Talk:3D optical data storage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bias

Please pay attention to keep this page unbiased. In its initial creation I have made almost no mention of any specific researcher or company except in the lists towards the end. In these lists, each has only a short, unsensational description. Please also use only neutral language to describe competing technologies, and use references sparingly and appropriately. I am asking this because of abuse that has ocurred in the past. Thanks. TheBendster 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Language

This article is almost incomprehensible to me, and I would never say that I was computer illiterate. I've tried to make the first paragraph a little more friendly, but I really don't know much about this and someone with more brains than me is needed to make this techno-babble comprehendible.Possecomitatus 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the advice. This is more chemistry and optics than IT, but I get your point and I’ve tried to improve layman comprehendability somewhat. If you could find the time to point out the most problematic passages, that would be helpful. TheBendster 13:30, 19 April 2007

(UTC)

  • I disagree with you. I beleive that this page is well written (though rather complex). You can not simplify all things down to a "friendly" level. There is no point to even try. The people interested in this article will be smart enough to understand it. Those who do not understand it, have no need to and do not deserve to have people try to simplify it for them.

What’s left to resolve the POV tag?

I’ve gone through and made some more clarification and expansion throughout. I’ll just take a moment to run through some of the edits that may need explanation:

  • I didn’t quite understand why 2-laser addressing was removed since it has been used, patented and discussed extensively. My guess is that it was removed because it was in too prominent a position for what is really a less important technique. I have therefore put it back (because it is important), but as somewhat of a side note.
  • Because of changing the 2-laser addressing example, the History section was left making no sense (i.e. the system described did not relate to the citation or the historical context). Therefore I have removed the example from the History section and put an expanded general example in the Overview section. I actually think this works better, since it makes for better comprehension by laymen.
  • I have put C3D and the FMD back in, because I strongly believe that they belong here. Reading in the FMD was by confocal fluorescence microscopy, which is undoubtedly a 3D method. I think that alone qualifies C3D as a 3D solution, but you will also see from their patents that they worked on 3D optical writing. Everywhere I have seen them discussed considers them to do 3D optical data storage, but if you feel differently please explain why (and ideally provide third-party evidence).
  • I have put back in the technical difficulty of implementing parallel addressing. This is needed, because without it the reader can not understand why anyone would choose to use serial addressing (when in fact serial addressing is used more than parallel).
  • I removed the funding comparison to holographic storage because the amount of funding that holographic storage has had is irrelevant to 3D optical data storage.

If there is any perceived bias remaining, please detail where (and in what direction) so we can try to address it. Also, if you agree that the Two-Photon_3-D_Optical_Data_Storage article is now out of date, we can replace it with a redirect to this one.

TheBendster 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tape is 3-D

Tape is a 3d volumetric storage system, just because it's written and read 2-d (as is some of the systems you're describing) it is stored 3-dimensionnally. You should include tape as 3-d also or make some better distinctions here, as it stands it's very misleading...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.242.166.13 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

I think the definition is quite clear. The first sentence of the article explicity excludes tape as 3D and requires that either reading or recording must have 3D resolution. TheBendster 07:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Tape is 3D

Tape manufactures do commonly quote volumetric densities and is therefore inherently has 3d resolution based on tape thickness, width, etc...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.242.166.13 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

So a stack of CDs is 3D storage ?
Actually I want to add Dual-layer disks ... !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

a word is worth a millipicture

It seems that this page is an advertising platform for various companies. Could anyone with experience in such matters advise on appropriate action to take?

Also there are quite a few inconsistencies in defenitions of what is and what is not 3D.

There are way too many words here and not enough pictures/diagrams, A fine encyclopedia article should contain more properly referenced pictures than words as a picture is usually worth a thousand words and a word is worth a millipicture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.242.166.13 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Any remaining bias?

It is now over 3 weeks since the POV tag was added to the article, and even though the perceived source of bias was not actually detailed (making it difficult to address directly), there have been extensive edits since then.

