Talk:DVD+R

compatibility

There isn't much mention of compatibility on this page, only that manufacturers started addressing the new format in mid 2004. Is there any easy way to tell if my home DVD player would be compatible with DVD+R media? This would be helpful to know, as an employee at my local electronics store recommended the DVD-R if compatibility is in question. The DVD R drive manufacturers seem to have addressed the issue quite clearly, but the A/V world hasn't, and makes it a bit confusing. Thanks.--24.250.176.89 22:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD-R format is only more compatable with old DVD Players or Cheap DVD players, but if you get a good modern player than DVD+R is just as compatable as it's inferior Minus counterpart. J2F Duck (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plus vs. +

An administrator should fix the title of the article so that it is correct.--Moosh88 00:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We would, if we could, but we can't. This is a restriction in the software itself, and can only be fixed by developers. The reason given for this on m:Help:Page name is "+ is used in web addresses to represent a space (e.g. when you type more than one word into some search engines). Using it in page names would potentially make parts of the system see their name wrong." I have no idea why this justifies simply outlawing + in titles, but there you have it. JRM · Talk 19:32, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

m:MediaWiki may be a place to start looking if considering solving the +/plus problem.

There is also more discussion on this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) - Brewthatistrue 22:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whose is the standard?

Considering the various articles (summarised on dvd format) on the various dvd 'standards' I wasn't sure where to put this, but this place is as good as any. All those articles suggest that the standard is set by the dvd forum. But can one claim that as long as there are competing standards? For example, this article states that the DVD Forum claims that the DVD+R format is not an official DVD format. But the inverse is not claimed at the dvd-r format. In other words, Wikipedia is choosing sides in a commercial dispute, which is even worse than POV. Or is there some way in which it can be claimed that the DVD forum sets the official standards? And who determines that then? DirkvdM 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sorry, I don't know how to properly reply to a discussion, so if I do it incorrectly, my apologies) I suggest this as a possible rewrite to make the page appear less biased (to replace the last half of the first paragraph): "The DVD+R format is a competing format to the DVD-R format, which is developed by the DVD Forum. The DVD Forum has claimed that the DVD+R format is not an 'official' DVD format. The DVD+RW Alliance has not currently made a similar claim of the DVD-R format. Currently neither format has become the industry-standard, as most new DVD writers are able to write to both formats." The first sentence is the same. The second simply reports the fact that TDF have made this claim, but says nothing of "approval", which TDF's ability to give is up for debate. The third shows that the reverse has not happened, but could happen, and the fourth shows that if the reverse DID happen, it would be as legitimate as TDF's claim. Anyway, use or edit that rewrite as you see fit, if you think it would be more neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.171.233 (talk • contribs) 16:39, March 20, 2006 (UTC)

As of Early 2008, the DVD Forum, which backs the less capable minus format, has decided to aprove both DVD+RW and DVD+R as official formats. It was about time, to me it looks like the DVD Forum likes having a litle "Cold War" against the DVD+RW Alliance, who do not seem to worry about the little DVD Recordable "Phoney Cold War",the only thing which I like the DVD Forum for is DVD Video which they support, and DVD-RAM which they also support. J2F Duck (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capacity

Does anyone know if the capacity of DVD+R/RW is *exactly* the same as DVD-R/RW/ROM?--218.102.92.98 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is, DVD+R is slightly more efficient that DVD-R, but DVD-R works in older DVD players, which DVD+R doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancalagon06 (talk • contribs) 09:39, August 3, 2006 (UTC)

Also DVD R's are sligthly more supportive than RW's and are also less likely to go wrong, but like what the guy said above + is slightly more effective than - or minus's. J2F Duck (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the capacity in time units? the only thing i found in the article is the 60 mn in the Speed section (which should be specifed "writing" or "burning" speed). But surely a DVD can hold a whole feature film of, say, 1.5 hours? --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older Players

There is text in the article that reads: "As such, older or cheaper DVD players (up to 2004 vintage) are more likely to favour the DVD-R standard exclusively." However, according to the DVD+RW Alliance web site, the DVD+R recorders "use just one operating mode, which always creates DVD-Video compatible discs" and that DVD+R disc "recordings can be played on the majority of the 100s of millions of DVD-Video players and DVD-ROM drives available today." So, is it that the DVD+R format cannot be played on older players or merely that older players cannot record to those discs? I think that is an important point to clarify and, unfortunately, I do not know the answer.

Reliability & Durability

Something should be said that many DVD-Rs are unreliable, with many of them not working after a very short amount of time, not burning without errors, or just being duds. There are many, many, many complaints about entire batches of DVDRs being completely useless, and Wikipedia should mention this.

Picture

I just added a picture of a single DVD+R to the article.Payam81 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DVD+R logo.png

Image:DVD+R logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

The write time specified for DVD+R (and for other mediums in other articles) seems to have been arrived at by simply dividing the time taken to do a 1x speed burn by any given speed. This ignores the fact that for higher speeds (typically 6-8x and above), write speed is not constant, and typically uses a Zoned Constant Linear Velocity write strategy, where the write speed is incrementally increased as the laser head gets closer to the end of the disc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.180.152 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]