Sony, Panasonic Reveal "Archival Disc," 300GB to 1TB Optical Disc

Sony, Panasonic Reveal "Archival Disc," 300GB to 1TB Optical Disc

ArchivalDisc Logo Big

Sony and Panasonic have formulated the "Archival Disc," a new standard for long-term storage using optical discs, that can hold 300GB up to 1TB of data and is set for release in summer 2015.

We first reported on it in July last year that Sony and Panasonic were developing high capacity discs that could offer more data space than the Blu-ray's current 100GB limit; now, Sony has announced that it's collaboration with Panasonic has "formulated" what it calls the "Archival Disc," a next-generation optical disc that can reportedly hold up to 300GB initially, with plans to further expand the recording capacity up to 1TB.

Part of the press release can be read below, and it even mentions "inter-generational compatibility between different formats, ensuring that data can continue to be read even as formats evolve," which sounds fantastic, if it actually works that way.

Optical discs have excellent properties to protect themselves against the environment, such as dust-resistance and water-resistance, and can also withstand changes in temperature and humidity when stored. They also allow inter-generational compatibility between different formats, ensuring that data can continue to be read even as formats evolve. This makes them robust media for long-term storage of content. Recognizing that optical discs will need to accommodate much larger volumes of storage going forward, particularly given the anticipated future growth in the archive market, Sony and Panasonic have been engaged in the joint development of a standard for professional-use next-generation optical discs.

The product roadmap for the Archival Disc states both Sony and Panasonic are aiming to launch the 300GB disc in summer 2015, with the 500GB and 1TB discs being the long-term goal.

According to Sony, "In recent times, demand for archival capabilities has increased significantly in the film industry, as well as in cloud data centers that handle big data, where advances in network services have caused data volumes to soar," and adds both companies plan to actively promote this new high-capacity disc standard as an "effective solution for protecting valuable data in the future."

You can check out the Archival Disc's specifications below.

image

Sony also mentions "Crosstalk cancellation technology" and "high-order Partial Response Maximum Likelihood (PRML)" signal processing tech are being used for the Archival Disc to achieve both larger capacity and higher playback signal quality.

So, there you go, tech fans. We might soon be doing away with Blu-rays and their paltry 100GB caps to make way for Archival Discs very, very soon. Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Source: Sony via Engadget

Permalink

Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

rofltehcat:

Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

True but a lot can change with technology in what 8-10 years of a console life cycle. That said I imagine consoles are going to go more and more towards the download model since they are already rely on it quite a lot for patches and the like.

rofltehcat:

Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

Nope. It's meant to replace Blu-ray. :) It's the actual terminology and the name "Archival" that's kinda confusing here. By "long-term" storage, it means the same as Blu-rays "Optical discs have excellent properties to protect themselves against the environment, such as dust-resistance and water-resistance, and can also withstand changes in temperature and humidity when stored."

Interesting bit here is the "inter-generational compatibility between different formats" line. I highly doubt that's going to happen. Maybe a player that can read 300GB to 1TB discs? But cross-gen players like say, DVD to Blu-ray? That's not happening since it's a good way for companies to force people to upgrade.

Sure... except optical drives are the least reliable data mediums since floppy and still very expensive, also I can only imagine Sony will twist everyone's balls with licensing if they want to use it, none of which would make me replace the extremely cheap and far more reliable magnetic tapes any time soon.

Never was it easier to instantly destroy a TB worth of data with your bare hands

The way they keep on updating formats and never state the life expectancy of their disk formats I'm disinclined to invest in any "new format" disk as an archival system. As stated above, mag tape is still the gold standard and movement to digital distribution makes needing large capacity physical media less and less of a requirement.

Wandrecanada:
movement to digital distribution makes needing large capacity physical media less and less of a requirement.

Not true at all.

I think people are forgeting how unpractical it is to just download everything. I have the second highest data package my ISP offers, and yet it is still only 250 GB a month. This means it is not practical to just download all your games, because you would just finish your data limit way before the end of the month. Pure digital downloads aren't comming any time soon, no matter what will are saying. Will digital download become more important then before? Sure! But they won't replace discs or non-downloadable media.

hakkarin:

Wandrecanada:
movement to digital distribution makes needing large capacity physical media less and less of a requirement.

Not true at all.

