AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,272 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye /forum/post/21788984


If I'm correct then that means that the dye HAS to be rated all the way down to 5x speed. Most likely down to an even 4x speed . . . I do not believe that the CAV/CLV stragedy is a factor with burners that were firwared after Version 2.1/Revision 6.0 as the burn speed should fallback

Yes, it is a single dye and the dye can be burned at lower speeds with the proper write strategy. My point was that a DVDR will try burn anything you put in it. If the disk does not have a write strategy in its media info for the speed the DVDR needs to burn at, it will use a default or generic write strategy to do the burn. If that default strategy is not proper for the disk, you can have problems with the burn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmscott42 /forum/post/21788727


Just to toss this out there, the days of fantastic Sony media are pretty much gone...


Now the Sony discs you see are mostly just Sony-branded Ritek, using Ritek media IDs. Not horrible discs, but nothing special.


If you have old stock of Sony media it's great to use but probably not worth anyone going to look for anymore. (although in my limited experience with the Sony branded Riteks it's decent; I don't fully trust it since Sony went down to a 1 or 2 year warranty, though, I feel like it means they're admitting not a lot of faith in their products lasting more than a couple years)

The new "made in Taiwan" discs purchased recently (and referred to above) turned out to be RitekF1, described by digitalfaq.com as "Excellent, but not quite archival, uses long-life Fuji Oxonol dye", and " 2nd Class Blank DVD Media / Duplication Grade non-Archival Discs".

So they might be fine for everyday copies, but I'd advise sticking to T-Y or Verbatim for stuff you want to archive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,530 Posts
To avoid confusion, whenever suggesting the use of Verbatim media one should specifically recommend Verbatim "AZO" series Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (MCC) media, not the "Life Series" media produced by China Magnetics Corporation (CMC).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
For my dvd-r DL I use TY or kodak +DL , and use RIDATA DVD-R DL all with great results in PC or panasonic eh55 eh75 or ez48v series recorders. When recording on the ez48 with DL MEDIA it makes 2 titles , when recording on the eh series their is a slight layer break.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,544 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickinct /forum/post/21792294


When recording on the ez48 with DL MEDIA it makes 2 titles , when recording on the eh series their is a slight layer break.
When recording to +R DL on my EZ-28 I can fill the whole disc up with only one title...the EZ-x7 series were the ones that produced 2 titles. Is it the -R DLs that produce 2 titles? If +R DL then the EZ-48v operates differently than the EZ-28, I've never used -R DL media so I don't know how they operate in a EZ-28.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
IF I remember correctly I also have the 47v it was probably the one I used for the -dl when recording the grammys. the 47v series seem to have a better chip for direct recording.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Well so far all i know i want Verbatim AZO +/- DL for my dual layer discs.

Just not really sure if i should go with Verbatim of TY for the others. There seems to be some attractive sales advertising for the TY's like 'OEM' kinda indicating they are what commercial discs are made from. I guess its a decision i need to make. I think there is enough info for me now to go shopping anyway. I think i would like those gold archival verbatims too but they are a bit pricey.


Right up near the top someone said that all DVD's are recorded in 4:3 when i was stating that my panasonic manual said that 16:9 can only be recorded on -R discs. How is that when you buy a commercial DVD of a popular Hollywood film or whatever and it is appears 16:9 anamorphic on my computer and then i have plenty of other DVD's that are only in 4:3 full screen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone82 /forum/post/21785509



I have a lot of DL comerical discs so i need a good DL media. I guess splitting the disc into 2 4.7gb discs is an idea too. Film on one extras on second but its not ideal

My strategy is to do both, for things that are hard, or impossible, to replace. I don't mind putting the extras on a separate disc at all. But, I do dislike splitting a film between two discs. If a film is too long to put on a -R SL at an acceptable bit-rate, I will put it on a +R DL disc. If the extras will also fit on the DL disc at an acceptable bit-rate, fine, include them on the DL. But, if the film is something that isn't available on DVD (ever, or any longer,) besides the DL copy, I will find a scene break near the middle, and split the film between two -Rs. That way, if the DL goes bad, I'm covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Church AV Guy /forum/post/21782100


First, let me just say that the difference between the -R and +R designations is all about money. The DVD consortium came up with the -R "read that as DASH R, NOT MINUS R!" format. Some European manufacturers didn't want to pay the licensing fees for the -R format, so they came up with a competing format that they called +R.

