this is what happens when somebody doesn't know WTF they are talking about

[greymalkin]

i'm guessing the MiniDV copies are in the exact same resolution as your film (typically 1920x1080) and the DVD's would be in standard DVD resolution.

It's hard to give you any credibility when you say things like this.

Film has resolution? And you even took it further to tell us what that resolution "typically" is.
You are just proving that you are making this up as you go.

Also, "high resolution" and "high definition" are two completely different things.
One can be quantified and the other is completely subjective.

[pluche]

I'll add some real life experience from a simple "amateur"
- If have CD-R's from some 6-8 years now - mostly music and photos - all work still ok - I used mostly "good" brands- some of those are no longer good brands - I always burned at low speed (in the earlier days that was automatically the case)
- I started burning DVD-R in 2001 - mostly used Maxell at that time - later on some TDK "scratch free" - burning was done both on a stand alone Panasonic (DMR E20) and then computer (Pioneer AO3)
for less critical items I even have used some Princo (burned on a Nec 2500)
all the time I burned at low speeds (some may disagree on the "low" speed value but that is not the point) -
all my DVD-R still work to day considering the "player" is still in good condition - my old DMR E20 started having problems with recorded DVD-R - I replaced it by a Pioneer - problem solved

- I use some CD-R in my car for music - mp3 - this is a horfifying environment - heat and cold
most of those already last for > 3-4 years and still play well

- about magnetic tapes : years ago I made family movies in sVHS quality and edited those tapes and recorded on high quality sVHS and or VHS tapes (Fuji and Sony) - fortunately in 2001 I transferred those tapes on DVD (using de Panasonic DMR E20) because the tapes started showing high error rates, probably due to degradation in the coating - some of the hihg quality (so called pro-) tapes were even unplayable -
funny thing is that standard quality VHS tapes, even much older - did NOT show these problems -
anyway: even if tapes last longer - for film and music is difficult to make copies on a new tape because visible/audible quality loss during the transfer

so for sensitive "memories": I have copies on 2 DVD-R of different brand + a copy on an external HD which is only used for that purpose

[lordsmurf]

Its just a silly little website. No one should trust that guy with their videos.

Take in all the available facts and personal opinions, educated or otherwise, and use your best judgment. And good luck!

Those two statement really get across the point of the whole thread.
In fact, I wanted to go a bit more big picture, and suggest that people stay away from any person, site or company that publishes such nonsense.


There are a few assertions here that probably should still be addressed, quite a few people are still confused by myths all over the place. So here goes...


What exactly is archiving supposed to be?
This is a fun statement that is used by many people, but nobody really seems to know what it means. So everybody picks their own definition, and that's quite fine.

- Is archiving where you write something once on a disc, or record to a tape, and never again access it? Do you just want to feel good that it's there "just in case"? Because of settling (tape) and natural degradation (both), this really does not work. Just ask George Lucas about his archiving of Star Wars films, where they sat unused for a decade or two before it was discovered how badly they fell apart simply sitting on a shelf. I forget which production house restored those films, but I'm sure they made a nice bankroll from that job.
- Is archiving where you write the source footage, so you can always go back to re-edit or re-create new projects? If so, that means you'll be using it, and that has both benefits and drawbacks. The benefit being you interrupt settling and inspect it regularly. The drawback, if it's tape, meaning you subject it to death by player.

In all honesty, the film reel (in a film reel to DV to DVD conversation) could very well be the master that is archived. If you're smart, you'll multiple archive, using DV, the film and DVD all as a storage method, just in case.


DV is a NOT necessarily a better archival method.
This myth is two-fold.

PART1 - The best way to store video, if you consider archiving a process where you keep edit-ready sources, is an uncompressed format. Even my knowledge of uncompressed formats stops with consumer options, for more professional options, I defer you to the advice of BJ_M on this site. But an uncompressed AVI 4:2:2 (or even a 4:4:4 compression) stored on a hard drive would be a better solution, in terms of the video quality alone. Of course, that introduces hard drive lifespans, another conversation.