I think people are forgeting how unpractical it is to just download everything. I have the second highest data package my ISP offers, and yet it is still only 250 GB a month. This means it is not practical to just download all your games, because you would just finish your data limit way before the end of the month. Pure digital downloads aren't comming any time soon, no matter what will are saying. Will digital download become more important then before? Sure! But they won't replace discs or non-downloadable media.

Streaming media will become a more widely-accepted option than digital downloads as long as games keep taking up more and more space and physical media continues to inflate their prices alongside inflating capacity. Not only is there the download restrictions, but you still have to download to a physical drive; as long as download speeds get faster, it'll be simply easiest to stream games and movies as the digital option.

hakkarin:

Wandrecanada:
movement to digital distribution makes needing large capacity physical media less and less of a requirement.

Not true at all.

I think people are forgeting how unpractical it is to just download everything. I have the second highest data package my ISP offers, and yet it is still only 250 GB a month.

I have the lowest data package my ISP offers and it's unlimited broadband. Guessing you have one of those shitty ISPs that prices unlimited broadband highly/doesn't even offer it?

OT: The real question is, how durable are they? I haven't messed with Blu-Rays at all, gave up on optical discs after DVDs, when I lost tons of data to corrupted discs. I could certainly see a use for a disc that big, especially for business use, but in business, you don't want to lose your data to shitty optical discs.

Alex Co:

rofltehcat:

Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

Nope. It's meant to replace Blu-ray. :) It's the actual terminology and the name "Archival" that's kinda confusing here. By "long-term" storage, it means the same as Blu-rays "Optical discs have excellent properties to protect themselves against the environment, such as dust-resistance and water-resistance, and can also withstand changes in temperature and humidity when stored."

Interesting bit here is the "inter-generational compatibility between different formats" line. I highly doubt that's going to happen. Maybe a player that can read 300GB to 1TB discs? But cross-gen players like say, DVD to Blu-ray? That's not happening since it's a good way for companies to force people to upgrade.

Blue-ray players read DVDs and CDs, I assume that "inter-generational compatibility" means that the new ones will read all those formats as well as the new one.

rofltehcat:

Does this mean the PlayStation 5 will use the new disc format? I wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how today's next-gen games data are ballooning.

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

First post saying what I came to say. This won't be for rapid playback.

Likewise, assuming these disks cost more to produce there's not really any reason for movies to change to this. We're more likely to see the death of physical media at all than an upgrade to this. The reason I say that is that HD Bluray movies like Avatar took around 8 GBs. TV resolutions would have to shoot well past 4k before we'd even come close to hitting the 25GB single Bluray disk layer. The reason DVD and Bluray formats succeeded was because they made sense. DVDs held 4GB on a single layer.

Games are not a large enough industry to push a format. Especially not with HDD storage being a thing and multiple disks being an option that our industry has already used.

If this becomes the new standard for physical game discs in the future (conflicting info in the comments) all this means is that loading times will be even crazier. Not to mention installing. T_T

JayDeth:
If this becomes the new standard for physical game discs in the future (conflicting info in the comments) all this means is that loading times will be even crazier. Not to mention installing. T_T

Exactly, it would be terrible for playback.

The term Archival isn't an accident. It's for long-term storage, not regular playback.

Vrach:

I have the lowest data package my ISP offers and it's unlimited broadband. Guessing you have one of those shitty ISPs that prices unlimited broadband highly/doesn't even offer it?

OT: The real question is, how durable are they? I haven't messed with Blu-Rays at all, gave up on optical discs after DVDs, when I lost tons of data to corrupted discs. I could certainly see a use for a disc that big, especially for business use, but in business, you don't want to lose your data to shitty optical discs.

While that's nice where you live, no ISP in the United States offers unlimited bandwidth on the lowest package at all. They either a) don't offer it at all or b) offer it when paying for the highest Internet package. Plus, companies will always use physical media for back-up storage as it's usually cheaper (companies get deals in bulk) and because if where-ever they were digitally storing the data were to fail (which can happen) they will have a physical back-up.

As for Bluray, I think you are grossly underestimating how durable a Bluray disc is, as they last way longer than optical DVDs. Hell at my job they still had floppy discs for some backups.

Neronium:

Vrach:

I have the lowest data package my ISP offers and it's unlimited broadband. Guessing you have one of those shitty ISPs that prices unlimited broadband highly/doesn't even offer it?

OT: The real question is, how durable are they? I haven't messed with Blu-Rays at all, gave up on optical discs after DVDs, when I lost tons of data to corrupted discs. I could certainly see a use for a disc that big, especially for business use, but in business, you don't want to lose your data to shitty optical discs.

While that's nice where you live, no ISP in the United States offers unlimited bandwidth on the lowest package at all. They either a) don't offer it at all or b) offer it when paying for the highest Internet package. Plus, companies will always use physical media for back-up storage as it's usually cheaper (companies get deals in bulk) and because if where-ever they were digitally storing the data were to fail (which can happen) they will have a physical back-up.

As for Bluray, I think you are grossly underestimating how durable a Bluray disc is, as they last way longer than optical DVDs. Hell at my job they still had floppy discs for some backups.

See, I find that odd as fuck. I live in Serbia, which is practically a third world country compared to America, so why we'd have better options there is beyond me. We had the limited internet packages before, we might still do (I imagine it's a trade off, getting higher speeds if you accept a limit, but I'm perfectly happy with 10 Mpbs at the lowest package), but I don't think there was ever a situation, at least with the cable companies, where unlimited bandwidth wasn't on the table.

And I wasn't suggesting companies wouldn't keep physical copies, but as far as I know, they tend to use backup HDDs, rather than optical discs.

Vrach:

See, I find that odd as fuck. I live in Serbia, which is practically a third world country compared to America, so why we'd have better options there is beyond me. We had the limited internet packages before, we might still do (I imagine it's a trade off, getting higher speeds if you accept a limit, but I'm perfectly happy with 10 Mpbs at the lowest package), but I don't think there was ever a situation, at least with the cable companies, where unlimited bandwidth wasn't on the table.

Remember though, it all comes down to money and greed. I have the highest package my ISP provides and my connection is capped at 5 Mbps because of it, my bandwidth capping at around 200 GB a month. However, at my college where they've made their own Internet servers the maximum speed and cap is 25 Mbps with unlimited bandwidth (and it's free if you register on campus). So the companies can offer better, but won't do it because they'll not make as much money. The biggest ISPs in the US are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Cox Digital; those companies have basically an Oligopoly over the entire nation and have been lobbying against Net Neutrality as well as lobbying for bills to pass to stop the spread of Fibre optics around the nation. It's why Google's Fibre optics service, which is marginally cheaper and better than anything any other ISP offers is only in a few small areas.

And I wasn't suggesting companies wouldn't keep physical copies, but as far as I know, they tend to use backup HDDs, rather than optical discs.

Ah my mistake, I apologize. Mainly because I see people at times saying how companies shouldn't be using physical backups at all and should store all backup data digitally only. As for using HDDs, if this disc is cheaper than HDDs then I can see companies using them more to save on space and cost. At my job, we don't clear HDDs at all. If it's full and the backup is outdated, instead of simply deleting the previous backup and creating a new one, we simply take a drill to the HDD and get a new one...wish I was joking, but I've been forced to drill holes through enough hard drives that the amount of space in total would equal at least 10 or 11 TBs...

Neronium:
Remember though, it all comes down to money and greed. I have the highest package my ISP provides and my connection is capped at 5 Mbps because of it, my bandwidth capping at around 200 GB a month. However, at my college where they've made their own Internet servers the maximum speed and cap is 25 Mbps with unlimited bandwidth (and it's free if you register on campus). So the companies can offer better, but won't do it because they'll not make as much money. The biggest ISPs in the US are Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Cox Digital; those companies have basically an Oligopoly over the entire nation and have been lobbying against Net Neutrality as well as lobbying for bills to pass to stop the spread of Fibre optics around the nation. It's why Google's Fibre optics service, which is marginally cheaper and better than anything any other ISP offers is only in a few small areas.

Yeah, I'm aware of it... I'm just astounded as to what level that shit actually flies. I notice also they're all phone companies if I'm not wrong... those usually give you the short end of the stick too around here, though they've been recently falling in line because of far superior cable providers. Btw, out of random interest, how much does that package run you a month?

Neronium:
Ah my mistake, I apologize. Mainly because I see people at times saying how companies shouldn't be using physical backups at all and should store all backup data digitally only. As for using HDDs, if this disc is cheaper than HDDs then I can see companies using them more to save on space and cost. At my job, we don't clear HDDs at all. If it's full and the backup is outdated, instead of simply deleting the previous backup and creating a new one, we simply take a drill to the HDD and get a new one...wish I was joking, but I've been forced to drill holes through enough hard drives that the amount of space in total would equal at least 10 or 11 TBs...

No worries, no, I'm not one to advocate digital backups, that's just asking for trouble in any business imo, you're just relying on one more thing when your first thought there is (or should be) safety and reliability. Cheers for the info, that's good to learn really, I've taken a bit of an interest in server admin stuff, but haven't actually had any experience yet, so I'm going by what I was taught. I took an MS course over the summer a few years back, but haven't had the time to actually do anything with it due to actual studies. The instructor advised me in keeping several copies of everything on multiple HDDs in different places (he's personally had a situation with fire in the office, so his home copy came right in bloody handy).

That said, office infrastructure around here isn't really too modern in most places. I doubt I'd see a BluRay reader/burner anywhere, so it could be that the HDDs are just the best/easiest they can do around here since DVDs don't cut it in reliability or space.

spwatkins:

Alex Co:

rofltehcat:

Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

Nope. It's meant to replace Blu-ray. :) It's the actual terminology and the name "Archival" that's kinda confusing here. By "long-term" storage, it means the same as Blu-rays "Optical discs have excellent properties to protect themselves against the environment, such as dust-resistance and water-resistance, and can also withstand changes in temperature and humidity when stored."

Interesting bit here is the "inter-generational compatibility between different formats" line. I highly doubt that's going to happen. Maybe a player that can read 300GB to 1TB discs? But cross-gen players like say, DVD to Blu-ray? That's not happening since it's a good way for companies to force people to upgrade.

Blue-ray players read DVDs and CDs, I assume that "inter-generational compatibility" means that the new ones will read all those formats as well as the new one.

Technically they don't IIRC Blu-ray players use a separate laser diode operating in the near infra red end of the spectrum to read the information on DVD's and CD's while the blue laser diode reads the data from the Blu-ray. Dependent on the wavelength of the new medium then to retain the ability to read all formats then they would have to continue to make drives with both types of diode. I recon the DVD/CD drive will eventually go the way of the floppy, still in use but not as universal as they were so I'm skeptical for the long term future viability of backwards compatibility.

OT
Meah I cant see this coming to consumers any time soon, maybe data centers will use them in the future but I'm not really fussed atm as it'll take years and years before this trickles into the mainstream by which time I expect quantum computing to be coming into it's own which will require and altogether different medium of storage

Vrach:

Neronium:

Vrach:

I have the lowest data package my ISP offers and it's unlimited broadband. Guessing you have one of those shitty ISPs that prices unlimited broadband highly/doesn't even offer it?

OT: The real question is, how durable are they? I haven't messed with Blu-Rays at all, gave up on optical discs after DVDs, when I lost tons of data to corrupted discs. I could certainly see a use for a disc that big, especially for business use, but in business, you don't want to lose your data to shitty optical discs.

While that's nice where you live, no ISP in the United States offers unlimited bandwidth on the lowest package at all. They either a) don't offer it at all or b) offer it when paying for the highest Internet package. Plus, companies will always use physical media for back-up storage as it's usually cheaper (companies get deals in bulk) and because if where-ever they were digitally storing the data were to fail (which can happen) they will have a physical back-up.

As for Bluray, I think you are grossly underestimating how durable a Bluray disc is, as they last way longer than optical DVDs. Hell at my job they still had floppy discs for some backups.

See, I find that odd as fuck. I live in Serbia, which is practically a third world country compared to America, so why we'd have better options there is beyond me. We had the limited internet packages before, we might still do (I imagine it's a trade off, getting higher speeds if you accept a limit, but I'm perfectly happy with 10 Mpbs at the lowest package), but I don't think there was ever a situation, at least with the cable companies, where unlimited bandwidth wasn't on the table.

And I wasn't suggesting companies wouldn't keep physical copies, but as far as I know, they tend to use backup HDDs, rather than optical discs.

In general American broadband sucks hard when compared to ours in Europe. It's because the companies that own the copper lines will fight tooth and nail to maintain their share of the market. What really shows this up is the fact that they are actually trying to stop the role out of a fiber network. Fiber = better internet speeds but new competition in the form of new ISP's and they can't be having with that.
Funnily though if one of the big companies decoded to upgrade to fiber everyone would flock to it, but they wont because fiber is massively expensive to role out over such a large country. Installing a fiber network would see that that companies bottom line take a hit in the short term to pay for the investment and the shareholders wouldn't stand for it...Long term plans? what are they?...fuck it, we want all the monies now damn it!