To me the article seems very balanced. If anyone thinks that there is still a need for the POV tag, then please explain your reasoning and highlight the specific passages that you take issue with. If everybody is happy that there are no more issues that warrant a POV tag, then I will remove it.

• TheBendster (talk) 7 May 2007, 10:36 (UTC)

advertising forum

This reads as an advertising forum and not as an encyclopedia article that should describe and illustrate the basic technical mechanisms. Way too much info on irrelavant companies and their propaganda. Doesn't belong in an encyclopedia as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.242.166.13 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I’m sorry to disagree! I have read through the article several times and can not see what you are refereeing to as advertisement. Removed the “Neutrality” tag. • ShoesssS Talk

Why so many identical references for Call-Recall?

Is it really necessary to have links to practically every news report published about Call-Recall? Most of them are from tiny websites, and they all say the same things. If the same were done for the other technologies, this would just be a page of links! What is the correct policy on adding links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.100.203.66 (talk) 17:56, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

If you can identify any specific references as superfluous (e.g. they don't add any information relevant to the text, they originate from the same press release as another reference, or they don't add anything beyond what other existing references provide), then go ahead and remove them. • TheBendster (talk) 19 September 2007, 09:50 (UTC)
Maybe they're saying similar things in some of the articles but it is different people taking notice of their groundbreaking work showing that they are further ahead than anyone else in this space and are able to present their details in a public/academic/conference type of forums and not just paid advertisement of words that others seem to do and can claim anything without proof. Keep up the good work Call/Recall I want to see more!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.183 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have completely missed 216.100.203.66's point (please re-read and understand), and what's more, I see no reason to believe that Call/Recall are in any way "further ahead than anyone else"! It is silly to count progress by media stories, but if you did then Mempile for example would certainly be way out ahead of Call/Recall. However, Wikipedia is not here to make such judgements, and in any case is not supposed to be a directory of companies. References are there to point to user to the best source to verify the text and find more information. Large numbers of very similar or detail-poor references fail to do that. Foreign language or login-required websites are also particularly bad choices. Basically, what you suggest is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. • TheBendster (talk) 7 October 2007, 14:27 (UTC)

Why is C3D mentioned in this space?

Why is C3D included here? They do not belong as it is not a true 3D technology the media was supposedly made by laminating predefined rom layers so it's not 3D recording, maybe 3D readout, but I still haven't found anything published technically about this in any conference proceedings or journal articles, is it even real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.183 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you have answered the question yourself there: C3D is included because they had 3D readout. In any case, they were always considered to be "3D" by both themselves and others - I have never heard of anyone opposing that seriously. As for publications, it is not in the least unusual for companies to avoid discussing their achievements publicly. However, you will find that C3D have plenty of patents for you to read if you are truly interested. • TheBendster (talk) 7 October 2007, 14:06 (UTC)
  • no I haven't answered my question myself. C3d doesn't do 3d readout, they only ever proposed in-plane 2-d readout. only Call/Recall ever published and patented true 3d recording and readout in this type of material. Please remove C3D before we take this to arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.166.10 (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have now added references to the initial definition of 3D optical data storage. If you read these you will see that C3D's system does fall within its scope (or "did", since it has long passed away). You might also note that multilayer fluorescence-type discs are always included in the 3D sessions in leading industry conferences such as ISOM and ODS. If you take issue with the definition as it is, then the best thing you can do is to clearly state your alternative and offer impartial and reliable sources that back it up. As for "only Call/Recall ever published and patented true 3d recording and readout", well, that just made me laugh. • TheBendster (talk) 18 October 2007, 10:09 (UTC)
  • seems this page needs to go to arbitration. I don't see anything funny about the truth or the attempted bending of it. I've never seen these types of discs included in 3d sessions, they are usually in the alternative sessions. These multilayer fluorescence-type discs are nothing more than extensions of existing dvd blu-ray formats to multilayer, nothing uniquely 3d about them at all. TheFrozenGator 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the collage of discs valuable?

There is a disagreement (becoming an edit conflict) over whether this picture of discs adds value to the article. If it does not, then can it be changed in any way to make it suitable for use (see the article and picture page for the caption and other details)?

