100 Terabytes?!

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:28 pm

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0 ... =198&tid=1

Oh Krom......

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:00 pm

Question is, how fast is it?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:09 pm

Just by the data density it would be fast, you stick 100 TB in a 3.5" disk and a lot of data is going to pass under the beam.

I'd have it full of Anime in a week!

STRESSTEST · Post by **STRESSTEST** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:11 pm

lol... what slot do I send my money through for one of these?

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:00 pm

Krom wrote:I'd have it full of Anime in a week!

I don't know -- it's ~21276 hrs of movies in DVD quality..

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:18 pm

the site that /. links to looks fishy.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:59 pm

I saw this two weeks ago...Ive been drooling ever since. I bet this has hard drive manufactures scared s***less.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:31 pm

DAYUM!!

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:18 pm

For that much storage, the price seems pretty sweet.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:56 pm

Avder wrote:I saw this two weeks ago...Ive been drooling ever since. I bet this has hard drive manufactures scared s***less.

I doubt that, hard drives probably manage faster transfer rates and much lower latency.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:42 pm

any Server Op would definately want this

Battlebot · Post by **Battlebot** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:13 pm

AceCombat wrote:any Server Op would definately want this

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:22 am

Scratchable?

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:15 am

Now if we could only pack massive processing power and rapidly accessible memory into such small packages. That would get you a truly wicked VR gaming system or a real-life HAL.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:28 am

*pok pok* hello? this thing is on right?
that's 1 terrabyte with Blue laser, on a simple CD.

UV is the next wavelength step i spose. hopefully this tech will go straight to the PC market, instead of to the movie market like the other tech is going (alla DVD)

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm

What movie can take up 100 terabytes?

Verran · Post by **Verran** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:54 pm

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:35 pm

Defender: Don't forget about HD. Thats going to take up a ton of space. Not something a normal DVD can hold for any length of time. (and I doubt anyone here will like being told to change the DVD every few minutes just to watch a movie in HD)

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:06 pm

Ya, but a 100 terabytes? that just seems rediculous.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 10:13 pm

Defender wrote:Ya, but a 100 terabytes? that just seems rediculous.

Just like 120 gigabytes sounded rediculous 4 or 5 years ago?

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:48 pm

Just wait a decade. We should ressurect this thread and go "man, how did we get by without our 3 Exabyte Drives?"

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 2:06 am

yeah, really.

you think 100 terabytes is enough to hold an entire virtual girl program that knows every sexual position ever invented and then some? and what about those of us who dont just like white women, but who like a wide variety of women such as asians, asians mixed with white, asians mixed with black, asian mixed with mexican, black and white, black, phillipino, and etc etc? you think i can hold of of those programs on a single 100 terrabyte disc? yeah right.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 5:23 am

VaporWare... and http://www.physorg.com/ website attempts an overflow (hello)

The full story is available only to registered members of PhysOrg.com

This is your brain

, this is your brain on crack

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:07 am

A real girl is probably cheaper, kurupt.

Battlebot · Post by **Battlebot** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:06 am

lol pwned

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 9:24 am

Sirius wrote:A real girl is probably cheaper, kurupt.

Amused++

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:04 pm

Kurupt, if you don't have Microsoft coding it.. sure.. no problemo.

Defender · Post by **Defender** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:36 pm

MD-2389 wrote:
Defender wrote:Ya, but a 100 terabytes? that just seems rediculous.
Just like 120 gigabytes sounded rediculous 4 or 5 years ago?

Yes, but I don't see how the level of detail (or extra features

) could possibly push a 2hr movie to 100 terabytes.

And what movie takes up 120gigs? (I'm talkin hollywood, not your raw video footage.)

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:00 pm

Defender wrote:Yes, but I don't see how the level of detail (or extra features ) could possibly push a 2hr movie to 100 terabytes.

And what movie takes up 120gigs? (I'm talkin hollywood, not your raw video footage.)

