Question for those of you who burn DVDs

[imported_Mike]

Ive been out of the loop for some time now. I need to make backup copies of my DVDs and people are telling me to get double layer discs so the movie doesn't have to be compressed. It will be a better quality. Double layer discs are a lot more expensive though, so I am wondering if the quality difference will matter that much?

Also, +R or -R and why?

 

[olds]

Is a 8.5GB DL disc that much better than a 4.7GB disc

It's almost twice as good.

 

[FoBoT]

i concur, about 2X

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

I've not once heard a good answer regarding +r vs. -r, but I do believe the only difference is a dual-layer DVD will hold twice as much data... no change in quality. However I could easily be talking out of my *** as I heard this from an oh so knowledgable Best Buy employee.

 

[Pepsi90919]

-R FTW

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
I've not once heard a good answer regarding +r vs. -r, but I do believe the only difference is a dual-layer DVD will hold twice as much data... no change in quality. However I could easily be talking out of my *** as I heard this from an oh so knowledgable Best Buy employee.

of course there's a change in quality... you're not shrinking dual-layer DVD movies to fit on a single-layer disc. of course that's illegal so you'd never do that.

 

[nboy22]

personally, I've compressed a DVD to a single layer disc many times... I can't really tell a quality difference... but I imagine it's better, just a hard to tell.

 

[blackangst1]

There are some DVD burners that can be flashed to dual layer BTW, but I digress...

My player does both, but media for dual layer is still so damn expensive I rarely use it *shrug*

and definately -R is the way to go.

 

[YetioDoom]

I use single layer DVDs (-R becuase my player can't read +R) and don't notice much if any difference from the original.

It does take a significant (2-3 hours) amount of time to compress the data though, if that matters to you at all.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

its 3.8gb better

 

[Tom]

just cut out the bad parts and it will fit.

 

[imported_Mike]

Thanks to those of you who answered my questions. Looks like I will be buying single layer -R discs. $15 for a 50pk is hard to beat.

 

[Cuda1447]

Ive done over 100 movies at -r and not had a problem with a single one, quality wise. Of course the TV Im watching it on is just a standard 27inch older tv. But I suspect if I were to try it on out my big screen in the living room I wouldn't have any problems either.

/me shrugs. For the difference in price, I'd just use -r's.

 

[JMoore]

When I "backup" my movies I find the compression, to me, is not noticeable. I also watch my DVDS on a 30" WS HDTV.

I really don't think I would buy dual layer discs because they are just so much more exspensive

As for + vs -....Well there really is no clear cut answer to that. Some say with + you get slightly better quality (don't know if its true), but some really old DVD players do not play +.

 

[rh71]

+R vs. -R is really for your own compatibility reference... use dvdhelp.com and look up your set-top dvd player to see which (or both) it can handle.

DL discs are still about $1.50-$2 each so it's still not right. Bought 100 single layer discs for $20 around black friday. Compression - I can't really tell the difference. It's not like DVD quality is HD quality anyway.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: JMoore
When I "backup" my movies I find the compression, to me, is not noticeable. I also watch my DVDS on a 30" WS HDTV.

I really don't think I would buy dual layer discs because they are just so much more exspensive

As for + vs -....Well there really is no clear cut answer to that. Some say with + you get slightly better quality (don't know if its true), but some really old DVD players do not play +.

I think +r is better now. I used to be a -r fan until I got a burner that had the bitsettings to automatically burn +r's to -roms.

 

[So]

of all the movies I've done, most of the time, I've been able to cut out the special features and menu, which I usually don't miss anyway, and fit the movie on the single layer disk uncompressed.

 

[eminemrh25]

I've backed up my entire DVD Collection, and you have absolutly NO reason to buy a dual layer DVD. I have a 50" Widescreen High Def DLP Samsung TV with a 1000w Surround sound, the copy compressed looks just as good as the original. I am talking about 57% compression too..

Copying DVDs isn't illegal as long as you are backing up your own private collection for personal uses only.

I always strip out the menus and special features, cause I just wanna put the movie in and watch. No fast forwarding through stupid trailers or looking for the remote to press OK so I can watch a movie. By the time it is over, I have something else to do...

Whoever said it takes an hour or two to recompress a movie is retarded. It takes 1hr to recompress an entire movie to 60% on an Intel Pentium 3 500Mhz. It takes me about 10-20 mins to get it down to 50% on a AMD Sempron 3000+ running at stock speeds.

I would use whatever media works for your DVD player and is cheapest. I've never had a DVD Burn fail and I use the cheapest media on the planet. 1 DVD I've had is messed up, only because my friend felt like "burning" a CD with a lighter...

I highly reccommend DVDShrink and DVD Decrypter. If you are retarded and dont know how to any, I reccommend DVDFab Express. You put the DVD in, chose either Complete or Main Movie Only and click copy... Simple as that...

 

[0roo0roo]

of course its better. a recompressed film isn't a backup, its a sh*t copy. films are already variable bitrate to cram them into the disc.. sometimes with barely enough bitrate really..thats why there are superbits around. many films have tons of audio tracks and special features...making bitrate barely adequate to begin with so its either screw over the menus by splitting the film over two discs or waste your time compressing and yes u can see it, esp on a nicer screen.

 

[j00fek]

i second that ^^

 

[OdiN]

+R FTW

 

[yhelothar]

Recompressed film actually isn't that noticeable from the dual layer original if you cut out all of the menus, special features, trailers, and all that extra junk. Usually you only need about an 80% compression after you cut out all that crap.

 

[aircooled]

I'm not willing to pay for the difference at the moment. Once the media is more affordable, then yes.

 

[Pepsei]

i prefer +r.

 

[imported_Mike]

er...conflicting opinions. I know its better...but I was curious as to if its worth the price difference. DL discs are 5-7 times the cost of single layer.