First, why is this on RFCpol rather than RFCsci? Second, I think the inclusion of relevant pictures almost always adds value to an article. This collage is informative and relevant. What is the problem? One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia right now is a lack of multimedia content. When informative content is available, why not include it? Readers come to Wikipedia to learn about subjects with which they are not already familiar, and having pictures in the article (no matter how simplistic those pictures may seem to an expert on the subject) will generally increase its appeal. — DIEGO talk 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Duh, I must be having a "bad brain day". Moved it to RFCsci (thanks for pointing it out). And thanks for your comment. • TheBendster (talk) 14 October 2007, 17:44 (UTC)
  • This picture is not adequately described, the images do not have consistant image resolution and looks rather bad (looks like the Bendster seems to be promoting a particular brand for some reason). It should and will be removed until improved. This should go to arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.166.10 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What additional description would you like to be added? Addition is always better than deletion. Your other objection seems rather oblique. Is there one particular image that you feel is promoted above the others or is made to look bad? If so, then which one, why, and how do you suggest remedying it? Or is it that there is another example that you feel should be included? If so then please say so (and give a source of a suitable image). I'm sure we can fix the problem, but only if you can explain exactly what the problem is! Until then, please refrain from deleting content. The current consensus seems to be that the image is of value, so it should remain in place until the discussion is resolved. • TheBendster (talk) 15 October 2007, 20:36 (UTC)
  • The article looks a little strange with the schematic at the top directly above the collage picture. Was this the result of a compromise? I think the schematic should be 1) smaller, and 2) moved to the "Processes for creating written data" section, where it would be more appropriate. Having that at the top before any context is given in the article doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I agree with TheBendster that the picture of the collage should not be removed until a consensus is reached. That is the point of an RFC. User:209.242.166.10, why do you feel that this dispute warrants arbitration only one day into an RFC? If you could state your objections to the collage more explicitly, that might help achieve consensus. Until then, please do not remove the image. Thanks. — DIEGO talk 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bendster, the picture is not adequately or satisfactorily described, maybe you should put them next to the respective companies lines. You must be blind or is it just me that the image resolution of the C/Recall image is so much more grainy than the others. May I suggest you go look at their Optics Express link and find a better resolution image there? This page still needs to go to arbitration soon for these reasons as well as others such as only true 3d recording and readout should be included here and not hybrids. If you maintain your mentality 2-layer dvd and blu-ray should also be in this space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.166.10 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    • These pictures are fair use images taken from marketing material and promotional websites of the companies. Call/Recall supplied that disc picture themselves, so I would imagine that they are happy with it. All the same, you're right that it's not a particularly nice image (although your conclusion that I must be attempting to subvert the article is a little odd). Unfortunately I can't use an image from a journal for copyright reasons, but if you can direct me to a better quality free or fair use image then I would be happy to exchange it for the current one. Or, I guess I could take out the Call/Recall disc completely if you prefer. Your other comments (about DVD and Blu-ray) don't make much sense to me, and aren't relevant to this RFC. Maybe you can start another discussion topic about that? • TheBendster (talk) 16 October 2007, 05:09 (UTC)
    • I have now modified and moved both images according to the suggestions. The schematic was made a little smaller and moved to where it is discussed, and the collage was rearranged to make it less wide and was moved to the "commercial development" section where those specific discs are discussed. I guess it could also be "thumbnail"-ed. Any thoughts on that? And to re-iterate for 209.242.166.10, I am happy to replace the picture of the Call/Recall disc with another fair use image if you can point me to one. • TheBendster (talk) 16 October 2007, 09:00 (UTC)
  • please provide links and information where these pictures may be found! The figures also lack any significant detail as what we are looking at, needs more specific technical detail. Otherwise most just look like a blank piece of slightly colored plastic that anybody could buy at a home depot.
  • Who at Call/Recall provided you the picture? You can't just take it from their website, that's a copyright violation too.TheFrozenGator 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As with any picture on Wikipedia, if you click on it you will be taken to the image page where the origin, description, and copyright status are given. In this case, the websites that the images are sourced from are provided (so you can easily find more information about them if you want to), and they are reproduced here legally under fair use, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, including a rationale. Obviously, if Call/Recall ask to have the image of their disc removed, I will do so immediately. • TheBendster (talk) 18 October 2007, 10:19 (UTC)

as the disk spins

in the first figure the phrase on top of the picture, "as the disk spins, it moves the laser beam along the track" makes no sense. Are you saying the action of the spinning disk moves the laser beam? the laser beam doesn't move! except maybe by the focus and tracking actuators. only the disk moves and the track is scanned beneath an otherwise stationary laser beam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.166.10 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

    • wow, some of the posters and creators of this page are showing their ignorance a little bit. I think they need to use the sandbox more before posting silly things.TheFrozenGator —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


    • In the reference frame of the disc, yes the laser beam moves along the track. My feeling is that for this kind of schematic it is much easier for a layman to understand it this way. Rotating reference frames are very convenient and commonly used for explaining certain phenomena (such as centrifugal force), and they also help us ignore the fact that the world is constantly rotating! • TheBendster (talk) 18 October 2007, 10:31 (UTC)
  • you're bending the truth aren't you Bendster. Why do you feel the layman can't understand what's really going on? I guess ignorance is bliss for you. How can you ignore the facts? Who are you to say what's the best way, oops I mean lie, oops I mean I don't know what I'm talking about, to tell the laymanTheFrozenGator 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification between 3-D optical storage and multi layer optical storage

what's the real difference between a DVD having 2 layers, or a Blu-Ray having 4 layers, and this '3-d optical storage' technology? I know some of the companies have sited as having 100 or 300 layer devices.., so aren't those devices, just really fancy DVD drives with 300 2-dimensional layers? or are their bits and so Different Sizes and shapes? rather than just being binary bits of 'there or not there' ? some clarification please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.101.81 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that 3D storage methods use 3D-resolved reading and writing methods. This is stated in the lead of the article, although it's not explained at length. Therefore, the data doesn't need to be organized in layers at all - it could be in columns, waves up and down through the media, or any shape imaginable in 3D space. In practice, layers are often used for the sake of simplicity and similarity to CD/DVD. Multilayer reflective media (e.g. Blu-Ray) is physically limited to a very small number of layers because it does not have intrinsic 3D resolution - multilayer is really just a "trick" played by making each layer only semi-reflective. This results in the different layers interfering with each other, which is why the technology is severely limited in the possible number of layers. • TheBendster (talk) 15 March 2008, 06:59 (UTC)
This needs a change in the definition.
"optical data storage in which information can be recorded and/or read with three dimensional resolution"
else Dual layer is 3D, albeit with only 2 addressable 'points' on the Z-axis !
add "... within a single layer of homogenous medium ..." ?
Requring non-linear optics would exclude holographic technology ?
In practice, writing layers will always leave a 'grey area' in the definition - like 'hard formatting' a floppy disk or hard disk !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

citation needed on top of page

It seems the citation needed is based on the existing link 31 about Mempile, and their initial 600 GB red-laser disc, that will initially cost $3000 and the media costing about $35-$60 and they'll 'eventually get to 1 TB' with red Laser, and possibly up to 5TB with blue laser. Of course, it was just a news article, so the '2010' deadline may come and pass with no drive from mempile, only time will tell if they can really mass produce this technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.101.81 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree: Anyone who reads the article to the bottom will find that this statement is thoroughly referenced via the "commercial" section. I don't think the tag is warranted. • TheBendster (talk) 15 March 2008, 19:03 (UTC)

