Talk:DVD/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New technology

I am surprised to see no-one has presented New Market Enterprises here. They have patented a new technique to combine both Blu-ray and HD-DVD onto one disc.

http://www.nmeinc.com/

This would make having both systems competing on the market obsolete as all DVDs could be made to include both versions making life a lot easier and cheaper for consumers by avoiding another costly showdown as in the Video/Betamax days.

Discs seem to include ten! recordable/readable layers and players can read both formats as well as all existing formats.

It would be interesting for a technology buff to have a look at the status of things (discs and players are already commercialised) to include this info in the Wiki article.

213.135.244.223 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Michael Wolfcarius

DVDs being wiped?

My girlfriend believes that if you leave DVDs on the DVD player they will be wiped. I found this amusing and ridiculous, but she still believes it. Is there any proof of this phenomenon? I guess she is thinking of VHS and the magnets involved. Can someone clarify this? Cheers 82.28.21.130 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stamped DVDs, the type that store bought movies come on, are not affected by magnetic fields, and are undamaged by the low powered laser diodes used to read them. They cannot be erased like a video casette or a floppy disk. Such a DVD could only be damaged by a DVD player if it were subjected to extreme heat, physical scratching due to a damaged mechanism, or speeds great enough to cause the disc to shatter. None of these conditions exist in a properly functioning DVD player, whether it is turned on or off.

DVD writers, despite having a more powerful laser, are still not able to create enough heat to damage a stampted DVD.

One is more likely to damage a DVD by repeatedly inserting it into and removing it from a DVD case than from leaving it inside a DVD player.

Jax184 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Information on regions

I wonder why there is no information on regions in the article ?

Region 1 - U.S.A, U.S. territories and Canada Region 2 - Europe, Japan, the Middle East, Egypt, South Africa, Greenland Region 3 - Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong Region 4 - Mexico, South & Central America, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, Caribbean Region 5 - Russia, Eastern Europe, India, Africa excluding South Africa, North Korea, Mongolia Region 6 - China

It would be nice to add map like here http://www.ilovedvd.co.nz/regioncodes.asp —The preceding

Comment was added by Kaafree (talk • contribs) 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That information is specific to video DVDs, and is referenced in the DVD-Video article. Ciotog 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about DVD Video and the system

The regular DVDs that you can buy in any store, like all the movies, the TV series, or even Software DVDs like Windows Vista, are they DVD-R or DVD+R? Thanks, Walt 9AM EST

They are neither, they're stamped (something like vinyl records) rather than chemical dyes (more like cassette tapes). Ciotog 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! So no matter what Laptop DVD drive or what DVD Player I have, original "stamped" DVDs definitely work?

That depends... Some dvds have copy protection built-in, they might use a video codec that's not supported, there might be region code issues. It depends on the type of dvd, how well it's constructed, etc. Ciotog 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturing

How are DVD's manufactured? I assume it is a similar process to CDs (CD manufacturing) but with the option of dual layers. John a s (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD

DVD Succesors

Removed this bit: "The first generation of holographic media with 300 GB of storage capacity and a 160 Mbit/s transfer rate was scheduled for release in late 2006 by Maxell and its partner, InPhase." since it never happened according to the wiki article on holographic discs. home of fox for ton webs con com Home of fox for ton Webs con Com

Criticism

I noticed how there's no criticism section. Add one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.135 (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, something along the lines of how fragile DVDs are.(72.144.136.252 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

I Agree too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.152.198 (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All DVDs are DVD-ROM? Oh Really?

The 2nd paragraph of the article says "All DVDs — ... — are DVD-ROM discs". This sounds wrong to me. What about DVD-RAM and DVD-RW (both of which have been approved by the DVD Forum, not to mention DVD+RW which has not)? Are those DVD-ROM discs? (I think not.) Note that the DVD-RAM article links to this one to define the term "DVD", but here there is a definition that is so narrow that it precludes the existence of DVD-RAM. —Pangolin 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Technically only pressed discs are ROM, +r and -r are WORM. DVD-ROM, DVD±R, DVD±RW and so on are all technical terms for the capability of the drive, not the media.

ElKeeed 09:35, 2 April 2007 (GMT)

Voideo vs. Versatile

The majority of pages I can find on the subject say that originally (perhaps before the standard was finalized?), DVD stood for "Digital Video Disc" and was later changed to "Digital Versatile Disc".

• DVD Demystified FAQ
• TechEncyclopedia
• Foldoc

I can't find a single site claiming it the other way around, although the DVD Forum (and it's members) often say that people "confuse DVD for Digital Video Disc", they don't seem to confirm or deny that that was the original meaning. Benabik 18:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This matter warrants a lot more investigation. Currently as it is we have the three sources above which, even among themselves, are somewhat contradictory. I am more inclined to believe the "Digital Video Disc" -> "Digital Versatile Disc" explanation, except that I have never seen either acronym "officially" explained. Even the DVD forum page isn't explicit in defining the term, instead saying "versatile is the key word."

As a separate note to User:Jorelnetworks, the source you provided for your edit was from the year 2000, and was trumped by the more current sources for the existing explanation. Additionally, you should not be removing the section detailing that it was originally named (or at least referred to) as "Digital Video Disc"; this information has been sourced properly and backed up, and removing it is vandalism. While the conclusion on what DVD officially stands for currently is still debatable, it is not debatable that early DVDs sometimes used the term "Digital Video Disc". -- Y|yukichigai 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My research (primarily done via the Google News Archive) has turned up a number of news articles from 1995 early-to-mid 1995 that refer to the then-proposed unified technology as "digital videodisk" (two words). Later that year, more articles appear to split "videodisk" into "video disc" (note the altered spelling). Finally, a number of articles appear beginning on the 9th of December, 1995 which point to the DVD Consortium releasing the unified technology spec and officially naming it "digital versatile disc". Many of these period news articles appear to have originated from David Thurber of the Associated Press. An argument could be made (weakly, in my opinion) that Mr. Thurber's wording is vague ("The companies also agreed on a name for the new disc - DVD, short for 'digital versatile disc.'"), however I shall list a Dec. 11, 1995 Hollywood Reporter article as citation when I edit this article; their wording is harder to argue with ("The DVD -- which now officially stands for 'digital versatile disc' in acknowledgment of the computer software applications -- will be able to...").

Before changing this wikipedia article, I noticed the strong "read the talk page discussions, first!" warnings, but in my browsing I don't see mention of any authority more definitive than what I've stated above. It should be noted that most articles I could find from 1995 (save a few from CNet) are presently paid content -- my research comes entirely from the free preview/summary text often available for paid content articles. It should additionally be noted that my research was limited to the late 1995 coming together of the MMCD and SD camps in the initial forming of the DVD standard -- anything I have found may (or may not) have been superseded by something else in the 11 years between then and now.

-- Fishbert 08:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the article from the IP address 199.64.0.252 on January 17, 2007 are actually from me -- didn't realize I wasn't signed in at the time (oops).

-- Fishbert 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The DVD format was originally created for displaying digital video (just as CDs where created for digital audio, and laserdiscs where created for digital video) and "Digital Video Disc" is the original term for DVD, I specifically remember this from the late 90s. However, around the time of the advent of DVD-RAM and DVD-Rs I remember that they did start trying to use the newer term "Digital Versatile Disc" when they realized that "Digital Video Disc" wasn't a very good name to begin with considering that you could store any type of data on a DVD (just as with CDs) and not just video.

Also, just to throw it out there, according to a google and yahoo search, "Digital Video Disc" gets about the same usage as "Digital Versatile Disc":

Google

digital video disc - 437,000 pages

digital versatile disc - 461,000 pages

Yahoo

digital video disc - 817,000 pages

digital versatile disc - 434,000 pages

I think both terms should be shown on the page and the naming section under history should remain. The machine512 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The information on www.dvddemystified.com about "DVD" not standing for anything any more is a claim made without presentation of supporting evidence. The DVD Forum's own DVD Primer page, on the other hand, supports the 'V' standing for 'Versatile'. ("What does DVD mean? The keyword is "versatile." Digital Versatile discs provide superb video, audio and data storage and access -- all on one disc.") This page was last updated in 2000 -- a year after DVD Demystified claims the DVD Forum changed "DVD" to not stand for anything. Unless a more authoritative source may be found (a press release, for example), the as-yet unsubstantiated DVD Demystified claim should not be cited as a source on this wikipedia page. Information in random, 3rd party FAQs on the internet cannot just be assumed reliable. -- Fishbert 17:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the above sentence you quoted. Does it say, explicitly, that "DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disc? No. It says the "keyword" is versatile. It strongly indicates that DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disc, but it is ambiguous enough that Toshiba (who bears sole responsibility for maintaining the DVD Forum site) could not, say, get sued in court for going against a majority decision on the part of the other DVD Forum member companies to leave DVD as a name in itself.

