Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First DVD+R9 Burners Reviewed

Posted by simoniker on Thu May 06, 2004 07:31 AM
from the double-the-fun dept.
Hack Jandy writes "DVD dual-layer burners finally seem ready for the public - today, a review of the Sony DRU-700A was posted by Anandtech, and teasers of the BenQ 830A posted at CDRInfo.com. Unfortunately, the drives seem too slow to to really warrant a purchase."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by hatrisc (555862) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:36AM (#9072232) Homepage
    1) But I just bought a other DVD-RW!!
    2) They'll come down in price eventually
    3) That's way to slow for me! I want gigabytes/sec!
    4) Dual-sides? I think we should be writing on the
    edges as well by now.
    • "4) Dual-sides? I think we should be writing on the edges as well by now."

      These aren't dual-sided. These are actual dual layer DVD+R discs that will play in a standard DVD player. With these dicsc, you can make an exact copy of your DVD9 discs (A lot of movies and some video games use these dual-layered DVDs) without spending time trimming off the bonus material, languages, etc. and/or messing with the quality.

      Yeah, the discs are probably going to be more expensive, but *shock* some people's time is

  • MPAA Intervention? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sinter (650182) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:36AM (#9072233)
    I'm sure the MPAA will try their best to stop these drives from going on the market. In the same sense that the RIAA tried to stop CD burners when they first emerged.
    • by theperplepigg (599224) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:46AM (#9072290)
      I'm sure the MPAA will try their best to stop these drives from going on the market. In the same sense that the RIAA tried to stop CD burners when they first emerged.

      That would be a strange move on their part considering the following, from the MPAA website:

      "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) serves its members from its offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. On its board of directors are the Chairmen and Presidents of the seven major producers and distributors of motion picture and television programs in the United States. These members include:

      • Buena Vista Pictures Distribution;(The Walt Disney Company)
      • Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.;
      • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.;
      • Paramount Pictures Corporation;
      • Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation;
      • Universal City Studios LLLP; and
      • Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc."
      I would think there is at least some communication between the different divisions of Sony.
      • by 91degrees (207121) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:01AM (#9072383) Journal
        I would think there is at least some communication between the different divisions of Sony.

        I wouldn't. Large organisations are typically pretty much separate companies. The only parts they share are the sharehlders, who aren't really too interest in exact the product portfolio.
      • Er... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by yoz (3735) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:58AM (#9072860) Homepage
        I would think there is at least some communication between the different divisions of Sony.

        This would be the same Sony whose music division created copy-protected CD albums that couldn't be used with the electronics division's Net-MD player's ripping system, yes?
    • Those discs are DeCSS encrypted! It's bulletproof!
  • by mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:38AM (#9072242)
    If they hold a full, uncompressed movie, they're good enough.
    • by Overzeetop (214511) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:04AM (#9072398) Journal
      Gosh, is it so hard to tell that he meant "un-re-compressed"? Of course DVDs are compressed, but DVD-9 means the ability to back up a DVD verbatim. There are reasons to want to do this (some are even legal).

      DVD-shrink will still have its purposes, though. I've run a couple of my daughter's Disney DVDs through it so (1) she'd never touch my originals and (2) it plays the movie directly - no menus, no commercials, no format setup screens.

      I'm actually thinking about how many of AB's Good Eats I can cram onto one disc - they take up a lot of room in the jukebox at just 3 episodes per disc. I just need a way to get a "top level" menu to access all the original content without a buttload of re-authoring. Dual sided would be even better (since the jukebox can flip a disc internally).

      • by stecoop (759508) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:21AM (#9072532) Journal
        Your post is the most underrated yet in regards to the Disney commercials and menus. Very few fully know what you mean about ripping Disney DVDs so your sibling doesn't have to touch the original and what a pain all those commercials & menus really are, Especially when you change a DVD every 45 minutes or so. I recently bought my first DVD burner and ripped out those 30 minute commercials with menus; you simply insert the DVD and walk away. My wife kisses me every time the movie automatically start to play and the children get quiet for a few minutes of the day. My burner has paid for itself many times over with the amount of time I saved by not having to forward through that garage.
    • by cabraverde (648652) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:04AM (#9072404)
      If they hold a full, uncompressed movie, they're good enough.

