I found this interesting test about both LF and LS, at Tomshardware:
I always thought THG was utter garbage. turns out I was right.
- Not available in North America
It seems you did miss the point about this thread, as it was only intended to call the attention to a review about two ways to label discs (LF and LS), as competitive techniques.
There was no judgement on any particular drive or reviewer’s site.
— at the end the guy even chooses the oldfashion hand written label, but here again its his individual option…
Thanks for the link/info, but their pic in the conclusion page makes me just laugh …and cry too.
Hi chef you’re right
Yesterday got some Fuji discs and hope I can get better than that too, if not it will be too bad.
Have you read FLASHs Labelflash/4551 test by a chance?
He has given some hints.
right, but if a review has such blatant errors it shows the person didn’t even bother doing a simple check for factual errors. if such is the case, how can you even be certain about the rest of the article?
As I said, took it just as an opinion.
chef, yes i read it, went through the link to NEC’s site and I’m curious about the results on these Fuji discs as are the ones prepared for LF.
Results on the data side didn’t surprise me that much as I use Yamaha’s Disc T@2 on CDs.
Ok, just made an experience with a Fuji LF disc.
To judge the results must say that its just a starting point, specially about choosing the images (light,contrast, etc. - much more can be done to optimize it, I’m sure).
Even this way, and providing under good lightning conditions, the results are quite good.
Tried to reproduce, but had nor the time nor the right equipment. So, colour balance was completly wrong.
Tried to adjust the image, but due to my dial line had to end up with a small size jpeg file, that doesn’t return the exact colours and brightness. and has also a lot of grain.
Hope it can give an idea.
Indeed looks much better like most other Labelflash discs I’ve seen so far.