In essence, what we're dealing with here is a non-neutral source. Toshiba has a POV, and they're pushing it. On top of that, while the DVD Forum page was updated in 2000, the DVD Demystified FAQ was last updated on January 7th, 2007. It is not a "random, 3rd party FAQ" either, but one written by the current President of the DVD Association. (and General Manager of the Advanced Technology Group at Sonic Solutions, which isn't quite as impressive but relevant all the same)

Until you can find a more current, official source or some place that the DVD Forum (not Toshiba) has said in clear, unambiguous terms, "DVD stands for X" then the DVD Demystified information is the most reliable, and will stay in the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1) The DVD Demystified FAQ claims that the DVD Forum made an official decision in 1999 that "DVD" no longer stood for anything. They do not, however, provide a reference for this claim. In my scouring of press releases and news articles from 1999, I have yet to find *any* mention of this supposed decision anywhere other than the DVD Demystified FAQ. The claim is dubious until source material may be located.

2) That it was updated more recently is not relevant. What is relevant is that they claim a decision was made by the DVD Forum in 1999, and that the DVD Forum website "strongly indicates" (in your words) that this is not the case in one of their own documents last updated in 2000 -- after the supposed 1999 decision.

3) The DVD Demystified FAQ *is* a random, 3rd party FAQ. Its claim to fame is that it's the offical faq for a DVD newsgroup. And, the DVD Association President is Bernie Mitchell (http://www.dvda.org/content/view/26/34/), not Jim Taylor (author of the newsgroup FAQ). If this newsgroup FAQ (updated monthly, again) can't keep this straight, I don't know why it should be considered more of an authoritative source than the DVD Forum's own website (no matter which member organization maintains it).

4) My argument is not that the DVD Forum website qualifies as hard evidence of fact. My argument is that that an unsupported (and conflicting) claim made in the DVD Demystified FAQ is *not* hard evidence of fact. To present information as fact, you need hard evidence that it is fact. How do you get this hard evidence? Find the source material of the DVD Demystified FAQ's claim. Find a press release or reliable news article from 1999 documenting the supposed decision. But until there is some actual evidence that the DVD Forum officially decided "DVD" didn't stand for anything, you can't claim it as a fact here. And, if it was an official decision by the DVD Forum, there should be more substantiation out there than a newsgroup FAQ.

In the interest of presenting the substance of this discussion in a less black-and-white light (and not furthering a revert war), I have not removed the claim from the wikipedia page. Instead I have re-worded it to make it apparent that this is an as-yet unsubstantiated claim. I trust this will be an acceptable compromise between our positions until more definitive evidence is found.

-- Fishbert 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That, in essence, is the problem. Neither position has clear, definitive evidence. All it would take would be a simple statement from the DVD Forum saying "DVD stands for X", and it is the lack of such a simple clarification that makes the assertion suspect. However, the issues cited with the DVD Demystified FAQ are (mostly) valid as well. The only reason it wins out is from the standpoint of WP:V and WP:RS the more recent, more updated source has more clout. Honestly, I don't have a vested interest in which one is correct, I just don't want to add bad information to the article. (I'm also wary of it becoming a POV issue, as it has in the past) Anyway, this could all be solved if we can find a new, reliable source that is absolutely clear on what DVD means currently. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is similar to the "debate" over intelligent design vs. evolution. There's no evidence for I.D., but so long as someone of authority presents the idea, people want to immediately put the two positions on even footing until negative evidence is provided. In this debate over the initialism, there is evidence that "DVD" was officially decided to mean "digital versatile disc" in late 1995, but so long as someone of authority (Jim Taylor) presents the idea that it now officially means nothing, people want to present the two positions on even footing until negative evidence is provided.

For a claim to be accepted as fact, it must be proven to be true. It is not the case that a claim is assumed to be fact until it is disproven.

My argument is not that the 1999 claim is disproven. My argument is that the 1999 claim is not proven.

-- Fishbert 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My claim in the DVD FAQ of a 1999 naming decision comes from reports of people present at the meetings. I believe it was also mentioned in published Steering Committee decision reports, but I haven't been able to locate my printed copy. The problem with changes to the history section claiming that DVD was "officially" decided to stand for digital versatile disc is that the specification itself (of which I have a copy) never uses this term. Citing a single press article is insufficient, as most reporters at the time didn't understand the nuances. I have reworked the history section to attempt to explain this better. The key to understanding the distinction is that analog videodiscs had been around since 1978, so early work naturally called the new versions "digital videodisc." The "versatile" back-formation was not proposed until much later. Note that the cited New York Times article uses the spelling "videodisk" because of the then-current manual of style. Since then they have recognized the error of their ways and moved from "k" to "c." I would note this in the footnote, but I don't know how to add a note field. JimTheFrog 07:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, however, your claim seems to be recollection, rather than historic record. I, for one, would certainly welcome such a record, but at this point in time, there does not seem to be any actual source to review. And, regarding the reportedly "official" decision on versatile back in the day (I'm sure all may agree that both video and versatile are acceptable today)... official decisions of the governing bodies of industry standards are not always limited to specification document tomes. As such, the specification not using the term 'versatile' (for the sake of argument, I'll assume that as true) does not suffice as evidence toward the negative. The historical record (as I mentioned earlier in this discussion page) includes a number of news articles with imprecise wording appear to originate from David Thurber of the AP, however, the source actually cited is a little harder to argue with: "The DVD -- which now officially stands for 'digital versatile disc' in acknowledgment of the computer software applications -- will be able to..." (Hollywood Reporter, 1995). You may chalk it up to reporter ignorance if you like, but it seems to be stated in fairly clear wording to me. Again, as I stated earlier, an actual press release text would be ideal; but until such a time as one comes to light, the article cited appears to be the strongest source discovered to date. Finally, as far as 'videodisk' vs. 'videodisc' goes... it appeared in my research at the time, that the (short-lived) laserdisc technology was commonly spelled with a 'k' around that time. I assumed at the time that the spelling was carried over from that. But my assumptions are neither here nor there; the earliest and most authoritative source I could find (the NYT article cited) spells it with a 'k' at the end, so that's what I listed as the original (and obviously unofficial) name of the technology in the wikipedia article -- I don't see any reason to change that.

Fishbert 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishbert, you are missing the point entirely. Since there is clearly disagreement on what DVD stands for, including disagreement within the DVD Forum, then this article can not unequivocally state that there was an official decision. Given that I have been personally misquoted by articles in Hollywood Reporter, it would be foolhardy indeed to consider it authoritative. I find it ironic that when a magazine reporter makes a claim based on what he is told, you call it "historical record," but when my FAQ (and my book and my magazine articles, for that matter) make a claim based on what I am told, you call it "recollection." DVD Demystified, first published in 1997, points out that there is disagreement over the meaning of the acronym. The 2nd and 3rd editions reinforce this. So let's compare sources: exhibit a) scholarly reference books with bibliographies, contributed to and reviewed by dozens of experts in the field, and exhibit b) a few magazine articles. Wikipedia policy is clear -- when there is disagreement, provide a neutral viewpoint. Your edits do not do this, so I must correct them. As to the spelling of videodisc and laserdisc, I have been active in the field since videodiscs were launched in 1978, and I know for a fact that "disc" is the preferred spelling by a significant majority. If you don't believe me as an authority, then note that there is no entry in Wikipedia for "videodisk," but there is one for "videodisc." Note also that "laserdisk" redirects to "laserdisc." Please check your facts and consider Wikipedia guidelines and you will recognize that my corrections are accurate and appropriate. JimTheFrog 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that the article as written misrepresented my DVD FAQ, which does not claim that the DVD Forum "changed the official name of the format," since of course they didn't. The official name since December 1995 has been "DVD," the term used in all DVD format specification documents. Again, the debate is about what DVD stands for, if anything, so we must provide a neutral point of view. JimTheFrog 18:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, you appear to be confusing "is" and "was". And you appear to be confusing 1995 with 1999. Both are important distinctions, considering this is in the 'History' section of the article, which is not intended to make any claims of how things are in the present day. This debate is not about what DVD stands for, it's about what DVD has stood for over time, and how that has evolved.