So the next best (not the best!) option is slight compression, and DV is the popular choice these days. For some things, like film, and content originally shot on DV, it's great. For others, like VHS, not so great, there are colorspace compression concerns.

PART2- Do not forget that DV is a tape. A magnetic video tape, very thin and partially open to the elements. It really has no more or less lifetime than a VHS tape. While the data is digital and cannot degrade, it can be lost when bad spots develop on the tape. Maybe even entirely lost. I have already seen pre-mature cases on older DV tapes, and we get posts on VH about it from time to time, tapes that prematurely died. This is a peek at what is to come in another decade.

Now DVD is just a disc. You can store anything you want on it, including video and structure that adheres to the DVD-Video format, that plays in DVD-Video players. What you put on the disc depends on the settings of the content. A high bitrate MPEG-2 video, using a good encoder, can look equally as decent as a DV tape. You buy them in the stores all the time (commercially released movies). If your DVD is inferior, visually, to the DV tape, you merely did something wrong. DV is more about editing abilities than quality.


DV and DVD-Video are high resolution, considered in context.
This is all a matter of perspective. In the realm of standard definition (SDTV) source, it certainly is high resolution, about as high as you can possibly go and still take notice. The maximum of both formats (in use) is 720x480.

Now if you compare it to HDTV or a computer monitor, sure, it's not a high resolution. But it's also being compared to something outside of it's own environment.


With all the user complaints about DVDs going bad, isn't there some truth to DVDs not lasting very long?
No.

This comment sums up why:

One point that seems to always be overlooked is that "burning a dvd" isn't ONLY about the dvd. It is about the entire process, i.e. the experience and meticulousness of the user, the PC platform, the characteristics of the burner, the quality of the software, the dvd itself, the storage environment, etc.

Most of the time, a "bad" DVD to one user is still read perfectly by others with better drives or players. The drive is a fundamental factor, 50% of the equation, when it comes to a disc being read or played. The drive itself accounts for about 3-4 variables in troubleshooting why a disc cannot be read.

.
.
.

1920x1080

I don't recall the exact numbers for film resolutions (digital equivalents, of course), but I'm pretty sure 16mm film is nowhere near this. Not even close. Maybe 35mm. And then consumer DV (DV25, assumed NTSC DV 4:2:0 being located in North America) is 720x480, period.

silver dye

There is no such thing as this, not in any optical media I'm aware of (LD, DVD, CD, and some others). Somebody that says "silver dye" has no idea what is actually in a disc.

my own personal experience....

... does not always reflect reality. Personal experiences are easily jaded or based off incorrect methodology or information. When you're trying to teach people, you really need to leave your personal experiences for examples only, to illustrate the facts. You cannot adequately teach from personal experiences alone. When you do try that, it gets right back to the title of this thread: "what happens when somebody doesn't know WTF they are talking about."

maybe i was unlucky

This is what a lot more people should be saying to themselves. Along with "I made a mistake" and "I did not know what I was doing all those years ago". Those are the correct responses to video problems. The next course of action is to go learn why it happened to you, so you can prevent it in the future. Avoid jumping to your own conclusions, and avoid reading propaganda or information from other users who also jumped to conclusions. That is how myths and misinformation starts and perpetuates itself.

.
.
.

My suggestion on film transfer is to get a DV tape done, and then immediately go and make 1-hour (XP mode) DVD copies on a good DVD recorder. Try to edit your fancy compilation sooner rather than later, within a year. Do not wait 10 years to grab the DV tape and then make your special masterpiece on DVD.

For VHS, anything up to 3 hours, depending on the hardware and filtering, should be fine put onto DVD. VHS has a lot of errors in it that should be removed before it gets compressed, and right now DVD recorders and software correction (from an uncompressed AVI capture, or even an MPEG capture) tend to do this better than a DV tape. Add VHS chroma noise and NTSC DV colorspace compression, and your video color quality goes straight to garbage. It's fairly difficult to undo the color damage of VHS chroma noise compounded with DV colorspace compression. Only do VHS to DV on high quality sources that have no hints of chroma noise (which can happen, if the VCR and/or TBC in use filters it out).

