Here is the quote in context, uneditied:Originally Posted by mrdish2000
This is quite misleading.DVD+R discs can be recorded by any DVD+RW PC drive or video recorder, except for the first generation of DVD+RW PC drives (manufactured before April 2002). First generation DVD+RW video recorders need a simple firmware upgrade.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 61 to 83 of 83
Originally Posted by mrdishOriginally Posted by Eug
from Jorg - Admin on 7:35 pm
Of course not. As discussed many times before, correctly written DVD-ROM and DVD-Video discs recorded on a DVD+RW disc can be read by most (but not all) DVD drives and players. Please refer to the compatibility lists for an indication of compatible players.
Huh? I would not consider DVD+RW media a viable option to use for DVD video recording (due to its low compatibility %) or for any sort of DVD video distribution. I'd stick with the write-once formats (+R/-R). Also, DVD+RW is around 50% compatible with current DVD players and I would not consider that low compatibility percentage number a qualification to be compatible with "most DVD drives and players"....
I would not be surprised if this Jorg really was in the back-pocket of Phillips...
Also, let me state this. I really have nothing against DVD+RW or DVD+R, it's not like the VHS/Beta war now two decades old. It's more like the co-existence of compact flash memory with smart media, SD memory, etc. HOWEVER, the spreading of half truths (and at times, flat-out lies) that not only members there, but now even the Admin of DVDplusRW.org, is quite troublesome and straight-up WRONG. Not only is it unfair to others who really know about the technology behind each format, but also does a disservice to those newbie consumers out there, looking for unbiased data, facts, and direct and truthful comparisons. And that angers me more than any attack or insult that has been thrown my way. You DVDplusRW.org members can fight all you want here (which I see has been happening within this thread), but the set-in-stone truth is that DVDplusRW.org offers subjective advice, slanted comparisons which always favors DVD+RW (again, see my post on the first page), and misleading facts on both DVD recording formats.
I would not be surprised if this Jorg really was in the back-pocket of Phillips...
Originally Posted by Kennyshin
Notice even Jorg, the Admin of DVDplusRW says:
"I try to keep up by erasing all threads that just contain...irrelevant info."
I did not know that direct and factual comparisions between DVD+R/RW and DVD-R/RW was considered "irrelevant info"...
Also, after searching the archives at DVDplusRW, I noticed more and more members, who were quite intelligent and brought DVD + and DVD - comparisions to the discussions (and at times, debunked a lot of the hype DVDplusRW was selling), were banned (and some of those (ex)members that were banned, was your own doing Kennyshin - specifically you asking Jorg to ban them because you did not agree with them or because they questioned the false information you provided).
Kennyshin, you still think "DVDplusRW.org has been so far the most complete source for anyone who compares the two different and non-compatible formats" ? I don't think so.
Again, I urge everyone new to DVD recording (either it be plus or minus) and looking to buy, to do their research carefully, and give the following links a good read, as they are unbiased and provide current and factual information on the current state of DVD recordable technology --
(Oh, and Kennyshin if you want to respond to me and continue to try to prove me wrong in your failed attempts, PM me, as I do not want to carry on this discussion about DVDplusRW.org here any longer).
Strange how Phillips decided on doing a competing format when they realised they were going to lose out. after their cd-r/rw royalties dwindled away as people moved onto a bigger storage format.
Please insert another 2 pence.
perhaps you can answer a question:
as i've gathered from reading this thread,
there are two different "forums" (i think: consortiums?)
which are both advocates for either DVD-R or DVD+R.
but what I don't understand is what's the specific difference
between these two?!? both are WRITE-ONCE. why the hell
can't they settle on a merge between the two so in the future
half the people get screwed??
this is nuts. i swear, either the government or some authoratative
institution needs to step in and say, "ok, these are the standards,
deal with it or put a warning label saying you are going against
the standards" because i can see a few years down the road
all of us who went the "wrong" route will suddenly get screwed.
do you want to know why so many people are wary of shit like this?
it's because there are too many damn formats, so only the supergeeks
are really able to ride the wave.
if these idiot brains ever decide on a definite standard for ALL DVD
RECORDABLE MEDIA, then it their sales would increase more than
their pockets could hold.
my .001 cent.
Originally Posted by fand
"Please note that the "+RW" format, also known as DVD+RW was neither developed nor approved by the DVD Forum. The approved recordable formats are DVD-R, DVD-RW and DVD-RAM."
And again, warn here (that DVD+RW is NOT an approved or authorized standard by the DVD Forum) - http://www.dvdfllc.co.jp/mess.htm#notice
Sorry but DVD-Ram beats them all face down, its the only one of the three that can act just like a hard drive where you can actually be recording onto the disc while watching another, just like the hard drives in TIVO. My Panansonic recorder with DVD-R and DVD-Ram on the ram side it can Time Live Pause, Time Slip and watch one while recording another on th same disc. Plus the DVD_ram is good for 100,000 recordings (In Theory) I doubt very much if anyone has really done that many.
Originally Posted by thxkid
Let's say you use your DVD-RAM disc as a floppy replacement and you save your backups to it as you're editing files. So if you do single file saves once ever couple of hours, you will be saving them 4X per day.
Assuming 22 days per month x 12 months, that's 264 work days per year. 4 times 264 is >1000.
Thus, in one year you will exhaust the theoretical lifespan of a DVD-RW/DVD+RW disc, whereas DVD-RAM will last 100 years theoretically. In truth, none of them will last anywhere near as long as their theoretical max, but 100 years is more conforting than 1 year.
K, I've been doing some reading. The following is a quote from the dvddemystified link posted above:
DVD+RW is an erasable format based on CD-RW technology. It became available in late 2001. DVD+RW is supported by Philips, Sony, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Ricoh, Yamaha, and others. It is not supported by the DVD Forum (even though most of the DVD+RW companies are members), but the Forum has no power to set standards.
If they have no power to set standards, then why are they the authoritative voice?
I think section 4.3 of the DVD FAQ explains it a little better -- http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#4.3 and check out http://members.tripod.com/~steve_rothman/DVD-DATA.html#DVDVideo for more info as well. Also, see my previous post.
-PHILIPS, SONY, and PIONEER created DVD, Not DVD Forum.
-Pioneer created DVD-R/RW not DVD Forum.
-Philips handle DVD player and disc Licensing (dvd patents).
-DVD FLLC handle The DVD format (specifications) and Logo License.
-Philips handle DVD+RW format (specifications ) and Logo License.
-Philips handle Blu-ray format License.
-Philips handle Compact Disc (cd) License.
Hitachi,LG,Matsushita,Pioneer,Philips,Samsung,Shar p,Sony, and Thomson choose to create next generation optical format (Blu-ray) outside DVD Forum umbrella. So the Forum has no power to set standards. DVD Forum may support Blu-ray, even it may suppurt DVD+R/RW.
PHILIPS, SONY, and PIONEER created DVD, Not DVD Forum.
Philips handle DVD+RW format (specifications ) and Logo License
On Blu-ray, the forum does not support it. It wants to go to Mpeg-4 and use the exsisting DVD Format. Of course this will be a problem since even with compression you will still have a hard time getting 27GB compressed onto 4.7GB or 9GB(Dual Layer).
Okay, here's some level-headed info (which I hope to be accurate -- if not, someone please correct me)...
First, a basic question seems to be "why are there compatibility problems with DVD-R and/or DVD+R and/or DVD-R/W?"
A rewritable DVD operates differently from a once-once writable DVD. The difference boils down to this: the recording medium in a rewritable DVD depends on creating a phase change in the recording medium. This is then detected by an optical sensor when the laser gets reflected. What is actually happening is that the rewritable DVD's laser causes a physical change in the DVD medium by heating up a spot locally. The spot on the rewritable DVD cools down quickly enough that the physical change gets frozen in place. By reheating the recording medium the phase change gets undone. Technically this involves hysteresis, as in a magnetic medium. (To get really detailed the laser in a rewritable disc works by changing the magnetic properties of the medium in such a way that the polarization of the reflected light is systematically altered, then a quarter-wave plate is used to create a change in light intensity due to change in polarization -- but that's probably more detailed than you wanted.)
A once-only writable DVD operates by physically chemically changing the recording medium of the DVD-R in such a way that the actual reflected intesnity of the laser changes, not just its polarization. This chemical change can't be undone. Changes in a DVD-R recording medium aren't magnetic hysteresis, they're more like overcooking a pudding. Once the pudding is burnt there's no way to un-burn it, whereas you can always de-magnetize a magnetized medium by heating it up to its Curie point. Again, this is probably more detailed than you wanted.)
The difference involves reflectivities.
DVD-R has a higher reflectivity than the other formats.
This is due to the fact that the change of polarization comined with the quarter-wave plate doesn't drop the reflected intensity as much as the burnt spot on a DVD-R changes the reflected intesnity, and for obvious reasons...no quarter-wave plate is perfect, and the hysteresis change in the magnetic properties of a DVD-R/W isn't very large. The result is that a physically curdled spot on a DVD-R reflects a lot less light than the itenssity drop due to the polarization change plus quarter-wave-plate.
All DVD reading mechanisms contain error correction mechanisms. Some stray light gets reflected at a low level from impurities, or imperfections int he optics, and a DVD player must dicriminate betwen this low-level reflected light and the actual reflection of the reading laser. The error correction involves sophisticated DSP and error correction codes as well as hardware methods for discriminating twixt a true reflection of the reading laser and stray light from media defects, imperfection sin the optics, etc.
Point is, when the reflected light from the reading laser drops below a certain threshold the DVD player assumes that it's not a true reflection of the reading laser but instead just random junk. The DVD+R standard has lower reflectivity and is more susceptible to this problem.
There are additiional details. Many commercial DVDs use two physical layers with different reflectivities. Too low a reflectivity in the DVD medium may convince the DVD player that it is reading the second layer of a 2-layer DVD, but since isn't true the DVD player gets confused and stalls in its attempt to play the DVD+R.
So there are a lot of issues involved in the compatibility problem.
The overwhelming consensus (and my own personal experience) seems to strongly suggest that DVD-R discs can be played back on many more DVD players than DVD+R or DVD-R/W. Right now, the closest comparison would be CD-R for audio CD playback as opposed to CD-R/W for audio CD playback. CD-R audio discs play back on a far larger number of audio CD players than CD-R/W, against due to the reflectivity issue.
This is only partly a matter of DVD-R being around longer. Building in the ability to play recordable DVDs with lower reflectivities also means more money for the DVD player mfrs. They must add more software and more hardware to detect and compensate for the lower reflectivity of a DVD+R.
Will DVD player mfrs be wiling to spend hte extra money to enable DVD players to play back DVD+R discs?
I don't know. If DVD-R becomes firmly enough entrenched, DVD player mfrs may well decide it's not economically worth their while to support DVD+R.
Thus we potentially have a Beta-vs-VHS issue, or an Apple Computer vs. IBM computer issue. Apple computers have built-in ability to read IBM floppies but IBM computer don't come from the factory with the ability to read Apple floppies. Why? Because the IBM disk format became so overwhemlingly dominant there was no economic incentive for microsott to include the ability to read Apple disks in its OS.
The same thing might happen with DVD-R as opposed to DVD+R. DVD-R could become so dominant that DVD player mfrs simply won't bother to include the ability to read DVD+Rs. So it's by no means certain that DVD lpayers will, over time, include the ability to read DVD+R as well as DVD-Rs.
Folks have mentioned blue-ray discs. Some basic physics might clarify that issue.
Blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light. Therefore a blue laser has a shorter wavelength than a red laser. This means that a blue laser can create smaller spots on a writable DVD, at least potentially. Because of this, the density of video discs written and/or read with blue lasers is potentially much higher than the data density of video discs (meaning DVDs) written and/or red with today's conventional red lasers.
The so-called "blue ray" discs may boast a data density up to 6 times the current capacity of 4.7 gig (actually about 4.3 gig minus the header and directory files) DVDs. That works out to somehwere in the neighborhood of 45 gigabytes of information stored on a blue-ray disc.
Exactly _why_ we need blue-ray discs remains a whole 'nuther question. Arguably, we are moving toward a much more efficient and muc higher-quality encoding format, the hacked MPEG-4 (AKA Divx). I have seen for myself that Divx simply does a better job in reproducing encoded video at a given data rate as compared to MPEG-2. The visual difference is clearly visible on your computer screen when you play back a Divx file using the same data rate as an MPEG-2 file. The improvement in video qualty obtained from Divx encoding seems tobe somehwere in the neighborhood of 2:1.
This means that if we move from MPEG-2 encoding on our current 4.3-meg DVDs to Divx encoding, we should be able to get somewhere between 2 and 3 hours of video just on a single-layer DVD. And mind you, that's 2 to 3 hours of really high-quality video, equivalent to well-encoded MPEG-2 at a decent bitrate like 5 mbits.
This begs the quesiton -- why, exactly, do we _need_ to increase the size of our video storage media by a factor of 6 by going to blue-ray discs?
Let us grant it's technologically possible -- wouldn't moving to Divx encoding be a smarter and better way of increasing our available storage space on digital video media?
After all, we can either produce new media or get smarter (namely, we could do with less in software) -- and Divx lets us do more with less.
So moving to blue-ray discs seems to be exactly the opposite of what we ought to be doing.
Lastly, on compatibilty issues -- there remains the issue of DVD players. Some DVD players still won't play regular DVD-Rs, never mind DVD+Rs or DVD-R/Ws.
Specific example: None of the current or past Apex DVD players seem to want o play DVD-Rs. I have personally cnfrimed that neither the Apex AD-600 or AD-1100 will play back DVD-Rs. They just lock up on "loading" forever.
So compatibility seems to be not only an issue of laser reflectivity (DVD-R vs. DVD+R or DVD-R/W) but also of the DVD mfr. That said, DVD-R appears to have a huge edge in compatibility right now, except for Apex players.
Some random comments and questions about the previous post:
What's the reflectivity difference between +R and DVD-R? My understanding is that they were similar, and that it was only +RW and DVD-RW that had significantly lower reflectivity.
The general consensus is that +R and DVD-R compatibility is similar, unless you're talking about 3.95 GB authoring DVD-R, which seem to have the highest compatibility for whatever reason. DVD-R wins in the price category though. Both DVD-RW and +RW have significantly lower compatibility than DVD-R.
Even full bitrate DVD is insufficient for high end home theater setups. This is especially true for stuff recorded on set top DVD recorders. An HD solution is desired, and thus the desire for Blu-ray, ideally both for playback and for recording. HD video tape recorders already exist, and by all accounts, the video quality simply blows away anything ever offered on DVD. However, being a tape based format, it is inconvenient, and thus many people are looking to Blu-ray.
My Apex AD-600A plays DVD-R just fine. You may want to update your DVD loader firmware. Check out the www.nerd-out.com website. The Apex is a little picky with crappy media, but that suits me fine. It makes testing of DVD-R media easier: I find that if playback is a little dicey on the Apex AD-600A, it's going to be a bit dicey on other machines as well, whereas playback on the original burner is not a good test. Things that play fine on a burner don't always play well on other DVD-R compatible DVD players.
By the way, video playback quality of DVD on an Apex AD-600A is pretty poor. I'm told that other Apex players don't offer much improvement. If you want to see good quality DVD playback, something like a Panasonic RP91 or other good quality player is probably in order. The differences even in interlaced mode between the two players are pretty noticeable. Once you go to progressive scan on the RP91 the differences are even more pronounced. (I am using an ISF calibrated 34" widescreen progressive scan TV for my comparisons. The differences would be even more obvious on large projection systems.)