      Frame size: 720 x 576
      Frame rate: 30 fps
      Chroma subsampling: 1.5 (assuming YUV 4:2:0)
      Duration: 90 mins

      720*576*30*1.5*90*60 / (1024^3)= 93.9 GiB

      Conclusion: these discs don't have anywhere near the capacity to hold an uncompressed film. In addition, the drive could not read data off the disc fast enough for real-time playback (max speed was quoted at 16620 KB/s)

      Lossless video codecs can get you a ratio of around 10:1 though, so that's a possibility.
        • Not flawed... (Score:4, Informative)

          by cabraverde (648652) on Thursday May 06 2004, @10:17AM (#9073668)
          You just calculated the figures for 24-bit RGB. As I said in my original post, I was assuming YUV 420 - as this is the most common format for uncompressed video.

          In this example the Y (luma) component is 720x576, but the U and V (chroma) components are subsambpled to 352x288 each. This results in half the amount of raw data versus 24-bit RGB at virtually no loss in perceived quality.
    • by aonaran (15651) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:25AM (#9072573) Homepage
      I don't know how others feel, but 45mins for a perfect DVD-9 copy vs 15mins to burn 2 DVD-5s plus an hour sorting out what goes on which disc beforehand or 8 mins burning one dvd-5 and several hours of recompression ... I think I'll take the 45min dvd-9 burn thanks.

    • Copying movies is very important, especially in light of this:

      CDs and DVDs Not So Immortal After All [yahoo.com]
        • by NineNine (235196) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:50AM (#9072321) Homepage
          Hey Jerkoff... DVD Shrink doesn't just compress, it also allows you to rip out all of the extra shit like "special features", the menus, and French soundtracks so you don't have to compress the movies. And when you DO have to compress (because, say, you want all of the shit on the DVD), then DVD Shrink can do a deep analysis, and make an excellent copy, even with compression. DVD Shrink rocks.

          Anyone have any idea when DVD Shrink will be available for DVD-9? I'm waiting for DVD Shrink to support the drives before I buy one.
          • DvdShrink's quality is awful.

            Honestly, I only use it to strip out what I don't need to make an uncompressed backup. Then I fire up Intervideo DVD Copy to shrink down and burn--it has absolutely the best compression I've ever seen. Often times you can't tell the difference between the original and the copy. Not to mention, it's much faster than DVD Shrink's "Deep Analysis."
  • Is it just me... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:38AM (#9072243)
    Or is speed overrated?

    I'm not saying I like taking my time with a DVD to do some sweet authoring down by the fire. But it seems to me, at least, data density, features and price are the determining factors. I'm not banging out a couple hundred copies of my greatest DOA:Volleyball matches (Unrated edition) for sale on ebay, so the time it takes to burn one isn't exactly critical.
    • Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eddy (18759) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:47AM (#9072300) Homepage Journal

      Yes, it's overrated by most people. Most don't need to burn 50 DVDs/day, and if they do, they've got the funds to invest in more burners.

      The problem specifically, I have found, is that people burn at top speed, which makes their system mostly unusable during the burn due to IO load -- so they complain that it takes "too long" as they must 'wait' for it to complete.

      What I do instead is burn at a slower rate (2x), which doesn't starve my IO, meaning I can actually do other things while "waiting" for the burn to complete.

      PS. SCSI-trolls can stay away.

      PSS. My first CDR burner topped out at 1x and had a 64Kbyte buffer. Only stable in Win 3.11 due to the small buffer.

      • Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jridley (9305) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:08AM (#9072429)
        I have an 8x burner, but I'm too cheap to buy the media. I can burn at 4x and do firewire video cap (to the same IDE drive the burn's happening from), have SETI running, be browsing under Mozilla web (10+ tabs open) and email, and have Agent downloading and decoding NNTP binaries at the same time, and have a half dozen terminal windows open to various headless boxes, and nothing's suffering. The write buffers are hovering around 97%, no dropped frames on the video, and all my GUI are stable. Win2K, 2.5 GHz Athlon XP.

        This is all with totally standard consumer equipment. No SCSI, just a group of Maxtor 160GB drives sitting on a Maxtor/Promise controller in the PCI slot, in an ABit mainboard. Boot/swap drive is plugged into the mainboard.

        If you're getting I/O bound on a > 1 GHz machine at 4x write, you may have config problems. Check and make sure your writer is running in UDMA mode, and your drive isn't horribly fragmented.
    • by Compact Dick (518888) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:51AM (#9072331) Homepage
      But it seems to me, at least, data density, features and price are the determining factors.
      Reliability and data longevity are the most important factors.
    • Exactly. The computer is way more than fast enough to burn a DVD while doing many other tasks. Even a 1x burn (~2 hours on 9GB) is fine as long as the drive and software is stable.

      I don't _need_ DVD-9 capability for backups, but it is nice to know is available in a "pro-sumer" device. In that sense, two DVD-5s at 2x or better would be quicker but that also takes more user time.

      I'm willing to take a bargain on 1x media because I don't burn discs very often. If I was into DVD authoring, then it might be
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:39AM (#9072249)
    No offense but how can a device that does something that has never been 'do-able' before too slow...to slow as comapared to what?! What do you use to burn a 9G dvd?

    P.S. why in the heck won't this thing let me post on the article BLAH..I don't hve an account why are you discriminating against me becuase I don't wish to register?
  • Too slow?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by toconn (685100) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:41AM (#9072259)
    Bah! I just got rid of my 2x CD burner last week!
  • How amusing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by edremy (36408) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:42AM (#9072267)
    I was teaching a video editing course to some faculty yesterday and discussing when these would appear.

    I haven't been keeping up- I predicted the end of the year. Then again, reading the review I'm not sure I'd want one now anyway.

    • You can consider these the first generation of this technology. Just like CDR drives, they'll drop in price eventually, and improve along the way. Never, unless you have extra money in your budget for the year, buy a first generation technology...it's like paying extra to be a beta tester.

      --trb
  • How about media ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:47AM (#9072298)
    Dual layer burners ? Great.

    How about dual layer media ? Any mention of availability and price ?
    • Re:How about media ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by tkg (455770) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:30AM (#9072612)
      The 'teaser' linked to in the article predicts an initial price of $5 to $8 per disc. No word on availability, but one could assume they will hit the stores at about the same time as the drives.
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:49AM (#9072306) Journal
    I use my drive for data backup. At less than $1 a disc, I do full weekly backups of all my (in-house generated) business data for my engineering firm. At the current rate, I'll cross the 4.3GB threshold sometime in fall '04. These will be out in quantity just in time. I know, there are ways to get better compression out of a (mostly) static data set than backing it all up, but recovery is far faster this way. If my drive dies, I can restore the entire thing in less than 20 minutes. If I screw up a single file, I can just go to the most recent backup - not have to sift through a multi-generational backup set. And with what I saved on dedicated backup software, I can buy a new DVD+9 drive and another year's worth of discs.

    (yes, my main applications drive is bigger than 4.3G...it's about 60GB. That's why it gets imaged by Ghost on a removable drive once a week. Yes, I've tested it...swap the primary with the backup and it's transparent. I sleep much better knowing that in the event of a major HD crash, I'm less than $100 billable time from being back in business)

    • Hell, yeah (Score:3, Interesting)

      Seriously, I've been putting off buying a DVD burner until these new dual-layers came out.

      First thing I'm gonna do is backup my Extended Edition LOTR DVDs (all 8 of 'em...soon to be 12 when ROTK comes out). I'm sick of fumbling with those big foldout booklets, and the collector's geek in me doesn't want to be handling all that stuff all the time and instead keep it in the box.
  • Thanks to the lack of session closing, we can burn 2 DVD+R5 discs in less than 15 minutes, or one DVD+R9 disc in 45 minutes.

    Not half bad!
  • Hi,

    This may be slightly OT, but what experiences does people have with using DVD+RW for packet-writing under Linux? What drives are recommended with Linux?

    What I would like to do is to use a DVD drive as a (large and fast) floppy disk - preferrable compatible with InCD and DirectCD for Windows. I have already tried to use my CD-RW burner with Peter Oesterlunds packet writing patch [telia.com], but with mixed success.

    I have read somewhere, that packet writing will not be added to the main line kernel before the
  • by TeknoHog (164938) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:00AM (#9072376) Homepage Journal
    When rumours of DL burners first came about, I thought of the obvious thing that's also mentioned in the article: Since all DVD players can focus the laser onto two layers, what's stopping any of the current DVD burners from dual layer burning? (Except the lack of firmware, of course.)

    Or maybe I'm just desperate having purchased a vanilla DVD burner a few months ago...

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Depends on the burner.
      Writing needs more laser power than reading - so some drives may only be able to focus the read laser onto the second layer.

      Another thing to consider is focus blur - when reading the laser also shines unfocussed on the outer layer, it doesn't matter much. But when writing you have to be careful not to apply too much power to the layer you don't want to write to, or you'll end up writing stuff that you don't want.

      Finally though - yes, for many drives it is just a firmware upgrade. T
    • by zalas (682627) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:19AM (#9072523) Homepage
      I believe Pioneer said a few months ago that they tested the A06 using new firmware and got it to burn onto dual layered DVD-R media.
      Furthermore, the Anandtech article did state that they managed to convert a GO-W0808A to burn DVD+R9's:
      "In fact, several other MT1818E burners are capable of firmware upgrades to DVD+R9. In fact, using beta firmware upgrades, we actually got our Gigabyte GO-W0808A to burn DVD+R9 as well. Keep in mind that the GO-W0808A retails for less than $110, while the DRU-700A will hit shelves at $199. Although the Sony DRU-700A is a considerable step up from the DRU-530A, we would have to recommend the GO-W0808A if it costs $90 less and performs the same." - AnandTech
  • DVD Formats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by n-baxley (103975) * <nate@@@baxleys...org> on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:02AM (#9072391) Homepage Journal
    This may be slightly off topic, but can someone tell me which is the better burner/media to get, the +R or the -R? Also, I've seen some media that says +R and the RW but it's only write once. What is the skinny on all of these R's?
    • The +R and -R are quickly becoming a moot point. Most burners these days support both formats, the media costs the same, and most players play both. I do a LOT of DVD burning, and quite honestly, I don't care which I use. Most get played in a modded PS2, and it doesn't seem to care what kind of media I use.
    • Buy dual format (Score:3, Informative)

      Don't buy a single format burner -- buy one that does +/- R/RW.

      My personal opinion is that -R media has a slight edge in compatibility with a few older DVD-ROM drives and a few more older DVD players; DVD-R is endorsed by the DVD Forum and its specification is "official." This distinction is disappearing as new players and -ROM drives almost always support both formats.

      I use -R exclusively, but primarily because I got a -R/RW drive dirt cheap, I knew worked in my DVD player, and it's the only write-once
    • let's start here.....

      DVD formats [videohelp.com]

      dvd-R has the HIGHEST compatability in stand alone DVD players. hands down. this is an industry fact that all DVD replication houses stand by if they are going to do a short run on writeable media. long runds are always pressed media.

      some people try to say otherwise, but I would trust a company making money replicating DVD's and publishing short run DVD's than some guy screwing around in his basement. also media companiesthat make commercials use DVD-R only as well a
  • by elinenbe (25195) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:06AM (#9072415)
    stop clicking the "next page" links every paragraph and try this out! anandtech.com review [anandtech.com] [anandtech.com]
  • by Zog The Undeniable (632031) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:11AM (#9072450)
    If this doesn't kick-start HD-DVD, nothing will. The last obstacle to conventional DVD piracy has been overcome. Never mind the speed - now we can copy^H^H^H^Hmake fair-use backups of full commercial DVDs, including extras and without further compression.
  • by jerkychew (80913) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:32AM (#9072624) Homepage
    When the article said that the drive's burn speed was too slow "to really warrant a purchase", I was expecting 2+ hour burn times or something. 45 minutes isn't bad at all, considering that this is a new type of burner, with a new (to the consumer) type of media.

    Remember waaaay back when the first Pioneer DVD+R drives came out? IIRC, it took hours to burn a 4GB DVD. I'd consider 4 hours too slow to warrant buying a drive, not 45 minutes.

    I think the tradeoff of speed vs storage space is well worth it, personally.
  • by PhracturedBlue (224393) on Thursday May 06 2004, @08:54AM (#9072810)
    The article doesn't talk about it, but apparently DVDR9 has poor set-top player compatibility, at least currently. Whether this can be fixed via firmware, better media, or not is still unknown. Sorry I don't have a link, but I think both cdrinfo and dvdplusrw.org have comments about it on their boards.
  • by DroopyStonx (683090) on Thursday May 06 2004, @09:46AM (#9073310)
    No one mentions those, but they will be an issue.

    One DVD9 will be more expensive than purchasing two separate DVD5s. What's the point in using it, then? I could see if current DVD-R prices dropped to 50 cents a disc and the DVD9's took over the $1-2 range, but it doesn't look as if it will be that way.

    And compatibility... if your DVD player is able to play DVD-R and DVD-RW, would it play DVD-R/RW DL without any issues? It might be fine for data backup, but if you can't copy movies and watch them, then that's a problem.
    • Re:DVD+R? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bozzaj (682845) on Thursday May 06 2004, @07:47AM (#9072292)
      Did you read the same article? The first page clearly shows both formats.

      The only format it didn't support was DVD-RAM.
    • Re:available space (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You can now. That's what dual layer disks give you.

      Stamped DVDs can be single (4 gig and a bit) or dual layer (9 gig and a bit)

      Until these drives came out, writable media was only single layer - so 'only' 4 gig.
    • I think the parent poster is asking why these new DVD+R DL discs are only capable of storing 8.5GB (7.95 real GB?) of data, as opposed to the 9GB or so that we usually hear of "pressed" movie discs holding.

      This was confusing me, too, but I found this chart in the DVD FAQ [dvddemystified.com] which does seem to indicate that pressed dual layer DVDs are also limited to 7.95GB.

      Can any DVD experts confirm that pressed dual layer discs have the same storage capacity as DVD+R DL discs?

      • User writable sectors 0x3FB000, 2048 byte sectors.
        8,547,991,552 bytes (7.96GB) less the overhead of your file system of choice.

        Sony DL Info [sonyburners.com]

        DVD Formats [disctronics.co.uk]

        Disc Max User Capacity Note
        120 mm :DVD5 4.7GB Single layer Single sided disc
        120 mm :DVD9 8.5GB Double layer Single sided disc
        120 mm :DVD10 9.4GB Single layer Double sided disc
        120 mm :DVD18 17.1GB Double layer Double sided disc
        120 mm :DVD-R 4.7 GB Single layer Single sided disc
        120 mm :DVD-RW 4.7 GB Single layer Single sided disc
        120 mm :DVD

    • A few things:
      1. DVD-/+RW drives, dont need to spin the discs as fast, they can read more data, even spinning at slower speeds, due to how the data is compacted on the surface of the disc.

      2. Multiple heads and tracks have already been discussed in many a "look a new harddrive" thread, all ended the same, it's too hard (ie. expensive) to syncronize the writing, you could not get coherent data, unless maybe you wanted to consider it as disc partitions, you can have 4gig here, and 4 gig here, but no 8gig files