But to some degree, it's still a matter of preference, and has more to do with the sources (the content itself), and the settings of the video formats, than the medium it's stored on. Those are just my preferences, with some reasonings as to why I give them. It would be foolhardy to present it as immutable facts or a "dirty little secret".


excuse any typos, probably a few in there

[ClubSteeler]

By the way, on a side note, I did recently (two weeks ago) have the opportunity to talk to the lead product manager for camcorders for one of the top three manufacturers during a press pre-release private showing of personal electronics (digital cameras, camcorders, printers) and I will tell you what he said when discussing the new dvd based camcorders coming out in the Fall. "DVDs are definitely NOT archive quality compared to miniDV, never will be. But the consumer is buying dvd camcorders in large numbers and so that is what we are pushing. We make what we think the consumer will buy, not what is technically superior. Period."


Mark

Yeah.. I bought a DVD camcorder. I love it, but I regret the purchase. It was not until after the purchase that I spent the time to research DVD media and their suitability for archival. So for now, I have to really worry about saving this data, especially owning a dinosaur computer with a filled HD and no DVD drive. What I am currently doing is burning a copy with a work computer every 1 to 2 years for backup. Also, I copy the movies to VHS as a last resort. I may also use my DVD recorder to combine several mini-DVDs onto one to keep on the DVD rack for watching . Sure it won't be as good as the original, but I won't ever be handling the master backups. When I finally upgrade to a decent computer, I will get a lot of HD space for yet a 3rd backup.

For all other DVDs, like movies recorder from HBO and stuff like that, I just use TY and keep it in its black case. Hopefully they last, but if not, I'm not really going to feel like I lost anything of real value.

[RLT69]

Quote:
1920x1080

I don't recall the exact numbers for film resolutions (digital equivalents, of course), but I'm pretty sure 16mm film is nowhere near this. Not even close. Maybe 35mm. And then consumer DV (DV25, assumed NTSC DV 4:2:0 being located in North America) is 720x480, period.

Just an FYI:

* DVDs have roughly 500 lines (or TV lines, or lines per picture height).
* High definition television has 1,080 lines.
* 35mm movie film is scanned for release on DVD at 1080 or 2000 lines as of 2005.
* 35mm optical camera negative motion picture film can resolve up to 6,000 lines.
* 35mm projection positive motion picture film has about 2,000 lines which results from the analogue printing from the camera negative of an interpositive, and possibly an internegative, then a projection positive.
* Newer films are scanned at 4,000 lines, called 4K scanning, anticipating any advances in digital projection or higher resolution in flat panel display.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

[lordsmurf]

"Lines" and resolutions are two different concepts. I know 35mm is pretty good, but 16mm is rather poor. I would like to see an equivalency chart (but it needs to be a practical one, not a theoretical one). Interesting topic, though few would have use for it.

ClubSteeler and slacker, the commentary on DVD cameras not being "archive quality" like DV is not about media longevity, but rather a statement about the image quality. The DVD shot movies are going to suffer because of several variables. DV is a better route for a compressed-format consumer digital video camera. This goes back to "what is an archive" and falls under the category of serving as a source for later editing.

[somebodeez]

When I work with my home movies whether from VHS (our first video camera took full size VHS tapes) or mini DV, I get them onto DVDs, make an ISO of the DVD files and store those on a hard drive (along with a text file telling what each ISO contains), I also make DivX for approx. 6 hours of "non-stop family fun" as a DVD data disc plus I keep all original tapes. All are stored in a temperature controlled enviroment (I figure if it's too hot/too humid/too cold for me than it is for my tapes and discs too) and in cases to keep the dust/pet hair/cigarette smoke off of them.
Also, various family members get DVDs so there are other copies floating around some where if needed.

I use either Verbatim Data Life Plus or TY discs and I don't use sticky labels. I burn at half the top rated speed for the DVDr (if it's 8x, I burn at 4x). DVD Decrypter or ImgBurn for DVDs, Nero for data discs.

