Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about burning DVDs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 4:09:50 PM

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

Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
the main storage medium.

Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
drive also supports?

I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
burning at the slowest possible?

Thanks

More about : question burning dvds

Anonymous
June 8, 2005 7:06:02 PM

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

On 8 Jun 2005 12:09:50 -0700, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
>the main storage medium.
>
>Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
>the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
>speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
>drive also supports?
>
>I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
>should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
>burning at the slowest possible?
>
>Thanks

I've not seen anything to suggest that burning at a slower rate than
the disk is rated for gains anything. Especially for data disks (which
is what you're doing when you put photo files on a DVD).
You can elect to do a compare after burning, to ensure that the DVD's
contents match the source if you want to.

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:09:12 AM

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

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118257790.868863.223920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
> the main storage medium.
>
> Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
> the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
> speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
> drive also supports?
>
> I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
> should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
> burning at the slowest possible?
>
> Thanks
>
The number on the dvd is the maximum speed. YOu can burn at any speed you
want to. As it is all digital, it does not make any differance in the
quality. Some computers and burners can not keep up at the faster speeds so
you must slow down to the lower number.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:09:44 AM

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

Let the burning software pick optimum speed unless this leads to problems.
As far as I know, all my burning is at max speed for the media., no
problems.
Dave Cohen

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118257790.868863.223920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
> the main storage medium.
>
> Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
> the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
> speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
> drive also supports?
>
> I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
> should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
> burning at the slowest possible?
>
> Thanks
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 1:13:19 AM

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

"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> writes:

> Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
> the main storage medium.
>
> Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
> the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
> speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
> drive also supports?
>
> I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
> should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
> burning at the slowest possible?

The maximum speed common between the drive and the blank media should
be safe to burn at. If both ratings were honestly arrived at :-).

Some people prefer to be conservative and back off one level from
that. I'm not convinced that there's any documented benefit, but I
believe they claim more accurate bit placement and hence less
likelihood of reading problems on other drives in the future. The
only cost I know to backing off one speed step is that the burn takes
longer. I haven't seen an argument, even an argument *without*
evidence, suggesting that it could produce *less* readable DVDs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
June 9, 2005 1:17:27 AM

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

Hi Mike,

If the beers haven't got me fully addled just yet then burning 4.7GB (DVD
capacity) at 0.7MB/s will take 6,714 seconds (111 minutes). Burning at x4
speed takes 28 minutes. Double this, of course, if you are going to verify
the disc (which I recommend you do, and don't delete your original stuff
until you've checked the backup. In fact, do two backups and don't delete
the original. Store the backups in separate locations, in fire-proof safes.
Paranoid? Me?).

But seriously tho', as a rule, and unless you know otherwise, burn at the
maximum supported speed of either the DVD or the burner. In your case this
is x4.

HTH,
Paul

--
Paul ============}
o o

// Live fast, die old //
PaulsPages are at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pcbradley/
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 11:42:34 AM

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

Ralph Mowery wrote:
[]
> The number on the dvd is the maximum speed. YOu can burn at any
> speed you want to. As it is all digital, it does not make any
> differance in the quality. Some computers and burners can not keep
> up at the faster speeds so you must slow down to the lower number.

Burning DVDs has a strong analog component - laser power level for
example, not to mention vibration. Can make a lot of difference to the
quality of the result.

David
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 8:08:56 PM

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

> Burning DVDs has a strong analog component - laser power level for
> example, not to mention vibration. Can make a lot of difference to the
> quality of the result.

Yes, but when burning digital photo data, I don't believe you will see a
difference
in the quality. Not true when burning either audio or video, where it is
usually
recommended not to burn at the CDR/DVDR's highest rated speed.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:56:16 PM

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

Steven Wandy wrote:
>> Burning DVDs has a strong analog component - laser power level for
>> example, not to mention vibration. Can make a lot of difference to
>> the quality of the result.
>
> Yes, but when burning digital photo data, I don't believe you will
> see a difference
> in the quality. Not true when burning either audio or video, where it
> is usually
> recommended not to burn at the CDR/DVDR's highest rated speed.

The audio and video is also represented digitally on the disk, just like
digital photo data, however, there is less protection against errors on
audio data (I don't know about this aspect of video). Would you prefer a
disk for archiving where there are 1 in thousand bits in error, or a disk
where 1 in a million bits in error, even if all the errors are
subsequently corrected? There are ways to measure the uncorrected errors.

