Top
200°

51GB HD DVD disc gets official

In a strange turn of events, Blu-ray discs are outselling HD DVDs, and now the HD DVD format has taken the lead in capacity -- who would've think it? Toshiba just announced that it has successfully created a triple-layer disc with 17GB per layer, which amounts to 51GB, a full GB more than those dual-layer Blu-ray discs can muster.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DJ3920d ago

Unfortunately it costs more to produce HD-DVDs than Blu-ray discs (GB for GB). I'm not sure how many studios will push for HD-DVD titles that cost more to produce than their Blu-ray counterparts, especially since Blu-ray is consistently outselling its rival 2:1.

CG3920d ago

Since when was blu-ray cheaper to produce than HD DVD disc's??
Seriously your lies are getting more outragous!!

techie3920d ago

No DJ is right. Most blu-ray films are single-layer which are cheaper to produce than double-layer Hd.DVD's (most hd'dvd films are double--layer) The set up costs for both are also equivalent. I've seen the report too.

Torch3920d ago (Edited 3920d ago )

With all due respect, I think DJ may not be too far off from the truth.

For some time, defenders of the HD-DVD camp have been preaching that their media was ultimately significantly cheaper to spit out than Blu-Ray.

However, there was an interesting, thoroughly-written article published on this very website no more than a month ago, which compared the costs of the two.

If I correctly recall, the author (to his surprise as well) found that Blu-Ray discs was equal to, or less expensive than those for HD-DVD.

Now, there's always the possiblily that the author was blowing smoke, but I get the feeling he wasn't, as he, the website, and his numbers appeared to be reputable enough. I wish I could reference the article, but can't remember where it may be.

EDIT:

Here's a link to the article I was referring to (Google, you're the greatest!):

http://wesleytech.com/blu-r...

nambo3919d ago

He's getting that from an article that was published a week or so ago. The comparison was that of a 50GB BR and 30GB HD-DVD. When broken down that way the article stated that GB for GB the BR was cheaper. That's like saying a 120GB HD is more expansive than a 500 GB HD. GB for GB the 500 GB is cheaper, but you'll pay more for the 500 GB. The truth is that HD-DVD is cheaper to produce and we don't know what it costs to produce the 51GB HD-DVD so that comparison can't be made yet.

@Deepbrown. If most BR movies are on single layer (25GB) as you say then tell me why BR is superior or that the extra space is needed? What people in the HD-DVD camp have been saying is that all the hype of BR being superior because of more space is BS and with your comment, I'll assume you agree.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3919d ago
grifter0243920d ago

hehe Ok sooooo???? It is talking about The HDDVD being 51gigs that took the Blu-Ray's major advantage away storage space that almost everyone brings up in this war... It may cost more to make but the success rate of making a 51 gig hddvd disk is higher than that of the 50gig BR disk... This is good I think soon some movies will come out and Ill be able to watch them... But then again I say Hopefully soon..

hongthay3920d ago

Now, a 51gb HD-DVD disc in 4th quarter 2007. This puts them ahead of BR? Seems like people are forgetting that TDK had a 6 layer 200gb BR disc at CES last year. They're not ahead yet. Also, TDK could just make a dual layer BR with 66gb if they wanted to. HD-DVD won't take the crown for content yet.

power of Green 3920d ago

It's not a bad idea after the spike of BR movies outselling HD-DVD movies ends and the masses actually start buying HD-players Toshiba will have $200 dollar players and the studios will suck the HD-DVD owners dry. Anything bigger than 50 is aready too big and not practical.

Torch3920d ago (Edited 3920d ago )

I can't remember how many times I've made this misconseption over the years of being an avid computer enthusiast.

Believe it or not, it was not too long ago when others and myself argued that a CD-ROM was absolute overkill for a game. "Why, 3.5" floppies are waaaay more than enough for Wolfenstein, and absolutely adequate for X-Wing".

And then, that little phenomenon called "3D" came along, as well as textures, and cutscenes, etc..

Forget about how many times I thought something along the lines of "Wow!!!...a 20-meg (NOT gig) hard drive...I've got storage space for life!" And then, three months down the road, I'd be biatching that my hard drive was too small as I'd be forced to delete things in order to make space. And this story has repeated with drives that were 100MB, 500MB, 2GB, 10GB, 40GB, 160GB, up until now, at which point I'm wondering how much space is enough to replace my cumulative 600GB storage space.

This is no different than games that have transcended from (once-massive) CD's to full-blown DVD's.

So, I'd say, Hell yeah: If you can offer me a medium with a higher storage capacity, then bring it on!

Because experience tells me that the day will indeed come when all that excess space will be utilized.

Never say never.

SEAN16173920d ago

tdk made the 8 layer blu-ray disc thats 200gbs oh well

Show all comments (32)
The story is too old to be commented.