The overwhelming consensus (and my own personal experience) seems to strongly suggest that DVD-R discs can be played back on many more DVD players than DVD+R or DVD-R/W.
Originally Posted by RAAGAAman
In my case, I actually leave my drive "un-bit-set" and only individually alter DVD+RW discs as needed. +R discs do not use this.Da MoovyGuy
Blu-ray vs. DVD+/-RW
Blu-ray: Up to 27GB per side
DVD+RW/DVD-RW/DVD+R/DVD-RW: Up to 4.7GB per side
Blu-ray 1x: 36Mbps (4.5MB/s)
DVD 1x: 1.38MB/s
DVD recordables plus MPEG-4 or WM9 encoding cannot really do what Blu-ray can though Blu-ray's advantages over DVD seem so little compared to the differences between CD and DVD.
I decided on the +RW/+R format long before it came out, and so far I am satisfied. In my simple tests in a handful of machines, compatibility seems to be similar between each format (-RW/+RW and -R/+R) in somewhat current players. Compatibility will likely drop for both on older players, with the +RW/+R being less compatible. I also read a small piece on the Microsoft site (take it as you wish) that the +RW is more suitable for Mt. Rainier.
As for the issue mentioned somewhere here about the "simple firmware update" to first generation drives, I have some thoughts on this. I originally purchased a first generation drive and it had a manufacturers date of March 2002. I returned it and bought a second generation drive and have been burning DVD+R discs on it regularly. It was manufactured in late 2001. It's quite possible that this "simple firmware update" turned out to be a more difficult job and had to be done by the manufacturer, so these old and incorrect firmware quotes may have been planned true but ended up false. Yes, the manufacturer should have admitted it and had everyone update their information.
Have anyone try this to avoid the compatibility debates ?
Click on DVD Players on the left, search for DVD players that can support DVD-R, take note of this number. Do the same for DVD+R.
I have done that and there are more DVD-R players than DVD+R.
OK, here are the numbers: 953 DVD-R and 544 DVD+5. How about that.
NO MORE DEBATE I HOPE. (just try to help)ktnwin - PATIENCE
ktwin: You can't compare like that...more have just tested dvd-r, only 655 dvd players are tested with dvd+r while 1078 are tested with dvd-r. But dvd-r has a bit better if you compare with %, about 88 % works and dvd+r has about 84%.
Originally Posted by PhilipL
But I have both a -R and a +R recorder, I made this great family video transfer to dvd+RW last week, then purposely transferred it to a dvd-r so that it would be more compatible when being played on my cousin's machine when i visited.
Guess what, a high quality Pioneer DVD-R disc wasn't recognised on their fairly new, GOVideo dual VHS DVD Player! Would not read the disc, the disc was fine because it played in all my machines.
Luckily, I had brought my original DVD+RW disk with me, and guess what? That one played fine. LOL
So, neither recordable format is guaranteed to play on a DVD Standalone.
But, if one don't play, there is a good shot the other type might.
Just as the Philips model DVD751 standalone, won't play DVD-R,DVD-RW or DVD+R's, but it will play DVD+RW. So out of the 4 types, at least 1 will usually play on a machine.
Now, hopefully by 2004, all this will be worked out.
If not, then i guess people will return the new blue laser machines back to the stores as soon as they get home and see it won't play there home movie collection.
Also at almost the price of 2 dvd disks, what will be the big deal in having 2 machines next to each other?
For that matter, why wouldn't the new machine have dual lasers?
One blue and one red?
Just like some early dvd standalones had dual lasers for better cd compatibility.
I don't think DVD+ format will have any problems in future machines than any recordable disk will.
Thanks for reading this,
Originally Posted by test
I did so many test on my machines and can come up with so many combinations that work and don't work.
This brand will, that won't, this brand on that format recorded with this software will, that won't, etc... it's endless... and I seriously doubt people do these extensive test before judging a format compatible on a certain machine.