Talk:DVD+R

message: 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)
thread_title: compatibility

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title:  Whose is the standard? 

message: 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.
:I'm not sure when you asked this question as you forgot to sign your post (add four tildes to the end thus: ~~~~.  The DVD+RW (and indeed DVD+R) are not fundamentally incompatible with the '-' version of the formats.  They were expressly designed to be fully compatible in read mode with their counterparts.  It is the recording of the discs which is different.  Unfortunately, a couple of manufacturers objected to this new upstart format, and one of them (Toshiba) deliberately rigged their video players and data drives to detect DVD+RW discs (by reading the compatibility ID byte which signals the disc's eraseability) and refusing to play them by faking incompatibility.  
:The problem was exacerbated because Toshiba also provide bare drive mechanisms to numerous other manufacturers, all of which were similarly rigged.  Thus numerous video players would not play videos recorded on DVD+RW discs even though they played DVD-RW without problem.  At the time, it was thus believed to some unforseen incompatibility of the format.  It was noted that video players that predated the introduction of DVD+RW generally played them without problem.
:The introduction of the DVD+R discs surprised many because these played without problem in all video and data players.  Shortly after this introduction, Toshiba's actions were rumbled and it quickly became known that if the compatibility byte (of 2 on a DVD+RW) was replaced by '0' (indicating a DVD-R, DVD+R or premastered disc - i.e. non eraseable) it played in all players.  Replacement of this byte is simple on a DVD+RW due to the byte accurate access (but quite impossible on a DVD-RW).
:As far as recording is concerned, when the DVD+RW format first appeared (and it predated the DVD+R) recorders and drives either supported the '-' technology or the '+' technology, but not both (possibly for licensing or commercial reasons).  Sony was the first manufacturer to break the mould and market a DVD writer that supported both '-' and '+' formats.  Everyone else quickly followed suit and the rest (as they say) is history.  Interestingly, Toshiba still make DVD video recorders that do not record to DVD+ media (though no longer rigged not to play them) and Panasonic's DVD video recorders although supporting it, are not fully compatible (in that they will not correctly record 16:9 widescreen material).   DVD video recorders that record in one of the two 'video recorder' formats support one or the other but not both due to differences in the video recorder mode for the two variants.  109.153.242.10 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older Players 

message: 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.
:Are you sure that it is the discs?  When CD players first appeared on the market, the optical head contained a photo diode to monitor the laser output.  This operated a drive circuit such that as the laser output diminished with age, the photo diode would detect this and the circuit would increase the drive to the laser to maintain a constant output.  Such early players are now nearly 30 years old, and there are still many examples of these that play flawlessly.  Life became more complicated with the introduction of the DVD, because although early video players only had one laser, every other DVD drive has two lasers to provide compatibility with CD-R discs (Premastered CD, and CD-RW can be read by the orange/red DVD laser).  The newer blu-ray drives have three lasers (and often two optical systems).
:Unfortunately, the drive manufacturers realised that the lasers would usually outlast the drive's warranty period, and thus if it failed outside of this period, it wasn't their problem [1].  No optical player or drive manufactured in the last 15 years or so has a photo diode.  The lasers are driven by a constant current, and thus their output decreases with age.  The rate of decrease varies from laser diode to laser diode, but a life of around 2 years is typical for a drive in regular use. To be 'used' it doesn't have to have a disc in it.  Most operating systems will periodically operate the drive's lasers to check for the presence of a disc.
:It is therefore quite probably that any DVD that you believe is suffering from a reliability problem may not have had the data image adequately writen in the first place.  This will be very dependent on the actual media used as there is considerable variation in sensitivity between manufacturers - and often between batches. 
:[1] If you live in the UK, the seller (not the manufacturer or importer) of such a drive is liable to replace it as such a drive has failed to meet the durability requirements of the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Act 1994 (as ammended by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). 109.153.242.10 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability & Durability 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Absolutely correct.  I note that the table still has not been modified.  I'm not sure definitive speeds can be given as drives may vary, and not all use ZCLV.  Some use a variant dubbed PSAV. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: Any truth to this multisession claim?  (DVD+R can write multiple times but never delete the content, while DVD-R can only be written once.)--Elvey (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That wikifail guy/gal is wrong, wrong, wrong. Both formats support multisession recording. --74.56.178.187 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct vandal? 

message: Maybe worth merging various plus and minus articles for R and RW? They generally cover the same ground and likely to be read together. 109.226.31.184 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge DVD-R/W/DVD+R/W 

message: I suspect that the term "Address In Pregroove (ADIP)" should be replaced with "Absolute Time in Pregroove (ATIP)", at least according to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_in_pre-groove. Any more references on this? Sorisos (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Though true, they are not the same and have nowhere near the same accuracy.  ATIP is far less accurate than ADIP in spite of the more accurate sounding name.  ADIP allows a drive to locate data already on a disc with bit accuracy. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical details / "Address In Pregroove"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on DVD+R. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724063904/http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Increased-compatibility-DVD-bitsetting to http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Increased-compatibility-DVD-bitsetting/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DVD+R. 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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified