Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > DVD burning

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 7th March 2011, 18:48   #101  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
I'd wonder if it even matters. The potentially copyright infringing picture must be about four years old. I wonder if it'd look the same today.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2011, 12:26   #102  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Well I've just finished the world's least scientific study of disc longevity. "Least" because it's a small random sample and I've not really got any idea as to the horrors the discs may have been subjected to since they were burned. All came from the "poor burn" spindle but I've no way of knowing what the quality of each was like when it was originally burned. I thought I'd find older discs (I may have to search the house for them) so these only go back a few years.

One trend which seems to have emerged, all the discs seem to have deteriorated in quality but it would appear the ones which have deteriorated the least are Verbatim.
Admittedly they've all been subjected to wear and tear but what surprised me is this..... I don't keep all the bad burns, only the ones I think should still be usable, so once the quality has dropped too low (say under around 40% according to Nero CD Speed) I throw them away. Anything between 40% and around 90% goes on the "poor burn" spindle, anything above 90%-95% goes into the archive folder.

Running quality tests again today on a random sample of these "poor burn" discs led me to the conclusion that had the burn quality of the discs I tested been as bad originally as they are now I never would have kept any of them in the first place. Therefore they must have deteriorated. Many were so bad I doubted they'd be readable at all. This includes TDK Premium discs, TDK Gold discs (or pretty much anything using CMC MAG dye) Sony, Imation, etc. The brand I checked the most was Verbatim, mainly because there's a lot more of them than other brands, but they do seem to have deteriorated the least. In fact I only found one Verbatim discs which was of such a bad quality I probably would have just thrown it away if it was burned that badly originally. I can't say the Verbatim discs haven't deteriorated (they probably have) but it would appear that it's not as much as all the other brands of disc.

I've posted some rather distressingly "typical" screen shots below. As I said this is the world's least scientific disc longevity test but it makes me wonder what the average person's collection of burned discs must be like, given most people don't run quality tests after burning and most would own discs which have been subjected to similar wear and tear. I'm going to run part 2 of the test later. It'll involve exactly the same random testing, but this time I'm going to pull random samples of discs from the "good burn" folder. Unfortunately 99% of those discs are Verbatim but there's other brands scattered in amongst them. It'll be interesting to see if there's any pattern in quality when testing discs which I know would have been of a good quality when originally burned, and which have led a sheltered life in storage and hardly ever been used.

For the record I checked 1 X Benq disc, 2 x Imation, 1 x No-Name (CMC MAG), 1 x No-Name (Prodisc), 1 x Sony, 4 x TDK Gold, 2 x TDK and 6 x Verbatim. As I said.... hardly scientific.

There was one other interesting result and I'm not sure if it's thrown a spanner into my test results. I only tried it with two of the discs.... mainly because it didn't occur to me to try until I'd almost finished.... after running the quality test on the TDK Premium disc and the No-Name (Prodisc) below with their 0% quality score I tried copying the files from the discs to my hard drive. What surprised me was the same drive I used for running the quality tests (Pioneer 112D) copied every file from the TDK disc in around ten minutes. In fact watching the copying process it appeared to pull all the files off the disc without missing a beat. It copied every file from the No-Name Prodisc as well, although it was obviously struggling towards the end of the disc.
I don't know what to make of that.... whether the drive is a really good reader, whether it's not reporting errors as accurately as I thought it did, or whether the quality of the burn really doesn't have to be anywhere near as perfect as I've assumed it does.....

