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

"We capture your film, in a "virgin capture", to MiniDV digital tape"

That's the first time I've heard that term,it sounds like a medievil courtship ritual.
I agree with him to a point:it's wise to backup your archive to miniDV but the rest is BS.

Very interesting. 2-5 yrs. I know I'm replacing all my RITEK now. Some will no longer read. The one that still read I'm replacing just to be safe. I never buy cheap media - ever (anymore). I only buy TY and no "value line". I get what I pay for. Like an insurance policy, I get peace of mind for a few pennies a dics. Hope I never have another RITEK type incident - in 2-5 years. Can't believe people are still shopping for price to save $10 a 100 pack. Buying known crap media to save a few cents! It will be intersting to see if in 2 - 5 years we start hearing more RITEK type horror stories.

My best friend consistently buys the cheapest, crappiest DVD media he can find for use in his standalone recorder. I have warned him many times that you get what you pay for, but he won't listen. I know that at some point in the future he will complain that his precious DVDs won't work anymore and I'm going to tell him "I told you so."

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

I just thought I would share something I saw this morning...


from http://film-to-dvd.com/dirty_little_secrets.html

My wife is a high school teacher that teaches several different technology based subjects. She now devotes an entire lesson plan to mis-information, how to conduct proper research and how to validate internet-based information sources. This is a growing problem for not just students but teachers as well. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can setup a website and totally fabricate whatever he wants to say.

I am so embarrased for the industry when people like this, spreading FUD, tout themselves as video specialists!

It's like, I've got extra work cut out for me educating "scared" consumers, just to UNDO what jerks like this spout.

If I were being more mean, I'd say somebody should hack his site. OOPS! I just said it.

Scott

I know that a lot of us average users are confused..

I read this 2-5 years crap, then I read the case of my disc and it says 100 years. I read the forums and read many posts from many other posters who lose disc data in good media, stored properly. I read people seeing poor media start showing bit errors in just months. Yet there are others who burned things back when the technology was brand new, and see no problems.

Personally, the threat is at least real in my eyes. I back up my home movies at least every 2 years. Maybe in 30 years I'll 15 perfect copies... maybe not. Better to be safe than sorry.


So... Smurf... Since you are probably the most active member of this forum.. How long will the TYG02 -R I burned this morning last in it's dvd case without light exposure or handling of the disc here in humid Florida?

Does anyone really know?

I've read the sticky thread, and NO... Nobody knows...

Well then... Maybe just maybe.. 2-5 years is good rule of thumb??????

lordsmurf: i hate to break this to you, but most of what he said is right on the money.

So... Smurf... Since you are probably the most active member of this forum.. How long will the TYG02 -R I burned this morning last in it's dvd case without light exposure or handling of the disc here in humid Florida?

Does anyone really know?

Yes people are studying the issue of longevity of optical media. The National Institute of Standards and Technology [http://www.itl.nist.gov/] has a study on the this:

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/loc/index.html

Again - Read and learn:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/longevity.htm

Originally Posted by deadrats

lordsmurf: i hate to break this to you, but most of what he said is right on the money.

I think that some of the ultimate points the guy makes is "on the money" -- don't use DVD's as one-and-only archives, mpeg2 is lossy, and the life of any single DVD may only be a few years, depending on a bunch of variables -- but 99% of his "arguments" are BS, in context.

Note the URL of his site -- film-to-dvd.com. Meaning, I assume, that one of the products he's selling is, film to dvd. And then he "trashes" DVDs. And he makes his case in such broad terms that anybody who doesn't know anything about DVDs and video compression won't know what the heck he's talking about, and those who do know what he's talking about, know's he's full of crap. And I won't even start on how the amateur qualities of his website engender absolutely no confidence in his technical abilities.

If his case is to make sure all your originals are archived the best way possible, e.g. DV format, again the rest of his site does such a poor job of communicating what you're actually going to get, it just reveals incompetence across the board.

Why not take as much time spent ranting about DVDs to fill the customer in on what DV is all about? How about giving us some idea of how much video can be stored on a tape, for those who don't have a camcorder? Okay, he gives some general "help," but his site is so poorly done, and his info is such a combination of borderline useful information combined with "what the heck is he talking about" - like "throwing out half the image" with no further explanation -- that all it shows me is that a guy with several degrees can be just as dumb as your common unschooled shlub.

