Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Burning DVDs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 4, 2005 12:22:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make sure
that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive disks
better? One manufacturer over the others?

Thanks.

More about : burning dvds

February 4, 2005 12:56:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Shelf life of a DVD is approx 100 years. Once it's burned and done, it's
done. Unless of course it's a DVD/RW. Then it can erased (electronically)
and then burned again.

"Jeff" <jt5333@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yeWdnUArC_PFQZ_fRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make
sure
> that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive
disks
> better? One manufacturer over the others?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 12:56:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
news:1105p2ca7uueeac@corp.supernews.com...
> Shelf life of a DVD is approx 100 years. Once it's burned and done, it's
> done. Unless of course it's a DVD/RW. Then it can erased (electronically)
> and then burned again.
>
> "Jeff" <jt5333@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yeWdnUArC_PFQZ_fRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> > Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make
> sure
> > that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> > long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive
> disks
> > better? One manufacturer over the others?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
Before you bet the bank on that 100 years idea, you might want to do
some research in some of the groups like alt.video.dvdr or some of the
other groups or snoop on http://www.videohelp.com There have been
quite a number of reports from people seeing less than a year life time
before getting read errors on some of the supposedly better quality
media. It seems to be a moving target as to what is best. Taiyo Yuden
seems to get consistently good comments. Do NOT put adhesive
labels on the DVD's -- numerous people have complained of increased
read errors when the DVD's have the stick on labels on them (even
when carefully placed).
Related resources
February 4, 2005 1:07:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:22:15 -0500, "Jeff" <jt5333@comcast.net> wrote:

>Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make sure
>that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
>long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive disks
>better? One manufacturer over the others?
>
>Thanks.


See here
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php?ID=11073

also here
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116473,00.asp

Personally I use NASA's technique (Triple redundancy).
-One copy on my computer.
-One copy on a large external HDD that only gets hooked up for
backups.
-One copy on CD or DVD, stored in a cool dark location.

As technology progresses items have been re-copied onto other media
(for example a number of CD's got recopied onto a fewer number of DVD
discs).


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
February 4, 2005 1:09:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Check with your burner's manufacturer to see if there are recommend
discs. Shelf life is pretty irrelevant because within a very few years
there will be new media and technologies promising greater capacity. The
important thing is to burn without errors and then store them carefully.
If you're really worried make a backup. FYI, old cdrw's that I cut
seven-eight years ago are perking along just fine, as are a first
generation of cdr's. From my personal experience, there has been little
difference between brands.

xman@thedripper.com wrote:
> Shelf life of a DVD is approx 100 years. Once it's burned and done, it's
> done. Unless of course it's a DVD/RW. Then it can erased (electronically)
> and then burned again.
>
> "Jeff" <jt5333@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yeWdnUArC_PFQZ_fRVn-2w@comcast.com...
>
>>Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make
>
> sure
>
>>that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
>>long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive
>
> disks
>
>>better? One manufacturer over the others?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:07:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeff wrote:

> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make sure
> that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive disks
> better? One manufacturer over the others?
>
> Thanks.


Hi Jeff...

Just one old guys opinion, if I may...

The cost of blanks is virtually nothing, so burn several
identical copies of each "set". Choose different manufacturers.

Then to further improve your security; spread them out.
One copy for you in your home; one copy for your daughter
in her home; one copy for your son in his, one copy for
storage only tucked away on the top shelf of a closet or
wherever in a neighbor's home. This protects you not only
against "regular" failure, but also against fire, theft,
vandalism, water, etc.

Then both you and your family check once in a while for
data integrity. As soon as one of you notices a flaw
developing it's time to redo them all.

Like I said, just my 2 cents...

Ken
February 4, 2005 6:07:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I agree with Ken's advice except I might add one thing. If the pics are
really important, use a regular DVD and not a RW.

Joey


Ken Weitzel wrote:

>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to
>> make sure that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't
>> run into long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more
>> expensive disks better? One manufacturer over the others?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff...
>
> Just one old guys opinion, if I may...
>
> The cost of blanks is virtually nothing, so burn several
> identical copies of each "set". Choose different manufacturers.
>
> Then to further improve your security; spread them out.
> One copy for you in your home; one copy for your daughter
> in her home; one copy for your son in his, one copy for
> storage only tucked away on the top shelf of a closet or
> wherever in a neighbor's home. This protects you not only
> against "regular" failure, but also against fire, theft,
> vandalism, water, etc.
>
> Then both you and your family check once in a while for
> data integrity. As soon as one of you notices a flaw
> developing it's time to redo them all.
>
> Like I said, just my 2 cents...
>
> Ken
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:11:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

xman@thedripper.com wrote:

> Shelf life of a DVD is approx 100 years. Once it's burned and done, it's
> done. Unless of course it's a DVD/RW. Then it can erased (electronically)
> and then burned again.

Hi Xman...

I sure hope that you aren't betting the farm (or your
priceless pictures :)  on that 100 years idea...