Benq


Imation


No-Name (Prodisc)


Sony


TDK Gold


TDK Premium


Verbatim (Although I had to test quite a few to find one this bad)

Last edited by yetanotherid; 8th March 2011 at 12:31.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2011, 13:17   #103  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
Excellent post.
As I said before, the maximum allowed values (280/4) are very much conservative, many drives around can read bad disks quite speedy. That's why the tests are almost irrelevant, in the sense that they are not repeatable (they are drive dependent). If one keeps a single drive and runs the test in exactly the same conditions, the results, although not official, can be considered to be a measure of quality (lower PI/PO = good, higher PI/PO = bad). How much these values can go up without adversely affecting the reading (bad sectors) depends entirely on the reader (every reader is obliged by the standard to perfectly read any DVD that has PI/PO less or equal to 280/4, less than 8% jitter and so on). What goes beyond is a courtesy of the manufacturer.
One should also consider the availability of a reader, higher speed readers generally yield higher errors than low speed ones.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2011, 13:33   #104  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Maybe my overly paranoid view of the need for high burn quality comes from a DVD player I used to own years ago. It's the main reason I started on my "re-burn everything, must be good quality crusade", as it was terrible at reading anything but good quality discs (it'd stutter or the picture would become blocky etc). However despite the burn quality tests I ran today being so poor, nobody in the house has ever complained about a current DVD player not being able to play any of those discs. And my Pioneer drive could pull the files off them even though it had to slow down to read the end of the second disc.
And of course I've been given discs burned by other people on many occasions (got to love laptop DVD burners) which have presented quite a struggle to copy their files, even with a PC's drive.... oh well, I guess even if I've been overly paranoid at least I should be assured the discs I keep will last a long time..... and I'm starting to feel more confident that even the bad burns Wantangobi posted (which are excellent compared to the discs I just tested) should be readable for many years to come.

Anyway.... I'll run some more tests on my good discs a little later as I'm curious as to what the results will be.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2011, 13:39   #105  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
I just ran two more burn test on a couple of Laser discs. These were actually fakes which had a MCC ID but which didn't use MCC dye. As a result the burns were generally quite poor but I did find a couple which I'd kept to put on the "poor burn" spindle (I didn't keep even the good burns on those blanks for archiving).
Oddly enough, they don't appear to have deteriorated much at all. Go figure....
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2011, 16:22   #106  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
I must have done a bit more experimenting with different brands originally than I remembered. When I pulled out the oldest folder of "good burn" discs there was more of a mixed bag inside than I expected.

Some of them actually gave me a bit of a scare. For instance a couple of discs dropped to 50% near the end of the burn, but after cleaning off the fingerprints they stayed above 90%. That then got me wondering about the previous burn tests and all the handling those discs have endured. Even though I wiped the worst of the fingerprints and smudges off before testing them, it made me wonder if they'd have tested a lot better if I'd put them through a disc cleaner first, and whether underneath the scuffed plastic the burns were actually still okay.

So after all my messing around today I'm not sure if it achieved anything. There's no point uploading screen shots of the oldest "good burns" as they still look good, and I tested Benq, Prodisc, Ricoh, Sony, Taiyo Yuden, TDK and Vebatim discs. None really showed any signs of deterioration although they're all almost the same age as the previous discs. It leaves me pretty convinced most discs, especially good quality blanks, should last a long time in storage but it's obvious discs which are being used rather than stored can in fact deteriorate quite a bit. I just don't know whether the fact that they weren't as good a quality to begin with would cause them to deteriorate quickly, or whether under the scuffed plastic they haven't deteriorated as much as the quality tests indicate they have.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2011, 00:21   #107  |  Link
Wantangobi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9
Thanks for the tests yetanotherid

My worst disc

Scandisc of it

It can still be read from. But I had to make a 3rd attempt for a few files to copy over.
The disc was never used after burning and it's only 3 months old.
It was my high speed burn test on my old drive. The other were all 2x, this one was 8x.

I had some CD-RWs almost go bad on me a long time ago(Cyclic Redundancy check errors). Unstopable Copier managed to pull the uncooperative files off them. But that only works for media. Something like a game backup would probably not work unless the flaws were in the movies or sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
once the quality has dropped too low (say under around 40% according to Nero CD Speed) I throw them away.
Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.

Last edited by Wantangobi; 9th March 2011 at 00:49.
Wantangobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2011, 09:59   #108  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,234
DVD +R vs DVD -R ...
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2011, 11:27   #109  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wantangobi View Post
Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.
Forget about %, try to keep the errors at a minimum, and get rid of the Optiarc. Since Pioneers are no longer in the DVD business, so the Plextors, get yourself a LiteOn or an LG. LiteOn for its ability to use Kprobe2 or LGs for good burns and very good (best ??) readings.