EDIT: I like it that this guy has a MBA in Marketing. I'd love to run his website through a marketing class and see what your average marketing person would say about it.

Yeah I've read that digital FAQ before. To me though, it's just another opinion. I don't see any reason to believe the digitalfaw people any more or less than the 2-5 year guy.

especially when they reference tests done by disc manufacturers... If IBM wants to sell tape, what do disc manufacturers want to sell?... and he barely goes into how these "independent" studies were performed.


Not to mention, that so many suggest you run sort of bit error rate program on your burns...

WHY?

If the DVD media was so stable for decades, should an 80% burn that plays fine still play fine in 10 years? You people yourselves say NO, you need a high-90's rating to have it last. Why??? becuase the error rates are getting higher as time passes, that's why. Is that disc fade? Sounds like it.

I read this thread and I hear: "DVD's are fine for archiving, as long as you baby it, it was a good burn (which those of us without PC burners can not tell), you get good media, but you can't trust any brand names you need to read the ID, which again is impossible for those of us without PCs, and no labels are on the disc, and the moon is full and.... ?????????

Doesn't sound all that good to me...
Although, I hope smurf and others are 100% correct.

I do what I can. I only use TY. I baby the discs. I back up the really important stuff. Still seems like a crap shoot to me. I got a "Disc Dirty" error yesterday on a perfectly new disc that I burned the night before. Not sure why..... Cheap Media, probably (Imation), older Player, yes.... Bad burn? Not sure. Crappy recorder? Hop not, only 2 weeks old. How confident would I be in that burn if it was something important and wanted to keep for decades? I wouldn't.

What the 2-5 year guy preaches might be good advice for the average person. You know most people out there is this world are lucky to be able use a DVD, let alone calulate bit error rates, read manufacturer IDs, understand the manufacturing process and distinguish the quality media from the crap.

Originally Posted by ClubSteeler

I read this thread and I hear: "DVD's are fine for archiving, as long as you baby it, it was a good burn (which those of us without PC burners can not tell), you get good media, but you can't trust any brand names you need to read the ID, which again is impossible for those of us without PCs, and no labels are on the disc, and the moon is full and.... ?????????

I don't think anybody in this thread -- or even in this entire forum -- has ever been much for saying DVDs are fine for archiving. In fact, most (if not virtually all) of the posts I've read by those with lots of experience is exactly the opposite: DVDs are a playback medium and here's what you can do to optimize this particular medium, but do not use them as your one-and-only "archive." Keep your originals, and treat them with great care.

I do what I can. I only use TY. I baby the discs. I back up the really important stuff. Still seems like a crap shoot to me. I got a "Disc Dirty" error yesterday on a perfectly new disc that I burned the night before. Not sure why.....

Yeah, I share this feeling. Which is why this forum is such a good and useful place: There are many, many, many people here who know what they're doing, who've done it for years, who have gone through the ups and downs of learning all this incredible new technology, and the aggregate wisdom they have to share is why I'm here in the first place.

What the 2-5 year guy preaches might be good advice for the average person. You know most people out there is this world are lucky to be able use a DVD, let alone calulate bit error rates, read manufacturer IDs, understand the manufacturing process and distinguish the quality media from the crap.

I think the 2-5 year thing is not bad advice for almost any technological device or process in our current world. VHS tape may last 100 years, but will they still have working VHS VCRs 100 years from now?

Bottom line: If you're really, really, really concerned about archiving anything, the best way to do so -- historically speaking -- is to have an "analog" copy. Words on paper, or rock, you can still read, without a playback device. Movie film can be squinted at and you can sorta see what's on it, and you could probably create your own projector, given enough time, based on the fact you can see what you're trying to recover. There's even a guy out there who can recognize classical music symphonies on LP (vinyl) disc based on the pattern of grooves he sees (and you could "recover" the sound from an LP if all you have is a needle and paper to roll into a cone. Not hi-fi, but could work in a pinch.

Digital and electronic media, not so much. So how long any of this stuff will "last," in terms of being able to recover what it is that's on them ... who knows?

Originally Posted by ClubSteeler

If the DVD media was so stable for decades, should an 80% burn that plays fine still play fine in 10 years? You people yourselves say NO, you need a high-90's rating to have it last. Why??? becuase the error rates are getting higher as time passes, that's why. Is that disc fade? Sounds like it.

The problem is with the burn not the media. Burns typically have errors in them. It is these errors that causes read problems. It's that simple.

If you want to get a better understanding of how a burner works and the problems with burning media go to CDfreaks.com http://www.cdfreaks.com/ and check out some of the DVD burner reviews. Those reviews are quite revealing.

You can tell how good or bad your burn is buy running various diagnostic tools on your discs. Nero comes with some.

The reason Lordsmuf is held iin such high regard is because he explains the process and he provides the evidence for his analysis. His claims are easily verifiable.

Bottom line - do the research. The more you read the more you will understand and the less mysterious the subject matter becomes.

lordsmurf:

before you go labelling everything "bullshit" and those that agree with what is said as "beyond help", allow them the opportunity to defend their position.

i will go through what is posted on the site in question one at a time and explain why i agree with what is said:

The Shelf-life of a DVD-R/+R is ONLY 2 to 5 years.

my own personal experience with all types of burnable media, be it cd-r, cd-rw, dvd+/-r dvd+/-rw is that they only remain readable for a limited amount of time, with my own experience being that a burned cd/dvd remains readable for about 2 years.

note, this does not apply to media that is pressed, i.e. CD's and DVD's that are sold with data (songs, movies) already on them.

he is also correct as to how said media is manufactured, i.e. they have a layer of silver dye which undergoes a chemical change when exposed to certain types of lasers. it is this change in the chemical structure of the silver dye that represents the data you have stored.

over time, the silver dye loses it's chemical integrity due to repeated exposure to the lasers of optical drives as well as to natural chemical fatique.

this is why many people find that many, if not all, of the media they have burned over the years are now either completely unreadable or partially unreadable, which results in the dreaded "cyclic redundency error" that is often seen.

tape media saves data as changes in an electro-magnetic field, much in the same way that a harddrive stores data.

this isn't bullshit, this is pure physics (and before you ask, while i am not a physicist, i did spend 3 years in college majoring in physics and computer science and i have a solid background in chemistry and math), trust me on this, this guy is right on the money.

"Digital Copies" are not the "Digital Equivalent" to Your Original Film

again he is 100 percent correct. the term digital copy is a very misleading term and it's not readily apparant why unless you have a decent familiarity with math.

i'm not sure how much you know about linear algebra or discreet mathematics, but think back to when you where in school when you first saw a parabola drawn on the blackboard. a parabola can be thought of as an analogue signal or an analogue storing of data (similar to when a movie is shot on film).

from a mathematical standpoint, that parabola is composed of an infinite number of points on a graph, just as our movie on film is an infinite collection of light sources. what descreet mathematics allows us to do is represent said parabola with a finite number of points on the graph. if we stand really close to the blackboard we can see the breaks in the parabola, but if we back up a couple of feet the spaces between points suddenly disappear and it appears that the parabola is 1 continuous line. as the number of finite points increases the distance we need to stand from the blackboard in order to see a full parabola decreases.

when a digital copy is made of our movie on film, a similar process is applied: a finite number of light sources are chosen that allows us represent the original with a high degree of accuracy without needed to use huge amounts of space to do so.

furthermore, due to the nature of a digital copy, it is impossible to have a digital equivalant because it is mathematically impossible to represent an infinite collection of light sources with a finite number of light sources, regardless of how great the number of finite light sources are.

DVDs are not "high resolution".

100 percent correct. DVD's are 720x480 and below for NTSC or 720x576 and below for PAL.

high definition is 720p, 1080i or 1080p.

DVDs are NOT made up of "full frame pictures" - like your film.

again, 100 percent correct. all movies encoded to conform to the DVD spec use mpeg-2 encoding which uses a compression methodology whereby I frames are compressed using jpeg compression techniques (where the frame can be decoded without having to refer to any other frame), B frames are compressed using a bi-derectional compression scheme that only stores the difference between the I frame and itself and P frame which are compressed using a predictive compression method that again relies in storing only changes in the frame from the reference frame.

if anyone doesn't know what they are talking about it is you, and the thought that you would insult me when you clearly don't have a clue is laughable.

Originally Posted by deadrats

DVDs are not "high resolution".

100 percent correct. DVD's are 720x480 and below for NTSC or 720x576 and below for PAL.

high definition is 720p, 1080i or 1080p.

So, what's the resolution of the DV transfer this company sells you?

It doesn't say on this guy's site, as far as I can tell. He says something about your film is "high resolution." Okay, I'll buy that. Is the miniDV tape I'm getting in return HD? Standard NTSC?

I'd be more impressed with his arguments if he had anything resembling clear facts to back up the majority of his claims. And the fact that this guy is highly educated, with experience in computers and video and marketing and psychology ... now that's laughable.

Originally Posted by ozymango

So, what's the resolution of the DV transfer this company sells you?

It doesn't say on this guy's site, as far as I can tell. He says something about your film is "high resolution." Okay, I'll buy that. Is the miniDV tape I'm getting in return HD? Standard NTSC?

on this page, here is what he says:

http://film-to-dvd.com/faq.html

A typical order includes:
One "Virgin Master" MiniDV - this is the core of the transfer. A color corrected, image enhanced "re-shoot" of your film in digital video form.
One MiniDV backup of the master - because your film has survived the danger of being unique long enough.
One "Confirmation" DVD made from your master MiniDV. This is sent to you before your MiniDV master so you can preview our work and get us to do any corrections they may need doing before we finalize the work.
Four DVD copies from your master MiniDV.

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.

Originally Posted by ozymango

I'd be more impressed with his arguments if he had anything resembling clear facts to back up the majority of his claims.

what is he supposed to do, give you the equivalant of 3-4 years of worth of math, chemistry and physics education, on one page no less, just so guys like you and smurfie won't get on sites like this and claim that his claims are bullshit?

if you, and our smurf loving friend, are smart enough and so inclined, feel free to go get a couple of books on calculus, physics and inorganic chemistry, learn about discreet mathematics, chemical fatique, optical lasers, electro-magnetic data storage and post a complete rebuttal to all his claims.

until then, you and smurfie need to have a nice big cup of STFU.

Originally Posted by 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.

Really? Cool. Those will play fine in my DV camcorder, right?

what is he supposed to do, give you the equivalant of 3-4 years of worth of math, chemistry and physics education, on one page no less, just so guys like you and smurfie won't get on sites like this and claim that his claims are bullshit?

FYI, my brother's a physicist. Worked for NASA. Designs satellite systems, including optical systems. I'm not a physicist myself, but I've worked a lot in film and video since 1984.

if you, and our smurf loving friend, are smart enough and so inclined, feel free to go get a couple of books on calculus, physics and inorganic chemistry, learn about discreet mathematics, chemical fatique, optical lasers, electro-magnetic data storage and post a complete rebuttal to all his claims.

Read the books. I just don't feel the personal need to make a personal argument with every ignorant person I meet.

until then, you and smurfie need to have a nice big cup of STFU.

ROFL.

As for what lordsmurf said, wisely: There's just no helping [some people].

EDIT: For what it's worth, I never said that everything the guy (at film-to-dvd.com) said is complete BS, just 98% of it -- his misinformation and poor communication skills stick in my craw. It sticks because there's just enough "truth" in some of the stuff he writes, that it could easily lead somebody who doesn't know much about this stuff, to be led astray. Also I dislike that he basically implies that anybody else who's doing film to DVD transfer is inferior by virtue of the fact that they don't tell you these "dirty little secrets." I know a lot of reputable people who work in this kind of business and frankly, I find his commentary more than a bit galling.

