Hard to find dual layer DVD-Rs

[Jeikobu]

I am wanting to buy blank dual layer DVDs, but I'd rather buy DVD-Rs since my computer won't burn DVD+Rs. However, all I can seem to find on eBay for dual layer is DVD+R, and the few results that Amazon has don't seem to be rated too well, or have too few in a pack. So, why is it that DVD+R is so much more common than DVD-R for dual layer? Is it an efficiency issue?

[smitbret]

I don't even know if DVD-R DL exists int the wild. Every DVD burner that I've ever seen (that can burn a DVD DL) burns DVD+R DL. It is the accepted standard.

What PC or DVD burner are you using?

[DB83]

Well they do exist - I can get them from my regular UK supplier.

But they do carry a hefty price premium. I can get SL for under 20 UK pence each ( on a pod of 50). The DL would cost £1.17 each (on a pod of 25). For that price difference it is not economic to buy the DL's. These are Verbatim BTW.

And +R prices are quite similar.

[Jeikobu]

DB83, are you then saying that DVD-R and DVD+R are about the same price? Still, that doesn't help me understand why DVD-R seems so rare. Also, I'm looking for R1, as I live in America and I'm sure my players only play R1.

I don't even know if DVD-R DL exists int the wild. Every DVD burner that I've ever seen (that can burn a DVD DL) burns DVD+R DL. It is the accepted standard.

What PC or DVD burner are you using?

I use a PowerMac G4 and my DVD player/burner is "PIONEER DVD-RW DVR-104".

[DB83]

There is no such thing as a R1 dvd-r SL or DL blank media. I could buy blanks from the US and they would still burn in my burner.

And just because Amazon do not have them it does not mean that no one has them. Not so familiar with US sellers(or prices) so I can not help there. But the consensus in this forum is that you should only buy Verbatim for DL.

[fritzi93]

If you intend to use them for DVD-Video, you're about to make a mistake. DVD-R DL is burned to full capacity on layer_0, *then* it burns layer_1. That means the layer break cannot be honored. It's rare and expensive because they don't make as many, due to much less demand.

[16mmJunkie]

How about checking the local ads on this site (i.e. supermediastore) as they have DVD-R DL.Took a whole 2 secs to find them. Poppycock posts when people just don't take time. Same thing with your ebaylooking...they are there


http://www.supermediastore.com/category/u/blank-recordable-dvd-r-disc-discs-media?filt...pacity%3D8.5GB

ebay:
http://computers.shop.ebay.com/DVD-R-DL-Disks-/158803/i.html?_nkw=dvd-r+dl&_catref=1&_...=p3286.c0.m282

[jman98]

If you've gotta burn DVD-R DL instead of DVD+R DL, the same advice we give everyone for DL burning applies.

1) ONLY burn Verbatim discs.
2) ONLY burn with ImgBurn.

If you ignore either or both of those pieces of advice, do NOT come back crying when your burns fail or your player won't play them. You should be aware that in the past Nero could not correctly burn DVD-R DL discs. I do not know whether newer versions of Nero can do so or not because I don't like DVD-R DL discs (too expensive and the +R technology is worlds better for DL media) and because ImgBurn is much better for burning DVDs than Nero.

By the way, unless your burner is like 5+ years old, nobody makes burners any more that can't burn DVD+R DL discs. You can get new burners for around $25 which would be a much better solution than paying the extra cost for DVD-R DL discs. About the best price you can ever get for DVD-R DL discs is $2+ each.

To be honest with you, the DVD-R group never intended for DL or RW discs to exist. In those early days of single layer write once DVD discs it was considered "impossible" (ha ha - but that's what they truly thought) to create such discs. So the DVD-R standard never really was able to scale to DL and RW media and they had to kind of force fit them into it. The DVD+R group did a better technological design in my opinion that allowed for a better type of DL and RW media over what the DVD-R guys were forced to go with on their side. I cannot prove this but I have long suspected that the reason that DVD-R DL discs are so expensive is not because of lack of demand but because they are actually much harder to manufacture correctly and there are much higher rejects off the manufacturing line than with DVD+R DL media.

[Jeikobu]

Ok thanks, that was very informative. So, as I understand it, DVD-R video discs have less quality than the same burn would have on a DVD+R? Before I've always used Toast Titanium to burn video and data DVDs, by the way.

My dad's computer burns DVD+R, and in light of all of this I think I will just buy the DVD+Rs and borrow his computer to make dual layer video discs. It would've been most convenient to have been able to do it on my computer as well, but in light of this, it sounds like going for DVD+R would be a lot better both for quality and price reasons.