PS: Was this a fake Verbatim?
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2011, 15:30   #110  |  Link
kypec
User of free A/V tools
 
kypec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SK
Posts: 830
@yetanotherid: Ghitulescu's chart of DVD burners reading abilities comes from http://www.diit.cz formerly known as http://cdr.cz. Unfortunately it's very old and I couldn't find it there but I'm sure the authors wouldn't mind him posting one summary over here
kypec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2011, 09:22   #111  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
Yes, the reading capabilities is sort of old, but I haven't seen so many new burners on the market, so it is still of a certain relevance. I don't think all of modern users have now BD-burners to burn DVDs.

Bottom line: when using a NEC ND-3540A to assess the quality of a disk, be prepared to have higher PI/PO than using a Plextor PX-750 or any LGs.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 04:40   #112  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wantangobi View Post
Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.
Near the bottom right corner. It's called a quality score. Your last screenshot was 0%.
Don't necessarily forget about %, and of course the desire to keep errors at a minimum would be stating the obvious. The % figure isn't really an average or anything like that. If you watch it change while you're scanning you'll see what I mean and why I say 95% is my rule of thumb.

I own a non-Pioneer, Pioneer burner. It's as good a burner as the previous Pioneer, Pioneer burner, if not a little better. Like all newer Pioneer burners though, you can't run burn quality tests with it.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 04:42   #113  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by kypec View Post
@yetanotherid: Ghitulescu's chart of DVD burners reading abilities comes from http://www.diit.cz formerly known as http://cdr.cz. Unfortunately it's very old and I couldn't find it there but I'm sure the authors wouldn't mind him posting one summary over here
It was just my little dig given copyright was the excuse given by Ghitulescu for not backing up claims made earlier in the thread, yet he later posted someone else's image.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 08:29   #114  |  Link
Wantangobi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
get rid of the Optiarc. [...], get yourself a LiteOn or an LG. LiteOn for its ability to use Kprobe2 or LGs for good burns and very good (best ??) readings.
Remember that all these really bad discs are from my old Samsung drive. This Sony drive is averaging pi/pif scores that are well within what cdfeaks considers good but non-archive quality.
I'm fine with the new drive. These new discs have %2 the errors of the old ones(that still work, btw). Maybe one file won't be readable in 10+ years. I'll survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
PS: Was this a fake Verbatim?
I bought them on Newegg last year. I wouldn't know how to tell if they were fake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
Near the bottom right corner. It's called a quality score. Your last screenshot was 0%.
Now I see it
Thanks.

Last edited by Wantangobi; 11th March 2011 at 08:32.
Wantangobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 08:49   #115  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
@yetanotherid:
I prefer not to engage a legal debate with a company, it's much easier to fight an individual, with the same money level as I have.

Besides I don't have to explain you my assertions. And I don't wanna spend money teaching you things, mostly because you seem to be such an expert. You wanna learn, use your own money, buy yourself information. I'll give the links for the articles, have fun, they are in German.

For free: non-Pioneer Pioneer burners are made by QSI.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 13:51   #116  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
@yetanotherid:
I prefer not to engage a legal debate with a company, it's much easier to fight an individual, with the same money level as I have.
That's a fresh excuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Besides I don't have to explain you my assertions. And I don't wanna spend money teaching you things, mostly because you seem to be such an expert. You wanna learn, use your own money, buy yourself information. I'll give the links for the articles, have fun, they are in German.
No, you're getting it the wrong way around again. I don't have to believe your assertions unless you offer proof, which you've failed to do, so I don't.
I'm not an expert, you're a "can't be wrong". Which is probably why you avoided yet another question and didn't explain why anybody would be expected to understand what you're referring to when you call a Sony Optiarc an NEC burner.