Colossal Hoax

Go to colossalstorage.net they have multiple pages of the SAME RANDOM Technobabble about like 12 fictitious products and references to their patents but ROTFLOL those numbers that they haven't 'simply made up' point to say, for instance Samsung's patent they don't even HOLD despite referencing it as 'one of their patents' fraud Definitely doesn't belong on wikipedia, unless of course wikipedia is supposed to prevent investors from wasting good money after someones attempt to retire unknown in a foreign county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesuki (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe Colossal Storage as a hoax. More likely, it's a guy who thinks he has a revolutionary idea, but doesn't quite understand the science properly and is so wrapped up in his own self-belief that he has become increasingly more deluded leading to what you see now. The problem here is that Wikipedia is not supposed to make such judgments without evidence (and contrary to what you might think, WP's purpose is not to protect potential investors). If you can find a good third-party source that gives a critical review of Colossal Storage, then that would allow us to be frank on this matter in the article. Otherwise, we have to stick to the sources available, which unfortunately are sympathetic (and unscholarly) news reports. • TheBendster (talk) 15 March 2008, 07:25 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting Call/Recall!

Several recent edits have caused disruption to this article by changing the part relating to Call/Recall in two respects:

(i) By adding large numbers of outdated and superfluous references, and

(ii) By misrepresenting the material in their publications.

Please stop!

With reference to (i), you will see that each company described in the article has 1-3 (usually 2) references. One is a link to its official website, and the other is the most recent published account of their technological position. There is no need for more than that unless it is required in order to properly get a full overview of the technology. In the case of Call/Recall, there is a very recent article in Nature Photonics that gives an excellent overview, so no other reference is necessary. The references that have been added add nothing - they are mostly a year old and based purely on marketing material rather than technological knowledge. Apart from the lack of need for these references, it also makes the article appear biased towards Call/Recall.

With reference to (ii), The Nature Photonics article is quite clear, and states:

"The storage capacity can be increased even further by using blue light. ... Before such a disk becomes commercially available, there are still some challenges to overcome. For example, the technology needs inexpensive high-NA lens systems, high-power short-pulse laser diodes and more sensitive recording media."

In this section, Call/Recall themselves point out that a feasible blue laser system would require the development of high-power, pulsed laser diodes, as well as a more sensitive medium. They do not state that they have already developed these "more sensitive" materials. They do claim to have "written" using a 405 nm diode laser, but this statement is meaningless without any further details (e.g. how long does it take to write a mark? 1 ns? 1 minute?) To anyone working in the field of nonlinear optics, this is all obvious - there is no existing material with a 2-photon cross-section even close to that required for rapid excitation by existing 405 nm laser diodes. There are also other details, for example, it is not mentioned in the reference that the recording of 1 TB occurred in October 2007, yet the editor insists on putting this date in the article. How do you know it took place in October 2007?

In order to try to come to an agreement, let's discuss the issues here. • TheBendster (talk) 10 July 2008, 12:25 (UTC)

How many years to a product? Vaporware Alert

This whole thing reeks like vaporware as everything on this page appears to be very experimental and immature as far as being ready to get boxed up and sold and probably at least 20years of further development ahead which by then something else will probably be the poster child for high capacity optical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.104.177 (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting here. I do think you need to remember that this is an article about a technology, and not about a consumer product from any specific company though (particularly since one doesn't exist). If you check the definition of vaporware, you will see that it does not apply in this case. A technology doesn't need to be commercially developed for the science and engineering of the subject to be discussed in a Wikipedia article. There are many technologies in early stages of development that have articles (here, for example). If the lack of a commercially mature product stopped people from studying things, then we would never make any progress! If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that an estimation of required development time be added, then that's problematic since it would constitute original research (unless you can find a good source, of course). By the way, 3D optical data storage is very much not the "poster child" of optical storage. If there is one, then it's more likely holographic data storage. • TheBendster (talk) 9 September 2008, 06:09 (UTC)

How many years to a product? Vaporware Alert

This whole thing reeks like vaporware! You've got to be kidding. It takes more than 2 photons to do data storage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urntwrthy (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mempile

Mempile is no more, it seems (no website, refs all deadlink), so they need to be edited/removed from the page. I'll leave this to someone more interested in this page as I wouldn't want to remove important historical information (and think that mempile should still stay, but with past-tense rather than present) 86.167.49.167 (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3D_optical_data_storage/Archive_1&oldid=1136478638"