Computers & Electronics

Dual layer DVD discs

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 21st, 2005 11:08 am
Tags:
None
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
19712 posts
13576 upvotes
Ottawa
AL3X wrote:I decided not to pay a bit more for a dual layer dvd burner, and just stuck with single layer, because even tho i burn upwards of 20 dvds a month, i dont think i will find a lot of use with dual layers. I will get the sides confused, and i would be paranoid about scratching one or the other's sides
There are two layers on one side. So you don't flip the disk. You can store 8.5 GB on EACH side.

Single layer disk. 4.7GB on one side.
Dual layer disk. 8.5GB on one side.
Please update your profile to include your city https://forums.redflagdeals.com/ucp.php?i=ucp_profile&mode=profile_info
Deal Guru
User avatar
Apr 4, 2001
11802 posts
620 upvotes
Ojam wrote:Its really no different then single layer, just that the top layer on a dual layer disc the top layer is just slightly transparent (just enough for the laser to go through) so really when it comes down to its, they are do different then a single layer disc. Simply bio dye.
Looks like they may need your help, then.

Consider:
When we asked manufacturers about the delay in their DL media, they reported that generating DL media in mass quantities is far more complicated than regular CD-R and CD-RW discs, and it requires quite a bit of financial resources in the production stage. The failure rate of DL disc in production is also one of the highest among all media variations, which also explains higher prices for these products.
source: http://cooltechzone.com/index.php?optio ... 8&Itemid=0
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 14, 2003
14325 posts
1241 upvotes
mbg wrote:Looks like they may need your help, then.

Consider:



source: http://cooltechzone.com/index.php?optio ... 8&Itemid=0
Fail rate at production. That means they are throwing away a lot of discs so they need to make up the waste at the retail end. They are difficult to make simply because the transparency needs to be perfect in order for the laser to see through. That Article should make you feel better since they have the QC measures in place to catch the bad discs before they are sent to the store shelves.
Science
is the new
rock 'n'
roll.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 14, 2003
23140 posts
202 upvotes
mbg wrote:What I was really asking was... would you TRUST dual layer media with your archived data? Would you trust the longevity of dual layer media as much as you trust the longevity of single layer media?
I don't even trust putting archived data in regular DVD disc. If it is important, it goes to DVD-RAM disc or CD-R (if it is small).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 13, 2002
19368 posts
1071 upvotes
If the prices of DL do not come down fast enough, BluRay (or HD-DVD) will probably take the market by storm ... DL will just be another brilliant idea in the history book ...
Deal Addict
Dec 10, 2004
3130 posts
1 upvote
gman,
Is DVD-Ram less prone to copy file errors or/and error correcting method is better? or do the disks just last longer than regular DVD discs?

I ask since the primary use of the DVD burner I am waiting to buy (pioneer A09) will be used to archive files many different types of files.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 20, 2004
4451 posts
250 upvotes
The Digital Dolphin wrote:Because with DVD Shrink you can do an almost lossless compression down to a DVD5.
IMO, that comment is very much up to debate. Having said that, yes I've used DVDShrink many times, when "backing" up original DVD9's to DVD5, but there is always "loss" in terms of audio and video. It really ends up being, does the difference really matter to you? Does it detract enough to affect your viewing?

Now if you are saying, that you compressing the entire DVD9 onto DVD5, (with all features and extras), with DVDShrink there will be tangible loss in video clarity and audio.
I notice it myself everytime I compress the disc, and the larger your viewing screen (bigger tv) the more magnified the visual artifacts/ loss of color are.

Most of the "Releases" you see online, are done with either the BIG 3 Method for compression and with several passes of CCE (usually at least 6) thats why their compressions appear so much better than "Shrinked" ones. The only reason people don't use this instead is because it's not a 'one-click program' and it takes more processing time/power.

Don't get me wrong, DVDShrink is more than acceptable, but it sure isn't as close to loseless as possible. It's more a happy medium between compression speed/quality.

Here's an earlier post I made about the topic:
http://forums.redflagdeals.com/showpost ... stcount=20
.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)