As a owner of 660 DVDs for archiving (number not increasing since now im storing things in a HDD specifically bought for that purpose) i would like to see affordable 1 TB storage discs. That wont come for 5 years probably though.
And the Internet may just be too strong to make them acess to market as easy as DVDs and Blur Rays, and even those struggled.

rofltehcat:
Uhm did I understand something wrong? The whole description of the discs sounds to me like they are for archiving purposes so companies can backup their data without risk of the backup medium dying. For day to day purposes this sounds rather impracticable, with them having two active sides and all.

All discs are meant for archiving purposes. Just because videogame consoles abuse them as a constant reading storage due to incapability to have installs properly does not mean thats how they are supposed to do.

Mr.K.:
Sure... except optical drives are the least reliable data mediums since floppy and still very expensive, also I can only imagine Sony will twist everyone's balls with licensing if they want to use it, none of which would make me replace the extremely cheap and far more reliable magnetic tapes any time soon.

Oh, yes, at 20cents a pop DVDs are sooo expensive. Mind you, dont expect that to be the consumers price of course, but thats how much it costs for the company to print retail copies.

They do are unreliable, but the guy does make some points: you can drown a HDD, you cant a dvd.

Alex Co:

Interesting bit here is the "inter-generational compatibility between different formats" line. I highly doubt that's going to happen. Maybe a player that can read 300GB to 1TB discs? But cross-gen players like say, DVD to Blu-ray? That's not happening since it's a good way for companies to force people to upgrade.

Well, current Blu-Ray players can read BR, DVD and CD (both + and - for all of them). Altrough admittedly there was a push towards removing the CD compatibility since that will allow cheaper BR drives.

hakkarin:

I think people are forgeting how unpractical it is to just download everything. I have the second highest data package my ISP offers, and yet it is still only 250 GB a month. This means it is not practical to just download all your games, because you would just finish your data limit way before the end of the month. Pure digital downloads aren't comming any time soon, no matter what will are saying. Will digital download become more important then before? Sure! But they won't replace discs or non-downloadable media.

You are mistaken. Your mistake is that you take a shitty ISP that you use and think everyone uses the same. Datacaps have been removed in 2008 here, i believe last ISP to get rid of them, did so in 2010. Meanwhile the speeds even for "basic" packages are enough that you can easily thing "50 GB titanfall download? ok ill just watch a movie and its going to be over".

Digital media will take over. And we even know when it will take over. It will take over at precisely the moment when more people will have normal internet than a shitty one.

Lightknight:

Likewise, assuming these disks cost more to produce there's not really any reason for movies to change to this. We're more likely to see the death of physical media at all than an upgrade to this. The reason I say that is that HD Bluray movies like Avatar took around 8 GBs. TV resolutions would have to shoot well past 4k before we'd even come close to hitting the 25GB single Bluray disk layer. The reason DVD and Bluray formats succeeded was because they made sense. DVDs held 4GB on a single layer.

Avatar was a bad movie to choose altrough i know why you did it.
The truth of the matter is, even blu-ray compressed video takes on average 22GB of space per 2 hour movie. The way up is twofold: as you mentioned we can go 4K, which means we will need 4 times the pixels and thus 4 times the filesize, and we can also go for better quality with less compression (like how DVDs were horribly compressed early on and got better later due to different codec). That also takes more space, altrough how much is up to how much is compressed and how good the alogorythm is. Lets just say that 1 minute of completely uncompressed (full frame, basically bitmap) 1080p video already takes up to 5 GB.

Vrach:

See, I find that odd as fuck. I live in Serbia, which is practically a third world country compared to America, so why we'd have better options there is beyond me. We had the limited internet packages before, we might still do (I imagine it's a trade off, getting higher speeds if you accept a limit, but I'm perfectly happy with 10 Mpbs at the lowest package), but I don't think there was ever a situation, at least with the cable companies, where unlimited bandwidth wasn't on the table.

because when it comes to internet, US is the third world. Here in Lithuania we dont even look at 10 mbps unless your going for the whole completely wireless deal such as mobile phones. thats too slow for us. caps no longer exist. Personally, i said that as logn as i get 100mbps im fine which is why i went with the cheap plan that only offers 100mbps.

