Best Buy has these for sale starting tomorrow 3/13/05. No rebate needed!!!
No problem. I try to find the best bargains and help people spend their money…
If you’re lucky, you’ll get Taiyo Yudens, too. Tell-tale signs would be the packaging where the lid and rim are flush, and, of course, the “MADE IN JAPAN” statement on the label, as well as right on the discs. I’m not sure who makes the Taiwan ones, but I love these. I found mine at the Best Buy in Maplewood, MN. Happy hunting!
I’ve bought Fuji +R’s during the last 2 Best Buy sales and they were all TY. I don’t recall seeing a single pak of + disks (50 or 100 pak) that were MIT, everyone I saw was MIJ.
The -R’s were a mix of MIT and MIJ. Saltydog is correct, the MIJ spindles were flush, the base didn’t stick out farther than the top covering plastic.
The 2nd image should be a -R 50 pak. Every +R 50 or 100 pak were in this spindle the last time I was at Best Buy and they were all MIJ. No guarantees that if it’s in this spindle that it’s MIJ, so always check, but the first thing I’d look for is this spindle and then check where it was made.
I still have 4 unopened 100 paks and 4 unopened 50 paks…must not go to Best Buy this week…fight the urge…
Here is a link to the media codes at www.videohelp.com for Fuji 8x + and - disks. I always buy + media since my home player won’t read - disks. Thank God for bitsetting…According to Videohelp.com Fuji 8x +R that is MIJ should be TY and if it’s MIT it’s Ricoh. It looks like they are starting to use ProDisc sometimes for the -R, ugh.
Can the hub # be seen through these cake boxes? TY is still TY, but 1125 and even 1133 T02s are pretty dissapointing. And at $0.40+tax/disc, they’re not exactly dirt cheap.
Yes, you can read the numbers - they will appear backwards. Look for the Longer Number. The last batches I’ve gotten have been TG001133 and TG001149; in the 100’s and 50 packs - all have been fantastic.
All the Fuji T-Y’s that I have are either 1125’s or 1133’s. I have been getting great results with them, as seen here; this is a scan I just completed…
Date : 3/13/2005 8:45:12 AM
Model : 1-0-0-0 LITE-ON DVDRW SOHW-1633S BS0K
Disc : DVD+R , YUDEN000T02 [Taiyo Yuden Company Limited]
Speed : 4x
ECC blocks sum (PI/PIF) : 8/1
Scanned range : 0 - 2286113
Sampling count : 121110
Errors : 0
PI Max : 29
PI Average : 3.14
PI Total : 55359
PIF Max : 2
PIF Average : 0.02
PIF Total : 371
And here is the chart, if I do this right…
(I attached the file, but I don’t see it yet. Hmm.)
I think that this is pretty good. I’ll keep buying them.
Why in the world are you posting quality scans in the bargain basement forum? There is a forum for this and it’s not here.
I think you might want to lay off the pipe, man. Holy sh!t.
Someone said the exact discs I had were “pretty dissapointing”, and I thought I’d add to the discussion with some actual FACTS. Besides, that png took up a whole 11 kilobytes; I’ve seen sigs and avatars that waste a hell of a lot more precious bandwidth than that.
One more thing. I see you’re a senior member here. I guess posting a lot, and not actual length of membership, gets you seniority somehow; I just read and learn - a LOT; probably why I don’t post much, since I find the answers I need, and understand them.
I just read your snide comment loud and clear. With member attitudes like yours, who needs trolls?
Back to lurking for me. Thanks for the warm welcome.
You have quite a way with words… and my number of posts has nothing to do with this discussion. My comment wasn’t snide, just to the point. Obviously you don’t have the capability to understand appropriate venues for your discussion, size notwithstanding. I’m glad you’ve learned a “LOT” since you pick things up so quickly, but maybe if you read the FAQ you would have learned more that you are showing at the moment.
I appreaciate the Fuji scan. Never hurt to see random quality check, even with good media. Have no problem loading the page, even with 56K connection.
The funny thing is, I posted my massive bandwidth-wasting scans as a way of validating your thread! These discs really are great, and here’s proof of it. Those discs, for that price, is a really great deal, as long as you don’t mind shopping at Best Buy.
Oh well, I’ll just keep to myself from now on. Oh, and I didn’t mean to confuse you with the oh-so-thinly veiled too much smoking reference… just a play on your ID, but it loses much if it has to be explained.
By the way, I have seen the scans show up both inline, and I thought as a clickable link. I was hoping mine would be as a link. It wasn’t. Shoot me.
I think it’s fine to post quality scans here, as long as they’re about these discs. Completely on topic, IMHO.
@saltydog - I have Sony 1125s that are crap, worse than some CMC MAG E01s I have; the Fuji 1133s I have, which are from KMart in the infamous 15+5 cake box, are only marginally better. I get better burns @ 8x on at least 3 different MIT media, only one of which is MCC003. This is surprising to me, as I have good-quality burners. I’ll try 1149 if I can find it, before I oficially give up on TY.
MasTRE: when you reference “Fuji 1133” are you writing about the four digit number or the last four digits of the longer number Fujifilm TG001133?
The TG001133’s that gave me great results - their 4 digit number was 1140. Now, I see that at my BB the Fuji MIJ are TG001159 with a minor number of 0501. These also just produced some great scans in the last few minutes. The longer number seems to be increasing with time while the shorter 4 digit number has no pattern. I don’t know the “proper” terms for these Fujiflim numbers ie; “lot”, “batch”, “major” or “minor” - I just understand big, little and shinny.
Yeah, I’m referencing TG001133; I believe this is called the hub #, and identifies what major manufacturing batch the discs came from. However, I do not know how wide the variance can be between the same hub #. I have Sony TG001125 that are my second worse media (2nd only to some TDK CMC MAG E01s that I’m returning) and the Fuji TG001133, that are a little better.
I couldn’t agree more with those that appriciate the scans being posted here myself. It IS in fact, appropriate to post scans of disks received FROM this supplier, FROM this lot with pertanant lot numbers included. I’ve not said anything before, but since the topic has come up here, I’ll note that I’ve found SEVERAL of your posts rather condescending, patronizing, and un-called-for. I’m sure you’re already thinking up your reply, but perhaps NO reply would show a great deal more maturity on your behalf, as, an old adage suggests, if one person tells you that you have a tail, you should laugh at them, but if several people tell you that you have a tail, you should LOOK.
I hope you find this opinion of mine usefull.
MasTRE: Here a scan from my TG001133 batch:
I would say that at least 95 percent of them have Total PIFs below 200 and all have avg PI’s below 1.00