Someday I do plan to get a new DVD drive, but I want it to be region free since I will be in Japan someday and need to be able to play and possibly burn R2s as well.

[hech54]

So, as I understand it, DVD-R video discs have less quality than the same burn would have on a DVD+R?

Where did you get that ridiculous idea? That's complete nonsense.

[Jeikobu]

Maybe I misunderstood this?:

If you intend to use them for DVD-Video, you're about to make a mistake. DVD-R DL is burned to full capacity on layer_0, *then* it burns layer_1.

So the DVD-R standard never really was able to scale to DL and RW media and they had to kind of force fit them into it.

[VegasBud]

Jeikobu,

What fritzi93 is pointing out to you is that with dvd-r dual layer, the first layer is completely filled before the second layer starts being used...which means even if what's being written to the disk is only slightly larger than the capacity of the first layer, data is still written all the way to the outer edge of the disk, which is the least reliable part of the disk. Always putting the layer break (which is a point where problems are more likely to be manifested) in the least reliable part of the disk...is a questionable practice.

Dvd+r dual layer, on the other hand, has a flexible layer break. In the worst-case-scenario (for dvd-rdl) I mentioned above, where the total amount of data to be written to the disk is only slightly larger than the capacity of the first layer, with dvd+rdl, the data can be distributed more equally between the layers...which draws the actual data on the disk back from the troublesome outer edge as much as possible. By doing so, the reliability of the disk is maximized.

Also, for dvd-video on dvd-rdl, the layer break is such a problem that (the last I heard) ImgBurn doesn't even try to contend with it. Since LIGHTNING UK! (the author of ImgBurn) is a smart, dedicated, hard working guy, it's certainly possible he came up with a work-around...but it doesn't seem likely there is (or can be) an actual solution.

Other factors which suggest you forget about dvd-rdl:

1) It's more expensive than dvd+rdl media.

2) It's not as compatible with dvd players. Using the "Dvd Player List" (here at VideoHelp), for example, 1,020 dvd players are listed as compatible with dvd+rdl, while only 410 are listed as compatible with dvd-rdl.

3) As you've noted, it's much harder to find dvd-rdl media (for good reason).

Unless you just find life too soft and easy, and are looking for some extra problems to make life more challenging...you would most likely be better off simply doing as the rest of us have learned to do:

1)Only use Verbatim dvd+rdl media
2)Only use ImgBurn for burning (that part may be a problem since you're using mac osx)

[fritzi93]

Here's what r0lz, the author of pgcedit, has to say about DVD-R_DL and DVD-Video layer break:

DVD-R DLs are only partially compatible with DVD-Video. The first layer must be filled completely with data, unlike on DVD-ROM or DVD+R DL. This means that the original layer break is not at the right position. Therefore, you cannot do a 1:1 copy.
But if you use a program, like PgcEdit, to specify another layer break position, and you rebuild a new image, it is theorically possible to burn correctly your DVD-Video files on a -R. You can do that automatically with PgcEdit (which uses MKISOFS to build the ISO, and DVD Decrypter to burn it.)

Of course, the +R solution is largely superior, but you still need a good program to specify the layer break position and patch the IFOs accordingly, unless you burn directly the original image.

It is well known that Nero, for example, is not able to burn DVD-Video files correctly on a -R DL, but it has problems with the +Rs also.

----------------------------------------

The post quoted above is here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=699021#post699021

I dunno about using DVD-R_DL discs for other purposes, i.e. data. Never used any. But for DVD-Video, they are best avoided.

Note that layer breaks are usually positioned at scene changes to make the pause less annoying. ImgBurn can do this for you easily on +R_DL media, or if you're burning an image, it will honor the layer break.

[EDIT] The above has nothing whatever to do with SL (single-layer) DVD-R versus SL DVD+R. We're only talking about DL discs.

[hech54]

Oh how I remember the days when there mere mention of "+R" would send people into an ape-shit fit, spewing words like non-standard, bastard and even illegal.

[jman98]

Jeikobu - Sorry. My intention was NOT to make you think that DVD-R whatever discs are crap. They all work fine. It's just that in my opinion the technology behind the +R group is better.

[smitbret]

I'm surprised that the DVD-R DL even plays in your DVD player. It was only a couple of years ago that DVD-R SL and DVD+R DL was the rule for burning DVDs for playback on DVD players. Since then, DVD+R has pretty much been accepted as much as DVD-R when it comes to single layer, but DVD-R DL never has caught on. What DVD burner are you using?

[classfour]

I'd buy a new burner ($20) that would burn DVD+R DL (Verbatim) media.