Neronium:
At my job, we don't clear HDDs at all. If it's full and the backup is outdated, instead of simply deleting the previous backup and creating a new one, we simply take a drill to the HDD and get a new one...wish I was joking, but I've been forced to drill holes through enough hard drives that the amount of space in total would equal at least 10 or 11 TBs...

any way to get these HDDs to be ginven away instead? i guess not, if they take that measure they want to be sure its destroyed. but i mean after a 16-pass wiper theres hardly anything that can recover it. even departament of defence uses 16pass one. and theres always the 30-pass algorythm for super paranoid.

Strazdas:
Avatar was a bad movie to choose altrough i know why you did it.

It was actually the only digital blu ray movie I'd purchased and downloaded so that I knew how large the file was. I figured it was a longish movie and fairly popular so I could rely on it. But apparently not.

The truth of the matter is, even blu-ray compressed video takes on average 22GB of space per 2 hour movie. The way up is twofold: as you mentioned we can go 4K, which means we will need 4 times the pixels and thus 4 times the filesize, and we can also go for better quality with less compression (like how DVDs were horribly compressed early on and got better later due to different codec). That also takes more space, altrough how much is up to how much is compressed and how good the alogorythm is. Lets just say that 1 minute of completely uncompressed (full frame, basically bitmap) 1080p video already takes up to 5 GB.

Interesting. I did some research and it looks like you are correct. I wonder what the odds are of us going through a significant upscaling phase between 1080p and 4k?

Lightknight:
I wonder what the odds are of us going through a significant upscaling phase between 1080p and 4k?

Judging by increasing popularity of 1440p monitor/tv sales id say there is the "middle ground" to conquel between the two which will smooth the transition a but.

We are already doing significant upscaling just to keep up with technology thats been around in the 90s (seriously, 1200p was normal in the 90s on kinescopic monitors, then LCDs came and ran it into the ground for almost two decades, partly due to their price cartel agreement). and now even the "latest hardware" consoles need to uspcale to even reach 1080p.

Then again, its not like we lack hardware. I have modded my oblivion to look better than titanfall looks (and thats a 8 year difference in release dates), and it runs at 1080p supersampling to 4k (which means im downscaling, the most resource demanding and effective antialiasing) and im running at 120p. and i dont have the latest most powerful card either, merely a card thats been around for over a year - 760. Its not like we cant do 4k now. Its just that somone seems to not want it done.

Strazdas:

Lightknight:
I wonder what the odds are of us going through a significant upscaling phase between 1080p and 4k?

Judging by increasing popularity of 1440p monitor/tv sales id say there is the "middle ground" to conquel between the two which will smooth the transition a but.

Hmm, I didn't even know 1440p tv's existed. I knew 4k TVs did but not 1440p. Let's hope they're more popular than my own personal experience would indicate.

Since a 50" TV doesn't even express the full benefit of 1080p until you're 6.5 feet away most people don't get the full benefit of it. SO then 1440 and 4000 become meaningless unless your TV is a monster (not that I haven't considered going the projector route) or if you're 5 feet away from the screen. Try actually measuring out five feet if you're not sure how far you set away from your TV. It's extremely close, especially for larger screens.

I do wonder though, at what point is it simply going to be good enough? From that famous chart on the benefits of different resolutions I will never actually need better than 1080p for my TV. Monitor? Sure. Phone? Maybe 1440p but if I'm going to be honest I've never really cared about the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions. I've seen giant-ass TV screens with that 4k resolution but it doesn't really add to my enjoyment of a game or movie in any significant way.

Then again, its not like we lack hardware. I have modded my oblivion to look better than titanfall looks (and thats a 8 year difference in release dates), and it runs at 1080p supersampling to 4k (which means im downscaling, the most resource demanding and effective antialiasing) and im running at 120p. and i dont have the latest most powerful card either, merely a card thats been around for over a year - 760. Its not like we cant do 4k now. Its just that somone seems to not want it done.

Bethesda games are interesting. They've got to be the most modded games on the planet. I just recently saw Morrowind in its most modded state and I'm impressed. I mean, they've clearly reached the end without creating new assets (like that team is doing), but it's amazing how much skill people put into those games.