1) Yes, there "is" disagreement over what DVD stands for... but in 1995, as far as written evidence from multiple sources supports, there "was" an official decision. It may not have ever caught on with the public, and it may have lost its "officialness" (if I may make up a word) over time, but that does not change the fact that the event occurred. Removing this information, or rewording the text in order to present the decision as a 'proposed' meaning is misrepresenting the properly-cited information at hand, and is inappropriate.

2) "Exhibit a)" (as you refer to it) is a newsgroup FAQ which you yourself maintain. And, while informative on a great many things, it provides absolutely no citation of evidence relating to any aspect of format naming. There was discussion about this earlier in this page, and it was agreed (in the interest of fairness and presenting all relevant information) to leave mention of the claims in your FAQ as part of the Wikipedia article. Now, are you saying that your FAQ refutes the news reports of 1995? Because all I see in your FAQ is a claim of a naming decision in 1999. That's four years later. I don't see how they are in conflict. Perhaps you believe that the Wikipedia article's history section is claiming that the naming decision made in 1995 declares a specific winner in the 'video' vs. 'versatile' war that people still like to play today. The history sections of the article merely states that in 1995 it was officially decided one way. It makes no claims of how it is handled today.

3) The text of the wikipedia article's history section, as it read before your edits, presents the information in a fair manner. It states supported facts, and also presents unsupported claims. I understand that you may feel personally slighted because the newsgroup FAQ you maintain does not carry the day as gospel, but it is fairly presented alongside other information and is fairly held up to the same verifiability standards. Your allegation of bias in the article is unfounded, and I believe belies your own. It is difficult to present bias when merely stating what is written in multiple news releases written for mainstream media on the same day as the events in question. If anything, your edits made under the claim of the NPOV policy go against the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policies of Wikipedia by removing, without just cause, properly cited information. And, indeed, rewording the text in such a way as the citations then contradict the text they are associated with.

4) Another example of the confusion over "is" and "was" is the spelling 'laserdisk' vs. 'laserdisc'. Yes, I agree with you that it's spelled with a 'c'... but that's today. The New York Times article cited (again, the earliest and most authoritative I could find) spells with it with a 'k', as do many other period articles. I agree with you that this was probably due to conventions of writing style at the time. But that's the way it was at the time, and that's how it should be presented in this history section of the article. I will, however, add a note about the spelling change over time, and attempt to make it clear that this was a very unofficial name.

If you further feel that rolling back your changes to the article goes against Wikipedia policy, then perhaps we should open up a Wikipedia:Request for Comment or try to find some moderator within the organization to step in. I don't want an edit war, but I don't want properly-cited information replaced with un-verifiable information, either.

Fishbert 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a side-note:

Presenting a neutral point of view does not mean that you take two opposing viewpoints, cut them down the middle, and present that compromise as fact -- such is artificial and disingenuous.

Presenting a neutral point of view means that you look at the verifiable evidence at hand, and consider it without the color of bias -- sometimes the evidence takes you to the middle, sometimes it does not. Toward the middle or not, where the evidence leads you is seldom artificial or disingenuous.

Fishbert 09:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishbert, you did a nice job with the revised edits, which capture the points in a reasonable way. However, I must correct the reference to my FAQ, which does not state that the name was changed, only that an official statement was made. And I maintain that the videodisc reference should be spelled correctly, but it's not worth fighting about. :-) JimTheFrog 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think that "Digital Versatile Disc" is either an affectionate nickname that somebody thought up for it, or a more "commercial" name that deliberately draws attention to the fact that a DVD can have many things stored on it, while "Digital Video Disc" is a sober, unemotional, accurate name for it, much like "VCR" is short for "videocassette recorder". (Nobody ever said VCR stood for "video crappy recorder" ;) - uh-oh, I hope nobody takes me up on that!). AlbertSM 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The full quote from the DVD Forum's DVD Primer reads, "What does DVD mean? The keyword is "versatile." Digital Versatile discs provide superb video, audio and data storage and access -- all on one disc." I think this quote and the fact that there is some contention about whether DVD stands for anything should be included in the page for balance M0thr4 (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

History

Does anyone have any information on when the first DVD burning drive was available for home PCs? I have found hitachi announcing a 1x ROM in 1997, but I'm curious when the first burner was made available for home use. This would also be good information for the article.--Crossmr 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The first 3.95G DVD-R drives appeared in fall of 1997. (See DVD Demystified.) They cost US$17,000, not quite affordable for the average home user, but could be hooked up to most PCs. JimTheFrog 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

DVD9?

Why does DVD9 redirect here? The term is not explained (nor even mentioned) on this page. -- Mikeblas 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD9 refers to a single-sided dual-layer DVD. I'm not sure why its not explained in the article anymore. --Ray andrew 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I had the same happen when I followed a link to 'DVD-10', which I assume is either an official code or a special type of DVD. WikiReaderer 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I just checked the page and both these terms are now defined. WikiReaderer 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

208.248.33.30

Sorry about the vandalism done by this IP. Its an IP addressed shared by about 500 users. I don't know who did it. 208.248.33.30 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

'Digital Video Disc'?

Who claims that DVD is short for 'Digital Video Disc' ??? According to the DVD Forum (Organization that developed the DVDs) DVD means 'Digital Versatile Disc'. http://www.dvdforum.org/faq-dvdprimer.htm#1 I'm changing the text so that we don't promote this common but still wrong assumption. --212.242.126.216 (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The DVD Forum is not the same organization that developed the DVD. The DVD was developed by a consortium of ten companies: Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson, Time Warner, and Toshiba. In 1997, the DVD Consortium was replaced by the DVD Forum, which now has hundreds of companies as members.

Furthermore, dvdforum.org is owned by just one member of that organization -- Toshiba. Toshiba has been pushing "digital versatile disc," but the original initialism came from "digital video disc." and the proposed renaming by Toshiba has never been officially accepted by the DVD Forum as a whole. In 1999 the DVD Forum Steering Committee decreed that DVD, as an international standard, is simply three letters.

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.1

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#6.1

75.84.238.18 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

DVDRs are not archival media

The section entitled "DVDs as an archival medium" currently contains a reference from OSTA repeating manufacturers' claims for lifespan. In reality, it is not good practice to use DVDRs or CDRs for archival or long-term storage since their expected life span in only a few years.

More usefull and valuable references/citations are:

The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration Web site (Item 6 in the FAQs) http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/initiatives/temp-opmedia-faq.html

Library of Congress - Digital Preservation, "At Risk: Storage Disks" http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/you/digitalmemories.html

New York Times - Real world consumer encounters with failing DVDRs http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/homemade-dvds-going-going-gone/

Transparency disclaimer: I work for Cranberry.com which is introducing the first real archival DVDR (life expectancy is 1000 years but it only needs to be solid for 50 to meet archival requirements). That is why I'm leaving this for others to evaluate, discuss and implement changes as seen fit.

Jbeaul (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, somebody (not Jbeaul, of course) should either add info about cranberry or delete the info about gold discs. Why mention only one allegedly-longer-life medium and not the other? 75.84.238.18 (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the 4th time what are wal-mart ads doing on Wikipedia pages?

The whole section about "succession" talks about things irrelevant to DVD's such as the price of blu-ray disks and blu-ray players at Wal-Mart. What could this information possibly have to do with DVD's?

Wow! A definitely agree with you. This is very out of place on a Wikipedia article! --Sauronjim (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some boss at Wal-mart thought it was a good idea to vandalize an encyclopedic article and insert marketing propaganda all over the place. The Blu-ray article has also being attacked a couple of times by marketers in the past. Fortunately, such "additions" don't last for long (wikipedia has good moderators)

Paper disk and "fool proof security"

The artical claims that the HD paper disk can be cut and recycled and therefor be totally secure, Mabey this disk is different but data recovery off of floppy disks that have been cut up or broken CD's has been going on for a long time. plus the paper disk artical doesn't make this claim. I think at this point no one know if data recovery off a cut/shattered disks will be possible and that claim should be removed. 67.160.55.104 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

History add on

When was the first dvd released, and which film was it? When was the first dvd player availble in the shops?