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 1:22:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <yeWdnUArC_PFQZ_fRVn-2w@comcast.com>, Jeff
<jt5333@comcast.net> wrote:

> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make sure
> that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive disks
> better? One manufacturer over the others?

No one really knows. The manufacturers have accelerated testing
programs, but nothing says their simulated aging is the same as the
real thing. Best bet would be to make more than one copy on DIFFERENT
brands of media, in case one formulation turns out to be unexpectedly
volatile. Probably wouldn't hurt to use name brands.

That said, I've personally had bad luck with Memorex disks; I've
actually had a couple go unreadable after a few months. I'm not too
fond of imation, either.

An interesting technology is Magneto-Optical. Since the disks don't use
dyes, and require both a laser AND a magnetic field to write, they
should be far more stable than straight opticals like DVD. But they're
not popular in the US, and I'm beginning to have my doubts if drives to
read them will continue to be available.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 7:58:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeff wrote:
>
> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make sure
> that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive disks
> better? One manufacturer over the others?
>
> Thanks.


Hello

It's even more important not to burn at too high a speed.
Use 2 speed and some kind of bit for bit verification.
Nero has bulit in verification. This will maximise readability.

Mike Engles
February 4, 2005 10:37:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I actually just installed Nero. Also a great suggestion to burn on
manufacturer brands.

Thanks for the feedback.

Jeff


"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4203A9CE.2D2B@btinternet.com...
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to make
>> sure
>> that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
>> long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive
>> disks
>> better? One manufacturer over the others?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>
> Hello
>
> It's even more important not to burn at too high a speed.
> Use 2 speed and some kind of bit for bit verification.
> Nero has bulit in verification. This will maximise readability.
>
> Mike Engles
February 5, 2005 12:49:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Come on now. Less then a year on a burned DVD? There obviously is other
variables here that we don't know of. Did some one forget to mention the
flood, or excessive heat the DVD has been through? Or the jelly donought the
was squirted all over it? Think about it. If you burn a DVD with CRC error
checking and get
%100 out of it and store the DVD in a protective sleeve out of direct
sunlight and have no oil from your skin on the DVD it "should" last quite a
long time. I really would imagine 100 years if it's not jellied by a
donought, slapped in the sun for a tan, scratched and dropped on the floor
to be scraped....Maybe 100 years might seem long...but compact flash media
itself can be used repeatedly for 100 years without error. Of course the
technology will not be the same then so....

"Mike Fields" <spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qeWdnfHLlbX-bJ_fRVn-gA@comcast.com...
>
> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
> news:1105p2ca7uueeac@corp.supernews.com...
> > Shelf life of a DVD is approx 100 years. Once it's burned and done, it's
> > done. Unless of course it's a DVD/RW. Then it can erased
(electronically)
> > and then burned again.
> >
> > "Jeff" <jt5333@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:yeWdnUArC_PFQZ_fRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> > > Is there a difference in archival quality between DVDs? I want to
make
> > sure
> > > that when I burn my images for storage/backup that I don't run into
> > > long-term problems with quality or lost data. Are the more expensive
> > disks
> > > better? One manufacturer over the others?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> Before you bet the bank on that 100 years idea, you might want to do
> some research in some of the groups like alt.video.dvdr or some of the
> other groups or snoop on http://www.videohelp.com There have been
> quite a number of reports from people seeing less than a year life time
> before getting read errors on some of the supposedly better quality
> media. It seems to be a moving target as to what is best. Taiyo Yuden
> seems to get consistently good comments. Do NOT put adhesive
> labels on the DVD's -- numerous people have complained of increased
> read errors when the DVD's have the stick on labels on them (even
> when carefully placed).
>
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 1:04:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 21:49:32 -0500, <xman@thedripper.com> wrote:

>Come on now. Less then a year on a burned DVD? There obviously is other
>variables here that we don't know of. Did some one forget to mention the
>flood, or excessive heat the DVD has been through? Or the jelly donought the
>was squirted all over it? Think about it. If you burn a DVD with CRC error
>checking and get
>%100 out of it and store the DVD in a protective sleeve out of direct
>sunlight and have no oil from your skin on the DVD it "should" last quite a
>long time. I really would imagine 100 years if it's not jellied by a
>donought, slapped in the sun for a tan, scratched and dropped on the floor
>to be scraped....Maybe 100 years might seem long...but compact flash media
>itself can be used repeatedly for 100 years without error. Of course the
>technology will not be the same then so....

Personal experience and observation...
I've had UG members and clients complain of bad burns; on checking
workflow practices, I usually notice the burner is one of those
low-dollar specials we see all the time.
I recommend spending the dollars on a good burner; I've found that
good burners burn better discs than the el cheapo specials do.
Of course, thje discs need to be treated with respect, too. DVDs are
more robust than CD-Rs, but are still subject to damage from rough
handling. They should be handled like the vinyl records of old; by the
edges only, never put down on anything that can scratch them, and kept
out of harmful environments. They tend to last a lot longer if they
aren't treated like hockey pucks! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
!