3 Inch Discs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I would like to briefly discuss 3 inch media. Why isn't the industry moving
this way?

It seems to me that with hi-density discs coming, along with better
compression (such as MPEG-4), it will be possible to use the smaller discs
with zero quality loss and a tremendous gain in convenience. In fact, it
seems to me there ought to be a 1.5 inch disc introduced, with 5 inch discs
phased out of the mass market, and 3 inch the standard for movies.

With advances in networking (like broadband) and storage (HD's are actually
growing faster than Moore's law), there seems less need for removable media
to begin with. Seems to me it thus ought to be as convenient as possible.

And something really small - like a dime, or smaller - could be too small,
with no room for a label and inconvenient to handle. I think 1.5 or 3 inch
discs would be perfect, a standard that could last forever (speaking
loosely).

(One problem with sub-3 inch media would be that the center hole would
probably have to be reduced, thus breaking compatibility.)

I've used 3 inch discs (both CD and DVD) for some time now, but it's
definitely limited (the discs are too expensive, and there is still
incompatibility, mainly with slot-feed players.) But they are great when
appropriate. They are even much harder to break than 5 inch media.

Comments?
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Charles Novins" <taxslave@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:N5adnemwtvimO5vcRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> I would like to briefly discuss 3 inch media. Why isn't the industry
moving
> this way?
>
> It seems to me that with hi-density discs coming, along with better
> compression (such as MPEG-4), it will be possible to use the smaller discs
> with zero quality loss and a tremendous gain in convenience. In fact, it
> seems to me there ought to be a 1.5 inch disc introduced, with 5 inch
discs
> phased out of the mass market, and 3 inch the standard for movies.
>
People need the space.
Video production is currently tuned to standard DVD format with MPEG2
compression, playable on the maximum number of machines.
Switching to 3" disks would set that back years, while the advantages are
minimal.

Personally, I want more space on my media, not less.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:c4mdnX6Kr-4qMZvc4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> People need the space.
> Video production is currently tuned to standard DVD format with MPEG2
> compression, playable on the maximum number of machines.
> Switching to 3" disks would set that back years, while the advantages are
> minimal.
>
> Personally, I want more space on my media, not less.

I understand that perfectly. But standard, current DVD data (with no change
in the spec, such as MPEG-2) could easily fit on 3-inch with the blu-ray or
competing proposed standard (actually, I think two current DVD's worth of
data would fit on 3-inch). Don't you think the average consumer would be
better off going to 3-inch for things like movies and music?

Also: Hi-density discs won't be playable on today's machines anyway. So why
would a change in the software standards (such as going to MPEG-4) be such a
big deal anyhow? Bottom line is that a 3-inch could easily hold hi-def
movies and all the extras.

Basic to my thinking is that DVD video and CD audio are already good enough
so that more space will not usually mean huge increases in perceived
quality. Since most such increases could be wrung out of 3-inch, I think
the benefits are clear.

For those reasons, I think the next big bang for the buck would be a
reduction in the disc size.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Charles Novins" <taxslave@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:N5adnemwtvimO5vcRVn-jA@comcast.com...

> I would like to briefly discuss 3 inch media. Why isn't the industry
moving
> this way?
>
> It seems to me that with hi-density discs coming, along with better
> compression (such as MPEG-4), it will be possible to use the smaller discs
> with zero quality loss and a tremendous gain in convenience. In fact, it
> seems to me there ought to be a 1.5 inch disc introduced, with 5 inch
discs
> phased out of the mass market, and 3 inch the standard for movies.

I'm all in favour of smaller media, but for it really replace a larger media
they need to increase the storage density so that the same or more data can
be put on the disk. 4.7GB is a nice amount of data on a disk compared with
a cd, but I would not wish for the standard to only fit say 3 Gigs or less.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Adrian Boliston" <adrian@boliston.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2mno6eFp0k5hU1@uni-berlin.de...
> I'm all in favour of smaller media, but for it really replace a larger
media
> they need to increase the storage density so that the same or more data
can
> be put on the disk. 4.7GB is a nice amount of data on a disk compared
with
> a cd, but I would not wish for the standard to only fit say 3 Gigs or
less.