Ok, lets say I have a typical HDTV video frame (1920x1080 for those of you not in "the know"). For this example, I rendered this image as a jpeg at 100% quality (no compression). That comes up to around 987 kB, and for this example we'll assume that the filesize will remain constant. Your typical movie is filmed at around what...24 frames per second? That comes up to quite a bit of data.

(credits for image: Mesh by "Ger Dolan" and "Magma", rendered by yours truely.)

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:43 pm

987kb x 24 = 23688kb per second. (23.7mb)

23688 x 60 = 1421280kb per minute. (1421.3mb, 1.4gb)

1421280 x 120 (an average movie length) = 170553600kb. (170,553.6mb, 170.5gb)

^^ He's right

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:16 pm

If you *want* to store your whole movie as a string of 100% quality jpg's, be my guest. It'll make it about 100 times as large as it needs to be, though.

Most modern formats use something like... one .jpg image, and then a bunch of "this is what changed from the last image" updates that are a lot smaller.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:47 pm

Lothar wrote:If you *want* to store your whole movie as a string of 100% quality jpg's, be my guest. It'll make it about 100 times as large as it needs to be, though.

Most modern formats use something like... one .jpg image, and then a bunch of "this is what changed from the last image" updates that are a lot smaller.

The point is that its possible for movies to actually BE that large. This just established an upper limit for the scale.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:33 pm

This is coming from someone that still thinks CRT TVs work just fine

, but who really needs that level of detail when watching a movie/TV? Does it really enhance the viewing experience that much? There comes a time when technological advances move from being fairly useful to excessive for the sake of being excessive. A movie that takes up a whopping 170 GB of storage space has, in my opinion, crossed that line. I think I'll pass on that one; VHS tapes still work fine

.

P.S. Although I have no conceivable idea why someone would want/need that much space, the drive's technology is still cool

. I think it illustrates a troubling trend though, at least in the gaming industry. Game designers seem to be concentrating more on "bloat" and less on efficiency. In my own uneducated view, I see no reason why any game has to take up a whopping 2-4 GB of disk space. Isn't there some way that, instead of making files/programs so huge, we can try to use existing technologies to make the process more efficient and, by doing so, take up less space?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:35 pm

MD-2389 wrote:
Defender wrote:Yes, but I don't see how the level of detail (or extra features ) could possibly push a 2hr movie to 100 terabytes.

And what movie takes up 120gigs? (I'm talkin hollywood, not your raw video footage.)
Ok, lets say I have a typical HDTV video frame (1920x1080 for those of you not in "the know"). For this example, I rendered this image as a jpeg at 100% quality (no compression). That comes up to around 987 kB, and for this example we'll assume that the filesize will remain constant. Your typical movie is filmed at around what...24 frames per second? That comes up to quite a bit of data.

(credits for image: Mesh by "Ger Dolan" and "Magma", rendered by yours truely.)

if yer editing video in post-production, you'd never want to touch any kind of compression. add in multi-channel audio, and yer getting up there.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:44 pm

Top Gun wrote:This is coming from someone that still thinks CRT TVs work just fine , but who really needs that level of detail when watching a movie/TV? Does it really enhance the viewing experience that much? There comes a time when technological advances move from being fairly useful to excessive for the sake of being excessive. A movie that takes up a whopping 170 GB of storage space has, in my opinion, crossed that line. I think I'll pass on that one; VHS tapes still work fine .

Umm...have you done ANY research on HDTV at all? The whole point is to bring ONE 'global' standard into play. As it is, you have three competing standards (NTSC, PAL, and SECAM). Neither are compatable with eachother. Furthermore, have you actually seen NTSC transmissions on a big screen TV? You can actually see the pixelation, even when playing DVDs. Thats where HDTV comes into play.

P.S. Although I have no conceivable idea why someone would want/need that much space, the drive's technology is still cool .

You'd be suprised how many companies need large ammounts of storage.

I think it illustrates a troubling trend though, at least in the gaming industry. Game designers seem to be concentrating more on "bloat" and less on efficiency. In my own uneducated view, I see no reason why any game has to take up a whopping 2-4 GB of disk space. Isn't there some way that, instead of making files/programs so huge, we can try to use existing technologies to make the process more efficient and, by doing so, take up less space?

