Home News Reviews Forums Shop


24x DVD-Rs and 24x DVD+Rs

DVD-R/W, DVD+R/RW, DVD-RAM

Postby MadBurner on Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:54 pm

dolphinius_rex wrote:Blu Ray will likely be caddy based :wink:


It doesn't appear so according to the BDA:

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) and TDK have successfully developed a new hard-coating technology dubbed "Durabis" that makes the discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than existing DVDs, without requiring a cartridge to protect the discs. This development will enable manufacturers to downsize PC drives and lower their overall media production costs


MB
User avatar
MadBurner
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:00 pm

Postby dolphinius_rex on Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:56 pm

MadBurner wrote:
dolphinius_rex wrote:Blu Ray will likely be caddy based :wink:


It doesn't appear so according to the BDA:

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) and TDK have successfully developed a new hard-coating technology dubbed "Durabis" that makes the discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than existing DVDs, without requiring a cartridge to protect the discs. This development will enable manufacturers to downsize PC drives and lower their overall media production costs


MB


Oh? That's good I suppose.... those cartridges DO get expensive! :o
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R

The Progression of Computer Media
User avatar
dolphinius_rex
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Postby Ian on Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:56 pm

Like everything else with Blu-ray, the whole caddy/nocaddy is still up in the air. The few Blu-ray drives currently available DO use a caddy.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14883
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby MadBurner on Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:59 pm

I really hope they don't go with the caddy system. I never liked it with CD-R or DVD-RAM!

Too expensive and too problematic!

MB
User avatar
MadBurner
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:00 pm

Postby Nil Einne on Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:30 am

So they say now... (they always end up abandoning it tho).

It is quite common for the initial drives to be caddy based but I personally highly doubt it will be in long term. There is a reason why, despite the advantages, caddies have always failed. Also, I don't think it will make it much safer. Altho the number of cases is too small to be sure, it is believed the primary reason CDs (and DVDs if they ever) shatter is due to damage combined with the high speed. Improving balance may enable you to read at a high speed but it will probably not make it any safer. So unless you use kevlar reenforced caddies, it probably won't make much difference to the safety issue.

BTW, forgot to mention earlier, to my knowledge TrueX did NOT use multiple lasers, it used one laser split into multiple beams...
Nil Einne
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:42 pm

Postby dodecahedron on Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:19 pm

Nil Einne wrote:So they say now... (they always end up abandoning it tho).

It is quite common for the initial drives to be caddy based but I personally highly doubt it will be in long term. There is a reason why, despite the advantages, caddies have always failed.

true enough...
too bad.

Nil Einne wrote:So unless you use kevlar reenforced caddies, it probably won't make much difference to the safety issue.

oooh...sounds cool....then you can have the disc spinning at 900x :lol and it'd still be safe...

Nil Einne wrote:BTW, forgot to mention earlier, to my knowledge TrueX did NOT use multiple lasers, it used one laser split into multiple beams...

quite right. good of you to point out and correct that error.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie
-- JRRT
M.C. Escher - Reptilien
User avatar
dodecahedron
DVD Polygon
 
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2002 12:04 am
Location: Israel

Postby vinnie97 on Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:55 pm

Yes, thanks. I've heard of some recent technology that works in a similar fashion, actually. I think it's the holographic storage system currently in development by Hitachi, in fact...(correct me if I'm wrong).
vinnie97
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Ankerson on Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:01 pm

dolphinius_rex wrote:
Well, you know those Kenwood devices were an utter failure... they had very short lifespans, and usually when they died, they took whatever disc was in the drive at the time with them (by method of melting the plastic!). I had a friend who owned one of those drives, and lost a windows 98 CD when his drive finally died. Luckily, he was smart, and only used backups of his discs, and kept the originals in a safe place.



I still have mine...it's DOA, but I kept it, dunno why but I still have it. :o

Mine didn't even last a year, more like 6 months maybe. :cry:

I was a good idea though.
Plextor 40x CDRW
Plextor 24x CDRW
Plextor PX-716A 16X Double Layer DVD±RW
Pioneer DVR A05 4x DVDR RW
LG 16x CDRW
Sony 24x CDRW/DVD Combo (Laptop)
Asus E616P2 DVDROM

Super Moderator @ Hardware Central

Moderator @ H-kon.net
User avatar
Ankerson
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 11:10 am

Postby burticus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:39 am

I miss caddies. If they had stuck with it we wouldn't need jewel cases for cd's/dvd's. And as picky as some of my dvd movies are about an errant thumbprint, I think it would not be a dumb thing to use them on super high density media. But then again, if a disc lasted forever, no one would need to buy new ones...