I'm confused where you got this information. All the research I've done is that there were 2 groups of manufacturers, one formed in 1995 and the other formed in 1997, while 3 of the companies that were founding members of the 1995 DVD Forum were also founding members of the 1997 DVD Alliance (Sony, Philips, and Thompson (RCA)).

The DVD+RW Alliance was originally formed in 1997 to build a more DVD compatible re-writable format (DVD+RW) than the existing DVD-RAM format that was developed in 1996. The fact that some of the manufacturers that formed the DVD Forum (designers of DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW) also founded the DVD+RW alliance (DVD+RW, DVD+R, DVD+R DL), tells me that the formation of the new group wasn't all just about money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,093 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone82 /forum/post/21792966


There seems to be some attractive sales advertising for the TY's like 'OEM' kinda indicating they are what commercial discs are made from.

Careful what you read. Commercial discs are pressed and don't use any kind of dye. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dare2be /forum/post/21829510


I'm confused where you got this information. All the research I've done is that there were 2 groups of manufacturers, one formed in 1995 and the other formed in 1997.

I'm going to let Luke speak for himself but yes, money had a lot to do with it. Pride as well. For instance Sony hates every format JVC and Panasonic invent and vice-versa. Not just the consumer VHS/Beta war but Sony and Panasonic are the biggest broadcast and production format rivals and to this day, there are very few Sony broadcast and pro production formats that Panasonic will use and there are very few Panasonic broadcast and pro production formats that Sony will use. Make not none with the exception of a few formats they co-invented.


Back to consumer formats, take Panasonic's DVD-RAM format. Sony is capable of making burners that will write/read RAM as seen in the PIO/Sony recorders but the Sony branded deck's firmware does not allow to write DVD-RAM, (it will read DVD-RAM.) Instead the Sony deck has that much memory space in the firmware for other things. The only reason Sony did this is so they don't have to use a Panasonic format (the licensing fee can't be that high but the pride is. Other manufactures decision is strictly money related.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,995 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye /forum/post/21831317


Careful what you read. Commercial discs are pressed and don't use any kind of dye. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

Commercial pressed discs use a die.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Gold archival dvd's

Has anyone seen gold archival dvd's in "+R" (plus R)? For many reasons I prefer plus R to dash R. There doesn't seem to be any out there. Verbatim does not seem to make them.
Does anyone know why? mes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Wow! pricey. I wonder if it is worth the extra $$? I have heard some say plain old verbatim azo's are suppose to last 50 + years.
For realy looongg term storage, I wonder if M- disks that you burn with a blu ray burner would be a better choice for family archives to pass down to next gen.? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
Wow! pricey. I wonder if it is worth the extra $$? I have heard some say plain old verbatim azo's are suppose to last 50 + years.
For realy looongg term storage, I wonder if M- disks that you burn with a blu ray burner would be a better choice for family archives to pass down to next gen.? Thanks.
M-Disc is your best bet, slated to last 1000 years.

Of course, finding a working DVD or BR player that can play that media that far in the future would be a task.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,305 Posts
Important videos/data should be backed up to more than one media: multiple hard drives + optical discs, even tape drives. Accelerated aging tests are useful up to a point, but only offer a prediction. The real world is very different, and as tomwil said you're more likely to have trouble finding a good player/drive 20 years from now than anything else. The best strategy is to make duplicate archives to new formats every few years.

Gold discs cost a fortune because of the gold content, which allegedly resists decomposition better than the cheap reflective layer in standard discs. But the gold layer is not as reflective as standard aluminum, causing reading problems with some drives. So the alleged durability advantage is cancelled out by the significant possibility of reading errors years in the future. And gold dvds aren't made any better than "normal" dvds in other respects: they're equally susceptible to dye layer decomposition (esp if air gets into any hairline cracks that develop between the two plastic halves of the disc).