Oblivion is a 9 year old game though. Your PC components could be decent from 5 years ago and still do everything with Oblivion on the highest settings. Skyrim would be a different story though.

Lightknight:
snip

they are a sort of "new" thing that is getting traction as that "more than 1080p" thing, altrough admittedly it severely lacks content to truly be the dominant species. The highest quality video we get to see legally is 1080p unless its computer footage (technically on youtube you can have more, but i only saw games go above 1080p there). Its not that there isnt any. for example refurbishing movies now actually do 4k scans of the film and then downsize it to 1080p for the blue rays. so they have the 4k versions, its jut that you cant buy one. Hopefully internet eventually solve the problem of "4k doesnt fit on a disc" and we get acess to that.

Actually, at 50" display its almost 3 meters where the difference isnt visible for "Average" person. note that some people actually have good eyesight and can tell the difference.
image
And i would be hard pressed to find anyone in my surounding that watch TV that far. well, perhaps the main tv my parents have, but then it is almost 2 meters in diameter so longer distance makes sense. Personally even 4k would be "Worth it" for my monitor at home, so i dont see a problem with distances here.

Its never going to be enough. higher resolutions have benefits even beyond those of visible pixels. such as true antialiasing which would otherwise be very resource intensive (and not FXAA and other similar blur effects arent antialiasing)

No, you missed the poiont. A moded oblivion runs at higher resolution, framerate AND looks better than the new "killer app". We have the hardware to run them there, and its not expensive one either. Its just that for some reason people just want to use prprietary overpriced crap and then shout like its "the one" best. Sure you may not care about shitty graphics or limited gameplay, thats your choice, dont go strutting like you got the best though.

As far as your enjoyment. You not caring does not mean it doesnt matter. Just like me not caring about my cars horsepower does not mean it suddenly stops being a factor in how it drives.

Mr.K.:
Sure... except optical drives are the least reliable data mediums since floppy and still very expensive, also I can only imagine Sony will twist everyone's balls with licensing if they want to use it, none of which would make me replace the extremely cheap and far more reliable magnetic tapes any time soon.

I was just going to post this. Magnetic tape is still the best backup medium by a huge margin. Although the tape companies seem to slowly be dying off, so I guess backup to HDD's will replace it fully. Maybe flash drives will finally become large, stable and cheap enough to be used for backup. But optical disc will never be a serious backup medium.

Strazdas:
Actually, at 50" display its almost 3 meters where the difference isnt visible for "Average" person. note that some people actually have good eyesight and can tell the difference.


And i would be hard pressed to find anyone in my surounding that watch TV that far. well, perhaps the main tv my parents have, but then it is almost 2 meters in diameter so longer distance makes sense. Personally even 4k would be "Worth it" for my monitor at home, so i dont see a problem with distances here.

This rendition of the chart is actually a little misleading in the way they've labled the areas. The top line of each cone is where the difference starts to become noticeable but is the least "worth it" with the bottom line being where the difference is most noticeable compared to the previous resolution. So it's actually 3 meters where the difference even starts to be noticeable for anything over 1080p but that doesn't necessarily mean it is "worth it" if the difference is a matter of inches. If you sit at 5' from the TV, sure.

My TV is 1080p and something like 52 inches. Now, If I were to be honest, I sit almost 10 feet away. I am just barely in the "it makes a difference" category. You've got to try this. Try actually measuring out the two meters. It is NOT as far as you really think. I have a good gauge of this because I know the dimensions of my office which is something like 7 by 9 and I could not fit my TV in here at a distance from where I watch it at home.

If you have a ruler or have feet that are about 12 inches long, measure it out heel to toe And look at how close you are to the TV. I doubt you're within 2 meters. 2 meters is shorter than people think. It's just over 6 feet and that's only going to happen in a really cramped environment.

Its never going to be enough. higher resolutions have benefits even beyond those of visible pixels. such as true antialiasing which would otherwise be very resource intensive (and not FXAA and other similar blur effects arent antialiasing)

All it has to do is reach a point where we no longer notice the difference from any reasonable distance. I do wonder about devices like the occulus rift where they are inches from your face but also very small like a 3 or 4 inch screen.

No, you missed the poiont. A moded oblivion runs at higher resolution, framerate AND looks better than the new "killer app".

It looks better than a modded Skyrim? I do doubt your claim as I find it extremely hard to believe. I've looked through several videos on the matter and the difference is still quite apparent. Modding has made a huge difference from the vanilla version in what I see, but the assets are still 9 year old assets with a fresh coat of paint.

As far as your enjoyment. You not caring does not mean it doesnt matter. Just like me not caring about my cars horsepower does not mean it suddenly stops being a factor in how it drives.

Not sure how me saying it doesn't really impact the enjoyment of the game means I don't care. It's nice, it's just not as important as say, good writing and gameplay mechanices. I don't really enjoy a good game any less on an old standard TV than I do on a 1080p. But it does make scenery shots more enjoyable.

Lightknight:
This rendition of the chart is actually a little misleading in the way they've labled the areas. The top line of each cone is where the difference starts to become noticeable but is the least "worth it" with the bottom line being where the difference is most noticeable compared to the previous resolution. So it's actually 3 meters where the difference even starts to be noticeable for anything over 1080p but that doesn't necessarily mean it is "worth it" if the difference is a matter of inches. If you sit at 5' from the TV, sure.

My TV is 1080p and something like 52 inches. Now, If I were to be honest, I sit almost 10 feet away. I am just barely in the "it makes a difference" category. You've got to try this. Try actually measuring out the two meters. It is NOT as far as you really think. I have a good gauge of this because I know the dimensions of my office which is something like 7 by 9 and I could not fit my TV in here at a distance from where I watch it at home.

If you have a ruler or have feet that are about 12 inches long, measure it out heel to toe And look at how close you are to the TV. I doubt you're within 2 meters. 2 meters is shorter than people think. It's just over 6 feet and that's only going to happen in a really cramped environment.

I picked a chart that has both feet and meters in it so people using both systems can read it. Most have one or the other.

Yes, 3 meters is the line where its the least noticable, hence my comment about it being "more than 3 meters to stop noticing".

Personally i have measured it before. I sit at 1.5 meters from my TV, which admittedly is small enough that UHD would not be worth it and something like 1440p would be the barely there. Though admittedly i sometimes stand firther away from it as i use it mostly when im cooking food or if im not alone.

I sit at less than 1 meter from my monitor, which is where i do most of my watching (i watch movies and play games exclusively on PC. TV is just that - for television programs). My monitor is 27", which means UHD would be worth it, although currently im only using 1080p.
Not everyone has mansions and rooms for TV. One thing to note is that Americans (and thats not only US but the other american nations too) actually lead in size-per-inhabitant in housing. Rest of the world actually live in smaller houses.

All it has to do is reach a point where we no longer notice the difference from any reasonable distance. I do wonder about devices like the occulus rift where they are inches from your face but also very small like a 3 or 4 inch screen.

See, what i meant by that is that noticing pixels is not enough. Thats because of how antialiasing works. The "true" antialiasing (as opposed to blur to hide edgies) is actually generating the video in higher resolution and then downsampling it. So you are for example generating a 2160p video and then resizing it to 1080p. however, if you had a 2160p monitor and just put that image in there it would look better even if you are far away that 1080p would be the limit. This is because then the pixels would be more precise even if you wouldnt see it, thus the "Smearing" when resizing down would not occur and your eyes would be doing the limiting, which to people with good eyesight (example: dont need glasses) will be a difference. Not a huge one, granted, but at that point companies will be competing for that as everyone will be doing the standard stuff.

It looks better than a modded Skyrim? I do doubt your claim as I find it extremely hard to believe. I've looked through several videos on the matter and the difference is still quite apparent. Modding has made a huge difference from the vanilla version in what I see, but the assets are still 9 year old assets with a fresh coat of paint.

I never said this. I said that it looks better than Titanfall. Moders have remodeled and resambled the "normal mapping". The engine is 9 years old, but the models are new, at least some of them.
Also what videos you saw? Because im sure you are aware that Youtube quality of video is quite poor because they compress it heavily since they need to save space on servers.

Not sure how me saying it doesn't really impact the enjoyment of the game means I don't care. It's nice, it's just not as important as say, good writing and gameplay mechanices. I don't really enjoy a good game any less on an old standard TV than I do on a 1080p. But it does make scenery shots more enjoyable.

Im confused. you say it does not make it any less enjoyable and then you say it makes it more enjoyable. Which one is it?
Also even if you personally did not care about it, does not mean it stops existing. Others may care. You may care in the future (opinions change)

 

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 49190)