Here's a short summary of my own UV exposure test results.
Do note a couple of things:
0) First measurement is before any UV exposure (other than out of the jewel case and into the burner). Second measurement is exposure after 60 days on a windowsill in Finnish summer, but inside of course. No high RH or high (surrounding) temperature exposure.
1) PIF cannot be counted as absolute. Those who you know my stance, know why. The numbers for the disc (reads) are comparable with each other within this test, but NOT across other tests. So, consider them 'relative PI failure averages across four drives'.
2) It's important to look at delta of change, not the final amount of errors only.
3) Couple of oddities: Philips -R 16x and esp. Gigatain +R 8x (TY fake) had a falling PI failure rate (that is, less PIF after exposed to UV). I have my own theory as to why, but don't want to spoil it for you yet :)
4) Why PIF? Well, it doesn't really matter if I used PIE or PIF. Averages or total with some statistical variance measure thrown in. They all correlate so strongly that the results are almost identical (corr >0.9).
5) Each disc was scanned with four drives, using same fw and same settings for each disc. Averages are across the four drives.
My apologies for the slightly unreadable graph. My excel graphing skills are not that good.
- Code: Select all
Budget DVD-R 4x Princo
MAM-E DVD-R 4x MAM4XG02
Fujifilm DVD+R 8x YUDEN000-T02-000
Gigatain DVD+R 8x YUDEN000-T02-000 (fake)
LG DVD+R 8x PRODISC-R03-003
Memorex DVD-R 8x CMC MAG.AE1
Ricoh DVD+R 8x RICOHJPN-R02-003
Samsung DVD-R 8x OPTODISCR008
Sony DVD-R 8x SONY0D81
TDK DVD+R 8x TDK-002-00
Maxell DVD-R 16x MXL RG04
Philips DVD+R 16x MBIPG101-R05-001
Philips DVD-R 16x RITEKF1
TDK DVD-R 16x TTH02
TY bulk DVD+r 16x YUDEN000-T03-00
Verbatim DVD-R 16x MCC 03RG20
Ricoh DVD+RW 8x RICOHJPN-W21-001
Verbatim DVD-RW 4x MCC 01RW4X
Verb.DVD+R DL 2.4x MKM-001-000
To me there are roughly three groups of discs in the test:
1) discs that withstand UV exposure very well (60 days during Finnish summer, when sun almost doesn't set is very cruel test)
2) discs that do stand some exposure, but clearly deteriorate
3) discs that do not stand exposure to UV well
Yes, the discs are old, many of them not sold anymore (at least where _you_ live) . This is the downside of doing a fairly big test like this (UV was just a small part of it) on top of one's normal day job.
In fact, I think this is the last test of this kind I'll ever do, unless I really find out a way to streamline the whole process to 1/5th the time or even less :)
I wish I had the possibility to test several disc samples of each type, from different batches and with several different exposure times, but time and real life seriously cut into what I could muster.