Why have dual layer DVDs been such a failure?

Zim

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2003
1,043
4
81
Here were are, a long time (years?) after the release of dual layer (re)writeable DVDs and we still have only one manufacturer who can make them properly. As such they are still too darn expensive. What happened? Why will any of the coming higher density formats be any better?

- bewildered
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Because most people doing rent-and-burn of movie DVDs to build their warez libraries have been willing to accept the quality loss from using single-layer DVDs.

Single-layer DVDs have also been good enough for most users' data backup needs.

Low need for DL = low sales = slower movement down in price.
 

willtriv

Member
Oct 21, 2005
149
0
0
yeah this is true. Who makes the best DL media. I've personally never made the switch because i heard growisofs didn't like DL disks and that it would be a futile attempt to try burning dual layer in linux, not being much of a risk taker when it comes to burning things, I just went with single layer media pack of 100 which has now laster me 6 months and has about 95% of itself intact.

I also think the low cost of big hard drives must not help, I didn't even own a dvd burner until a year ago because whenever I needed more space for more movies and backup I just bought a new 250 or whatever was best price/size in the 80-120 dollar range. I now have over 1 terrabyte between 2 mirrored fileshare servers. I don't really need to burn my stuf that much :S o and i like trascoding to mp4 with x264 so my movie files are all in the 1gb-1.5gb range.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Because most people doing rent-and-burn of movie DVDs to build their warez libraries have been willing to accept the quality loss from using single-layer DVDs.

Single-layer DVDs have also been good enough for most users' data backup needs.

Low need for DL = low sales = slower movement down in price.

That is absolutely not true, sorry.

The demand has been there for years, but the pricing is still too high even on sales now, which is why there is a perceived lack of demand.

Myself & many many others have waited a long time for dual layer to become affordable, & would much rather use dual layer than single.

But prices are simply not reasonable, even now, & the failure rate is horrible.
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
We have become accustomed to uber-cheap blank media. :laugh:
"Expensive" is all perception. Remember how much blank CD-R's used to be?
 

Roguestar

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
6,045
0
0
Dual layer DVDs haven't been a failure, dual layer DVD burners just aren't used by most people because the blank DL discs cost and arm and a leg. DL discs themselves are in use all over the place. Odds are the last movie you bought on DVD was dual-layer.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I believe the OP's point is dual-layer burnable media going relatively unused.

Also, there's no quality difference when going from dual-layer -> single-layer when it comes to copying a DVD. Ever hear of DVD Shrink? They remove all the bonus features that no one watches anyway and sometimes an audio track (like French, who wants to hear that anyway ;)). This fits the size down to a single-layer size without touching the actual movie itself.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: Aikouka
I believe the OP's point is dual-layer burnable media going relatively unused.

Also, there's no quality difference when going from dual-layer -> single-layer when it comes to copying a DVD. Ever hear of DVD Shrink? They remove all the bonus features that no one watches anyway and sometimes an audio track (like French, who wants to hear that anyway ;)). This fits the size down to a single-layer size without touching the actual movie itself.

Ever hear of movies that even with a single audio track, exceed the 4.37GB single-layer limit? :p

And besides, compression + reburning to DVD is for those with weak hard drives. ;) My LOTR discs have been in a drive exactly once - to rip them in uncompressed format to a media server. Streaming VOB support FTW.

- M4H
 

KayKay

Senior member
Nov 17, 2004
690
0
0
Somewhat similiar is what happened to CD-RWs, especially the high speed ones... Overpriced and now, difficult to find
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Ever hear of movies that even with a single audio track, exceed the 4.37GB single-layer limit? :p

Never seen a single one, but that's because such long movies would bore me :p. TV shows typically have this, but those can be split up by episode.

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
And besides, compression + reburning to DVD is for those with weak hard drives. ;) My LOTR discs have been in a drive exactly once - to rip them in uncompressed format to a media server. Streaming VOB support FTW.

Paying for DVDs is for those with high moral fiber ;). Also, XVID looks just as good from 10 feet away on my HDTV as DVDs do to me, so it doesn't matter to me. I'd rather be able to store more movies in my ~3TB of space than less movies at about the same quality.
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Originally posted by: Zim
Here were are, a long time (years?) after the release of dual layer (re)writeable DVDs and we still have only one manufacturer who can make them properly. As such they are still too darn expensive. What happened? Why will any of the coming higher density formats be any better?

- bewildered

I sure don't know what you mean. While I have never shipped DL, I have used it. I just made a backup copy of a DVD set we have that costs $100. We did not want to risk losing it in a dorm room where it would be popular. My NEC 3550a burned it at 8X with media I got a WalMart (Verbatim?). $3 a disc was what I was paying for single layer printable 3-4 years ago. I could do a direct transfer without waiting for a long reencode. Only annoyances was the basic tool would not let me do a layer alignment (which is basically reserved for $$$ tools last time I checked anyway.)
 

Roguestar

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
6,045
0
0
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
And besides, compression + reburning to DVD is for those with weak hard drives. ;) My LOTR discs have been in a drive exactly once - to rip them in uncompressed format to a media server. Streaming VOB support FTW.
Geektastic, I'm actually jealous of that. Nothing like watching the extended trilogy back-to-back for 12 hours on a boring sunday ;).
 

Zim

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2003
1,043
4
81
Originally posted by: Roguestar
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
And besides, compression + reburning to DVD is for those with weak hard drives. ;) My LOTR discs have been in a drive exactly once - to rip them in uncompressed format to a media server. Streaming VOB support FTW.
Geektastic, I'm actually jealous of that. Nothing like watching the extended trilogy back-to-back for 12 hours on a boring sunday ;).
That's WHY the Sunday was boring! :p
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,995
854
126
I have had a DL drive for a long time now and have never made a DL disc. Even the one that came with the drive is still wrapped. Why? Because I have no need to. Blank single sided discs are so cheap that I dont even care if I make a coaster. I dont use DVD for data backup, just to make photo DVDs and to archive my massive DVD collection. I use DVD shrink and get rid of all the extra crap and just back up the movie. And while I can see some quality differences I dont care as long as I have my original DVD I am cool with the lower quality of compression. I guess cost is a factor also if they made rewritable DL dvds I probably would have used it as I can erase it if it fubared. I also notice many new burners out there do no even offer DL anymore. IMO, DL came out too late for the consumers to really care. I remember when I got my first CDR burner and paid $100 for 1, yes 1, blank CDR disk! Thank God my job paid for it! :)
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
239
106
I can echo Oyeve's response. I have two DL burners, but have had no need for the extra space. Normal DVD more than meets my needs.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
i don't buy them because they cost way too much compared to single layer, which I've always gotten nearly free after rebate.

 

Compuzen

Member
Nov 25, 2005
161
0
0
I paid $369 for my DL Sony burner when it first came out, and also have never burned a DL disc. One Click DVD copy can remove everything and my compression rate is usually around 11%. I've watched them on our 65" HDTV with a progressive scan (haven't tried the upconverting set tops yet) and they look perfect.

Even if DL was only twice as much as SL discs, I don't believe I'd buy them. Now we'll have to wait and see if HDDVD or Bluray are going to follow suite with DL DVDs....it'll probably come down to copyright protection.
 

Zim

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2003
1,043
4
81
For me it's not about movies, it's about data backup. In this case 8.5GB is a big difference compared to 4.5GB.
 

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
Originally posted by: Leros
Its cheaper to burn two single layer dvds than one dual layer dvd.
It's also cheaper for a family of 4 to live in a one bedroom apartment, but... :laugh:

 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,995
854
126
Originally posted by: Zim
For me it's not about movies, it's about data backup. In this case 8.5GB is a big difference compared to 4.5GB.

Still no where near worth the $$$. Pennies for a single layer, a helluva lot more for DL that may not even be readable on another drive.
 

Zim

Golden Member
Dec 25, 2003
1,043
4
81
Originally posted by: Oyeve
Originally posted by: Zim
For me it's not about movies, it's about data backup. In this case 8.5GB is a big difference compared to 4.5GB.
Still no where near worth the $$$. Pennies for a single layer, a helluva lot more for DL that may not even be readable on another drive.
Which is exactly my point. Why have DL discs not got more reliable or cheaper over the years?
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
i have 2 dl burners but have never used it either. To me - DL is about data backup...not about copying movies. Doesn't matter what you say - but i'd rather backup my information on 2 DL DVDs than deal with 4DL. I moved away from CDS because for every 7 CDs I could simply replace it with a DVD. Same logic applies here, of course the jump isn't great...but to get 8gigs vs 4 makes things a lot nicer when I need that extra space.

Of course so as long as DL cost an arm and a leg I'm not going to be interested

and interesting info that linux support for DL sucks...means that even with cheap media I most likely won't use it ;)
 

AMCRambler

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2001
7,706
28
91
Originally posted by: Zim
Originally posted by: Roguestar
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
And besides, compression + reburning to DVD is for those with weak hard drives. ;) My LOTR discs have been in a drive exactly once - to rip them in uncompressed format to a media server. Streaming VOB support FTW.
Geektastic, I'm actually jealous of that. Nothing like watching the extended trilogy back-to-back for 12 hours on a boring sunday ;).
That's WHY the Sunday was boring! :p

One ring to rule them all! Hahahah, I couldn't resist. Just watch Clerks 2 a couple weeks ago and the Lord of the Rings nerd was hillarious!