How much Data on 4.7 GB DVD

[siddiqir]

Hello guys, I have a question. How much data you can burn on 4.7 GB DVD? I used nero express vision to author and burn DVD however it fits only 80 minutes. Can any one help? Thanks

[non-linear]

You can fit 4.7GB onto a 4.7 GB DVD

Two things that dictate how much you can fit onto a DVD -- bitrate and length. You can fill a disc with an hour of content or squeeze 6 hours onto a disc. Of course, the longer the runtime, the lower the bitrate has to be to fit, and the lower the quality.

I suggest you read some of the guides around here (look to the left of this page).

[waheed]

You can fit 4.7GB onto a 4.7 GB DVD

Incorrect, you can only fit 4.37GB on a 4.7 GB DVD

[non-linear]

Incorrect, you can only fit 4.37GB on a 4.7 GB DVD

Yes, that's true (and I knew that), but I didn't feel like having to explain to the original poster about the whole thing with the number differences

You could give it a shot if you feel like it

[waheed]

Ive already explained this in one of my other posts so just need to dig it out, here it is:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1017755#1017755

[siddiqir]

Thanks guys. I have standalone Panasonic DVD recorder E95 which I found very simple to use. It has xp, sp, lp and ep speed. I record every thing on sp speed off satellite and vcr and it gives me about 2 hours on 4.7 GB DVD.

I recently bought a Plextor dvd burner (PX-740A) and it came with nero oem bundle software. I did not find any advance setting in nero vision express and therefore can not make changes. I simply add mpeg and avi files in nero vision from hdd and it first converts them to mpeg-2 dvd format and then burn. Do you guys have experenice with nero vision? I found it very simple to use and it has every thing from author burn so would like to stick with it...I know there are many other software that can have advance functions but I will end up buying them and worst part is learn them how to use...any advice would be helpful

Other anonying thing I noticed that I can not use DVD-RAM on Plextor burner and my panasonic dvd recorder can not play dvd-rw if I burn them on plextor for re-use purpose.

Thanks in advance

[non-linear]

Other anonying thing I noticed that I can not use DVD-RAM on Plextor burner and my panasonic dvd recorder can not play dvd-rw if I burn them on plextor for re-use purpose.

Most DVD burners don't support DVD-RAM. I know that most LG and I think some Pioneer ones do. As far as your burns on DVD-RW, I have no problems with RW media being played back on my Panasonic DMR-E85H standalone.

I can't help you with any of the Nero Vision Express stuff, as the only thing I use Nero for is burning.

[siddiqir]

Thanks guys for all your help. I am able to fit 2 hours on a dvd. I am having another problem. When I play dvd on TV it is cutting off the buttom part (meaning not every thing is visible on TV) when I play same dvd on computer I am able to see full resolution. All mpeg files has website logo at the buttom. When I play on PC it is fine but when I play on TV the screen is cutting off at the buttom because I can not see the website logo. Can any one advise how I can fix this problem. I would like to see it same way as it is play on PC monitor? Thanks

[non-linear]

It's called "overscan". Basically, it's an area on televisions that are hidden from normal view. Computers don't have overscan, and pretty much all software players play the entire video area, whether it's a video file or a DVD being played on a PC.

When broadcasters create graphics for TV, they compensate for the overscan using what is known as the "safe title area", which is a boundary that when text is placed in there, ensures that the text will be readable on (almost) all televisions.

There really isn't anything you can do, as you can't change the way televisions work. In this case, whoever created the video with the logo didn't compensate for safe title area -- which makes sense since it was obviously meant for viewing on a computer and not on a television. The only workaround is to re-encode the video with black borders around the video to bring the video that would be in the overscan area out into view.

[edu]

You can fit 4.7GB onto a 4.7 GB DVD

Incorrect, you can only fit 4.37GB on a 4.7 GB DVD

If giga=billion and DVD=4,700,000,000 bytes, one can reasonably argue that it is 4.7 GB by just placing the decimal point to its proper place. I cannot fault the DVD and hard drive manufacturers for using the higher number.

The state lotteries will say the jackpot is $100M when in reality, you can only get about half of it if you choose the cash option. Maybe bad analogy, but the point is both can be correct.

[jimmalenko]

If giga=billion and DVD=4,700,000,000 bytes, one can reasonably argue that it is 4.7 GB by just placing the decimal point to its proper place. I cannot fault the DVD and hard drive manufacturers for using the higher number.

... but the point is both can be correct.

Uhhhh no. 1000 bytes is not equal to 1 kilobyte in the computer world. period. It's 1024, plain and simple.

BTW, there's info on the FAQ entitled "How come that I can only fit 4.3 GB on a 4.7 DVDR?" for anyone that's interested.

[BobK]

If giga=billion and DVD=4,700,000,000 bytes, one can reasonably argue that it is 4.7 GB by just placing the decimal point to its proper place.

Giga means billion, and a DVD does =4,700,000,000 bytes, but 4,700,000,000 is not a gigabyte. While you could reasonably argue that a DVD is 4.7 GB, and manufacturers love to try and reasonably argue that, it ignores the fact that a gigabyte is not 4,700,000,000 bytes.

A arguement might be:

If dragon=a fictional monster and fly=an annoying insect, one can reasonably argue that a dragonfly is a fictional annoying insect. Might sound reasonable but it's just not correct.

[edu]

Uhhhh no. 1000 bytes is not equal to 1 kilobyte in the computer world. period. It's 1024, plain and simple.