However, I don't know whether burning at a lower speed is any better, but
I'd be interested in any recent tests. And whether CD-R is any more or
less reliable than DVD-R or DVD+R!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 11:23:10 PM

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

Mike Henley wrote:
>
> Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
> the main storage medium.
>
> Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
> the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
> speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
> drive also supports?
>
> I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
> should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
> burning at the slowest possible?
>
> Thanks


Hello

Do some tests, with a full 4.35 GB disc at several speeds.
Next download NERO CD DVD speed amd run that. It will give a indication
of the readabilty of the discs. The disc speed will slow if the error
correction is working too hard. Next just copy the contents back to the
hard drive and time the transfer. Best transfer is a measure of the
readability of the disc.
If you have a Plextor, Plextools has a DVD checker that will give you a
idea of the PIE, PIF and POF errors. PIE below 280 are pretty good.
lower the better.Higher means that the data is OK, but will not be if
the DVD degrades.

Mike Engles
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 6:34:42 AM

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

Mike Engles wrote:
> Mike Henley wrote:
> >
> > Not strictly a photo questions but nonetheless very relevant since it's
> > the main storage medium.
> >
> > Should I burn at the slowest possible speed that the software tells me
> > the drive supports, namely, 1x (706kb/s), or should I make the burning
> > speed the one indicated on the DVD blank media, which is x4, that the
> > drive also supports?
> >
> > I guess my question is, is the number on the DVD blank media the one I
> > should burn at, or is that a maximum? And would there be any harm in
> > burning at the slowest possible?
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
> Hello
>
> Do some tests, with a full 4.35 GB disc at several speeds.
> Next download NERO CD DVD speed amd run that. It will give a indication
> of the readabilty of the discs. The disc speed will slow if the error
> correction is working too hard. Next just copy the contents back to the
> hard drive and time the transfer. Best transfer is a measure of the
> readability of the disc.
> If you have a Plextor, Plextools has a DVD checker that will give you a
> idea of the PIE, PIF and POF errors. PIE below 280 are pretty good.
> lower the better.Higher means that the data is OK, but will not be if
> the DVD degrades.
>
> Mike Engles


Thanks to all who replied to this thread.

For what it's worth, I had trouble with Nero lately, with burning
coaster after coaster, eventhough it used to work alright, and
eventhough I tried every option I could imagine with it, and updated
everything, but to no success. I should mention that I tried burning at
4x in nero, and the only other option it gave me was 2x, if i remember
correctly. So I downloaded the free deepburner, and it burned
successfully, now reclaiming 20GB HDD space by successfully burning a
few DVDs. It enabled me to burn at much slower speeds that nero, at 1x
706kb (if I remember correctly, it had two options for 1x, one half the
other in kbs, compared to nero's 4x 5450kb, all these numbers are from
my recall hence approximate). It also did not hog the resources like
nero did, that required me to close all other apps and made it less
responsive till the burn was done. With deepburner I could still browse
and do whatever and I'd hardly notice till the burning was done, and
done well.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:18:49 PM

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

Mike Henley wrote:
[]
> For what it's worth, I had trouble with Nero lately, with burning
> coaster after coaster, eventhough it used to work alright,
[]

Perhaps your writer is starting to fail. Some CD writers I've had didn't
last very long (no, I don't smoke and it's not a dusty environment).
Alternatively, perhaps your HD needs degragging?

David
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 2:18:50 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:18:49 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Perhaps your writer is starting to fail. Some CD writers I've had didn't
> last very long (no, I don't smoke and it's not a dusty environment).
> Alternatively, perhaps your HD needs degragging?

Good point. But there's another thing that can produce coasters.
I found I was getting bad disks when backing up huge numbers of
relatively tiny files. The contents of one folder would fit on a
CD, but it contained over 6,600 subfolders and more than 70,000
files. For Window's Explorer to show the properties of this folder
(ie, count the files contained within it) took nearly 2 minutes.
Backing up a single 600+ MB files could be done at any speed without
errors. But backing up the folder with 70,000+ files could only be
done using the slow 2x speed or errors would result.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:19:51 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:18:49 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Perhaps your writer is starting to fail. Some CD writers I've had
>> didn't last very long (no, I don't smoke and it's not a dusty
>> environment). Alternatively, perhaps your HD needs degragging?
>
> Good point. But there's another thing that can produce coasters.
> I found I was getting bad disks when backing up huge numbers of
> relatively tiny files. The contents of one folder would fit on a
> CD, but it contained over 6,600 subfolders and more than 70,000
> files. For Window's Explorer to show the properties of this folder
> (ie, count the files contained within it) took nearly 2 minutes.
> Backing up a single 600+ MB files could be done at any speed without
> errors. But backing up the folder with 70,000+ files could only be
> done using the slow 2x speed or errors would result.

Nero has small files caching, which might help with that problem. But, if
I were doing it, I would probably try and Zip the files first.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:19:52 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:19:51 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Nero has small files caching, which might help with that problem. But,
> if I were doing it, I would probably try and Zip the files first.

