Is that a problem for HDR TVs? This review seems to indicate it's free of banding:
https://www.avforums.com/review/dead...y-review.12618

Intriguing, and it begs the question: If 33 GB single-layer discs are being made now solely due to improvements in pressing process: Why can't I buy 33 GB BD-R blanks? Are they in fact made, and compatible with current BD burners and standalone players?

So, there must be some other incompatibility in addition, which makes 33 GB discs different from 25 GB BD-Rs.

Also, I must be misremembering, but I thought HD-DVDs could actually hold 30 GB? It must have been for dual-layer HD-DVDs, based on your above diagrams. Capacity of double-layer BDs being 50 GB of course.

Because that's not in the original Blu-ray spec. Search for BD-R XL, though. You have options.

Yeah, I'm guessing the change in pit pattern size means drives have to be specifically configured to read the new discs.

Also, you can't get a 33GB BD-R XL, they seem to only come in 100GB triple-layer form:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817130265

Which makes sense: with 25GB and 50GB BD-R, the only reason a person would get a BD-R XL capable burner is for capacities above 50GB.

Yes, HD DVD held 15GB per layer, with almost all discs being dual-layer 30GB out of the gate. This gave HD DVD a slight advantage over the single-layer 25GB Blu-rays initially, but once Blu-ray manufacturers had dual-layer figured out, the 50GB capacity blew HD DVD out of the water.

How'd those guys get a Panasonic DMP-UB900 Ultra HD Blu-ray player? Regular folks can't get it yet.

It's out in the UK, which their review of the player seems to indicate their model is:
https://www.avforums.com/review/pana...r-review.12538
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-4...dp/B01CGC6JC2/

My guess is that most, if not all existing BD players and drives could read the "out-of-spec" 33 GB discs, if it's only the pits and lands that have been slightly decreased in distance. Tolerances are known to be very conservative in "standards", so there's much more possibility in pushing the spec.

Anybody remember that with CDs, the original spec was 63 and 74 minute length, then later 80-min, and "out-of-spec" 90-minute and 99-minute CD-Rs?

I remember routinely burning 80 min CD-Rs to 100 minutes with great results in 95% of my standalone players... Used a Plextor drive, with "Gigarec" 1.2x and overburning as well.

I suppose a similar "tightening" of DVDs and BD-Rs *could* have occured, but nobody seems to have cared enough to implement it in firmware like Plextor and Yamaha did with their excellent CD-R burners.

33-GB is only ~32% more capacity per layer. With overburning and a 1.2x "Gigarec" setting, most existing drives could read these discs.

Wow, and it's almost a grand if you convert the pound to dollars.

For CD, they extended the playtime by reducing the "track pitch," or the distance between tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc
Blu-ray already drastically reduced the track pitch though:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/blu-ray1.htm
More info:


http://physics.fullerton.edu/files/L...DVD_or_Blu.pdf
From what I can find, BDXL kept the track pitch the same, but reduced the minimum pit length. This required changing the "Signal quality evaluation index" process:
https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/d...l_20121204.pdf
http://blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Downlo...ions-18326.pdf
I think this change wasn't the same as the CD expansion back in the day. It looks to me like existing drives would, at the least, require a firmware update to change their signal processing, if it's even possible.

I think for compatibility reasons, and the fact that UHD was going to require a new spec for the resolution and codec changes anyway, they decided to keep the BDXL disc spec separate as well, instead of trying to "improve" the BD disc spec and potentially breaking compatibility with thousands of existing players.

I've never seen a CD that ran more than a few seconds over 80 minutes. I don't think even my CD burning software would let me make one that long. I remember always checking the running time of my CDs though trying to get the longest in existence- the 80-minute one was a Razormaid dance mix disc.

I've just pulled out all the comments regarding title announcements and the discussions around them (it got a bit cluttered and scattershot) - this thread will remain but concentrate on the technology side of UHD

I have several factory-pressed CDs over 83 minutes in length. Mostly by Bear Family Records out of Germany. Not all CD players handle them. It is hit or miss if a specific player can play them.

There's a process called overburning that, from what I can tell, burns data into the "lead out" area of a CD-R, giving it a little extra space at the expense of compatibility.

There were also some 90/99 minute CD-R media. From what I can tell, they further reduced the track pitch to increase capacity, again, at the expense of compatibility.

For maximum storage, you could overburn a high capacity CD-R, but results varied depending on drive, media, and burning software. And of course, playback compatibility was compromised:

http://www.osta.org/technology/cdqa7.htm
http://www.infocellar.com/CD/overburn.htm

I still have some unused Comp-USA 99 minute CD-Rs. Back in the day, I could overburn these to 122 minutes and still be compatible with 5 out of my 6 standalone players. Once I tried and successfully burned one of these to 143 minutes, but it could only be played on 2 of my standalones... c1 / c2 errors through the roof, but it still plays today!

There was one drive which could burn 160 minutes of 16 bit / 44.1 khz stereo PCM audio on an 80 minute CD-R without compression, but by reducing the pitch length alone. I forget the brand or model, though.

Resuming normal discussion, exit stage right CD-Talk...

128GB discs should be more common than 100GB discs?

According to page 32 of this white-paper, UHD Blu-ray only supports up to the triple-layer 100GB discs. Quad-layer 128GB discs aren't part of the spec:
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Assets/Do...0817_clean.pdf

While Quad-layer 128GB discs were part of the earlier BDXL spec, I don't think any QL discs were ever released, pressed or recordable or otherwise. I think the scaling-back to TL max on UHD Blu-ray seems to indicate that QL is impractical.

Ah, thanks.

Will we get the THX logo with some 4K movies? Not sure I remember it being on blu-rays, maybe only a few.

THX costs money to license and I don't think the studios believe it sells additional copies anymore. It became virtually extinct on Blu-ray once sales growth vanished.

This article was posted on the UHD Blu-ray Title announcements thread:

An interesting quote from the article:
So it seems like, similar to how Blu-ray launched with pressed 2-layer discs not yet being ready for production, UHD Blu-ray has launched with 3-layer discs not yet ready for production.

Plus has been proven to be meaningless as an indication of quality. THX-certified VHS tapes were a REAL joke, as they did nothing to address the quality problems with that format.

Does being "THX certified" hold any value anymore? I don't even remember seeing the logo on any blus at all. I would think with the new audio formats, Atmos and DTS-X would have bigger weight than THX. And are there still any theaters these days that have and tout THX?

AFI Silver's three screens are THX certified, but I haven't seen any pre-film ads for it.

The Star Wars Blu-rays have THX certification, perhaps unsurprisingly:
http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-ent...releases&pg=18

The UHD Alliance has the UHD Premium certification for UHDTVs:
http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-uhd...ium-certified/

Genuinely surprised this thread didn't get bumped with this news yesterday.

The cheapest UHD player is now the XBox One S at $299. Coming out in August. (EDIT: I guess only the 2TB comes out in August... the cheaper ones are later)


I guess there will be 500GB models (shown above) but also 1TB ($349) and 2TB ($399, same price as the Samsung UHD player).

all details here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one-s