See Talk:DVD-Video#No_historical_information - this is about the physical disk, not cinematic content or hardware! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I also find it strange that this is not in the article. According to http://standartdvd.com/, limited USA launch was August 1997, with the full launch in 1998, month not specified. The mention of launch date should include the five test market cities: Dallas, Philadelphia, Portland, Richmond, San Francisco -- 67.64.66.99 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The only mention I have been able to find is a post in the film-talk.com's forums which suggests that "Tropical Rainforest", "Africa: The Serengeti", "Antartica", and "Animation Greats" were the first titles to be released by distributor Lumivision.--68.162.73.44 12:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD region code

This article doesn't link to DVD region code anywhere...it really should. --Stlemur 12:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD region coding is a feature of the DVD-Video format, and is linked to in that article. This article is only about the physical media, not the video storage format usually used on it. -- Yukichigai 18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Who?

Who invented DVD's? Don't you think that should be in this?

It's actually an African Patent and technology that was released to the public domain. 71.134.244.37 (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

??Why, Philips and Sony of course, right after the release of the CD DaveFlash (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So, how does it work?

Don't you think that should be in the article pretty prominently? I shouldn't have to go to External links or the infobox to hunt for a germane link. --zenohockey 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a reliability/life span section?

When I asked a certain filmmaker about whether reliable burned DVDs exist, I got the following response: "There's no such thing as a reliable burned DVD - it's a problem inherent to the format. The ones you buy in stores aren't that reliable either! You can get DVDs of your work professionally pressed/stamped, for about $2000 for 1000 of them, you can't buy less, those are as good as what you get in stores.

Really, the best way to make sure your data will still be reliable later is to make lots of copies of it, and keep doing so for years and years if you still need the data later. By torrenting my discs and sending them out to lots of people, I can guarantee that copies of the discs will still work for as long as the DVD format itself has been forgotten in favor of what's next ... which I hope is more reliable!"

So... I went to wikipedia expecting to find some kind of info about this, only to see that there was absolutely nothing. It seems strange to me, seeing that this is an issue of paramount importance to people who use DVDs for storing information. Esn 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that there is a CD rot article which also talks about DVD rot. This should probably be mentioned here... Esn 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a cursory Google search and started a crappy section under the "Longevity" name. It's very bad right now, but I think that it's absolutely essential. It beats me how this article was approved for Version 1.0 without it. Esn 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your filmmaker friend seams to be a little cynical, perhaps he has been unlucky. There have been plenty of studies done demonstrating that burned DVD's have a pretty good life span. It should also be made clear, that these are only problems with recordable DVD. --Ray andrew 04:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but instead of making that clear, you deleted the whole section. Esn 08:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit poorly thought out and sourced contributions. --Ray andrew 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no place on Wikipedia that will just give a concrete longevity NUMBER? Is it just indefinite, or is there a terminal melting date? As the Philips engineer said, "rot is isolated" so that topic is a red herring.

Ray andrew: Isn't this what flagging an article is for? Bring the attention to the problem, and if you don't have time to sort it out yourself, let the rest of the community deal with it. 24.76.147.217 (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability and Longevity are huge and major issues for DVD and CDs and storage media generally. There isn't a rankign of what is reliable on wikipedia and there definitely should be. The truth is that DVDs are not much better than magnetic tape and failure within 2-4 years is the norm. The more reliable thing are HDDs. People need to know this. stop squibbling amongst yourselves and get a section up so people can contribute.

I added a brief section on this topic that briefly outlined some of the claims found from apparently independent sources on the 'net. Whether or not others would disagree with those claims is not completely relevant: there are claims and we can at least acknowledge that they exist. If an independent study is available that provides more rigorous conclusions, then this new section should be amended to include that information. If there is widespread controversy, then documentation that the controversy exists might also be appropriate to be added to the section. But silence on the topic overall is not serving the common user. RDNewman (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about the research and which numbers to actually go by for disk lifespan. Also, there is mention of research by NIST in Hard disk failure about lifespan, but it's not mentioned here. Zeniff 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeniffMartineau (talk • contribs)

First DVD

See Talk:DVD-Video#No_historical_information - this is about the physical disk, not cinematic content ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's known, someone should add what the first title released on DVD was (the same way that the VHS article mentiones the first title released on VHS). TJ Spyke 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The first DVD release was Twister. Source: [1] --81.158.130.85 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The first DVD released was Kurt Vonnegut's Welcome To The Monkey House. The first disks and players were too toxic causing a few toxic shock deaths and the company went out of business. It took 5 years for electronics companies to stop fighting each other over purchasing the rights and splitting up the patents before DVD's again hit the shelves. 71.134.230.11 (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for only putting your speculation on the talk page !

Welcome To The Monkey House seems to be a book and album ...

Googling [Toxic DVD] only seems to find Britney - even [toxic dvd site:snopes.com]

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing wikibook

If someone knows what happened to this book linked to on the right, please update the link, otherwise it should be deleted from the article. patsw (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Etymology"

I am loath to shirk convention, but can an acronym have an etymology? --VKokielov (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Speed messup?

Major inconsistencies in the Speed section. It seems the author has appeared to ignore the Wikipedia standards regarding SI and binary prefixes.

ie: 1.32MiB=~1350KiB *1024=1382400Bytes *8=11059200bits /1024=10800 "kebibits" /1024=~10.55 "Mebibits"

As far as I know, the only times binary (rather than SI) prefixes (prefices?) have been used in terms of bits has been for the capacity of solid-state Memory (eg a 64 "Mebibit" chip), whereas in data rates kilobits are used (eg 128kbits/sec=128000 bits/sec).

It also seems that the author has mistaken the 1350kB/sec speed from the previous section, for a binary kilobyte value.

Thus, the actual data rates may be closer to: 1.35MB/s=1350kB/s=10800kb/s=10.8Mb/s

Making the associated binary values: 1.29MiB/s=10800000b/s=10.3Mib/s

Since these are recording data rates I would suggest that the SI prefixes be used for the bitrates, and either or both SI and binary for the byterates.

Since I have no independent verification of the actual bitrates 1x is defined at (the value listed in the Technology section seems to be contradictory to the source it referenced in DVD FAQ Section 4.2), I decided against editing the table. It may be notable that 1350KiB/s is exactly 9x CD Speed (150KiB/s).

24.78.129.157 (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully corrected correctly.

Note that for CD drives, 1× means 153.6 kB/s (150 KiB/s), 9 times slower.

The CD-ROM article doesn’t agree, it says 150 kB/s. — Christoph Päper 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CD-ROM article was wrong. It should be as is here. Look at Red Book (audio CD standard). ArivaldH (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BluRay not part of the DVD spec, therefore shouldn't be mentioned to the See Also tag.

If there was a Need to add BluRay in the "See Also" Section, maybe we should add VideoCD and SuperVideoCD.

Actually, as I don't believe VideoCD should be added, I believe that BluRay should be removed, too, as it uses totally incompatible technology with DVD's official successor, HD-DVD, which in turn has extreme similarities to DVD structure.

Please, keep the removal of BluRay I did and let BluRay at the "rivals" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrisj (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me... I'm a bit confused here...

so what year was the exact year that DVDs went on sale for home use? 24.192.136.238 (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know too. I think it was 1997 for the US, but have no specific proof. I first saw them in 1998 in the UK (Jumanji and Queen's Greatest Hits were some of the first I saw).

Also, what about the first DVD-video player and first DVD-ROM drive? I remember seeing DVD-ROM drives sold by Creative in late 1997 or early 1998, and I recall T3 magazine saying the frist DVD video player was some Onkyo model in 1996 (possibly only sold in Japan) - I think I still have that magazine somewhere... --Zilog Jones (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just remembered I definately have magazines reviewing the first DVD video player sold in the UK at least. It was some Panasonic model that came out around Spring 1998. I'll look when I get home if I remember! --Zilog Jones (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, whether or not it is accurate! =) --24.192.136.238 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's been some recent back-and-forth fighting over "1995 introductions" and "1996 introductions" in the categories list at the bottom of the article. I haven't been a part of the edit war, but I believe the difference in opinion may center around whether someone is looking at the DVD specification or at the introduction of DVD technology to the marketplace. As mentioned in this wikipedia article, the DVD specification was finalized in December of 1995. The DVD Faq at dvddemystified.com (a source for portions of the article) says that "the first players appeared in Japan in November, 1996, followed by U.S. players in March, 1997..."
Technically, I believe the proper category at the bottom of the article should be "1995 introductions" because the subject of this article is the format, not the related commercial products. I have taken the liberty of adding "1996 introductions" and "1997 introductions" to the categories list for DVD Player, and of changing the category list for this article to read "1995 introductions". If anyone disagrees with this, please comment here... I am not trying to insert myself into an edit war.
Fishbert (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable source supports it, and is posted here, I'm ok with 1995. What you were seeing wasn't actually an edit war, but some systematic vandalism by one user on multiple video format related pages, in one other cases they changed introductory dates of formats by 10 years. 3 IPs and 1 user named were blocked, and this page had to be semi protected. They refused to provide sources, and continued making unsourced changes without edit summaries. Hope that helps! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people go for quick-n-dirty edits, not bothering to look at discussion pages or write explanations for what they are doing. I didn't know anything about ties to other, more extreme edits... I just came in, saw a tennis match of sorts over that small bit of info, and figured there were two strong opinions butting heads, which got me curious about the whole thing. Whether it was someone pushing an honest (but lazy) change or just accidentally-correct vandalism, perhaps it will be left alone now.

Fishbert (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DVD and Blu-ray not the same.

DVD and Blu-ray aren't the same and I see many people on different web sites and news article refer to Blu-ray as a "Blu-ray DVD" or something very similar. In the FAQ section of the Blu-ray web site or even going to Sony's Blu-ray web site, the correct acronym for Blu-ray is simply "BD." Information on this can also be found on the Blu-ray Disc Association web site. (blu-raydisc.com) Just to make a better case they have referred to the different discs as BD-ROM, BD-R, and BD-RE. So to conclude, to avoid confusion between Digital Versatile Disc and Blu-ray, it is really as different as DVD and BD. Since it's one less letter, it's even quicker to say. LOL  :-) Dchagwood (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Blu-Ray shouldn't even be discussed in on the DVD page. Its market share and price differences are not even close to justifying information about it. 71.112.170.66 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sector size

What is the area of each sector in square nanometres?Anwar (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes & omissions in the table "Capacity differences of writable DVD formats"

The table labeled "Capacity differences of writable DVD formats" reports these numbers for the capacity of Single Layer DVDs:

 DVD-R: 2,298,496 sectors
        4,707,319,808 bytes

However, the Optical Storage Technology Association (OSTA), which represents most manufacturers of optical storage products, posts these numbers at http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa6.htm:

 DVD-R: 2,294,922 sectors
        4,700,000,000 bytes

For DVD+R, this article exactly matches the OSTA numbers.

In addition, this table omits the numbers for:

 DVD-RW (OSTA reports numbers which exactly match DVD-R)

 DVD+RW (OSTA reports numbers which exactly match their numbers for DVD+R)

 DVD-RAM: 2,295,072 sectors (from OSTA)
          4,700,307,456 bytes (from OSTA)

I recommend:

 1) Checking the numbers in this table again.
 2) Listing http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa6.htm as a reference.

Thank you,

David.J.Lambert (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the DVD-R size: It appears that unfortunately, you went directly for the table on the OSTA web site without reading the immediate sentence in front of it, quote:

Consequently, real world capacity can vary slightly among discs from different media manufacturers although many have informally settled on 2,298,496 sectors (4,707,319,808 bytes) for a DVD-R (General) 4.7 GB disc.

– Ylai (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Density of Data on DVD

Gboycolor edited this article:

The capacity by surface (MiB/cm²)differs from 6.92MiB/cm² in the DVD-1 to 18.0 MiB/cm² in the DVD-18

However this do not seem right:
DVD-18:
2 sides with radius of 60mm (6cm²) make less than 113cm² of space on each size. Giving less than 126cm² (I count inner circle also).
So it would mean that DVD-18 holds not more than 126 * 18 = 2268MiB. Isn't it wrong? It must be about 8 times more... ArivaldH (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

expansion needed

• DVD doesn't seem to explain how, technologically, the disc works (encodes information, is read, etc.). --zenohockey 18:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Has been over 6 months on expansion page. Been moved to talk page. Please expand soon. Vinh1000 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Converting a CD drive to read DVDs

metacafe videos and blog posts aren't reliable sources, and the material was presented in too prescriptive a manner. Should more reliable sources be found, the following text would be a good way of phrasing the issue:

CD-ROM drives can be altered such that they can read DVDs by altering the reading density of the laser head and limiting the drive's speed.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

getting dvd to play on my computer

How do I get a DVD to play on my computer? I have a DVD drive, but it doesn't play when I put it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Difference B/W a DVD-ROM and DVD-ROM drive???

there should be a clear difference between a dvd rom and a dvd rom drive....... most of the people confuses dvd rom drive with dvd rom.in actual what we call a dvd is a dvd rom i.e dvd read only memory. and the device whichreads our dvd rom is called dvd rom drive!!! it should be noted that dvd and dvd rom are the same things while dvd rom drive is different.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaudharybilal (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

DVD drive speeds

The table in the article only shows the top speed (which is only achieved et the outer end of the DVD). It seems to use this top speed (instead of the average speed) to calculate the burn time which obviously results in unrealistically short burn times. Perhaps someone can fix this to use the average speed and find realistic burn times? 78.53.209.68 (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the Blueray section belong here at all?

Why not a see-also? Later, once we see what is ACTUALLY happening, then add a transition section? At the moment, here is a LOT of speculation and some PoV. sinneed (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

THE BLU-RAY SECTION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE DVD TOPIC. I CAUGHT WAL-MART POSTING ADS FOR THEIR BLU-RAY PLAYERS AND BLU-RAY DISKS! WATCH OUT FOR COMMERCIAL MANIPULATION.

Please dumb-down this article!

I am here to give voice to regular people like me who come to this article wondering simple questions. Unfortunately right away in the first paragraph there are undefined terms which I suppose I could find defined somewhere else if I did extensive research- But WHY!!??

For instance; " DVD-ROM has data that can only be read and not written". Fine,but what does ROM stand for?

Also;" DVD-RW, DVD+RW and DVD-RAM can both record and erase data multiple times."

That's good to know,but what does "-" and "+" MEAN in this case??!! PLEASE!

ALSO; I came here simply needing to know if I could put all my music on a DVD instead of lots of CDs. This is never answered sufficiently in the article,besides memtioning that there is a special DVD-Audio.So can I use a regular DVD,why,or why not? The article says; "DVD-Audio is a format for delivering high-fidelity audio content on a DVD. It offers many channel configuration options (from mono to 6.1 surround sound) at various sampling frequencies (up to 24-bits/192 kHz versus CDDA's 16-bits/44.1 kHz). Compared with the CD format, the much higher capacity DVD format enables the inclusion of considerably more music (with respect to total running time and quantity of songs) and/or far higher audio quality (reflected by higher sampling rates and greater bit-depth, and/or additional channels for spatial sound reproduction)."

So is this a better solution or the only one for audio?

What does R,RW stand for?

Come on guys,help out those who are not as advanced technically as yourselves and DUMB this down a bit please.76.173.38.251 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in Simple:DVD, which is the DVD article on the Simple English Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who keeps adding Blu-Ray ads to this topic?

Blu-ray ads and external links to wal-mart DO NOT BELONG in the DVD topic. If you want to talk about succession, fine, but dont include pricing information for one of your products! Wikipedia is for information not doing your businesses dirty work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanrick (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So remove the offending links and any questional sections of text - not the entire section. No need to remove the entire section to fix a sourcing issue of some of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

User:Electron9 just moved the article to Digital versatile disc, noting that this would "[avoid] future link confusion." I reverted.

Firstly, I don't know what confusion Electron9 is referring to. Perhaps he/she could elaborate.

Secondly, "Digital Versatile Disc" is a proper noun, so each word should begin with an uppercase letter.

Thirdly, there has been much discussion (viewable in this talk page's archives), and there is no consensus for such a move. As noted in the article, the initialism can stand for "Digital Versatile Disc" or "Digital Video Disc," and the only universally accepted term is "DVD" (which also is the overwhelmingly common name). —David Levy 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There might be other meanings of the acronym "DVD". And articles linking to "DVD" rely on the assumption that DVD = Optical disc, that may not always be true. With an full name. One can be ensured that links go where they should and that main article doesn't have to be moved due name collisions. Electron9 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you have any knowledge of major, English-language uses of the initialism "DVD" in reference to different subjects? There certainly isn't one approaching this use's commonness, so if this article were located at a different title, DVD would need to serve as a redirect anyway.

Note that we don't even have a disambiguation page for "DVD"; DVD (disambiguation) redirects to this article.

2. You've noted that "DVD" might come to mean something else. We don't preemptively withhold an article's most desirable title (in this case, the subject's overwhelmingly common and only universally accepted name) in anticipation of hypothetical situations that could arise in the future.

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that moving the article is a means of eliminating the potential need to move the article. —David Levy 04:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David, the correct title is the subjects most common name, in this case, DVD. I also feel the same about CD (which, for reasons that elude me, seems to serve as a redirect to Compact Disc at the moment). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD+R and DVD-R

This article is easy to read (I inserted a few new para breaks to help) and gives a good description of the subject- the tabular data is especially good. It would be interesting (to me anyway) to include some more about DVD+R and DVD-R. After all the efforts to standardise, how did the two different formats come about and what is their purpose? CPES (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Under consumer rights it states that a retail purchaser cannot legal resell a DVD. That is certainly not true in the US. The doctrine of first-sale says the purchaser has the right to resell it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove or Fix "DVD consumer rights" Section

A rant about copyright notices without citation doesn't really seem to fit into Wikipedia. Can someone please edit or remove, or at least throw in about ten "citation needed" tags to counteract the weasel words? 24.3.185.81 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rotations per minute?

Does anybody have an idea how fast a DVD disk is actually spinning? I guess this information could be inserted into the "DVD drive speeds" table. -- 16:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.143.63 (talk)

IM NOT SURE BUT IT IF CAME OUT SHOOTING AT YOU IT WOULD CUT YOUR HEAD OFF IF IT WAS POINTING AT YOUR HEAD YEA THATS HOW FAST IT IS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungeon master 45 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As a Video Game media

I'm curious why this article doesn't mention that most modern video games are on DVDs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.4.136 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Because game storage on DVDs are data storages anyway. There is no fundamental requirements of a data dvd to change for video games. Icepop4who (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sled

What is the sled motor and what does it do ?.--147.84.132.44 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the sled is this thing on the computer as its name suggest's its comes out like a sled and you put the disk on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dungeon master 45 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the sled is the box with the laser etc in it that gets dragged back and forth underneath the disc for rough positioning. The box contains the fine positioning drive for the lens which takes up the inaccuracy in the sled drive and also does the focussing. The 'coffee cup holder' is called the loading tray or something.Adx (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Scheme

I suggest a draw (scheme) of the internal mechanism of a drive, with numbers. So the number can later be explained and/or named in the image caption and in the article text. For example, some parts to mark and explain: slide, spin and so on.--147.84.132.44 (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Maintain

I suggest add a section or link about how to maintain the optical disc drive unit to avoid breakages (i.e. periodically use an laser lens cleaner. --147.84.132.44 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Technology section incorrect

The first paragraph says DVD's storage capacity over CD is due to the shorter wavelength which "permits a smaller pit to be etched on the media surface". This is wrong/misleading:

• The closer track spacing is due to both the shorter wavelength and wider NA of the lens.
• Smaller pits are being confused with track spacing (they can be both shorter and closer together).
• The modulation (EFMPlus) on DVD is more efficient.
• The optical changes don't "permit" smaller pits to be etched, they allow these to be read with adequate reliability (makes sense as-is but only if you already know the answer).
• "pit etched on the media surface" could be clarified to say that it is on the information layer(s) on the inside of disc, not on the DVD itself (which many people would think is the "media").
• The Blu-Ray Disc is the same - shorter wavelength, wider aperture, etc.

Most of the refs are here in Wikipedia, if I had time I would fix it myself right now. Adx (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Time when DVD writers were introduced

Wouldn't that be a great addition to the article? (In short, of course, referring to the big article.) I think many people that "just" look for "DVD" will also be interested to find out about when you could FIRST write to a DVD and when the first affordable writers appeared on the market. This is nowhere documented, not even in short terms. -andy 77.190.41.50 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New future section

I am not sure the newly added future section is really relevant in this article. There are multitudes of things that can happen in the future that we don't generally write about here. I know it is sourced, but we not generally cover news items as they happen. This is speculation on one writer. I think it should be pulled. I was not going to pull it if I had no one in agreement with me on the above reasons. If someone can cite justification for it I am open to hear it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Capacity differences of writable DVD formats" Undo Explanation

I reverted this because I believe the additional unit conversions are helpful in situations where disc software do not always use GiB or GB for medium size. Having other unit conversions available (MiB, MB, KiB and KB) saves time that would otherwise be spent doing the conversion manually from a calculator. Besides, I believe these are the most popular and useful units and should remain in the table. Also, it should be said that I did the conversions and added those to the table almost a year ago and it has remained undisputed until now; therefore, the extra unit conversions should stay. :-)

Neillithan (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Neillithan, I appreciate that you did all the work to convert these calculations. I still dispute the usefulness of these additional entries in this article and still argue they are adding complexity in the article. I don't understand the need to have Wikipedia be a lookup table for poorly designed software. I am not so passionate to dispute their presence with you, so I will let others carry the argument if it concerns them. Maybe you are right and they are not causing any harm. Peace my friend. § Music Sorter § (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood, though I can't let you go without first saying it's a bit shortsighted of you to claim a piece of software is poorly designed based on whether or not it includes the different unit conversions. For the sake of relevance, I said disc software, but even the usage of video conversion software such as Mediacoder and XMedia Recode can benefit greatly from these extra unit conversions and they are not strictly disc software. While they would benefit by including a bitrate calculator with the appropriate unit conversions for DVD media (in fact XMedia Recode does), there are certain situations in which the bitrate calculator cannot be used and therefore some manual calculation is required. These are both very good programs (far from poorly designed), and are in fact better than most commercial programs money can buy. I appreciate your effort to simplify things for this Wikipedia article, but the truth must be pointed out: This article is very data centric and a true effort to simplify things would be to purge most tabular data. I hope that does not happen. Neillithan (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Introduction

"DVD originally stood for Digital Versatile Disk, or Digital Video Disk. The acronym was dropped after DVD proved to have more uses than just storing video content."

What does this really mean? What acronym? I really can't tell!

I am led to interpret this (obviously incorrectly) as: "They used to be called by the abbreviation DVD, but not any more"? Or perhaps: "People always call them Digital Versatile/Video Disks nowadays"?

I always thought 99.9% of people referred to these round shiny things as "DVDs". OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It's wrong and confusing. Detail doesn't belong in intro. Redundant since it's covered in etymmology section. Removed. JimTheFrog (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation Please!

I have read and re-read the first sentence in this article, and it seems incomprehensible to me. Is it some sort of code language that can only be understood by computer nerds?

"Becca is always wrong about everything also A DVD is an optical disc storage media format, invented and developed by..."

Vandalism? But don't the BOTs catch those right away? 66.81.53.145 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK just answered my own question. It was vandalism that was being corrected as I made this inquiry above. Sorry, if I took up anyone's time on it. 66.81.53.145 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, vandalism. When you spot obvious vandalism, please be bold and revert it right away, and warn the vandal.—J. M. (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Identification section

I'm really concerned about the Identification (MID)section as, without any references, this looks like advertising for some brands of disks and disparagement of others

Surely this section should just say this is a code to identify the manufacturers of discs? I don't know enough about the subject to be able to edit this article intelligently Jpmaytum (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to include this rambling mess of hearsay and gossip regarding manufacturers. While tiny bits of it may -- or may not -- have been valid on the day it was written, issues like quality and consistency vary from week to week, let alone year to year. This can easily be replaced with non-specific language which denotes that different brands achieve different levels of quality and consistency -- period.72.76.243.40 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Query about delay when switching layers

There's oodles that I don't know about DVD technology (I stuck my neck far out when I wrote the description of the internal mechanism!), but it seems to me that dual-layer, parallel-track DVDs would require a few seconds for the coarse positioning to sweep the whole extent (or nearly such) of the recorded area, considering that both layers start at the inside. (Any old-timers recall "inside-out" analog disc records, for pro. applications?)

Once the coarse positioning has completed, the pickup has to find the beginning of the new layer; I have no idea how long that takes, but we're talking micro-meters, here, just about guarantee you!

I didn't want to edit the text, because I'm not sure of this, but one paragraph's author didn't seem to know what the other paragraph's author said.

Best regards, Nikevich 13:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

confusing image

Just gotta say, this image is utterly confusing and jumbled. After a few minutes of study I'm still not sure what it's trying to tell me. I have a feeling it's trying to convey way too much information (some of it probably unnecessary to this article) in too small a space. I hope you who are keepers of this article will give this image a critical look. – JBarta (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, it tries to show track path but leaves out PTP and OTP (RSDL) for DVD, so it's misleadingly incomplete. JimTheFrog (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer Identification (MID) should be a separate article about disk preamble

"DVD" doesn't seem well maintained however the MID section is not so much advertising as personal experience and personal research of private blogs (Internet user forums that require registration, but otherwise publicly available personal experience) with manufacturers interpretations of industry standards. As many "Industry Standards" are copyrighted and expensive/difficult to obtain Wikipedia is going to have to live with 3rd party information about those standards. Of course manufacturers that fail to follow "standards" properly do not publicize that issue. Wiki users search for and do need access to this type of information, so we should consider the Wikipedia users in this regard. (Consider whether a high rate of plane crashes should be considered in an Aviation article? Or is that "advertising"?) I have found like information on subscription magazine sites and sites that are devoted to copying DVD content, which at this point in time is illegal. The optical media preamble, e.g 1st 15 tracks of CDs are viewable by hardware and contain the read and write strategy for the CD player/recorder, e.g. "wobble tracks" of DVD disks that restrict access to content, are important features of commercial media. The disk preamble section (disk ID; MID) has been used to install rootkits as well as "copy protecting" Xbox and Playstation game disks. (Prevented FOSS users from running Linux on Sony Playstation.)Shjacks45 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Video on CDs

As I recall Digital Video Interactive or CD-I (DVI) was a CD Video format from 1992.Shjacks45 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference section: life span of dvds link needs a fix

This is the correct link. http://www.larryjordan.biz/the-life-span-of-dvds/ The existing link formatted very complexly is incorrect. I got lost trying to fix it and gave up.1archie99 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Capacity values need fixing badly.

Who the heck thought it was a good idea to list kB/KiB, MB/MiB, and GB/GiB seperately? They're each two names for exactly the same quantity of data! But it's even worse than that, because these two columns have different values in them! So now somebody has to go through them all and verify which is correct.

I've already removed one example of obviously incorrect data, (1kB != 1000bytes) but I didn't double-check if the remaining values are good. I'm not a regular editor and have neither the skills nor likely the time to go out and do the rest, but it really needs to be done. I also don't know if there's any way to flag the section for review either, so if there is someone should do that. 131.156.30.101 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done, mission accomplished, you have indeed fixed them badly.

kB is an ambiguous term, sometimes it is used to mean 1024 bytes (by RAM manufacturers, people who like binary, etc.), sometimes 1000 bytes (the "SI" way, like km, kg, etc. - e.g. by drive manufacturers who want to make drives sound bigger than some might think). This leads to major discrepancies when you go up into the big numbers, e.g. 1 GB (=1,000,000,000 bytes, the S.I way) ~= 0.93 GiB (where 1GiB = 1*2³⁰, which is the sense I think you were using). Read the articles describing what GiB/GB etc. or the two sentences a mere two paragraphs up the page. That's why a "1TB drive" might only show up as 931 "GB", for example, and that's why they are listed sepArately.

Changes reverted.

I the heck. Fizzybrain (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

SI's K=1000 does not equal IEC's Ki=1024. it is by no means ambiguous unless you don't know anything about units. most of the industry, even the people making specifications, don't know about IEC units. and software engineers often don't know about IEC units. this is precisely why microsoft, the RAM industry,the SSD industry is using MB/GB/KB/TB when they really mean IEC units MiB/GiB/KiB/TiB. unfortunately, the IEC unit, in order to prevent confusion, did not come into play until much later. I wrote my own web page which shows the differences between the two side-by-side.

Jmichae3 (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

capacity information statements contradict each other

rather wrong:

DVD-R DS SL 2 2 12 9.40 8.75

DVD-RW DS SL 2 2 12 9.40 8.75

DVD+R DS SL 2 2 12 9.40 8.75

DVD+RW DS SL 2 2 12 9.40 8.75

rather correct:

DVD-R SL 2,298,496 4,707,319,808 4,707,319.808 4,707.320 4.707 4,596,992 4,489.250 4.384

DVD+R SL 2,295,104 4,700,372,992 4,700,372.992 4,700.373 4.700 4,590,208 4,482.625 4.378

DVD-R DL 4,171,712 8,543,666,176 8,543,666.176 8,543.666 8.544 8,343,424 8,147.875 7.957

DVD+R DL 4,173,824 8,547,991,552 8,547,991.552 8,547.992 8.548 8,347,648 8,152.000 7.961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.244.133 (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Experimental Technology yields Capacity Increase

I'm not sure as to the reliability of the source or how likely the technology is to be implemented, but a DVD can now contain one PB of data. http://www.sciencentechnologyupdates.com/2013/06/more-data-storage-heres-how-to-fit-1000.html 76.198.38.250 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The paper can be found here: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130619/ncomms3061/full/ncomms3061.html. 76.198.38.250 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Adoption

Adoption section is lacking any info on dates / timelines. For example, my 9yo would like to know why our old y2k iMac CD drive can't read DVDs, and as of today there is no context provided by this article for how prevalent DVDs were (DVD players, DVD optical drives, etc) at any given point in time, only that it was invented by 1995. 192.55.54.41 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology "Citation Needed"

I noticed that there's a new Citation Needed towards the beginning of the Etymology section. According to the reasoning for it, it says a source is needed to accurately prove that the founders of the DVD called it that. However, later in the same section, there is proof with citation that Toshiba calls it "digital video disc" still today, and at the top of the article it says Toshiba was part of inventing and developing the DVD. It is of my opinion that this is completely valid information and the citation needed either doesn't belong there or the information can be reworded somehow. MWisBest (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too, removed the cn tag. Though we still have a contradiction between sources because the 3rd edition (2005) of Taylor's "DVD demystified" (and his FAQ, but in other words) still says "DVD An acronym that officially stands for nothing but is often expanded as Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc" even though the DVD Forum FAQ from 2000 says "versatile", with no evidence they "took it back". So I'm I was elliptic in the lead as what if anything is "official". Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Looks wonderful to me, what I would've done would certainly be very bad, especially compared to that! MWisBest (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

DVD lifetime

I'm a bit skeptical about the claims that DVDs don't last more than 15 years. I have fair amount of (good brand) DVD+R's I've written 10-12 years ago, and none show any sign of weakness; no increase in PI/PO errors when measured with drives capable of such. I sample test them about every 1-2 years. I'd be rather surprised if they all go tits up in just 3 more years... Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears that some of the sources are being mirepresented. The first one [2] gives 15 years as the lifetime for about half the CDs tested. For DVDs, they had no tests, but they cite mfgs. number as 30-100 years. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny how "There were fifteen DVD products tested, including five DVD-R, five DVD+R, two DVD-RW and three DVD+RW types. [...] Overall, seven of the products tested had estimated life expectancies in ambient conditions of more than 45 years." from the report became "Only 47 percent of the recordable DVDs tested indicated an estimated life expectancy beyond 15 years." when reported by a certain website. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A good illustration of the pitfalls of an inadequate sample in statistics and the false information it gives. The table, though I grant may be reproduced from a reliable source, does not really tell us anything useful. I assume (though it is not clear) that the percentages represent the percentage of discs that have failed. The lack of usefulness comes because according to the data, 20% of DVD-Rs will have failed within 15 years. No more will fail for another 15 years when miraculaously all the failures start working again for the next 15 years, after which 60% fail within the remaining 15 years. Yes, I know it's statistics, but the statistics need to tell you something useful, and my interpretation above is what the chart is saying.

