Double Layer DVD R

[Elspode]

Okay, tech heads...who here is doing any DVD burning with any regularity? I've got the single layer discs wired...four hundred burned and *one* coaster. However, I need to be able to burn DL in certain cases, and I bought my first 3 pack to try it last night. Result? One successful burn, one coaster, and one undecided as it is still in progress.

The problem is this...DL DVDs are waaaayyyy more expensive than single layer...disproportionately so. Therefore, burning a coaster is an expensive proposition (like, $3.00+ each instead of 35-37 cents each), and so I'm looking for a more reasonable DL alternative.

There is a newish brand out that goes by the name of Play-O, and they are selling online in multiples of 10 for $1.20 to $1.50 each after shipping. The problem I have is that ten discs that fail are not cheaper than two out of three that work. So...I'm looking for experiences, opinions and any other help determining whether or not this, or any other brand, is the way to go.

Oh...and while we're at it...can *anyone* give me a plain English explanation of the difference between +R and -R in all of its permutations?

Help?

[KinkyVixen]

I don't know all of the technical babble so none of that really makes sense to me. I do however burn CD's and DVD's like they are going out of style. I too have burned quite a few coasters, but I can say I have over 100 DVD's burned successfully. I've burned on almost every brand of DVD (DVD R) I haven't been able to get DVD -R to work. I've used everything from imitation DVD's to Sony, with the same quality. All I know about double layer DVD's is that the picture is supposed to be clearer and they take a little bit longer to burn. I haven't noticed a difference between double and single layer though, just for the record. Single layer is cheaper, and still works for me.

[Shocker]

Ok well here is what I know about burning DVD's. First off, all that stuff about DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD RW, etc. put simply is that it is just a different format for the dvd's to burn to. When DVD's first came out, different companies began to compete with each other to come up with the best dvd's, and as such different formats emerged. While there is no specific standard for DVDs, what you need to be aware of is 1) what type of dvd standard is your burner capable of writing to, most current burners can write to a number of different standards but not others (mine will do DVD+R and DVD-R for example, and can also DVD+R DL but not DVD-R DL). 2) you also need to know which standard your dvd player supports, and again, current players can read many of the most popular standards.

Without getting too complicated or detailed, the dvd's that are RW are able to be erased and written on again, and therefore use a completely different writting process and are made with different materials that single layer and DL discs. With my burner I can copy a DVD between 15-20 minutes with little or no compression when just writting the movie part, so there is no loss in quality of the movie itself. Using a DL dvd, I am able to make an exact copy of the movie with no compression, so no loss of quality, and I can keep extras and such. However, because your burner has to switch between layers on a DL disc, it takes much longer and writes slower than a single layer disc, so on mine it takes about an hour for a DL.

Single layer discs I use are just bargin bin Memorex and so far no costers for me, and DL discs I use are Verbatim that can be written at speeds up to 8x but I go slower to avoid errors. I bought my Verbatim discs at supermediastore.com and got 20 discs for about $47 including shipping so that is only like 2.35 - 2.40 per disc. Watch for deals cause they usually have coupons and discounts you can get.

Also, the programs I use make it burning dvd's really easy. I use AnyDVD for decoding the original and 1 click DVD copy. Together they cost a bit, but both are incredibly simple to use and also give you free trials to try them out. AnyDVD also gives you free upgrades for life, so if the movie industry comes out with a new protection for their dvds, you can be sure to have the most up to date software to get past that.

[Guyute]

Here it is in a nutshell:
when a laser hits the copy layer in the CD, it leaves a hole (like a lens will focus sunlight and burn a hole in paper). This creates pits in the copy layer.
would look like this if viewed side-on:--_--_---_-___--__---_-

+R means the info is the unburned layer;
-R means the info is the burned pit. Or vice versa? But that is what the technology does.

[Elspode]

Okay...so then does the DVD burner figure out what you're feeding it and burn the disc accordingly?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Guyute

Here it is in a nutshell:
when a laser hits the copy layer in the CD, it leaves a hole (like a lens will focus sunlight and burn a hole in paper). This creates pits in the copy layer.
would look like this if viewed side-on:--_--_---_-___--__---_-

+R means the info is the unburned layer;
-R means the info is the burned pit. Or vice versa? But that is what the technology does.

Sorry, no. Regardless of whether it is pits or lands, BOTH are necessary to for any information to be held. One (you choose) represents 0 and the other necessarily represents 1. It is just wrong to think one represents "info" and the other is, what, whitespace?

+R and -R are competing recording formats. From Wikipedeia:

The DVD+R format is divergent from the DVD-R format. Hybrid drives that can handle both, often labeled "DVD±RW", are very popular since there is not yet a single standard for recordable DVDs. There are a number of significant technical differences between the dash and plus formats, although most consumers would not notice the difference. One example is the ADIP system of tracking and speed control being less susceptible to interference and error than the LPP system used by DVD-R, which makes the ADIP system more accurate at higher speeds. Also DVD+R(W) has a more robust error management system than DVD-R(W), allowing for more accurate burning to media independent of the quality of the media. Additional session linking methods are quite a bit more accurate with DVD+R(W) versus DVD-R(W), resulting in fewer coasters due to buffer under-run and multi-session disks with fewer PI/PO errors.

There are some other places where you can safely watch the flamewars over the different formats, interesting if you like the smell of burning polycarbonate in the morning ("smells like...victory"). I couldn't care less, really. I just want to pop the disc in, press the button, and get the finished product to play in another drive. Don't we all?

In service to that goal, it does seem that the +R format has better press as to the error correction capabilities. And of course, it matters a lot what drive you're using. Some of the newer ones are ±R, meaning they'll eat what you feed them and poop out what you want. (ok, that analogy started ok and ended badly, sorry). It is most important to use the media that your drive requires (obviously). If you have a choice, from what I have read, the +R is more robust.

As to the difference in DL ±R, I think the case is even stronger in favor of the +R media, since the two layers need to be recorded to in equal measure in the -R layout. Since DVD players use Opposite Track Progression, that means that the burner needs to fill in a little at the beginning, and a little at the end, then a little at the beginning and a little more at the end, and so on. Seems thrashy to me.

This article is somewhat technical, but does specifically address the differences between the +R and the -R. The author is strongly in favor or +R. My best executive summary:

+R has a more robust (at higher speeds) method for determining the address of a given block. (ADress In Pregroove vs Absolute Time In Pregroove)

+R has a more robust error correction scheme. (Logical to Physical address translation for remapping bad blocks)

+R wastes less space on multisession recordings. (4MB per boundary versus 32MB to 96 MB per boundary)

He goes on (and on) and even says he's restricting his list of comparable characteristics. I read it and understood it, but I think the differences are largely academic since the article was written so long ago. The hardware has caught up a lot in the meantime and I think the differences are still true, but matter less. Good luck, Els.

[Elspode]

Dude...that was exactly the sort of info I was looking for, and precisely what I couldn't seem to find anywhere online. Guess Wikipedia never came to mind for me.

As I just replaced Mrs Elspode's dead DVD burner with a shiny new one just like mine, we are both now +/- compatible (she could only do - before), and so I shall grab me a short stack of +R double layers.