?
They also happen to have a working model, and considering the technology used is pretty much the same as that which has been tested as "reliable", assuming they'll easily hit the 200 gb mark if need be is a pretty safe assumption
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ice_Inferno_X3 on 2006-06-03 at 09:40:08
DVD is more than enough. plus after hearing how UMDs are not being supported by movie publishers anymore, i think blu ray will soon follow UMDs fate
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TERRAINFIGHTER on 2006-06-03 at 09:55:58
...what is a UMD?
I doubt this will go extinct, after all...better definition and quality products=more space used...
Examine the floppy disc, remember how they used to fit most files?
After floppy disc's went bye-bye, they switched to CDs to fit the bigger files and such.
Later, they switched to DVDs to increase the quality of files, and since CD's where becoming obselete.
Is there any good reason for them not to use this type of disc in the future?
I doubt this will go extinct, after all...better definition and quality products=more space used...
Examine the floppy disc, remember how they used to fit most files?
After floppy disc's went bye-bye, they switched to CDs to fit the bigger files and such.
Later, they switched to DVDs to increase the quality of files, and since CD's where becoming obselete.
Is there any good reason for them not to use this type of disc in the future?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-06-03 at 10:55:10
QUOTE
...what is a UMD?
Universal Media Disc. The PSP and the Gamecube use them.
QUOTE
Was it a terabyte hard drive or just a terabyte of hard drive space.
I don't remember. It was a few months ago.
QUOTE
And there has to be a point where we can't get any better, graphics wise. At least that's my opinion.
I agree there. I don't think we will ever get to the point where games will actually look that good because that would take an insanely long time to get perfect replications on a computer.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-06-03 at 11:14:47
There really isnt. - Files keep getting larger by the day.
Movies nowadays fill up most of the space in that "8GB".
Movie Publishers will probably not abandon this project because of higher memorys. Nowadays movies will probably play up to the maximum limit of Blu-ray technology. 54 Mbp/s I believe. 54,000 KB per second. 54,000,000 bytes per second. 432,000,000 numbers played per second. Thats enough to fill up 50 gb in no time. Dont you want to see spectacular quality movies? Because of these advancements, new and better things will come out to be compatible with these kind of technology. So. Really. Theres nothing to complain about.
Movies nowadays fill up most of the space in that "8GB".
Movie Publishers will probably not abandon this project because of higher memorys. Nowadays movies will probably play up to the maximum limit of Blu-ray technology. 54 Mbp/s I believe. 54,000 KB per second. 54,000,000 bytes per second. 432,000,000 numbers played per second. Thats enough to fill up 50 gb in no time. Dont you want to see spectacular quality movies? Because of these advancements, new and better things will come out to be compatible with these kind of technology. So. Really. Theres nothing to complain about.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ice_Inferno_X3 on 2006-06-03 at 11:51:13
sony should just stick to their TVs. it's the only thing they do right. no im not trying to piss anyone off but ive been mad at sony ever since their E3 press conference the 600 dollar price tag
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-06-03 at 12:00:43
Then. Dont buy it. It isn't a necessity anyways.
Besides Ice, you probably could buy the PS3 if you dont waste your money... on unnecessary things. Sony does not want to lose any money. Besides, PS3 gfx will be spectacular in quality. However, it does not... support many engines that the other system has. and Sony is sticking to their TVs. They are just changing how they run.
Besides Ice, you probably could buy the PS3 if you dont waste your money... on unnecessary things. Sony does not want to lose any money. Besides, PS3 gfx will be spectacular in quality. However, it does not... support many engines that the other system has. and Sony is sticking to their TVs. They are just changing how they run.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-06-03 at 17:49:01
Sony's really faltering. The PS3 is going to sell much worse than the PS2 and X-Box 360. By the way, PC graphics capabilities have already surpassed console gfx. I'd pit an X1900XTX against the 360 any day, and a new line of gpu's are just around the corner!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2006-06-03 at 18:12:05
QUOTE
Besides Ice, you probably could buy the PS3 if you dont waste your money... on unnecessary things.
Like a PS3?Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-06-03 at 19:14:30
you could call it that way wilhelm. you do not absolutely need these things. how ever, it is the person's own choice that they spend money...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by yoni45 on 2006-06-03 at 21:30:32
the $600 price tag is worth it considering you get a Blu-Ray drive built into it, which on its own will retail at more than $600... Do you get an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drive built into the 360? No. So ideally, the worth of the PS3 is:
XBOX
+
better engine
+
over $600 worth of Blu-Ray player... which is ALONE enough to justify the price tag of the PS3...
(not that I'll be buying either hah)
XBOX
+
better engine
+
over $600 worth of Blu-Ray player... which is ALONE enough to justify the price tag of the PS3...
(not that I'll be buying either hah)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-06-03 at 22:45:27
Sony is trying to cross-market the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player. That's one of the main reason's it has a lower price tag than just a plain ol' Blu-Ray player.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-06-04 at 01:38:40
There is really no need or use for a Blue-Ray player right now, though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-06-04 at 06:40:14
don't double post. <_< although it should say ADDITION:
although... have you downloaded the halo 3 demo? Its 8742 kb/s or something. That should be enough to fill up a single layer blu-ray.
although... have you downloaded the halo 3 demo? Its 8742 kb/s or something. That should be enough to fill up a single layer blu-ray.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-06-04 at 08:52:42
Nobody double posted, I'm stealing all of Deathawk's avatars.
That's because there are no Blu-Ray discs availible to the public yet. When they are, then you will need one.
QUOTE
There is really no need or use for a Blue-Ray player right now, though.
That's because there are no Blu-Ray discs availible to the public yet. When they are, then you will need one.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kenoli on 2006-06-04 at 09:18:36
Huge file sizes != better games.
Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive. $600+ just for the player? Right, I'm sure that'll catch on.
Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive. $600+ just for the player? Right, I'm sure that'll catch on.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by yoni45 on 2006-06-05 at 03:18:23
QUOTE(dumbducky @ Jun 4 2006, 06:52 AM)
Nobody double posted, I'm stealing all of Deathawk's avatars.
That's because there are no Blu-Ray discs availible to the public yet. When they are, then you will need one.
[right][snapback]499252[/snapback][/right]
That's because there are no Blu-Ray discs availible to the public yet. When they are, then you will need one.
[right][snapback]499252[/snapback][/right]
That's because the Blu-Ray player hasn't been released yet. As soon as it is, most dvd's will be coming out on Blu-Ray alongside standard DVD...
edit: erm, didn't notice the 2 users, in that case, I would agree with you... well, not "need", but potentially have a use for
... for the record, if your tv isn't HD capable with an HDCP capable HDMI input port, then going blu-ray is completely useless for you...QUOTE(Kenoli)
Huge file sizes != better games.
Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive. $600+ just for the player? Right, I'm sure that'll catch on.
Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive. $600+ just for the player? Right, I'm sure that'll catch on.
$600 just for the player at release really isn't too much. Back in the day, DVD burners were going for around $1000. When technology is released, it's always obscenely expensive, today you can find those DVD burners for about $60 CDN?
As for the need, well, to be honest, a 1080P resolution DVD would probably take up a very considerable amount of space, and definitely wouldn't fit on a standard DVD disc...
And yes, it'll catch on... well, either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD... it might not be in every household just yet, but first you have your early adopters, then those who are still earlier than most, eventually the mass market (at which point the price would be lower of course), etc. etc... I do sony tech support and we already get people calling in asking about which tv they need to buy to be able to show a true 1080P signal... (and those tv's are far, far more expensive than the Blu-Ray player
)edit: To be exact, the stand-alone Blu-Ray player is actually set to retail at $995.95 at release
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP....ub&Dept=tvvideo
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gradius on 2006-06-05 at 09:28:54
QUOTE(Kenoli @ Jun 4 2006, 07:18 AM)
Huge file sizes != better games.
Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive.
[right][snapback]499269[/snapback][/right]
Uh....what? Do you know how much space models and maps take up? Half life 2 had to be put on like 3 disks because it was so big.Nothing requires 54GB of storage, not high quality video, certainly not games.
It's excessive... and obscenely expensive.
[right][snapback]499269[/snapback][/right]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-06-05 at 16:58:03
Hmmm, CD Drives for the computer debuted for like $800. Now you can buy extremely good ones for $20.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-06-05 at 19:16:00
QUOTE(Golden-Fist @ May 28 2006, 07:37 AM)
What makes you think they don't? If devolpers were only intrested in graphics then we'd be playing 2D platformers with really good graphics.
[right][snapback]494386[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]494386[/snapback][/right]
That's kind of an oxymoron.
As for the Blu Ray, it's just a ploy to market at the idiot fan boys who like throwing around fancy terms and the computer illiterate who thinks bigger is always better.