Psst! Most of that space is taken up by textures and audio files. The actual game data doesn't take up all that much room by comparison.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 12:05 am

Now that I've been collectively owned...

MD, I haven't done any research into HDTV since my family, or myself, has no interest in buying a new TV. Until they can bring down the prices of plasma/big screen TVs into the $400-$500 range, I doubt I'll look into one. Call me crazy, but paying several thousand dollars for a new TV seems ludicrous. I know there'll be a price drop eventually, but I think that one should have already occurred. As for the format, I wasn't sure what NTSC and PAL stood for when I heard them referred to with regards to a PS2. It seems like there's always format troubles, from Betamax/VHS to this to DVD=/-/RAM. Why can't the people who develop these technologies get together, pick one format, and stick with it?

I'll give you the company storage issue; I can see how that could be useful for the huge amounts of data that some companies need. This could also be useful for purposes of education; the entire contents of the Library of Congress could be stored on a few disks. Cool

.

About the games, I was somewhat aware that graphics/sound took up most of the space. That's still part of my complaint, though; how about cutting down on the size/quantity of graphics? Do we really need photo-realistic zombies to have a good game?

This ties into the graphics/gameplay debate, though, so I won't get into it here.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:53 pm

Top Gun wrote:Now that I've been collectively owned... MD, I haven't done any research into HDTV since my family, or myself, has no interest in buying a new TV. Until they can bring down the prices of plasma/big screen TVs into the $400-$500 range, I doubt I'll look into one. Call me crazy, but paying several thousand dollars for a new TV seems ludicrous. I know there'll be a price drop eventually, but I think that one should have already occurred. As for the format, I wasn't sure what NTSC and PAL stood for when I heard them referred to with regards to a PS2. It seems like there's always format troubles, from Betamax/VHS to this to DVD=/-/RAM. Why can't the people who develop these technologies get together, pick one format, and stick with it?

Actually, you'll have to switch sooner than you think if the FCC has its way. (Actually, we'd all be running HD right now if the FCC had its way a year ago...but thats a totally different topic.) Don't worry, if your TV doesn't have a HD tuner built-in, they have them available for those of us not blessed with a TV over 32 inches.

As for formats....since when have such decisions EVER made sense? While competition for standards is a good thing in some cases, in the case of DVD+/-/RAM/DL, its a real pain in the ass because the average Joe Schmoe consumer is not going to know what to buy.

I'll give you the company storage issue; I can see how that could be useful for the huge amounts of data that some companies need. This could also be useful for purposes of education; the entire contents of the Library of Congress could be stored on a few disks. Cool .

Agreed.

About the games, I was somewhat aware that graphics/sound took up most of the space. That's still part of my complaint, though; how about cutting down on the size/quantity of graphics? Do we really need photo-realistic zombies to have a good game? This ties into the graphics/gameplay debate, though, so I won't get into it here.

Well, a really graphically intensive game tends to push for higher-end video cards. If theres alot of demand for said game (re: Doom 3, Half Life 2), then theres also going to be a jump in sales for higher-end video cards leaving nVidia and ATI very happy campers.

Then of course you have companies like Volition thinking into the future when they made games like Freespace 2 (which to this day has graphics that rival many current games).

It just depends on where you sit on this issue.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:17 pm

You guys are forgetting the raw audio stream

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:27 pm

Avder wrote:You guys are forgetting the raw audio stream

fliptw wrote:if yer editing video in post-production, you'd never want to touch any kind of compression. add in multi-channel audio, and yer getting up there.

The majority of the data is going to be the video stream though. Just for fun, I'll strip out the audio of a Gargoyles episode and see how much smaller it is.

Ympakt · Post by **Ympakt** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:51 pm

Could you imagine the horde of programmers that would be needed to input such massive amounts of data to fill a single terabyte CDR? That'd be a whopper of a game! It'd employ every single programmer on this board for months or years sitting in front of the keyboard coding away!