I have cracked some super crap-o-media but never shattered one.

I don't think hard drives are a limiting factor in greater than 16x, just like everyone here has said they have more than enough bandwidth. Factor in burn-proof and that most people have a gig or more of ram and I don't see the problem. What I don't see is the point though, how fast do we need to write a single layer dvd? 5 minutes instead of 6? And I bet 24x burned movies will play in EVERY set top player with no problems. Right. Just like 24x burned audio cd's in my car that skip with every crack in the road.

The kenwood drives cracked me up. All my friends bought them and all of them died one way or another in about a year. Heard they were mighty fast when they were working though. Crazy.
burticus
CD-RW Thug
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 8:00 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Nil Einne on Tue Feb 01, 2005 5:56 pm

DOA means dead on arrival. If it lasted 6 months it wasn't exactly DOA.

In fact, if it died in six months, why didn't you return it? Most CD drives had at least 1 year warranty if I recall...
Nil Einne
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:42 pm

Postby Ian on Thu May 12, 2005 8:17 am

I don't mean to resurrect an old thread, but I think this applies to dolph's original post:

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20050512A6028.html

While 8x DVD+R/-R discs are the mainstay of shipments at present, Optodisc expects shipments of 16x DVD+R/-R discs to grow to 30% of the total volume next quarter, Chao noted. In addition, the company has succeeded in development of 20x DVD+R/-R discs and LightScribe DVD discs and has these products being certified by clients, with volume production likely to begin in the fourth quarter of this year.
"Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt." - Steve Jobs
User avatar
Ian
Grand Poobah
 
Posts: 14883
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 2:34 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Halc on Thu May 12, 2005 10:07 am

I'm perhaps one of the people who think that 24x format could indeed be good in some ways.

Not that I would necessarily be buying any 24x certified discs or burning at 24x.

However, looking at the mechanical quality of the current dvd:s: unbalanced, eccentricity off, varying thickness and whatnot.

By going to 24x the manufacturers would _have_ to specify much stricter minimum/maximum constraints for disc physical characteristics.

By doing this, they'd have to improve their production and QA, which could (at least in theory) trickle down to lower speed products as well.

Now, all this would benefit overall disc quality and the task of burners in coping with mechanically poor quality discs.

Many do not stop to think about it, but unevennes and eccentricity issues are one of the important contributors of jitter problems with high speed burning (and hence, rise in read error rates).

However, I hope 24x will NOT become the industry standard in a sense that everything below is abandoned. But it could help to make the disc quality specifications stricter (I hope).

As for writing speed: for me even going from 8x to 16x is not worth it for me. The quality sacrifices one has to make in most cases, are not just worth the marginal time savings for me.

Besides, my computer is fully functional all throughout the burn time. I don't need to burn a disc in 3 minutes. 8-10 minutes is ok by me. I'll keep working throughout the whole duration anyway and I rarely burn more than 3 discs a day (and even that is a rare occurence).

Semi-professional dvd-pirates might disagree, but then again I'm not interested in their opinions to begin with :)

regards,
halcyon
Last edited by Halc on Fri May 13, 2005 3:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Halc
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 9:13 am

Postby dolphinius_rex on Thu May 12, 2005 10:11 am

Wow! Even *I* didn't know that! And I speak to Optodisc on the phone every business day! (which is not unusual for me, because I do the same with Maxell and other companies too :wink: ).
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R

The Progression of Computer Media
User avatar
dolphinius_rex
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 6:14 pm
Location: Vancouver B.C. Canada

Postby Phoenix '97 on Thu May 12, 2005 10:27 pm

20x = 27,600KB/sec = crying hard drives. :(
Unless they all join hands and sing a RAID0 song. :p
Phoenix '97
CD-RW Player
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 4:11 am
Location: Winterpeg

Postby rugger on Thu May 12, 2005 10:48 pm

Phoenix '97 wrote:20x = 27,600KB/sec = crying hard drives. :(
Unless they all join hands and sing a RAID0 song. :p


Meh, you just get nero/whatever DVD program you are using to cache like crazy during the first part of the burn. With 512meg or a gig of memory, you can have most of the end of the burn cached before hard drive speed becomes a problem.
rugger
Buffer Underrun
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:58 am

Previous

Return to DVD Writers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2017 CDRLabs Inc.