I agree but I do not see any relation to my argument.

I still stand by my statement that it is really 4.7 billion bytes. You cannot arrive at 4.377xx "computerGB" if that it is not the case. Like I say, I believe that those DVD and hard drive manufacturers are correct in their "marketing ploy." If they sell a 4.7GB DVD, they mean it has a capacity of 4.7 billion(giga) bytes. Ever wonder why the lawyers don't go after them like they did with the "viewable image size" of monitors? They will if they follow the "computerGB" concept.

[edu]

but 4,700,000,000 is not a gigabyte.

it ignores the fact that a gigabyte is not 4,700,000,000 bytes.

I agree 100%

[adam]

There is a lawsuit on this issue that has been pending for years against various hard drive manufacturers. I think that any ruling on it would have to affect CDR/DVDr manufacturers as well. Its blatant false advertising as far as I'm concerned.

There's no doubt the ball was first dropped by the computer industry when they departed from accepted nomenclature. But at that point any subsequent manufacturer (hard drives) was bound to either stick with the actual numbers or explain why they were getting back to the proper measurement. Instead, hard drive manufacturers just chose the bigger number because it looked better on the box, and then media manufacturers followed suit. I think its safe to say that the vast majority of their customers are blatantly mislead and have no idea that they are getting less than what they THINK they are paying for.

Think of it like a baker's dozen. A dozen from any other industry means 12 but, due to historical reasons, it means 13 when its coming from a baker. If every baker in the city gives you 13 when you ask for a dozen, its misleading for just one baker to only give you 12 and then charge you extra for the 13th without telling you. That's essentially what hard drive manufacturers and CD/DVD manufacturers do.

[Cornucopia]

That analogy would work better if a baker's dozen was 11. Then they could be saying, "yeah, we have a dozen". But it wouldn't be enough for 12 people to eat.

We got the point, though. While it's a minor aggravation, I've learned to get around it easily, as I think most non-NooBies here have.

Scott

[edu]

I was waiting for someone to ask why the CD manufacturers sell them as 700MB instead of 734MB using my argument (Ooops! I shot me in the foot)

[adam]

Cornucopia: Yeah I know but I couldn't think of another analogy so I just flipped everything. Point being is that when history causes a known word to be redefined in an industry, others in that industry must either follow the new meaning or explain their reasoning for getting back to its ordinary meaning. They should, at the very least, refrain from capitalizing on the confusion in the marketplace.

edu: CD manufacturers don't sell them at 700MB, they sell them at 700MB/80 min. The measurement used depends on which mode you burn in and both measurements are slightly higher than their actual capacity for the abovementioned reasons.

Its not that bad for CDrs or even DVDrs but for large hard drives it really adds up. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people ask why they just lost several gigs after reformatting their hard drive. I've heard of people who were scared to reformat again because they were afraid they would lose several gigs each time.

[waheed]

Its not that bad for CDrs or even DVDrs but for large hard drives it really adds up. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people ask why they just lost several gigs after reformatting their hard drive. I've heard of people who were scared to reformat again because they were afraid they would lose several gigs each time.

Completely agree. Especially when its common to find 250GB hard drives nowadays. You wonder what has happened to 40GB when your 250GB only reports as being 210GB after formatting.

[jimmalenko]

Uhhhh no. 1000 bytes is not equal to 1 kilobyte in the computer world. period. It's 1024, plain and simple.

I agree but I do not see any relation to my argument.

I still stand by my statement that it is really 4.7 billion bytes. You cannot arrive at 4.377xx "computerGB" if that it is not the case.

That's because it is 4.7 billion bytes - no argument there at all - but it ain't 4.7GB in a million years. And there's no such thing as "computerGB" or anything like that - it has been defined that 1 gigabyte is 1024 megabytes, which is 1024 x 1024 kilobytes, which is 1024 x 1024 x 1024 bytes. There's truly no argument for 4.7GB to be an acceptable way of describing DVDR media bar either ignorance and/or greed by the marketing companies.

[edDV]

"How much Data on 4.7 GB DVD?"

I say not enough by 10X.

[edu]

There's truly no argument for 4.7GB to be an acceptable way of describing DVDR media bar either ignorance and/or greed by the marketing companies.

Perhaps we can tell that to those IGNORANT people who invented, developed and manufacture the very same media which is the main subject of this forum. I'm signing off now. This is going nowhere.

[siddiqir]

non-linear you mentioned >>> The only workaround is to re-encode the video with black borders around the video to bring the video that would be in the overscan area out into view. <<< When I original encoded the mpeg-1 file to mepg-2 I left the aspect ratio to automatic, there is an option for 4:3 or 16:9? if I pick 16:9 or 4:3 would that help? I would like to see every thing what I can see on PC monitor? Please advice.

[non-linear]

left the aspect ratio to automatic, there is an option for 4:3 or 16:9? if I pick 16:9 or 4:3 would that help? I would like to see every thing what I can see on PC monitor? Please advice.

4:3 and 16:9 are aspect ratios. You don't want to change these, as if you change 4:3 video to 16:9, the video will be squished. What you need to do is use a program like TMPGEnc and select the Clip Frame option.

For TMPGEnc, you would go in the clip frame option, them "Arrange setting" and under "Arrange Method", select "Center (custom size)", and select the resolution you want it at change the resolution that will leave you with a bit of a border around the edges.

[lordsmurf]

I've never had a baker give me 13 when I order a dozen of anything.