There is also the issue that they have tested the DVD '-' format separately from the DVD '+'. The data thus gives the imppression that there is a longevity difference between the formats. Manufacturing of the two formats is completely identical so this is a false assumption. The sole difference between the two is the track spiral pressed into the top polycarbonate layer (see wobble frequency for details). The pressed track spiral plays no part in reading the disc in either format. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Data Capacity On Dual Layer DVD...

A single layer Blu-ray is 25GB. A dual layer Blu-ray is 50GB. Exactly double the capacity as one would expect from a second layer. A single layer DVD is 4.7GB. A dual layer DVD is 9.4GB. Exactly double the capaci-- Wait. I'm being told right now that a dual layer DVD is actually 8.5GB. So, where is the 900MB that is missing from the second layer? Why is nobody talking about this? An internet search leads to nothing. If anybody has raised this question, they've been silenced or buried (I have and I have). So, since it's self evident that a dual layer DVD is 9.4GB, but the actually capacity is 8.5, and nobody is asking why without being silenced, buried, or ignored, it stands to reason that the nearly a gigabyte of stolen data per disc is the result of a conspiracy.

Now, I can't prove the conspiracy exists, but I have proven a noteworthy phenomenon with the dual layer DVD. If you're impartial, you'll include it in the article. If you don't include it, that proves you to be biased at best, and in on a conspiracy at worst.50.130.11.182 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources discussing this "conspiracy". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, didn't you read my talk page post? I said NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT!! If people were talking about it, I wouldn't suspect a conspiracy. Especially when the mere facts without any reference to speculation whatsoever are silenced at an allegedly objective and neutral source by an edit warrior, who then turns around and accuses the person presenting the facts of edit warring. Now, how do I go about reporting you to Wikipedia?50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's relevant to anything I published in the main article or that I asked you about here or on your talk page. The only thing that link tells me is that I can't publish my speculation in the main article. And, I already knew that.50.130.11.182 (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've indicated below what needs sources:

However, because a second layer would be expected to double the capacity, it is unknown where the missing 900MB is, and the major developers remain silent on the issue. Why a dual layer DVD is not 9.4GB remains a mystery.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To .182: Oh, boy... First, I have to say that if you are being "silenced or ignored", it is probably because as soon as you start prattling about "conspiracies" most people dismiss you as a nut.

I'm not sure how a "conspiracy" would be involved at all. From Conspiracy: "An agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage." Do you think you have a legal right to a dual-layer DVD that holds 9.4 GB? What "unfair advantage" do you think the conspirators (if they existed) would be attaining? It is not as if they are offering "full size 9.4 GB dual-layer discs!!!" for some premium price! In order to have an "advantage" (unfair or not) there has to be an alternative to have an advantage over.

In any case, the answer is right here (that's a link) in the DVD-R DL article.

Re "reporting someone to Wikipedia", if you still want to do that, I suggest you start with WP:DISPUTE. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you're adding to the definition of conspiracy to serve your purpose. The definition of conspiracy is two or more people cooperating to achieve a common goal. Nothing more. It's not even required that they know they're working together, which means collaboration is more specific than conspiracy. Second, I mentioned nothing of a conspiracy in the body of the article. I only mentioned the facts.

Third, that explanation should be more accessible. I've been trying to find the answer for years to no avail. Nobody is talking about it, and that page didn't exactly come up in the years of extensive searches, unlike the page I edited. I stand corrected on my edits, but the behaviour of certain Wikipedians could have quelled the situation rather than make it worse.50.130.11.182 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

First, no, I didn't "add to the definition". I quoted from the Wikipedia article on Conspiracy. (That's a link, as it was above.) Your understanding of the word is grossly mistaken. Look it up in other places if you don't believe the WP page.

Second, you mentioned "conspiracy" on the talk page, and I'm responding on the talk page. There's no problem there.

You weren't mentioning "facts", only your speculations. Let's review them:

"However, because a second layer would be expected to double the capacity, it is unknown where the missing 900MB is, "

In the first place, this sentence is very poorly phrased. A sentence of the form "Because x, y" is stating that x is the cause of y. So you're saying that users' expectation of doubled capacity is the reason ("because") that "it is unknown where the missing 900 MB is".

What???

That could be fixed with an easy edit. But you'd still have this problem: a claim of "it is unknown" is a "universal" claim, completely unqualified. If just one person in the whole wide world knows where the "missing 900 MB is", your claim is falsified. You can't possibly prove that no one in the world knows where it is, so such a claim can't be allowed here.

You could have written something like "most users have no idea why a dual-layer disc is not 8.5 GB", and that would at least be a reasonable-sounding claim. But you'd still have to find a reference for it or it would get a CN tag, at best.

"and the major developers remain silent on the issue."

Really? Have you asked them? Or was it more that you just hadn't found anyone who mentioned it? Did you try emailing the author of DVD Demystified? (He's quite email-able.) Re "years" of searching, I found that in about a minute. It's not just on WP either. If you'd G'd for "DVD Demystified" (maybe in an attempt to find the author's email) you'd have found the DVD FAQ, with much the same explanation here.

"Why a dual layer DVD is not 9.4GB remains a mystery."

Well, we know now that it isn't a mystery at all, but that's not my point here. "Remains a mystery" to whom? To everyone? Or just to you? Wikipedia is not for statements of what you find to be a mystery, and you can't possibly prove that it's a mystery to everyone—see above regarding universal claims.

In short, your claims were logically fallacious and unsupportable from the beginning. Well and good that you found the "missing 900 MB" to be a mystery, but that sort of statement is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Next time: if you have a question an article doesn't answer, you can just bring the question to the article talk page. It is true that talk pages are not supposed to be a forum for general discussion of a subject, but you can phrase it in the form of "I'd like to improve the article by answering this question, but I can't find the answer: ..." Diving into the article and adding purely unencyclopedic content ("There's this question I have, an apparent inconsistency in the DVD specs, but I don't know the answer and no one else does either") is just not the way to do it.

I hope this helps you understand why your edit was repeatedly reverted. Jeh (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and: I agree with you that the info is poorly organized. I'm not sure why WP needs separate small articles for DVD-R, DVD-R DL, etc. Jeh (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Biographical?

Someone added the {{BLP sources}} template. I'm not sure how that fits, given that biographies of the DVD's specific inventors are not within the scope of this article. Any objections if I remove it? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Table 'Capacity & Nomenclature' (RW)

I just noticed that there are asterisks (*) next to some capacity values, but their meaning isn't explained anywhere. Maybe a relict from an ancient version of this article? -andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.243.44.224 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Why the binary prefix madness?

Why are the capacity tables using binary prefixes anyway? DVDs always used SI prefixes and included image of a DVD+RW shows it at 4.7GB. The article should use SI prefixes to match what the industry is using.— mina86 (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on DVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080313232626/http://www.hometheaterhifi.com:80/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=all&type=&manufacturer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0 to http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=all&type=&manufacturer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0#SamsungBD-P1000%20Blu-ray/DVD%20Player%20(HDMI)
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080528025547/http://www.cinram.com/dvd/tech/dvdindetail.pdf to http://www.cinram.com/dvd/tech/dvdindetail.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318151452/http://www.dvd-copy.com/reference/IEEE-doc-copyproc.pdf to http://www.dvd-copy.com/reference/IEEE-doc-copyproc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080312115437/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_15_37/ai_50241583 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_15_37/ai_50241583

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090822172353/http://www.dvddemystified.com:80/dvdfaq.html to http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090822172353/http://www.dvddemystified.com:80/dvdfaq.html to http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

GameCube and Wii

The discs used on the GameCube and Wii may not be DVDs by name but the technology is similar. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but can we reference it? Will the drives in those devices read standard data or video DVDs? Jeh (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No, they won't, and the storage mediums for the GameCube and Wii are completely unrelated to DVD apart from the fact that they're optical discs. It doesn't make sense to mention either game console in this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)