Is a DVD-RAM superior to DVD-/+R (W)?

[coody]

Is the DVD-RAM superior to DVD-/+R (W) to record a DVD movie and why? Thanks.

[jman98]

I wouldn't say that it's superior. Different is a better word. It's kind of like asking if you prefer apples or oranges. However, if you're British you'll think it's better and no doubt post here extolling the many glorious virtues of the cherished DVD-RAM format.

For more objective people, DVD-RAM discs don't exist in dual layer format and the discs, at least in the USA, are expensive and hard to get. Those would be definite downsides to the format.

[Midzuki]

Over here DVD-RAMs are not very difficult to find,
but still are quite expensive indeed. Not to mention that
many of the older standalone-players were not designed to support DVD-RAM.

[usually_quiet]

My Panasonic recorder uses both DVD-RW and DVD-RAM. I prefer to use DVD-RW if I am going to edit using my computer later. (It is easier to get files moved off the disc onto my HDD.) DVD-RW is also better if I am recording programming for other family members for some reason, since more DVD players play a finalized DVD-RW disc.

My recorder does offer additional features when using DVD-RAM. I could record in 16:9 format, if I had a 16:9 source available. I could also record both the main and secondary audio program, if I wished. DVD-RAM would also allow recording broadcasts that allow one copy because of broadcast flag restrictions. (This last feature only applies to the USA.)

Overall I prefer DVD-RW. They are less expensive and I have not had a need for the additional features offered by DVD-RAM.

[orsetto]

"Superior" is a loaded expression. In terms of ease of use, and possibly archival quality, it can be superior depending on your priorities and work habits. But because it is the "odd man out", it has inherent disadvantages as well. Like a lot of inventions, DVD-RAM is a good idea that came too late to the party and ended up a footnote. This is one of those moronic "Japanese rivalry" things that make you want to bang your head into a wall: if anyone at Panasonic had bothered to dial anyone at Sony (and Warren Leiberfarb) in the early days of DVD development and they cooperated to integrate DVD-RAM as the "recordable" version of DVD, we'd all have been better off. (Yes, I know it's not that simple, other companies were involved, blah blah, but thats the gist of it.) Instead we now have five different recordable DVD formats on three different media types. Ugh.

DVD-RAM was designed to be as similar to a VCR as possible but with random access: load it, record it, erase bits and pieces and reclaim their space immediately, no "finalizing" (the bane of consumers everywhere)- just take it out and play it on any other DVD-RAM capable player or computer drive. Speaking of computer drives, its the most logical and easy to use optical data storage for computers, too. But after an initial flurry of strong interest it settled into being a third wheel to the more limited and annoying DVD-+R and RW formats. Compatibility with the millions of DVD players and computer drives already in peoples hands became the number one selling feature for recordable DVD. Since DVD-RAM arrived after standard DVD was already well-established, it didn't have enough time to stake itself as the primary recording alternative- no one wanted to replace their players or drives just to add RAM capability.

Compared to DVD-+R and RW, DVD-RAM has a somewhat more stable structure and dye formula, plus the mfrs do not change the dye formula every three months from cost cutting measures, obsoleting every drive in existence like DVD-+R/RW does. DVD-RAM discs occasionally foul themselves, but not as often as you hear DVD-RW does. Most DVD-RAM media is reasonably archival, you don't have to hunt down one or two obscure brands and pray they don't go out of business like you do with DVD-R. The biggest drawbacks to DVD-RAM are price (10x the cost of DVD-R), incompatibility with standard DVD players/drives, and slow burning speeds compared to DVD-+R (3-5x vs 16x). Currently its most popular use is in computer file management and moving video files around between DVD-RAM capable devices (say a Panasonic or Pioneer DVD recorder and/or a PC). For those who like to work heavily with their video recordings, DVD-RAM is great because the recordings always remain "live" and editable/copyable. One of the biggest drags with DVD-R is once its finalized you can't do anything with it unless you "unfinalize" it in a computer, and you can't recycle the disc after you copy it. Yet "finalizing" is required for a DVD-R to play in a regular DVD player: Catch-22.

All that said, I hardly ever use DVD-RAM, I run with the herd because 90% of my use is for home video and in that field DVD-R is king. Its a pain to use, but the media is cheap and burning is fast and anyone I hand it to can play it. Mostly I use DVD-RAM as an extra backup format for the handful of videos I consider priceless. Now and then it comes in handy when I need to move raw recordings between JVC, Pioneer and Panasonic standalone recorders: the files open normally on each machine as if it had recorded the disc itself. Nice. Otherwise, I'm DVD-R all the way, for as long as Taiyo Yuden can still supply decent media.

[handyguy]

DVD-RAM has a write/rewrite of 100,000 times. Lasts a lot longer. Other than that it's more of a small HD & stores files the same way & you can edit on the disk.

[usually_quiet]

DVD-RAM has a write/rewrite of 100,000 times. Lasts a lot longer. Other than that it's more of a small HD & stores files the same way & you can edit on the disk.

People keep repeating this tidbit, but it is not based on real-world use. Any bare disc that is handled will be scratched and useless long before that. It's tough to find standard cartridge DVD-RAM discs sold in brick-and-mortar stores these days, which would offer some protection. DVD recorders can't accept the mini ones from cameras without removing the cartridge anyway. As for editing, it's not what I would call real editing, just some rough trimming.

In my experience, these things are not truly a poor man's HDD. When programs were randomly erased from DVD-RAM discs and the discs were used again, I saw little stray bits of previously erased shows in the middle of other recordings (from fragmentation) and little bits of saved programs were lost at the boudaries between recordings.

[handyguy]

I used the same disk for 5 years until it wouldn't read. Turned out my laser just needed cleaning.

[usually_quiet]

I used the same disk for 5 years until it wouldn't read. Turned out my laser just needed cleaning.

Assuming it was filled, watched and re-used evey day for 5 years, that's less than 2000 writes.

So, during that time was it moved in and out of a jewel box every few days, dropped on the floor once in a while, and mis-aligned every so often during insertion into the tray? (That's what I call real-world use.) ...or was it left in place and just re-used? That would be a big difference.

Theoretically, a DVD-RW can last 1000 writes under ideal conditions, but considering how often I move discs between a jewel box and my recorder, I don't expect them to last that long, nor would I expect a DVD-RAM disc to last that long for me. As far as I know the plastic used for both types of discs is the same, and would be equally prone to wear and tear.

[handyguy]

Mine was in a cartridge. I probably wrote to it more like 4-5 times a day.

[RabidDog]

And dont forget the role incd (packet writing software) has in the demise of the formula. And some dvd-ram advertising themselves as 9.0gb, forgetting to mention manual handling was required...Slings and Roustabouts.

[usually_quiet]

Mine was in a cartridge. I probably wrote to it more like 4-5 times a day.

The statistic means writing to the same area on the disc 100,000 times, not simply 100,000 writes. Unless you mean you recorded a minimum of 4-5 hours of TV per day and used EX mode to do it, you haven't increased the number of writes by a factor of 4-5 over the number I gave.

It still doesn't sound like you were handling that disc much, and it was in a cartridge, which protects against dirt and scratches. That would not be typical of how most people use DVD-RAM discs these days.

For the past 3 years, I have only seen standard DVD-RAM discs sold without cartridges. I bought all mine in styrene jewel boxes, except the one Pansonic included with my recorder, which was in a cardboard envelope. Most people have multiple discs and change them out once in a while too.

So, most people would be handling bare discs now and would take them in and out of the DVD tray and their jewel boxes. Under those circumstances they are exposed to the same kind of damage as any other disc, and would become too mechanically damaged to use long before the re-writable layer fails.

[handyguy]

I don't use the cart ones now because my drives don't take them but bare DVD-RAM discs sure scratch easily.

[TBoneit]

OTOH does not DVD ram have to update some type of File Table every time a file is changed?
This would seem to imply if true that that area used for the file table gets accessed all the time.

[usually_quiet]

OTOH does not DVD ram have to update some type of File Table every time a file is changed?
This would seem to imply if true that that area used for the file table gets accessed all the time.

DVD-RAM disks use a UDF file system. I know nothing about how they work, so I have no idea how often the file system itself gets updated.