I haven't been able to think of anything else to add to my archiving process so now I keep my fingers crossed as I wait for time to march on and see what happens.

Edit: I also read a lot and try to use what seems to be the best and most sensible advice from others who are way more experienced and knowledgeable than I.

[adam]

I think you mean to say that lines of resolution and coded pixel resolution are two different concepts, lordsmurf. Resolution itself is a general expression of detail and can be measured many different ways. Pixel resolution is meaningless unless all sources are digital. The general measurement of "resolution" across analogue and digital formats is measured in lines of resolution which measures how many lines can be resolved from the image, that is how close the lines can be together and still be visibly distinguished.

As said above, DVDs support around 500.
Lines of resolution of film is a relative concept. It varies by shooting conditions and film type. Doing a pan effectively decreases the lines of resolution as compared to doing a still shot. But what is clear is that the lines of resolution of 35mm and 16mm are substantially greater than what both DVD and DV support, so I think its pretty moot trying to argue that one format is more suitable for archiving versus the other...again purely from a standpoint of resolution.

There of course is no direct equivalency chart between 35mm and 16mm, but in practice, 16mm is enlarged 3 to 4 times when blown up to 35mm. I wouldn't call 16mm poor at all. It still contains more effective lines of resolution than what any of our current HD formats support.

[bevills1]

DVDs and CDs will last much longer than many sources indicate IMO. I recall some source said once that floppy disks were good only for a year or two if memory serves, but I still have some floppies over a dozen years old that are still good. I rarely use floppies now, but the old ones I have still do the job when needed. It wouldn't surprise me if CDs and DVDs last a life time when properly stored, i.e. no extremes of temperature and humidity.

[thecoalman]

Although I'd have to agree that using DV as a storage medium is preferable to MPEG I'd also have to agree with LS in that much of that is marketing bullshit. If you want to take it step further DV isn't a very good storage format either especially if the digital equivalent of the resolution of the film is beyond 720x480(or PAL). I have some film myself I want to convert but am still waiting for a affordable solution for doing it myself such as a scanner that I scan individual frames to high resolution sequential tiff images.

Edit: automatically..... :P I know I can do it manually...

[davideck]

For VHS, anything up to 3 hours, depending on the hardware and filtering, should be fine put onto DVD. VHS has a lot of errors in it that should be removed before it gets compressed, and right now DVD recorders and software correction (from an uncompressed AVI capture, or even an MPEG capture) tend to do this better than a DV tape. Add VHS chroma noise and NTSC DV colorspace compression, and your video color quality goes straight to garbage. It's fairly difficult to undo the color damage of VHS chroma noise compounded with DV colorspace compression. Only do VHS to DV on high quality sources that have no hints of chroma noise (which can happen, if the VCR and/or TBC in use filters it out).

Are you suggesting that for VHS a 3 hour DVD capture is better than a DV capture?

The best consumer TBC that I have seen is inside my MiniDV Camcorder, and its 4:1:1 sampling is more than adequate for VHS bandwidths. The Bitrate is 25 Mb/s.

In contrast, most DVD Recorders in 3 hour mode sample at 352, which is equivalent to 2:1:0 sampling. The Bitrate at 3 hours is about 3 Mb/s.

[deadrats]

i'm guessing the MiniDV copies are in the exact same resolution as your film (typically 1920x1080) and the DVD's would be in standard DVD resolution.

It's hard to give you any credibility when you say things like this.

Film has resolution? And you even took it further to tell us what that resolution "typically" is.
You are just proving that you are making this up as you go.

Also, "high resolution" and "high definition" are two completely different things.
One can be quantified and the other is completely subjective.

maybe i wan't quite clear, but film can be expressed in terms of resolution as in how many pixels would it take to accurately represent a frame of film, if i remember correct something on the order of 5300x4000 would be equivalant to a scan of a single frame of high quality 35mm camera.

if i'm wrong on this point, i'm sure someone will be nice enough to insult me, i mean correct me.

[deadrats]

lordsmurf: you made the following statement:

"There is no such thing as this, not in any optical media I'm aware of (LD, DVD, CD, and some others). Somebody that says "silver dye" has no idea what is actually in a disc."

i guess i must be wrong then as is prodisk, who actually manufactures the disks:

https://www.american-digital.com/prodsite/product.asp?p=1880&c=1096&name=Prodisc(8X)InkjetSi lver(AzoDye)DVD-RSpindle

tell me again how neither i, nor the guy who put up that site, knows what we're talking about.

[adam]

"There is no such thing as this, not in any optical media I'm aware of (LD, DVD, CD, and some others). Somebody that says "silver dye" has no idea what is actually in a disc."

i guess i must be wrong then as is prodisk, who actually manufactures the disks:

https://www.american-digital.com/prodsite/product.asp?p=1880&c=1096&name=Prodisc(8X)InkjetSi lver(AzoDye)DVD-RSpindle

tell me again how neither i, nor the guy who put up that site, knows what we're talking about.

The "silver" in that product refers to the disc surface, not its dye. As the product says, it uses Azo ink which is purple in color, as is the case with all dvd-r dye. The author of the site must be confusing the reflective layer, that coats the dye layer, with the dye layer itself...as this reflective layer is indeed silver in most cases...though it is usually referred to as gun metal in color. I know exactly why he's doing this too. He's getting it from the studies he quotes that show why DVD-r discs supposedly degrade over time. The reason is because the silver alloy coating degrades faster than the dye and basically shifts. He just doesn't realize that these are different layers, he just knows that there is silver in there and that this is what...supposedly...causes the discs to degrade. Its no big deal, but he is mistaken in his terminology.

[ClubSteeler]

The dyes used are organic typically, and have nothing to do with silver.

The link you give should be read as "Ink Jet Printable Silver, AZO dye", meaning, the dye is AZO, the top of the disc is ink jet printable and the surface color is silver as opposed to white or gold.

[deadrats]

here's a good link on how data is stored on DVD's and what part the dye and silver play in the process:

http://www.opticaldisc-systems.com/2003JulyAug/Recordble34.htm

it should also be obvious that CD/DVD is not an adequately reliable method for archiving.

maybe this is why servers are always backed up to tape (at a cost of 5 grand for the equipment) and not to DVD+/-R/RW which would cost significantly less.

[lenti_75]

my cd's burned 12 yrs ago are still fine....that's all I can say, to many things wrong with this article ...

[ClubSteeler]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that CDs and DVDs are the same, even if they may share similar dyes.

Your burned CD might be 12 years old, but I wouldn't assume your burned DVD will last that long. CD's have been around longer, more stable, less data stuffed into the same area, less prone to errors, fewer compatibility issues, etc.......

[lenti_75]

that was in the early days of burning cd's, just like now for dvd's.....

well, well see how long will last.

[lordsmurf]

here's a good link on how data is stored on DVD's and what part the dye and silver play in the process:
http://www.opticaldisc-systems.com/2003JulyAug/Recordble34.htm
it should also be obvious that CD/DVD is not an adequately reliable method for archiving.
maybe this is why servers are always backed up to tape (at a cost of 5 grand for the equipment) and not to DVD+/-R/RW which would cost significantly less.

Server tape has nothing to do with so-called CD/DVD "archive quality". Server backup systems use tape because the tapes have historically been larger than optical options, and are easier to use in that scenario.

The opticaldisc-systems document actually has very little to do with the conversation. It mostly addresses accuracy of the pits and some relations between the laser and energy absorption needs. I don't think you even read it. Also consider the source of the documents: Interaxia AG. Not quite your best example of a quality media manufacturer, with their "wonderful" VDSPMSAB01 and VDSPSAB01 media.

[RLT69]

Your burned CD might be 12 years old, but I wouldn't assume your burned DVD will last that long. CD's have been around longer, more stable, less data stuffed into the same area, less prone to errors, fewer compatibility issues, etc.......

So what now CDs are stable but DVDs are not? Give me a break.

Why are CDs more stable? Are they really less prone to errors? Have you read the reviews of optical burners lately. Plenty of them have errors in the cd burning process.

The amount of data burned has nothing to do with the longevity of the optical medium. The only thing that the amount data would potentially cause a problem is if you overburned a disc and an optical drive failed to read that disc because you exceeded the capacity of that disc.

[VegasBud]

Someone who claims that cd/dvd media fails after 2-5 years is either misinformed, or ignorant. Either of which just means that the person hasn't acquired sufficient real knowledge yet to realize their error.

An "expert" who makes the same claim exposes themself as someone who is willing to supply misinformation to achieve an agenda that would be damaged by the truth. Such a person cannot be trusted in anything they say.

An "expert" who makes the same claim, and then (to lend credibility) cites a study that refutes the claim, relying on the unwillingness of anyone to check the reference, is contemptuous of what is honorable (and also can not be trusted).

If you'll actually read the NIST study this "expert" cites, you'll find that in the document's
conclusion they say:

Results suggest that these media types will ensure data is available for several tens of years and therefore may be suitable for archival uses.

Video services need more truth and less bullshit.

Personally, I think lordsmurf's assessment is not only more than fair, it's downright charitable.

[disturbed1]

If a disc has a weak sector (or burn) to begin with, over time it can and will fail. Discs are organic medium that can change because of the enviromnet they are in, much like tape. Moisture, and heat both play hell on tape and optical storage. Optical discs are better because there is no wear and tear due to use, a tape over time will degrade the more it is played, stopped, rewind, fast forward.

I don't know how long discs do last, but the TDKs and some of the Princo DVD-Rs I mastered in 2001 are still able to be read today, so that's at least five years. However, I have also had media that has failed after 2years, 2days, even 2seconds, but I believe this is because of quality control in the plants that produce the media, not the nature of all optical discs.

[ofbarea]

I rarely use floppies now, but the old ones I have still do the job when needed. It wouldn't surprise me if CDs and DVDs last a life time when properly stored, i.e. no extremes of temperature and humidity.

I still have a Radio Shack Color Computer 1 (1 MHz CPU with 64KB RAM) and the other day I was playing a very old game that I have on tape. This game is stored in a regular BAFF type I audio tape. This program has been stored in there at least since 1986

Similar, a floppy disk (160K single side) with Tandy OS9 level I, stills works. I just store them in a clean closed box with a de-humidifier.

On the disk media I think floppies were made of better materials back them.

I started burning CD-R several years ago (at work). Some media was bad, some other was very good, but I still have several old CD’s burned about a decade ago and they are still readable.

On the DVD area, I noticed that most Taiwan media gives me lots of trouble. So lately I’ve been using made in Japan or Verbatim.

I use D8 tapes for long term storage of home movies. I’m under the impression that D8 will last longer than mini DV tapes. I only hope that my video CAM last that much


I almost forget...

Dirty Little Secret #3:
DVDs are not "high resolution".

Worse yet, just to give you the proper perspective on DVDs made by the transfer mills, the DVDs (single layer DVDs) made on a computer are about half the resolution of DVDs (double layered DVDs) that come from the "video store".

This one made me laugh…



I usually keep a copy of my D8 home movies authored to a no menu single layer DVD, to be able to find quickly parts of movies. I’m sure that the resolution I’m using is the same as the one in the digital 8 tape or any other movie bough from a store. I just use higher bandwidth in these self made DVD’s than most bough movies…

On the other hand my Panasonic DMR-ES10 refuses to lower resolution when recording 4 hours shows …

[slacker]

LS,

Just an FYI, your Jul 20, 2006 05:50 and subsequent posts were excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed the read. Very helpful. Clear. Makes sense!

I guess the bottom line is that there ARE NO better ways to store video for the masses other than miniDV tapes and DVD discs. We have to do the best we can with the choices we have.

Anyone have any comments with regard to the new Blu Ray discs using an inorganic dye and being copper and silicon based rather the organic based like our current dvds? Maybe we'll finally get a 100 year disc?


Mark

[lordsmurf]

Anyone have any comments with regard to the new Blu Ray discs using an inorganic dye and being copper and silicon based rather the organic based like our current dvds? Maybe we'll finally get a 100 year disc?