I agree. I'm speaking mainly of the upcoming higher-density discs such as
"blu-ray" which claim to get 27 GB on a regular 5 inch disc. These will be
backward-incompatible with today's players anyway. So I say (1) go to 3
inch discs as standard and (2) move to MPEG-4 compression. I think this
will allow for both higher quality and smaller, more convenient media, all
at once.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Charles Novins" <taxslave@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:6oudnYznA6THLZvcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...

> Also: Hi-density discs won't be playable on today's machines anyway. So
why
> would a change in the software standards (such as going to MPEG-4) be such
a
> big deal anyhow? Bottom line is that a 3-inch could easily hold hi-def
> movies and all the extras.

Are you sure that going with a lower bitrate with higher compression in
MPEG4 is really a way to go for mainstream DVD?

Would this not be a bit like saying that CD audio at 1411kbps should be
replaced with mp3 audio at 192k/320k?

A lot of people will not tell the difference but there is a certain subtle
difference in audio quality, especially for classical music.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:00:08 -0400, "Charles Novins"
<taxslave@free-market.net> wrote:

>I would like to briefly discuss 3 inch media. Why isn't the industry moving
>this way?

It isn't cost-effective.

>It seems to me that with hi-density discs coming, along with better
>compression (such as MPEG-4), it will be possible to use the smaller discs
>with zero quality loss and a tremendous gain in convenience. In fact, it
>seems to me there ought to be a 1.5 inch disc introduced, with 5 inch discs
>phased out of the mass market, and 3 inch the standard for movies.

Better compression is combined with a demand for higher quality.
Cross the two with an increase in storage space, and the obvious net
result is *using* that space for both increased quality and more
material.

>With advances in networking (like broadband) and storage (HD's are actually
>growing faster than Moore's law), there seems less need for removable media
>to begin with. Seems to me it thus ought to be as convenient as possible.
>
>And something really small - like a dime, or smaller - could be too small,
>with no room for a label and inconvenient to handle. I think 1.5 or 3 inch
>discs would be perfect, a standard that could last forever (speaking
>loosely).
>
>(One problem with sub-3 inch media would be that the center hole would
>probably have to be reduced, thus breaking compatibility.)
>
>I've used 3 inch discs (both CD and DVD) for some time now, but it's
>definitely limited (the discs are too expensive, and there is still
>incompatibility, mainly with slot-feed players.) But they are great when
>appropriate. They are even much harder to break than 5 inch media.
>
>Comments?

The media are cheap, so there is little chance of saving money with
smaller discs. Compatibility does matter. Note that while some audio
CD singles did come on 3 inch discs, most are 5 inch.

For portability 3 inch might be nice, but if you go that route,
having *no* discs is even better, and the trend there is obvious
already. For set-top and PC, the option for more capacity on bigger
discs is worth it, and is likely to remain so for quite some time.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>I would like to briefly discuss 3 inch media. Why isn't the industry moving
>this way?

>eems to me it thus ought to be as convenient as possible.

############
You're right ....that extra 2 inches is just toooo much ton deal with. BG
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
news:20040729043114.04872.00000654@mb-m12.aol.com...
> You're right ....that extra 2 inches is just toooo much ton deal with. BG

All the difference in the world. The smaller discs fit in a shirt pocket or
a wallet, and if you're a collector the space savings are inestimable.

The fact is, media WILL get smaller, I'm just wondering why now's not the
time.
 
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <j-6dnTJy0KLJdJXcRVn-vw@comcast.com>, taxslave@free-
market.net says...
> "BillKirch" <baldguy96@aol.comnoads> wrote in message
> news:20040729043114.04872.00000654@mb-m12.aol.com...
> > You're right ....that extra 2 inches is just toooo much ton deal with. BG
>
> All the difference in the world. The smaller discs fit in a shirt pocket or
> a wallet, and if you're a collector the space savings are inestimable.
>
> The fact is, media WILL get smaller, I'm just wondering why now's not the
> time.
>
>
>

Probably because rather than making the media smaller they are focused
on stuffing more into the current package.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom