Yeah, obviously all those comments eg. on videohelp.com are stupid lies…
Yeah, obviously all those comments eg. on videohelp.com are stupid lies…
If by “comments” you are refering to videohelp.com’s dvdplayers database, then use our search function
and educate yourself as to why this does not prove that - is more compatible.
Isn’t this straying from the thread topic guys?
Please do correct me if I am wrong but this is my understanding-
DVD-R was developed by a the DVD Forum. These are officially approved DVD discs-
Quote- “The approved recordable formats are DVD-R, DVD-RW and DVD-RAM.” www.dvdforum.com
DVD+R is a phillips/sony thing and are not officially approved but still work as well (nearlly as well, not as well…Better…WHATEVER !!).
Therefore as someone who produces a lot of DVD projects for mid volume consuption on burners I (we) need a legal assurance to stand behind when supplying finished discs.
If I duplicate DVD+R sl or Dl I cannot put hand on heart and say that these are officially compliant DVD discs. Therefore , in the case of incompatabilities I may be liable. But with -r I know i can say truthfully that if someone can’t play the disc then it’s cos the player is…blah blah… And I am covered. The argueing over which is more compatable is virtually irrelavent.
This is the problem as I see it , +r DL is fine for the odd disc, but for 200 on a 1 day turn arround we need -R DL - Can someone tell them to hurry the f up.
As i said - please do put me straight if i am incorrect
Oh this makes me laugh out loud. I feel another serving of political tension coming on.
As we say in Australia - its probably best they all just get over it.
I know I did. Quite some time ago.
> DVD-R was developed by a the DVD Forum. These are officially approved DVD discs-
> Quote- “The approved recordable formats are DVD-R, DVD-RW and DVD-RAM.” www.dvdforum.com
They were indeed approved but not developed by DVD Forum.
Note that DVD-Forum is (like DVD Alliance) a group of companies with economical
interests, it has nothing to do with official organisations which define standards
like NIST. DVD-Forum’s opinions could not prevent + from becoming the dominant
worldwide format, and they will not prevent Blu-ray from crushing AOD.
> DVD+R is a phillips/sony thing and are not officially approved but still work as well
> (nearlly as well, not as well…Better…WHATEVER !!).
A Philips/Sony thing like audio CDs, CD-ROMs and DVD-ROMs. DVD-R(W) is a Pioneer thing.
> Therefore as someone who produces a lot of DVD projects for mid volume consuption
> on burners I (we) need a legal assurance to stand behind when supplying finished discs.
> If I duplicate DVD+R sl or Dl I cannot put hand on heart and say that these are officially
> compliant DVD discs. Therefore , in the case of incompatabilities I may be liable. But
> with -r I know i can say truthfully that if someone can’t play the disc then it’s cos
> the player is…blah blah…
Not at all. The fact that - is a DVD Forum approved format does not mean that you are
legally covered for anything. In particular DVD Forum never guaranteed that their DVD-R/RW
discs would be compatible with all DVD players ; for instance the book type issue has
shown DVD players which are perfectly compatible with DVD-ROM standard (which is what
they are sold for), but not with recordable DVD formats. So unless your clients have
specifically bought DVD-R compatible players, compatibility problems are your responsibility
and nobody else’s. And your best chance to tackle such compatibility problems is with
+R discs with booktype.
> This is the problem as I see it , +r DL is fine for the odd disc, but for 200 on
> a 1 day turn arround we need -R DL - Can someone tell them to hurry the f up.
As you like, but with DVD+R DL you could have been shipping dual layer DVDs
for 6 months already. IMO it would not have cost you much to just give it a
try instead of waiting for Pioneer, especially since -R DL will very likely show
the same (or more) compatibility problems.
OK, whatever is more “compatible” or not, hopefully we see this new format coming out this year, same for drives, media & good reviews.
