Talk:DVD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DVD article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
About archives

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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".

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] History add on

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Who?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] First DVD

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)

[edit] Missing wikibook

Wikibooks

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)

[edit] "Etymology"

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sector size

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

[edit] Double side DVDs omitted ?

Double sided discs are not even mentioned in the article. --Xerces8 (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)