General discussion about DVD-media-quality and scanning

0 PIF sounds like many tries with burning and scanning, maybe both with very low speeds and a scanning drive which was forgiving :wink:

Were these old media also made by CMC? Or maybe Prodisc? Not sure whether Mitsubishi made 16x-media by their own, even the 8x-MCC I remember were made in Taiwan, only my old Sony DL 2,4x and Verbatim -R DL 4x were made in Singapur

You´re right if you say 2500 PIF total isn´t good, but if I compare with awful MBI and FTI media is it awesome.

If I compare with older media like my T02 or actual Ritek it´s not good. Can only hope the longevity is similar to older media, but I don´t trust MBI-made in this point, my MBI-made FUJIFILM03 is one of the worst media in this case

Can´t say much to the jitter, have many scans made with drives which don´t support jitter-scan. Any my experince is if the PIF increase the jitter als increase. No idea if the PIF max increase because jitter increase or conversely.

Most Singapore-made SL Verbatim’s were low-speed media, if my memory serves me right, these “holy grail” burns were only possible on CMC PAPA MCC 00x and early production TYG02. I have seen < 5-10 of 0 PIF results so this was a very rare thing to accomplish, however there were batches of PAPA that produced typical PIF results of 10-50 total.

And you make good with what you got. There is no other way, and staying within the constant mindset of “grass is greener on the other side” is a miserable way to live life. The current media is within the realm of acceptability and we ought not to worry too much about the scans, there is only so much in our control, if you know what I mean.

In my experience when scanned on desktop DVD writers (post-2005) the jitter tends not to affect PIF as much as it does PIE and even then only when it is excessively high (12% etc) that you get the tsunami effects. PIF can deteriorate but more often I’ve seen it stay the same as the jitter increased (between different burns, on the same burn it’s usually visible if there is variation, hence my emphasis on the stability of the jitter).

There is no direct correlation however and you should be scanning with jitter enabled as it’s supported on your BenQ and most Lite-On’s as well. Old Lite-On drives required 4X scans in CDspeed, and newer ones need a patched version but with it the jitter scan works perfect even on my iHAS B rev. drive (my newest Lite-On), not sure if it’s possible on rev F.

And if you have time then you could also analyze pit formation in much higher detail with TA Jitter scans.

My 124 F can do jitter-scans with ODC, but should I trust that? It´s to fast for a real scan, it´s like a quick-scan

I have some Benq 1640 and massive differences (>Q90 on one, POF on other 1640) on some media, so I use my Benqs only if I had bad/strange results with the Lite

I also used the 124 for scan >800 DVDs, so I wanted to stay with it because it´s better to compare.

The best scan I found in my collection was a T02 with PIF total 55, max 1, burned with the 1640 at 2005. But this is an exception, even with other old good media; I have also some with PIF total <200, but nothing with 0

These results are nice, but the more important thing is that the media is long time readable; but this is not easy to predict. But most of my DVD-media, even my burns from 2004 are in good condition, only FUJIFILM03 MiI and INFOMER30 seems to degrade fast. PRINCO and VDSPMSAB 001 still have to prove the longevity.

I don’t know about OptiDriveControl but on regular patched CDspeed and newer Lite-On you could run a utility that sets the jitter scan speed separate to the regular scan speed (Lite-On drives scan jitter after the PI/PO scan unlike BenQ). I have found BenQ scans to be consistent with Lite-On the vast majority of time, however the media I use is probably more stable than yours (I don’t like junk media, like Princos).

In the past 15 years of consumer DVD±R burning there has been like 3-5 people who have posted 0 total PIF burns so it’s hardly something you should expect to achieve. Anything <100 is absolutely excellent and is by itself worthy of addition to the burning hall of fame topics. I simply mentioned the thing as evidence to how things have changed in the past 10 years, these days you’d have very little chance to even get to lower 3 digit PIF’s with any currently manufactured media.

I think there is ample evidence that’s one of the worst media ever produced. I don’t think the latter was sold here but at least Princo CD-R’s degraded within months and their DVD’s have had such reports as well. If it were me, I’d throw them away and reburn any data that is on them, while you still can.

P.S. We really should move the discussion into PM’s or a new topic, since discussions in the scan topics are still against the section rules I assume…

I think as long we talked about MCC DVD+R it´s OK for this topic

I start a new topic here, but maybe we don´t have much to say atm :wink:

I think the reason for that rule was mainly the fact that it gets tedious to scroll through the chit-chat when you’re looking for scan results rather than relevancy to the topic at hand.

To that effect, @pepst if you see this, could you please move replies starting from #730 (below my last scan) to Tester’s new topic, if it’s not too much effort?

Posts moved.

2 Likes

Yep, 30s for jitter-scan could be. But this would mean it only measure jitter on some points of the disc or get I something wrong?

This is my only one I find atm scan with Liteon and jitter

But I don´t remember how long the jitter-scan took

The Jitter scan on my 624B is quite fast. ~15 sec I think for a full SL DVD.

In ODC you can set the Jitter Speed

My thought is that a full jitter-scan should be need same time as a full PI/PIF, so 15s can only be a partial scan.

The Benq measure jitter at the same time it scans PI/PIF/POF, dunno how it made this. Maybe it also measure only some points?

And how reliable a partial scan could be?

Yes, the LiteOn only measures some points, you can hear the laser unit moving step for step when scanning jitter.
I think that BenQ drives scan jitter over the whole disc, because the jitter graph is built so detailed when scanning.
But I never had a problem with a disc, where LiteOn showed a good jitter.

No such thing as a “full scan” on any consumer scanning drive, not for jitter or PI/PO. It’s based on a certain amount of samples which can be controlled to an extent with the scan speed. Otherwise if the results were lossless (ie. scanning every single pit or ECC block on the disc) it would not only be taking much, much longer but also there would be no purpose for scanning speeds, if it scans the whole disc either way then it makes no difference. Higher scan speeds mean much lower samples and significantly increased margin of error (usefulness).

The generally accepted scan speed producing the most comparable results for BenQ and newer Lite-On is 8x for DVD’s, on older Lite-On the recommendation was 4x. There is no wisdom in going above or below these generally accepted standards (unless you strictly want to compare to your own results, which begs the question, why bother posting them?).

But the point is that the jitter scan isn’t lossless either and is subject to fluctuation according to the sample size, and that is the case for both BenQ and Lite-On. Since jitter is a physical(-ish) feature there is an even greater case to be made for scanning it as accurately as possible, my recommendation is you set 4x as the jitter scan speed. As for the accuracy difference between BenQ and Lite-On, I will concur that BenQ appears to be producing much more realistic results and Lite-On tends to over-report the values for some reason, leading to bizarre results such as 16% jitter on many of today’s MBI-made media for example, which if accurate would have surely rendered that disc unreadable on most drives. So BenQ is a better drive for scanning in this regard, but Lite-On’s are also helpful in the sense that if it reports a good jitter value you can be pretty certain you’re dealing with a really good burn.

1 Like

So jitter scans with Liteon can´t be trusted because it´s to high? That would mean my posted scan here have very low jitter?

All scans I made in the past with my Benq are with jitter and I asked myself how Benq could measure jitter and PI/PIF at same time. But now it´s clear, the Benq also use samples, the difference to the Liteon are just the Benq need no extra iterations.

OK, if scan speed is higher it measure less samples; but is the result useless? If only samples measured there is always the possibility to miss critical positions/values. But I´m not sure whether the values differs so much in a area.

On most discs the difference between Lite-On and BenQ will be within ~0.5%, it’s more evident with really bad discs where both drives show bad jitter, in those cases I would trust the BenQ to be closer to the “real” measurement of the variation in pit form. But it’s kind of speculative until someone comes out with an electron microscope analysis of pits on a burned DVD and is able to compare that to the values produced by DVD writers… I’m just going by my viewpoint that 16% jitter on a DVD is so much above the margins laid out in ECMA specs that it seems like an unrealistic figure (for readable discs). BenQ can sometimes do it too, but Lite-On is a bigger offender in this regard.

As for the usefulness or the result, as I alluded to, it’s a subjective matter until you post them online for everyone to see. Some people will assert the conclusion that scanning at a higher speed creates a “tighter margins” situation, which supposedly eliminates more lower quality discs that would show comparable results at lower speeds but I don’t personally subscribe to that notion. I think higher speeds (less samples) only creates more uncertainty, not less since you are simply judging the disc by a smaller area where with a certain type of disc you may get unlucky and have more errors in those particular areas at higher speed while the burn quality is actually higher along the entire disc than the one you’re comparing it to.

But it’s up to each one of us to decide whatever works best for your personal use, however when posting scans online, I believe it is irresponsible to disregard the standard that has been used for over a decade now, and most agree is adequate. That simply adds confusion to those who wish to compare scans in a somewhat useful manner, and I also feel the same way about posting scans made on bad scanners like Optiarc, Samsung, Pioneer etc.

And finally, while it’s fun and all having these discussions about correct, accurate and useful ways of scanning the burn quality of DVD±R’s, at the end of the day it comes down to not amounting that much in the real life. It doesn’t tell anything about the longevity of the DVD (only speculation about behavior under already degraded conditions), and from the collective experiences on this forum, it seems like properly manufactured DVD’s tend to scan like the day they were burned even 10 years later.

Call me a Verbatim snob if you wish but I would take a 5,000 PIF, 11% jitter MCC 004 over a 500 PIF and 9% jitter RITEK G05 any day of the week, any month of the year!

I remember the begin of scanning, the 4x in old days and so on, but another point is the drives used long time ago are mostly gone and newest generations are not the same. So it´s not easy to compare a scan with a 124 F to a SOHW-1653 or LDW-811S

I see also differences if I compare my 124 F scans with a LH-20A1S.

I know the reputation of G05, but I have some 12 years old G05 which are still in good condition

This is my worst and only one which have degraded significantly, but still good readable

Scan 2007, but only at 4x:

Scan 2013:

Scan 2017

I had not much problems with DVD-longevity, maybe I will have soon with my experiments with PRINCO and VDSPMSAB 001. Till 2day I had only problems with FUJIFILM03 MiI, INFOMER30 and older DVD+R DL from Ritek. If I see higher error values at re-scan I burn them on a new media, the old media was still readable, maybe slow, but I can deal with it.

BD-R-media, especially from Ritek, is an other topic :frowning:

Found this:

I´m don´t agree with all assessments, butit´s a nice overview

Unfortunately it’s so dated as to be of little practical use, unless the buyer is shopping from a vendor that has unsold old stock that is included in the attached table.

After some confuse about the quality and naming of Falcon FTI media I asked Falcon about the quality grade. Here´s the answer

  1. Falcon media PRO Premium

  2. Falcon Media DupliLine

  3. Falcon Media ValueLine (withdrawn)

Falcon Media ValueLine as a brand has been withdrawn as it does not present any advantages to FTI.

The position of Falcon Media ValueLine was to be a lower cost solution for competitive areas of the market such as silver shiny and ink jet

Falcon Media Pro Basic was a previous change of brand name for Falcon Media DupliLine

Falcon Pro Basic

The Falcon Media DupliLine product is a Professionally manufactured disc which is aimed at bulk duplication customers, hence its name.

It is an excellent disc, sell without issue all over Europe.

Anyone ever had media from the brands Skytor and Titan? Made in Taiwan, so I guess it could be Ritek