As for compatibility:
List of DVD Players Tested
AIWA XD-DV370 PHILIPS DVD 890 SAMSUNG DVD-S224
AOPEN DVD1648 PHILIPS DVD-640 SONY DRX-500U1
AOPEN RW125A PHILIPS RW 228 SONY DVP-F25
BTC BDV 316B PIONEER DCR-111 SONY DVP-NS305
FirstLine FLAVIO PIONEER DV-550 SONY DVP-NS705V
KENWOOD DVF-3530 PIONEER DV-656A SONY DVP-PQ1
LG DVD 4710 PIONEER DVD -105SZ TEAC DV-516E
LG DVD5253 PIONEER DVD -106SZ THOMSON DTH210
LITEON LTD-163 PIONEER DVD-500M TOSHIBA SD-125E
LITEON XJ-HD165H PIONEER DVD-U05S TOSHIBA SD-214E
MITSUMI DW7801 PIONEER DVR-7000 TOSHIBA SD-220E
PANASONIC DVD-RA 82 PIONEER DVR-A05 TOSHIBA SD-R1202
PANASONIC DVD-RV32 PLEXTOR PX-320A WAILE SFINX 16
PANASONIC DVD-XV10 RICOH MP 5125 WAITEC XFILE
PHILIPS DVD 723 SAMSUNG DVD-127 YAMAHA DVD-S520
PHILIPS DVD 733
Granted this was by no means a scientific test but nevertheless
the “-” format was MORE compatible than the “+”.
Before posting links to parodic sites, you are as usual encouraged to
use our search function. The silliness of this “study” has been explained
already in details in http://www.dvdplusrw.org/cgi/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=7662;st=0
A basic math course could also explain you how one can prove that +
is more compatible than - by removing a single drive from their results.
This article is very very funny and IMO one of the best to realize how clueless
and untruthful these people are. I can’t help posting again the best quote of this
crap, which is a truely brilliant piece of independent review :
“Pioneer Electronics is topping its already outstanding DVD burner (A05) with
the new Pioneer DVR-A06 DVD/CD writer. Being a “pioneer” in the area of DVD
recording, this company decided to launch this multiformat drive in order to
take the confusion out of choosing your next DVD writer. The new burner supports
all major formats. It is remarkable, and thus a clear indication of the very
advanced technology this company owns, the fact that it was again able to deliver
to market drives supporting formats which their “inventors” thus so far proved
unable to do so.”
Whoa! , Ok. Time out for a second.
Compatibility metrics and statistics ignored, you REALLY seem to harbour a resentment for those guys @ CDRinfo. Whats with the hostility?
“how clueless and untruthful these people are”
???. Hardly nice words. I do not see evidence of their forum chat bashing your forum or methods. Do we really need such a nasty attitude?
Well no not really. If one had been doing so, one would have been supplying discs with a very large failure rate in freezing at layer change which still continues.
This is a nasty attitude.
From Doom 9
The DVD Forum Steering Committee has decided the following audio codecs are mandatory on HD DVD: Dolby Digital Plus, DTS Plus Plus, 2 channel MLP (lossless), and DTS++ lossless is optional. In addition, the 12x and 16x DVD-R specs have been finalized, along with the 6x DVD-RW specs. A dual layer DVD-R spec version has also been approved, but since no recording speed is known yet, it might not be the last until dual layer DVD-Rs actually start appearing (while we’re at the subject: the 8x DVD+R DL specs should be finalized in January 05).
Well the DVD-R DL spec is approved, and they are working on 8x DVD+R DL spec. What is interesting no recording speeds for -R DL are known, I wonder if Pioneer et al may introduce at 8x for -R DL and jump the gun on 8x +R DL?
Wouldn’t that be nice?
The latest Plextor drive will be amongst the first to support DVD-R DL:
I agree that the - format is more compatable with older players, this is without any study. But, what I would say the bitset DVD+R to DVD-ROM, is more compatable than both the above.
The only reason - is more compatible than + is because - is older and thus more players can recognize it. The fact that you can fix + compatibility issues with bitsetting would suggest, I think, that physically, + is just as compatible, and the only difference is just a simple disc type recognition issue. In which case, it’ll make since that -R DL would be less compatible than +R DL. I’d wager that the whole compatibility issue is just a matter of time on market equating to a larger base of supporting devices.
With +R DL so well-grounded and with -R DL so far behind, I wonder why they even bother to try, except for political reasons. Whatever.
Case and point for my personal need for bitsetting being phased out.