Talk:3D optical data storage/Archive 1

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)