Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

128GB Blu-ray Burners Coming Soon

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 26 comments

Buffalo and Pioneer are launching BDXL burners in Japan next month.

Monday Buffalo Technology announced the upcoming release of the world's first Blu-ray burner that supports the new 100 GB (3-layer) / 128 GB (4-layer) BDXL format introduced back in April.

Currently slated for the Japanese market, Buffalo will offer external and internal options--the BRXL-6U2 connecting via a USB 2.0 port and an internal model labeled BRXL-6FBS-BK using an SATA interface. Both can record on BD-R XL discs at 4X, BD-RE XL at 2X, and two-layer BD-Rs at 6X. Special software will also be included for 3D video playback.

Although Buffalo did not offer pricing, the drives are expected to hit Japan “shortly.” Currently a North American release date is not available however the drives should reach the States sometime shortly after the initial Japanese release..

Also on Monday Pioneer announced its plans to launch a BDXL drive sometime around mid-November. This will be an internal model only that can write BD-R/-R DL discs at 6X, and BD-RE/-RE DL discs at 2X. Called the BDR-206MBK, the optical drive can also record to DVD and CD media and use a 4MB buffer. Pioneer will also include a software suite for 3D playback, video editing, backup and more.

Pioneer's BDR-206MBK will retail around $372 (30,000 yen) when it hits the Japanese market next month. As with Buffalo, Pioneer did not specify a North American release date however the drive should be available worldwide soon.

Discuss
Add your comment Display all 26 comments.
  • 5 Hide
    mrit , October 28, 2010 12:42 AM
    Anyone know how much media will be?
  • -1 Hide
    robertking82881 , October 28, 2010 12:45 AM
    yay bigger porn storage
  • 1 Hide
    nforce4max , October 28, 2010 12:47 AM
    Hmm I would still have to use a pile of them just to backup one of my cluttered drives mush less all six excluding my other machines.
  • 2 Hide
    oxxfatelostxxo , October 28, 2010 12:54 AM
    yea, the only thing i use discs for anymore are music really, and im pretty sure i dont need a blu ray filled with music for my car.

    i dont really see what good blue ray discs are, i dont see them as a safe way to store data really, and the amount they hold really only seems suited for that for the regular user.

    So unless your downloading massive amounts of bluray size movies, which dont usually come out as nice as a real blu ray anyway... seems pointless to me
  • 0 Hide
    adamboy64 , October 28, 2010 1:00 AM
    Ah sweet. More on Bluray. I still haven't picked up a BD burner yet, so should wait for these to hit retail.
  • 2 Hide
    nurgletheunclean , October 28, 2010 1:20 AM
    Considering a 2tb hdd is ~$100. It would take about 16 128gb disk to equal 2tb. considering the burner is >$300, unless the disks are
  • 0 Hide
    dimar , October 28, 2010 1:32 AM
    I used to use BD-R for home HD video. But now that I got several TB Synology storage server, I'm not upgrading to the next gen BD burner this time, if ever. Can't they come up with HD platter type of disks??? Let all the HDD internals be in the drive, and the platter itself in a super thin enclosure. Does it exists?

    I guess It's good for 4K HD movies. Prepare to buy all movie/series collections all over again :pt1cable: 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
  • 0 Hide
    tronika , October 28, 2010 1:40 AM
    sorry but there are much better ways to store 100+GB that last much longer than a bd
  • 0 Hide
    kronos_cornelius , October 28, 2010 1:44 AM
    I rather get I couple of 1TB hdd and mirror them (next investment)

    handling "physical packets" of data is more prone to damage and misplacement.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , October 28, 2010 1:48 AM
    dimar,

    SyQuest did that many years ago, and then Iomega did it again more recently.
  • 0 Hide
    killerclick , October 28, 2010 1:57 AM
    Too late...
  • 0 Hide
    dEAne , October 28, 2010 3:38 AM
    I don't think the capacity is the only thing we need to deal here what about the reliability and for how long it can keep the data written on it.
  • 1 Hide
    PLATTERMAN , October 28, 2010 4:26 AM
    Too many chances for write errors as it is because of disc write/read structure, 3 layer discs will only add to the problem. HDD storage for me.
  • 0 Hide
    dalauder , October 28, 2010 4:37 AM
    Is anyone going to develop longterm storage? Because Optical and Magnetic both kinda suck for reliability if we're talking 5+ years. SSDs?
  • 1 Hide
    luke904 , October 28, 2010 6:27 AM
    the only purpose i can see in this is having even higher resolution in movies. and maybe for a more efficient means of distributing software (mainly games) but by the time people have actually invested in it.. software distribution will be done online.
  • 0 Hide
    rantoc , October 28, 2010 8:48 AM
    Would consider if IF the media prices get down, sadly todays media is way to expencive to purchase (and likely on purpose, Sony don't want their music burned!)
  • -1 Hide
    digiex , October 28, 2010 10:46 AM
    I don't like optical disk, my sons turns them into freebie.
  • 1 Hide
    WyomingKnott , October 28, 2010 1:05 PM
    nforce4maxHmm I would still have to use a pile of them just to backup one of my cluttered drives mush less all six excluding my other machines.

    I just bought an antistatic-foam lined case for my ten removable drives - mostly backups.

    On the other hand, I've got a carpenter scheduled to put in a cable run to my attic so I can use my eight-drive 2U Raid array for backups. It connects to my PC via Ultra320 SCSI, so I'll have a little more bandwidth than using NAS. I need it in the attic due to the three hot-plug industrial strength fans.

    I'm starting to get the feeling that there is such a thing as too much storage. At least, too much storage at a given bandwidth for transfer and backup. 128 GB on one piece of media is fine, but how long will it take to write it full? 4x is 18 MB/s (source: Wikipedia). 128 GB will take... Two hours. Disk-to-disk transfer with a current disk at about 120 MB/s... 18 minutes. I may just stick with removable disks when I have to back up large amounts of data.
  • 0 Hide
    HavoCnMe , October 28, 2010 3:30 PM
    This is great news. This will bring the cost of regular Blu Ray drives down and hopefully SL/DL BD-R media as well. As for long term storage, by an external HDD, backup to it, then place it in a dark cool place and forget about it until something fails.
  • 0 Hide
    dragonsqrrl , October 28, 2010 4:01 PM
    soldier37Im an advanced computer builder and tech, and I dont know anyone that uses a Blu Ray burner or ever bought the media. Last I checked a single blank BDR was $10 or so. Im happy with my Blu Ray reader and may not ever buy a BD burner just because I think its cheaper to get a terabyte hd for the money for backup, I have 3 hard drives currently.

    Check again. You can easily get 500GB of storage from Verbatim for about $30 now, which comes out to about $1.50 per disc. Single layer discs from other brands can of course be found for much cheaper. The price per gig of a single layer Blu-ray is now below dual-layer DVDs (lol... not a huge accomplishment) and is approaching the pricing of single layer DVDs.

    For Verbatim, Blu-rays are ~$.06 per gig and DVDs are ~$.04 per gig, which is actually cheaper then many 7200 RPM TB HDDs. Although, if you aren't doing long term archiving and need files to be immediately accessible, I would still go with a high capacity HDD simply for convenience and speed.

    $10 per disc?! When was the last time you checked? Wasn't that about the pricing back in 2006-2007?
Display more comments
React To This Article