Last edited by yetanotherid; 11th March 2011 at 14:03.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 13:58   #117  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wantangobi View Post
This Sony drive is averaging pi/pif scores that are well within what cdfeaks considers good but non-archive quality.
The screen shot you posted can't be far off it. What do they consider to be archive quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wantangobi View Post
I bought them on Newegg last year. I wouldn't know how to tell if they were fake.
I've not seen any fake Verbatim discs as such (although maybe they exist) but I've seen other no-name brands which have the Mitsubishi MCC ID but obviously they don't really use the Mitsibishi dye.
There's some info here regarding the different dyes used on different brands of discs.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/reviews/dvd-media.htm
You can see the disc ID near the top right side of the Speed Disc window, in the "Disc Info" section.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 14:06   #118  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
It's not your thread, it's not you the one who asked for info, I have no obligations to you. Please stop this nonsense.


You have one burner, one brand of disks, yet extrapolate the "results" to an axiom.
On the other hand, I own some 50 optical units, and burn optical media probably longer than your mental age (I witnessed each and every optical disk birth, including types you never heard of, like PD, and I think I have quite a good perception of their quality decline). I always selected the best media possible, but I also tried nonames only to check whether it's worth paying the name for Verbatim, TDK & Co. Except for one type, it was worth.
And you want me to convince you!? No way. Start your own thread and I may answer, erh, sorry, you know everything, of course, you have nothing to ask.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 15:00   #119  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
It's not your thread, it's not you the one who asked for info, I have no obligations to you. Please stop this nonsense.
I never said you did. If you want to make claims you won't back up and the end result is you're not taken seriously, that's up to you. If you want to call someone dumb and then not acknowledge it when you were wrong because you're a know-it-all, that's also up to you.
Please stop playing the poor little victim because the moral high ground you seem to think you're posting from is just a delusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
You have one burner, one brand of disks, yet extrapolate the "results" to an axiom.
Has the dementia taken a firmer grip or do you recall how many different types of discs I posted in my last lot of quality tests. I've done exactly the same experimenting as you've done even though my part of the discussion mainly involves Verbatim discs, which I use the most, and your claim Verbatim's quality has dropped. Deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
On the other hand, I own some 50 optical units, and burn optical media probably longer than your mental age (I witnessed each and every optical disk birth, including types you never heard of, like PD, and I think I have quite a good perception of their quality decline).
Yeah, yeah.... and you've continually ignored requests to post burn tests which prove your claims, yet you now point out you're in a better position to do so than I am. Quack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
And you want me to convince you!? No way. Start your own thread and I may answer, erh, sorry, you know everything, of course, you have nothing to ask.
I don't care whether you convince me or not, I just won't take you seriously.
And give the "start your own thread" nonsense a rest. It just makes you look more like a know-it-all. Go and start your own forum and moderate it to your hearts content if you won't be disagreed with and always need to be right. Until then accept that you're not always going to be agreed with, especially when you selectively ignore questions and won't offer the proof you claim to have.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2011, 15:19   #120  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
... and your claim Verbatim's quality has dropped. Deal with it. ..
I haven't said that Verbatim dropped quality, I said all DVDRs dropped quality, and Verbatim is no exception. My 20 years experience with burning told me this. And really feel sorry for you if you cannot grip that quality is more than PI/PO values, or your interesting 95% limit. As independent longevity tests showed several times, disks that cut perfectly during burning couldn't be read afterwards, while disks that were not so brilliant in terms of PI/PO, withstand much much better and be still within the specs. Which I think is exactly what the OP asked. There are not so many dyes around, (I assume) you know, so there are other factors besides who manufactured the dye, who manufactured the stamper and who relabelled it. And of course, (I assume) you know there is also Gold/Alu layers, not only Alu.

And most people that claim that the DVDR must be burned at 16x because that's why is 16x written on them, and that the burners are designed to burn at 16x, or the same argumentation for CDR, they simply measure, if, the PI/PO (E21/E31 for CDR) but they don't have access (or time) to measure the jitter, which is higher at higher speeds, especially where the writing speed changes (also higher PI/PO, too). Those people don't come back to say, well, you know, my 16x (or 24x) disk just died, two weeks ago, God know why, it had such beautiful PI/POs.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.