I need Experts to Analyze these scans

jtardiou 2006-03-21 15:48:40 UTC #1

Ok I just don't get it. When I burn my copies, the Scan Disc Result is good. Wherever I store it - when I scan them again later - the results seem to get significantly worse..

Here are the results..

1) Scan Disc right after the burn..
2) After being stored in a DVD binder for about 4-5 days
3) Scanned right after the burn
4) After being stored in a DVD spindle for a few days.

WHAT IS GOING ON??? This is really frustrating, I just bought the drive (Sony 810A), crossflashed to a BENQ1640 w/ BSOB.

The media is Verbatim 16x Inkjet Printable. These are from two different spindles.

BTW this has happened on like ALL my DVDs. These are just two examples.

Thanks and best regards,
Jonas

_buck 2006-03-21 16:05:47 UTC #2

Well, your initial scans are very good. I'm thinking that rapid decrease in quality it probably just from dust, fingerprints or dirt. Do you closely inspect your media under a strong artificial light before scanning? If there's any dust, you can get rid of it with canned air.

Good luck! :flower:

karangguni 2006-03-21 17:01:13 UTC #3

When you scanned the discs right after a burn, did you give them a chance to cool off for a few minutes after the burn before scanning? Sometimes the dye still hasn't fully "cured" until the disc cools off, so scanning results might not be accurate.

jtardiou 2006-03-21 17:36:28 UTC #4

@[buck]: I take much care of my DVDs - I don't touch the bottom, etc. I guess I can try to clean them but I really doubt that is going to do anything. After 2-3 days, I doubt enough dust picks up to affect the scans...

What is the best way to clean the DVD+R's? Once again, because I make sure there are no finger prints and I don't lay my DVDs laying around - I don't think this is the problem.

@Karangguni - The DVD usually sits in the drive 10-15 minutes after it is burnt until I run the first scan. Are you saying the first scans are bogus and the real results are the later scans?

Wizzu 2006-03-21 17:56:31 UTC #5

One scan is missing, and it's difficult to interpret simple numbers from the stats.

About the first disc, you kept it in a DVD binder... and the media is printable... most probably the dreaded humidity problem. Let this disc rest in an open jewel case for an hour or two and re-scan it. I bet the result will look different.
Besides, binders can easily lead to scratches. Don't get cheap with DVDRs, they're not as sturdy as CDRs. Offer them proper storing (DVD-style cases), store these cases vertically, and you'll avoid many, many problems.

BTW you don't put sticky labels on these discs, do you?

About the second disc (in a spindle), no clue. All I can tell you is that media degrading this fast is almost impossible, unless it's been physically damaged, or warped.

I keep reading this here and there, but I have a hard time believing this as I never, ever experienced this. I scan everything just after the burn, and consecutive scans were never different (except for fast degrading discs like Ritek G05/G04). A myth if you ask me, but YMMV of course.

HarrySmiith 2006-03-21 17:57:02 UTC #6

I try to avoid cleaning if at all possible. If you leave a dvd with the burned side facing up over night you may find that the amount of dust that collects makes quite a difference. So I burn and then place carefully in a dvd case and then store. There is another point however. Scans are really only valid when it comes to determining which drive, dvd, firmware, speed combination is best for you. It is fun to get low scores - but not really all that important.

For testing purposes I have scratched TY disks, left them in the sun for days, submerged them in water..... the scans look horrible but the data could still be restored. Now if I had done the same to some cheapo bargain basement disks who knows what the outcome might have been

jtardiou 2006-03-21 18:01:39 UTC #7

@franksoy -

1 / #2 - same DVD copy

3 / #4 - same DVD copy

HarrySmiith 2006-03-21 18:04:26 UTC #8

Although I have DVDs which are nearly 4 years old I have only been scanning for
about 18 months. Even so I have scans for 1 year old disks which are just as good to day as they day they were burned. Like all myths this one has just enough truth to make it believable. Take some cheap disk and almost every scan will be different. A good disk will show less variability if scanned at different speeds and over time.

jtardiou 2006-03-21 18:19:45 UTC #9

Does your comp spec affect the quality of the copy?

Wizzu 2006-03-21 18:23:39 UTC #10

AND to check for degradation. Which is the case here. Re-scanning allows to determine that there IS a problem, whatever it is (unstable MID, physical damage, heat, condensation, scratches, warping, labels...).

Wizzu 2006-03-21 18:26:47 UTC #11

Not sure what you're asking

About your post #7, if you read my former posts carefully, you'll see that I had totally got that part. * at least I hope so: scan 1 & 2 are the same (first) disc, scan 3 and stats are the same (second) disc right?

You didn't reply to my question about sticky labels?

HarrySmiith 2006-03-21 18:31:00 UTC #12

I tried to do an on the fly burn ( one drive direct to another) and the results were not very good. even when I placed both burners on separate channels I could not get normal quality. So my guess is that a more powerful computer with Sata drives etc ( defragmented) may give a better burn. The smoother the supply of data to the burner the better in my view.

Wizzu 2006-03-21 18:43:40 UTC #13

Don't post comments like these in the Benq forum if you want to avoid lynching LOL

jtardiou 2006-03-21 18:45:20 UTC #14

@Francksoy - No I don't use Labels.

I label my DVD copies with Post-it's because I can't afford a printer now.

Wizzu 2006-03-21 19:03:53 UTC #15

OK now I remember you, you posted about similar issue some days ago. I thought your problems were solved, but it looks they aren't..

With printable media in binders, I'm not suprised by the apparent degradation (this is most probably reversible, don't panic), but in spindles, it's more strange.... could you tell us exactly how this very disc was stored in the spindle?

jtardiou 2006-03-21 19:36:06 UTC #16

I did some tests.

I burned about 6-8 DVDs and stored 2-3 of them in

A DVD Spindle
A DVD binder
A DVD Jewel Case

I've had trouble with all of them..

I don't know what you mean on to be exact on how I stored them in the spindle. I just put a few of them in a empty DVD spindle

_buck 2006-03-21 19:39:54 UTC #17

Hi Franck

I just wanted to make it clear, that in my experience, quality DVD binders are not problematic.

Below are before and after scans of one particular Maxell RICOHJPNR01 stored in a Case Logic 208 CD Binder:

Above is a scan of a disc burned in BenQ DW1620 B7V9 early June 2005 @ 4X and scanned immediately after burning

Above is the same disc scanned March 7th, 2006 in my DW1640 (9 months old)

As you can see, degradation is extremely minimal, even though it was stored in a binder for 9 months. However, I suspect most people don't use Case Logics because they sure aren't cheap! :disagree:

Wizzu 2006-03-21 20:26:44 UTC #18

[quote="'[buck"]
I just wanted to make it clear, that in my experience, quality DVD binders are not problematic.[.....]Below are before and after scans of one particular Maxell RICOHJPNR01 stored in a Case Logic 208 CD Binder:
[/quote]
The interesting word here is "quality". - just like with the discs themselves, actually.

May I add two other interesting words, vertical and horizontal. How are the binders arranged, how does a user manage it, makes a huge difference: warping is lurking around the corner...

These Case Logic of yours sure look good. But you also know how to handle media properly, I'm sure... that's why I almost always try to advise the safest methods.

_buck 2006-03-21 20:32:29 UTC #19

Yes, I guess I should add the binder was stored vertically.

jtardiou 2006-03-21 21:37:29 UTC #20

@[buck] - cool, I was looking for a quality DVD binder.

How much does the Case Logic 208 CD Binder cost? Do you know of any better ones?

sigh, if i ever get this problem fixed this is <: