|
|
Posted by MassiveProng on 01/25/07 00:35
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:04:18 -0800, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> Gave us:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:25:06 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) Gave
>us:
>
>>In article <ii8rp29a07pigd5m63s6vl6tp7d34f82hn@4ax.com>,
>>JoeBloe <joebloe@nosuchplace.org> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:14:17 -0000, "M.I.5?"
>>><no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> Gave us:
>>
>>>>But that would have been an entirely new format. Same size disk maybe, but
>>>>a new format all the same.
>>
>>>
>>> You don't get it. All optical disc technologies evolve.
>>
>>> DVDs right now have different res previews and extras than the film
>>>segment, and it peels off the disc at a different bit rate.
>>
>>> What I mentioned would be no harder than that, and using CLV, very
>>>little would need to be changed. DVDs are read at varying RPM rates
>>>as the disc progresses. An LD could be read the same way, providing
>>>the varying rate and best use of the optical data area real estate.
>>
>>For the widest majority of LD's produced they were read the same
>>way. CLV - Constant Linear Velocity - means the disk speed varies
>>according to the place on the disk. CAV - constant angular
>>velocity - is the one that rotates at the same speed throughout.
>
> I don't need a primer on the methodologies used in Laser Disc
>manufacture.
>>
>>Technically after the first few CLV disks were released, they found
>>that there was a herringbone problem, so while they were still
>>called CLV, there were CAA - Constant Angular Velocity.
>
> Absolutely incorrect! CLV and CAV were BOTH available from the
>beginning and are BOTH DISTINCTLY different from each other.
>
> The Laser Discs used by the video game industry REQUIRED CAV to get
>addressed frame access! "Dragon's Lair" and "M.A.C.H. 3" were
>perfect examples of the first.
>
> CAV discs were exactly 54,000 frame, one half hour per side discs.
>
> NASA released their discs this way and I have a "google earth" type
>disc from over a decade before you guys could do such a thing online,
>though without map overlays or coordinate references.
>
>CLV discs were 1 hour per side, and despite the fact that they changed
>the manner they generated the WORM, the disc was STILL CLV from center
>to edge, and a laser was STILL unable to pause and read a single frame
>over and over again, and the players REQUIRED field frame memory to
>accomplish a paused frame.
>
>> That meant
>>that there were bands of CAV - that changed rotational speed every
>>little bit - so that adjacent frames did not interfere with each
>>other as they did in pure CLV format.
>
> Nope. The disc did slowly change speed, but ALL CLV discs did so
>from the beginning. What part of CONSTANT and LINEAR do you not
>understand? Fats rotational speed at hub and slower speed at edge
>were ALWAYS part of the normal operation of a CLV disc. The
>improvements you mentioned were NOT a transformation to CAV EVER!
>
>>> The physics are such that the data rate for the outer portion of the
>>>disc is capable of a higher data rate than the hub portion, for any
>>>given RPM.
>
> NOT AT ALL!
>
> CLV discs SLOWED toward the outer edge. SAME data rate and pit pith
>ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
>
> CAV discs held the same speed, HOWEVER, the pit pitch was stretched
>as the tracks progress across the disc. SAME DATA RATE.
>
> ONE FRAME per rotation is what CAV means TWO FILEDS. It is visibly
>apparent on EVERY CAV disc, and the are EXACTLY 54,000 frames each
>side (one half hour). The blanking areas are quite clear upon
>examining a CAV disc.
>
> The lineal write density for EITHER disc was EXACTLY the same.
>
>>Correct. And there is also a better way than changing the
>>rotational speed - and that is changing the data read/write
>>algorithms so you write more per revolution as you get further from
>>the center. That is how hard-drives work.
>
> Hard drives are ZONE sectored now, dipshit.
>
> IBM reached the maximum MR head write lineal bit density some years
>ago, and THAT is why we are no moving toward perpendicular recording
>methodologies.
>
>>> That 12 inch platter would hold 4 times the data at least of a 5.25
>>>inch disc. Entire TV series seasons could end up on one disc.