That's the benefit of a generational technology.

There is no doubt that DVD is better than CD, not simply because of stable data size, but because of the improvements made in disc construction, such as the addition of an upper polycarbonate layer and more resilient glues., both of which add protection. I'm quite confident that the next replacement technology (which I honestly doubt will be Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, those are just middle steps to the next generation, like Laserdisc was) will include yet more improvements in areas.

I want to see more scratch resistance. It might even be nice to see interlocked platters, held together by their own polycarbonate layers, instead of glue alone, so a disc could not separate from a simple drop of a few feet. It would also be nice if data structures required a multi-TOC setup, so that partial destruction of a disc would not lead to catastrophic loss, a backup TOC could still access unharmed disc sectors.

On a side note, not all DVDs use purely organic dyes. Most of them are stabilized with metallic and inorganic compounds (sometimes with heavy saturation), and a few more recent discs are using outright synthetic organics. A purely inorganic system is probably the next evolution.

[Noahtuck]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that CDs and DVDs are the same, even if they may share similar dyes.

Your burned CD might be 12 years old, but I wouldn't assume your burned DVD will last that long. CD's have been around longer, more stable, less data stuffed into the same area, less prone to errors, fewer compatibility issues, etc.......

Okay, today cdr's have been around longer, but when you have cdr's that still work today that are 10-12 years old the arguement "CD's have been around longer, more stable,"
os not a good one as 10-12 years ago they were very new and had not been around a long time 8)

that was in the early days of burning cd's, just like now for dvd's.....

well, well see how long will last.

Yep, i always chuckle when i see people saying that dvdr's will last 10 years, 50 year, 100 years
The oldest one i see that still works is how long they have proved to me they last 8)
I don't care how many test's and accelerated aging techniques they use

[RLT69]

The oldest one i see that still works is how long they have proved to me they last
I don't care how many test's and accelerated aging techniques they use

Even if you have a large number of natural aged DVDs that are 50 years old, not all DVDs will make it to that age. Some will die before that limit and some will will live beyond that limit. Therefore you cannot claim that ALL DVDs will live to age 50. Thus waiting for natural old age is quite pointless.

The accelerated aging techniques provide you with an reliable estimate of how long a DVD will last. It certainly is not a guarantee that ALL DVDs will last that long. No more than natural aging is a guarantee that ALL DVDs will last that long. With testing we can gain information, now, on what to expect down the road from DVDs.

[Noahtuck]

The oldest one i see that still works is how long they have proved to me they last
I don't care how many test's and accelerated aging techniques they use

Even if you have a large number of natural aged DVDs that are 50 years old, not all DVDs will make it to that age. Some will die before that limit and some will will live beyond that limit. Therefore you cannot claim that ALL DVDs will live to age 50. Thus waiting for natural old age is quite pointless.

The accelerated aging techniques provide you with an reliable estimate of how long a DVD will last. It certainly is not a guarantee that ALL DVDs will last that long. No more than natural aging is a guarantee that ALL DVDs will last that long. With testing we can gain information, now, on what to expect down the road from DVDs.

Oh i know all that, my point was really how they make claims about something when it's not even close to that age or make statements that something only last's 2-5 years when many many people have them much older.
The only cd's/cdr's i have ever had go bad were either scratched or broken, i have never had a cd or cdr just stop working and i have some cdr's that are also pushing 10+ years.

And yes, they give a good estimate with accelerated aging but then that's not the real world and when there has yet to be ANY dvd or dvdr last longer than what they have actually existed, they have not proven as a matter of fact they will last any longer regardless of what brand, manufacturing process or way they were burned ect.

[BJ_M]

going back to what adam said above (dv handles interlace better than dvd) , it wouldnt be so if you could use field based encoding instead of frame base - well you can, but it will not be dvd complaint (and dv still handles it a bit better) , nor will it even play in a lot of machines...

as for not editing mpeg2, what about HDV ? or Betacam SX ? or XDCAM ? or IMX ? --- those are all mpeg2 formats designed for editing ....