Discussion in 'DVD±R media' started by alexzero, Nov 18, 2002.
What's the difference?
Well... for DVD+R, it says "description not available" so that doesn't help me a lot.
(He's got you there, Petteri)
-- mgb --
alexzero -- I'm just guessing here, but outside of proprietary formatting, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the two. They each hold the same amount of data, and I'd expect that the organic dyes used in both -R and +R discs is awfully similar if not outright identical. The same goes for the metal alloys used with +RW and -RW discs.
The 'format' of these discs are different because the 'plus' and 'minus' camps are locked in standards battle - each side wants to become the de facto *standard*. However, in practice, each format must adhere pretty closely to dvd-video standards (because that is what most people use then for I should think), and indeed, each side tries to be as DVD-Player compatible as possible.
The plus discs are generally more expensive that the minus discs, but I bet that overall, they're not one bit better. (or worse).
-- Mike --
DVD+R and DVD+RW are basically identical, DVD+RW just allows disc to be wiped and used again, just like CDRW.
DVD-R and DVD-RW are also basically identical, with same difference as with '+' formats.
DVD-R/W and DVD+R/W are physically pretty much the same discs, but how the data is stored onto them is different -- DVD+R/W's method is slightly more technically advanced than DVD-R/W's. DVD+R/W discs cost appx 2-4 times more than DVD-R/W discs. Both discs work on regular DVD players, DVD-ROMs and can be read with both writer types.
Basically we are in a similar situation as the Victor Home System (VHS) versus Betamax (Sony) battle 20 odd years ago (gosh, is it that long...)
To know which one will win may require a history lesson (or a crystal ball), Betamax, despite having support from the rentals community, better quality format, smaller more portable tapes, longer recording times, higher resolution and a number of other 'better' features (not the least notable being backed by the largest multinational home entertaintment corporation in the world) lost against VHS, which is only (relatively) recently being replaced by newer digital recording media (funnily enough, that brings us back to topic!)
What does this mean? It probably means that the winner is least likely to be the most technically advanced product and that there will be little logic to the outcome.
I use DVD-RW, by the way, Pioneer branded.
PS : dRD, I am very disappointed in you, about the glossary, I mean ;-)
Hey guys, give us a break, we updated 15 entries in the glossary this week and there's total 123 entries now But I'll fix the DVD*R/W descs shortly..
So there is really no reason why anyone should buy the + over the -, right?
Economically: no. But no one really knows who will win the format war, although when the dust has settled, I'm pretty sure that recordable DVDs are obsolete already and have been replaced by some other formats.
What an incredibly s-c-a-r-y (and bold) prediction, Petteri !! <you may be right>.
Here we all are, just now getting 'into' dvd-recordable, and already some of us are looking towards the future. What format will be the next big thing, when do you think it will arrive, and how long do you think it will be before it becomes both mainstream *and* affordable for Joe_Public?
Here's some more scary stuff for you: Despite my *delight* at dvdxcopy (regardless of whether I can run it or not on my Win-98SE), blu-laser has the potential ability to render dvdxcopy unnecessary. Why? Because of blu-laser's 30-gig-or-so capacity. With a bit of judicious formatting, one could theoretically put a half-dozen FULL commercial dvds on a single disc.
Of course, this would require a whole new generation of disc players. (Blu-Laser Video Player, or whatever....). And no doubt, with it will come a whole-new-set of user-restrictions and <D>igital <R>ights <M>anagement inhibitors.
Present-day dual-layer dvds have made life miserable for all of us "backer-uppers" - I crave the simpler days of the Big Red "RECORD" button. Could Blu-Laser be IT???
Another unrelated question (when you can get around to it, and btw, I'm glad to see you personally 'dabbling' in the Pink Forums again), would you consider making a general-purpose dvdxcopy section somewhere in here to help take some of the bulk heat off the Green Forum? Just a thought.
We (you/we/a/D) are progressing nicely, Petteri. We have the Pink room for overall, general audio/video issues, -- the core reason for a/D --; the Green room for dvdxcopy; and who knows? Perhaps there'll be a Blue Room for Blu-Laser when it arrives. What should we reserve the up-'n-coming Orange Room for????
-- Mike the Klingy --
Hi Mike, nice to see you in "pink room" again as well
The adoption of blue-laser technology will be, IMHO, _MUCH_ faster than anything what we've seen with current red-laser technologies and the reasoning behind this is one word: Japan.
Already the BULK (and I mean seriously, the BULK, appx. 60%) of the stand-alone DVD recorders are being sold in Japan, over 1M predicted to be sold this year and increasing rapidly.
And while Europeans and Americans tend to set goals for their digital TV adoption (that has really happened only here in the UK, where 65% of the population has digiTV), Japanese -- when looked back in the last 10 years -- tend to normally be the only ones to actually achieve their goals in technological sense. So, Japanese jump into high-resolution digital TV in 2003 spring and they want to throw their VCRs and existing VCD-recorders and DVD-recorders to some poor third world countries, such as U.S. or UK ;-) and move into high-rez recording. And I'm pretty convinced that this is exactly what will happen, if the consumer electronic companies don't manage to ***k things up totally in there.
So, yes -- red-laser DVD technology most likely has 3-4 years time left to breathe in most countries, but Japanese and probably some other quick-adopting countries will start pushing the blue-laser technology so that its price/gigabyte will drop below the levels of DVD-Rs and that's when normally the Western consumers start waking up.
And I'm not going to put the DVDXCopy into our "pink area", since I don't want to have any commercial bias in these forums other than the banners & normal stuff like that.
And yes, who knows what forums we'll implement in the near future -- the new forum area, digital camcorders, is an interesting experiment to see if it gathers interest/traffic enough to justify its existence. And OMG, yes, we are growing... The speed of the growth over the past year has been ridiculous, I remember when I posted a news article in last year's December that Nov 2001 was the first time when we got more than 1M page impressions in one month. Now even our "pink" room has almost 2.5M page imps a month
I just hope you'll have the resources (both financial _and_ mental) to be able to keep up with the traffic!
Interesting thoughts, those, on Japan. I'm guessing that blue-laser and real (I mean *true*) High-Definition video will go hand-in-hand. Right now, there doesn't seem to be a lot of impetus for HDTV except for the elite few who can afford it, and even then, there certainly isn't a whole lot of honest-to-god hdtv material around for purchase anyway. I think "The Boss" (Bruce Springsteen, <yuk> ), did an HDTV rock concert a couple of years back, and yes, the _Japanese_ folks did the Hi-Def recording of it. Bruce himself said, that the picture quality was *too* good, *too revealing*, *too* clear, and had to insist it be toned town somewhat to more closely resemble a "film-like" quality. (At least that's what I read).
Maybe blue-laser can/will change all that. I hope the Japanese will go easy on us when it comes to domestic pricing. (Yet another player/box to buy!)
And if we are going to be *cursed* with two or more freeking, competing blue-laser formats ....... Ouuuuuu !!! :-(
Continue backing up your dvds though. I'm certain the blue-laser players will be backwards compatible.
(OK, then, no dvdxcopy in the pink room).
-- Mike --
Separate names with a comma.