BeAll Increases Capacity of DVD-R to 4.85GB

[SLK001]

I don't see this as being a very good idea technically. High quality/compatibility, low error DL discs makes much more sense from the consumer point of view.

Right. If a company can't make a reliable 4.7GB disc, what makes them think that they can make a reliable 4.85MB disc?

Not sure that I would ever trust overburning on a DVD.

[joeg04]

I'm sure like past BeAll discs (LD, etc), these will just freeze at the end anyway.

Sometimes after a few weeks. See:

Comments posted by hiob, November 16, 2004: TAKE CARE: My burns are very good directly after the burn. But it seems that the media gets unreadable after some days/weeks. If seen this behavior with
the 4x -R types SAMSUNG brand (printable and normals).
I highly recommend to check your disc for readability after some time!


Additional information:
Burnt with NEC ND-3500A at 4x
Burning reliability is Good.
PC reliability is Poor.
DVD reliability is Poor.
Console reliability is Poor.
Media inkjet printable reliability is Poor.
Media color is White.
Media text is (SAMSUNG inkjet printable).
Media package type is Cake Box. Number of discs 50.

Source:
https://www.videohelp.com/dvdmedia.php?selectmedia=327#comments

[LDinOR]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....(I suppose this is old news by now):

"TDK Develops 100GB Blu-ray Disc"

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,120896,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp

As we all wait to see what actually gets to market and becomes the next new norm.

[joeg04]

Blue-Ray DVD is out-dated.

HVD works with 2 laser beams and stores up to 1 TB.
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/HVDHolographicVersatileDis.php

[cpotoso]

You're all wrong.
This is 4.85 "GIG" not 4.85GB
Just like 4.7 "GIG" is 4.38GB

You're gaining almost nothing.
Where's a math whiz that can make 4.85 "GIG" a real computer GB number? It's not me.

Sorry to disturb you with this but common use in a subfield does not make a universal rule.

The following are the accepted uses of the prefixes G, M, k:
(read about them anywhere if you want to, see e.g. IUPAC)

G = Giga = 10^9
M = Mega = 10^6
k = Kilo = 10^3

All confusion would end if one used the proper terms

Gb = gibi = 2^30 > G (by about 7%)
Mb = mibi = 2^20 > M (by about 5%)
kb = kibi = 2^10 > k (by about 2 %).

(not sure about the actual gibi, mibi, and kibi symbols, though...)

[joeg04]

BeAll is right with their numbers, because they express them in "GB" and not in "GiB".
Example: 4.7GB = 4.38 GiB.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html