If you specifically need video DVDs, the very stable AZO dyes used in premium Verbatim discs offer 90% of the theoretical durability promoted by gold. If you don't particularly require a video DVD compatible with (rapidly-obsoleting) hardware DVD players, you might consider going with Blu Ray instead for long term video and high-capacity data storage. Standard BD-R technology is extremely similar to the overhyped M-disc, but less expensive per GB. For all practical purposes, you could say M-disc is simply BD-R tech retro-fitted to the smaller-capacity blank DVD format. I don't see the point in using such a Frankenstein non-standard drive/blank DVD system when you could easily choose the standard, much higher capacity BD-R. The only "gotcha" with BD-R is being careful not to buy the less-durable alternative "LTH" media, which is dye-based like recordable CD / DVD and has the same drawbacks. Standard "HTL" BD-R is the version akin to M-disc.

Some of us have been in this game long enough to experience our own "aging tests" - and have been surprised by some of the results. I have a huge number of various no-name CD-R discs made 14 years ago that are still perfectly fine, and quite a few ten-year-old garbage-brand dual-layer DVD-Rs that still play great (despite expectations they would rot within the first month). Even a few La Cie USB portable hard drives I bought in 2001 still read perfectly. OTOH, I've experienced read failures with some expensive high-end media in much shorter amounts of time. Ya never know, none of us knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,272 Posts
Some of us have been in this game long enough to experience our own "aging tests" - and have been surprised by some of the results. I have a huge number of various no-name CD-R discs made 14 years ago that are still perfectly fine, and quite a few ten-year-old garbage-brand dual-layer DVD-Rs that still play great (despite expectations they would rot within the first month).
LOL, I even have a couple Memorex DVD-R that I burned in 2004 that are still good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Wow! pricey. I wonder if it is worth the extra $$? I have heard some say plain old verbatim azo's are suppose to last 50 + years.
For realy looongg term storage, I wonder if M- disks that you burn with a blu ray burner would be a better choice for family archives to pass down to next gen.? Thanks.
50 yrs??...BAH HUMBUG!!...the idea that DVD discs had a huge longevity advantage over tape was the biggest lie ever foisted on the recording public...some discs don't last for 50 weeks.Doesn't matter the brand,be it TY TY/JVC or Verbatim.My oldest discs,Sony -R/W's from 2006,still play well but i don't believe they'll last anywhere near 50 yrs.
If i could i would go back to VCR's and VHS tape...poorer PQ for sure,but tape lasts a lot longer than any DVD disc i ever owned or ever will own.
If D-VHS weren't so expensive i might consider going that route.BD would be cool but requires too much tekkie knowledge for me...seems so damn difficult to do.I don't know how to use those computer BD burning software programs,or how to connect a BD burner to my laptop.It's all Greek to me.
When i transferred my tapes to DVD disc,the tapes were approaching 30 yrs.old and still played well.I don't expect my discs will last anywhere near that long.Sometimes i think i did everything backwards...i should have been transfering the videos on disc to tape because tape lasts longer and a few of the discs i used to transfer videos to from tape,have already died,and now i don't have those videos anymore.I shoulda kept all those tapes.
I've done everything i know to do to preserve my discs,but they just don't have the staying power of tape.:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,272 Posts
I've done everything i know to do to preserve my discs,but they just don't have the staying power of tape.:(
It is not that tape lasts longer. It is that analog recordings can degrade to the point of being on their death-beds and yet you will still be able to see something upon playback which gives the illusion that they last longer. A physical disk may not last forever (although with proper storage and handling even the junk media of 12 yr ago seems to stand up incredibly well), but digital data can and does since it is so easily replicated -- unlike analog data. If family DVD's are so precious and you want to pass them down to relatives, why wait. DVD's are easy to replicate and distribute to the family now which increases the number of copies in the wild. If you can't figure out how to run a PC-based duplication program, buy an inexpensive DVD duplicator which operates with the push of a button. Backup HDD's with large storage have gotten incredibly cheap -- I was in Costco last week and they had a 2-pack of 2TB backup HDD's for $90. That's enough to store over 400 DVD-R's on each drive. DVD's are encoded in a very inefficient codec (MPEG-2). If you have a limited number of super-precious DVD's one could use a modern codec (H.264 or H.265) to re-code them and shrink the physical files substantially, then upload them to the cloud where they will live forever.

The move from analog to digital has tremendous significance for long-term survival of the data. One just needs to learn the tools to do so.
 
21 - 40 of 68 Posts
Top