The article says “What is that in terms humans understand,” then does some math, and produces the figure of 14000 4k movies.
I’m a human and 200TB makes a lot more sense to me than 14000 4k movies. That isn’t a standard unit. 14000 4k movies means nothing. You can have a 4k movie that’s 200GB (that’d be 2.8PB) or 2GB (that’d be 28TB). What’s the bit rate? In the article they mentioned that they just assumed that a 4k 2 hour long movie is 14GB.
What I’m way more concerned about is how expensive the disks and readers/writers are. According to the article, the disks are manufactured similarly to the CD, but what about the readers/writers? Could we see these as competitors to HDDs? 200TB is friggin insane, at a good price you’d be spending 2 grand on that much HDD storage.
In the article they mentioned that they just assumed that a 4k 2 hour long movie is 14GB.
That’s more what I would expect out of a 1080p movie on a disc. If I have 200TB to play with, I’m not going to care much about compressing the video any more than what the disc it originally came off of was at since artifacts could be introduced. Sure, I probably wouldn’t notice most artifacts, but with that much storage even the massive 100GB rips would be a drop in the bucket so why risk it?
Could we see these as competitors to HDDs? 200TB is friggin insane, at a good price you’d be spending 2 grand on that much HDD storage.
I doubt it would compete with HDD for home use. Loading times off of optical discs are atrocious. Just archiving data, sure, but my HDDs actually still have games on them that I run. Old games, sure, but not something where more storage would be worth the reduced read/write speeds. Maybe for a home video server, but that’s about it, and there’s going to be some significant loading compared to current servers with HDDs.
Yeah, for sure, I look for my larger files when I’m legally obtaining my movies.
I’d definitely have a place for them in my NAS, if they were much cheaper than HDDs. It’d be like an SSD cache to go with your HDDs, but a third slower tier for rarely accessed files.
1.6 Petabits or 200TB
The article says “What is that in terms humans understand,” then does some math, and produces the figure of 14000 4k movies.
I’m a human and 200TB makes a lot more sense to me than 14000 4k movies. That isn’t a standard unit. 14000 4k movies means nothing. You can have a 4k movie that’s 200GB (that’d be 2.8PB) or 2GB (that’d be 28TB). What’s the bit rate? In the article they mentioned that they just assumed that a 4k 2 hour long movie is 14GB.
What I’m way more concerned about is how expensive the disks and readers/writers are. According to the article, the disks are manufactured similarly to the CD, but what about the readers/writers? Could we see these as competitors to HDDs? 200TB is friggin insane, at a good price you’d be spending 2 grand on that much HDD storage.
That’s more what I would expect out of a 1080p movie on a disc. If I have 200TB to play with, I’m not going to care much about compressing the video any more than what the disc it originally came off of was at since artifacts could be introduced. Sure, I probably wouldn’t notice most artifacts, but with that much storage even the massive 100GB rips would be a drop in the bucket so why risk it?
I doubt it would compete with HDD for home use. Loading times off of optical discs are atrocious. Just archiving data, sure, but my HDDs actually still have games on them that I run. Old games, sure, but not something where more storage would be worth the reduced read/write speeds. Maybe for a home video server, but that’s about it, and there’s going to be some significant loading compared to current servers with HDDs.
Yeah, for sure, I look for my larger files when I’m legally obtaining my movies.
I’d definitely have a place for them in my NAS, if they were much cheaper than HDDs. It’d be like an SSD cache to go with your HDDs, but a third slower tier for rarely accessed files.