Caching small files would help in many cases, but I'm not sure
that it would be entirely effective when there are hundreds of files
in a single subdirectory. Beyond a certain amount, just scanning
directory entries can take an excessive amount of time. Zipping
files is a very good solution, and there are several products that
can make really make that a simple operation. I've done that to
help streaming tape drives avoid bogging down during backups.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:28:42 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 13:19:51 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Nero has small files caching, which might help with that problem.
>> But, if I were doing it, I would probably try and Zip the files
>> first.
>
> Caching small files would help in many cases, but I'm not sure
> that it would be entirely effective when there are hundreds of files
> in a single subdirectory. Beyond a certain amount, just scanning
> directory entries can take an excessive amount of time.

Agreed - I guess one could build up a disk image off-line and then write
the image to disk in one go. Even then, I'm not sure what the file system
limits are for CDFS, though.

> Zipping
> files is a very good solution, and there are several products that
> can make really make that a simple operation. I've done that to
> help streaming tape drives avoid bogging down during backups.

The only slight trade-off with Zipping is that recovering an individual
file is more effort and, if the media is damaged, perhaps impossible.
Better than no backup at all, though!

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 9:28:43 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:28:42 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> The only slight trade-off with Zipping is that recovering an individual
> file is more effort and, if the media is damaged, perhaps impossible.
> Better than no backup at all, though!

It's no effort at all with the appropriate software. I use
PowerDesk (a replacement for Windows Explorer). It includes
ZipMagic 2000 which makes zip files appear as folders. It does it
on the fly - preprocessing isn't required. So a friend (who doesn't
own ZipMagic) could give me a firewire or SCSI drive full of zip
files, and when plugged into my computer, I wouldn't see any zip
files at all. Just folders with names like "December Photos.zip"
PowerDesk isn't required to access the contents of these 'zip
folders'. Windows Explorer could. DOS programs running in DOS
windows could. But when I want to make the zip folders vanish, to
be replaced by traditional zip files, it takes only a few seconds to
reverse a ZipMagic toggle, and within a few seconds all zip files on
all drives have returned, ready for backing up or whatever. There's
probably some other software that works similarly.

So recovering individual files is trivially easy. Select one or
more with whatever file browser you prefer and copy. But you're
right about recovering the contents if there are media errors. But
that would apply to all files, not just the ones contained in zip
archives. BTW, if zip folders are disabled, Powerdesk will still
display the contents and allow copying of files from within. But if
you try to launch files or run programs contained within the zip
file you'll get a warning that you'll be dealing with a temporary
copy placed in a TEMP folder, and any changes made won't be
reflected in the original file within the zip archive. If on the
other hand zip folder are enabled, all operations are permitted.
Modify a document with an editor that automatically creates backup
files, and when you're finished, the edited version as well as the
original (backup) will be contained within the zip archive. There's
a performance penalty for this, but it's very slight, barely
noticeable on my computer, which is probably older and slower than
those used by 99% of the people accessing this ng.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 12:13:38 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
[]
> It's no effort at all with the appropriate software. I use
> PowerDesk (a replacement for Windows Explorer). It includes
> ZipMagic 2000 which makes zip files appear as folders.
[] There's probably some other software that works similarly.

Built into Windows XP

> So recovering individual files is trivially easy. Select one or
> more with whatever file browser you prefer and copy. But you're
> right about recovering the contents if there are media errors. But
> that would apply to all files, not just the ones contained in zip
> archives.

What I meant was that if a single 600MB zip is corrupted, you would need
special tools to try and extract the data, whereas if you have 600 1MB
files you may be able to read 599 of those files directly.

What I do for my own stuff is to have automated overnight "backups" which
zip multiple sets of data in a small number of zip files, on two separate
PCs, and then backup these zip files onto DVD-R on a monthly basis. Once
every few days I take a separate backup onto a DVD-RW (three off,
rotated).

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 3:41:09 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:13:38 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> What I do for my own stuff is to have automated overnight "backups" which
> zip multiple sets of data in a small number of zip files, on two separate
> PCs, and then backup these zip files onto DVD-R on a monthly basis. Once
> every few days I take a separate backup onto a DVD-RW (three off,
> rotated).

I've become much more lax, only occasionally backing up files to
CD. I almost welcome a major crash, as it would give me a good
excuse to put my 8 yr. old HP Vectra (that refuses to die) out to
pasture.
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 6:21:41 AM

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

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:13:38 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> [] There's probably some other software that works similarly.
>
> Built into Windows XP

Thanks, didn't know that. But it's not enough to persuade me to
go with XP. :) 
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 11:45:20 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 20:13:38 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> [] There's probably some other software that works similarly.
>>
>> Built into Windows XP
>
> Thanks, didn't know that. But it's not enough to persuade me to
> go with XP. :) 

Having the built-in Zip opening has helped me once or twice when dealing
with friends' PCs without WinZip. Don't worry about XP - if you're happy
with Windows 2000 you don't yet need it (stopping of Win 2K support might
be an issue), and when you do move to XP there's a good solid, robust OS
waiting for you.

Cheers,
David
!