Originally Posted by ozymango

EDIT: For what it's worth, I never said that everything the guy (at film-to-dvd.com) said is complete BS, just 98% of it -- his misinformation and poor communication skills stick in my craw. It sticks because there's just enough "truth" in some of the stuff he writes, that it could easily lead somebody who doesn't know much about this stuff, to be led astray. Also I dislike that he basically implies that anybody else who's doing film to DVD transfer is inferior by virtue of the fact that they don't tell you these "dirty little secrets." I know a lot of reputable people who work in this kind of business and frankly, I find his commentary more than a bit galling.

where exactly do you see 98% worth of BS in what he has posted on his site? everything he says i pretty much right on the money.

i will grant you the motivation behind the page is salesmanship, a desire to make his product look superior, but i personally don't see that as a big problem.

as far as i'm concerned, all such businesses should give you a tape backup of your film, though perhaps he could have fleshed out his "dirty little secrets" page by explaining some of the science/math behind some of the claims.

in other words, i agree that what he has put on that page isn't professionally presented (it comes off as a snake oil salesmen's pitch) but that doesn't change the veracity of his claims.

I haven't been burnind dvd for very long, but I noticed that the IBM "expert" also included cd-r for having a lifespan of 2-5 years.
I have about 100 crappy no name cd-rs that I made about 10 years ago with a "state of the art " Creative 1x cdr burner. ALL of these discs still play today. The only thing that happens when you talk in absolutes is you look like an absolute idiot.

Originally Posted by deadrats

over time, the silver dye loses it's chemical integrity due to repeated exposure to the lasers of optical drives...

Cite sources please. The intensity of the laser reading the disc is not sufficient to alter the chemical structure of the dye.

FYI I studied physics in college too. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing but if you want to get off sounding all important go right ahead. I can get into a degree pissing match anytime.



p.s. 8 years and counting for my CD-Rs, ain't reality a bitch.

DV uses D1 resolution, the same as DVD. It also uses a lossy DCT compression method, the same as DVD. DV camcorders do digitize using interfield coding when possible, but it is indeed mostly intraframe coding. If you encoded to ~25mbit mpeg with mostly I-Frames than you'd basically have the same thing (chroma sampling differences etc.) DV does handle interlaced sources better than mpeg2 but that stuff about losing half the picture due to interlacing on DVDs is just nonesense.

"Digital Copies" are not the "Digital Equivalent" to Your Original Film

again he is 100 percent correct. the term digital copy is a very misleading term and it's not readily apparant why unless you have a decent familiarity with math.

No one is saying that it isn't true. What is being said is that it is a meaningless statement since the same is true for all digital formats including DV. He's touting it as a reason to let him do the transfer instead of someone else, but he can't change this either.

I do believe that DV is a better archival method but that's not the point. The "secrets" he gives about DVD are mostly just wrong and the ones that are true also apply to DV.

DV is not "high resolution" either and its not a perfect digital equivalent of your film either. I'm sure you could also find a physicist who works for an optical media company who is willing to state that DV only lasts about 2-5 years too.

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

Originally Posted by cowgoo

I haven't been burnind dvd for very long, but I noticed that the IBM "expert" also included cd-r for having a lifespan of 2-5 years.
I have about 100 crappy no name cd-rs that I made about 10 years ago with a "state of the art " Creative 1x cdr burner. ALL of these discs still play today. The only thing that happens when you talk in absolutes is you look like an absolute idiot.

and i have a stack of cd's and dvd's that i have burned over the years that won't read for squat, maybe you got lucky, maybe i was unlucky.

Originally Posted by RLT69

Cite sources please. The intensity of the laser reading the disc is not sufficient to alter the chemical structure of the dye.

here's a decent site that explains how data is stored on a CD/DVD:

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/11/10/7/1

granted it's a bit old, but the information is still valid.

now i know this site doesn't exactly corrobarate what i have said but it explains enough so that if you know a bit about molecular physics or optical physics you should realize that the laser in an optical drive is strong enough to change the kinetic energy state of a silver molecule. these kinetic energy fluctuations result in slight variations in temperature within the dye, which eventually leads to mechanical fatigue of the molecules within a substance, or as i like to call it, chemical fatigue.

Originally Posted by deadrats

The Shelf-life of a DVD-R/+R is ONLY 2 to 5 years.

my own personal experience with all types of burnable media, be it cd-r, cd-rw, dvd+/-r dvd+/-rw is that they only remain readable for a limited amount of time, with my own experience being that a burned cd/dvd remains readable for about 2 years.

Bummer

Originally Posted by deadrats

note, this does not apply to media that is pressed, i.e. CD's and DVD's that are sold with data (songs, movies) already on them.

wanna bet!!
I have a pressed dvd that went to shit after a couple of years and the surface is PERFECT!! watched once and sat in my rack with all my pressed & recorded dvdr's.....
It all has to do with the quality of manufacturing regardless if it's pressed or dvdr's.

Originally Posted by deadrats

he is also correct as to how said media is manufactured, i.e. they have a layer of silver dye which undergoes a chemical change when exposed to certain types of lasers. it is this change in the chemical structure of the silver dye that represents the data you have stored.

Directly from his page....

on the use of silver dye based DVD-R technology

I think i'll e-mail him and ask where i too can find these silver dvd-r's...
Because he seem's pretty clear about that, and that's a pretty glaring typo if it is with his infinite wisdom....

Originally Posted by deadrats

if anyone doesn't know what they are talking about it is you, and the thought that you would insult me when you clearly don't have a clue is laughable.

Did i see a big STFU for someone else here from the earlier?
Here ya go

Originally Posted by cowgoo

I haven't been burnind dvd for very long, but I noticed that the IBM "expert" also included cd-r for having a lifespan of 2-5 years.
I have about 100 crappy no name cd-rs that I made about 10 years ago with a "state of the art " Creative 1x cdr burner. ALL of these discs still play today. The only thing that happens when you talk in absolutes is you look like an absolute idiot.

Thank You!!!!
I also have tons of cd-r's from that long ago that work fine, unless someone scratched or cracked them but mine all work fine.....
Better brands ? what is that ?
And back then you bought what you could afford!!
Damn, i remember my first 1x & 2x cd burners, waited for them to go down in price and paid like $450.00 for my fist one

Originally Posted by RLT69

Originally Posted by deadrats

over time, the silver dye loses it's chemical integrity due to repeated exposure to the lasers of optical drives...

Cite sources please. The intensity of the laser reading the disc is not sufficient to alter the chemical structure of the dye.

FYI I studied physics in college too. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing but if you want to get off sounding all important go right ahead. I can get into a degree pissing match anytime.



p.s. 8 years and counting for my CD-Rs, ain't reality a bitch.

It sure is

Originally Posted by deadrats

Originally Posted by cowgoo

I haven't been burnind dvd for very long, but I noticed that the IBM "expert" also included cd-r for having a lifespan of 2-5 years.
I have about 100 crappy no name cd-rs that I made about 10 years ago with a "state of the art " Creative 1x cdr burner. ALL of these discs still play today. The only thing that happens when you talk in absolutes is you look like an absolute idiot.

and i have a stack of cd's and dvd's that i have burned over the years that won't read for squat, maybe you got lucky, maybe i was unlucky.

Take better care of your things 8)
I was just bored and everyone else seem's to be doing quite well and i just wanted to throw in those couple of things

Cheers to deadrats for standing his ground! Although the gentleman trying to sell DV transfers on his web site DOES go a little overboard and tries to instill fear into passers-by with his claims, from my personal experience I have found that, although he exagerrates here and there, I think he's pretty dead on.

There isn't that much TRUE scientific evidence out there to cite when attacking or defending one storage medium over another. That is the problem. So you have to look at both sides objectively and compare the claims with your own personal experience. For me, there is TONS of anecdotal evidence and emperical facts that point to the failings of the dvd as a storge medium.

I have NOT ONE failed 20 year old VHS tape, NOT ONE failed 10 year old Hi-8 tape, NOT ONE failed 2 year old miniDV tape. BUT fully 15% of my 8x Taiyo Yuden +R dvds burned a year ago simply don't play anymore, even across multiple players. And I know for a fact they did originally.

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.

All of my archived video is stored on both miniDV and dvd, and I can sleep at night. I personally don't care much if I'm right or wrong about the dvd longevity issue. I just want to be able to say to anyone that asks that I took every precaution available when archiving my precious video collection. And I can.

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."

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

Mark