>
> Nope. The 12" form factor has other problems which preclude this
>desire. Such as platter flatness. The wobble at the edge of a 12"
>platter can be huge in a simple comparison of ten copies of the same
>title. The laser head had to have a vertical focal traverse of almost
>a half inch.
>
> Today's smaller form factor platters are much easier to stamp out
>flat, and use much less plastic, and have much less failure rates at
>the stamping plants. THAT is why increasing the lineal bit density on
>the SMALLER platters is a much better idea than trying to scale up in
>size. The head stays right flat (practically) as the discs are now
>much flatter. We have decided to make the increase via a change in
>spectrum and track pitch. Works for me.
>
>>And when the CD first came out it was Philips who came up with
>>the 12cm size.
>
> No shit. Yellow book.
>
>> Sony had been so used to 12" LDs, and LPs, that
>>while they knew they could put audio on one, they did not think
>>anyone would want or buy something with 12+ hours playing time per
>>side.
>
> You over simplify what took place, and are clueless actually, about
>most of it from hat you have written here.
>
>> It took Philips to tell Sony that all they needed to do was
>>make the disk smaller.
>
> The industry as a whole knew where they were going.
>CDs came out YEARS before LDs did, dumbass.
>
> Pioneer made the LaserDisc, NOT Sony.Sony made discs, but were not
>involved with the concept or initialization of the industry. It was
>Pioneer's baby (much to RCA's chagrin)
>
>> Typical "can't see the forest because
>>of the trees" scenario.
>
> Typical "know it all" who is actually yet another dumb horse wearing
>blinders, and a lack of aptitude for technology... as well as the
>physics.
>
> Try again, Billy. You read your wikiTard page too fast, and it
>likely contains errors from what you wrote here.
>
>>> Thing is, nobody will go back to 12" as there are just too many
>>>mechanical anomalies between the hardware and the discs themselves.
>>>You thought the yields on BluTurd production runs were bad... 12" is
>>>horrendous, and would quadruple with the tighter laser wavelength and
>>>track pitch.
>>
>>The largest problem from my POV was NOT the size but the
>>manufacturing process where the sides were plated and then glued
>>together.
>
> Today's DVDs are nearly ALL laminated, multi-layer discs, Billy.
>They now merely look through one layer to the other, as opposed to
>flipping the disc (which still also happens).
>
>> Once you have different materials bonded together you
>>have problems with such things as delamination, oxidation, etc.,
>>between the different materials.
>
> Oh boy. The kid knows how to read. That was then, this is now.
>
> DVDs are ALSO laminated. The technology has simply advanced, and
>THAT IS ALL. They are STILL glass master stamped plastic discs which
>get metallized by ALUMINUM, and then get LAMINATED together to form a
>single disc.
>
> LaserDiscs had adhesive seepage problems, but that was not what led
>to their demise.
>
>> This is where the laser rot came
>>from.
>
> No shit, sherlock.
>
>> I have 3 or 4 eight-inch LDs - that required a spacer to
>>play them on a standard player as they were only one side.
>>
> You have a retarded player. ALL of my LD players would play ALL 4
>form factors available at the time, with NO adaptation(s) required.
>
>>These were free demos that you could get from Warner Bros.
>
> Whoopie doo. They were likely illegally released discs that were
>technically a NON-conformant form factor that was meant for studio
>only use initially.
>
>>[as I
>>recall] and were made more like large CDs. Just one side with
>>a printed label on one side and data on the other.
>
> There were plenty of commercial 8" form factor LD releases. I have
>some of them, and they are not studio demos.
>
>>There are think and I suspect in a 12" format they would be far too
>>easy to break, bend, spindle, staple, or fold [as the printing on
>>bills years ago used to say].
>>
>>> Maybe we should go back to piano roll methods. That's what a
>>>holocube is essentially.
>>
>>Ah - multi-layer piano rolls. Interesting concept! Manufacturing
>>might be a pain though :-)
>
> They wrote ten GB to a roll of shipping tape in Germany over five
>years ago.
>
> Holo-cubes may be in your future.
Well, Billy? Are you going to admit to your misinformation post or
what?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|