Talk:DVD recorder

DVD durability vs VHS cassette durability

Nice work. In the "DVD vs VCR" section you claim that "DVDs are significantly less subject to wear and damage than videotape" !! This is stretching things a bit; DVDs are subject to scratching and are at least as fragile as Video cassettes. They don't have the protective armour that a video has (deliberately designed that way to make consumers buy replacements(?)) Papeschr 10:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They are not subject to wear as far as the recorder or player is concerned. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Papeschr.  :-D You are quite right to point out that DVDs are by no means indestructable. I have found that with enough force, a DVD will crack, and that any cracks which completely penetrate the outer plastic layer of a DVD will render it totally unplayable.

Still, given my 15+ years experience in dealing with Beta and VHS tape and CDs, I will have to stand by my writing on this one. Videotape is exceedingly thin and subject to stretching, warping and the loss of some magnetized particles with age, even with proper storage and no abuse. Unfortunately, this seems to be particularly true of Beta tape. All of these problems adversely affect playback, sometimes even preventing it (the tolerances of a Beta VCR are particularly unforgiving). I have even had a brand-new, major brand VHS cassette partially break apart inside a VCR, nearly destroying the VCR's heads (I suspect the quality of the plastic now used is inferior to that used in the 1980s). However, the oldest of my CDs still play as well as they did when new, even with some dirt and scratches (I'm listening to an 18-year-old one as I write this :-)). I wish I could say the same for my oldest Beta tapes.  :-( Thanks for commenting. --Edeans 19:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After throwing out my VCR after it munched one of my mother's tapes last week, I'm going to have to side with Edeans on this one. DVDs are indeed breakable, but not while they're being used for their intended purpose. By contrast, both VHS tapes and the VCR playing them are put at risk every time you use them. I'd rather have a fairly fragile form of media that works every time you use it than a media format that stores well but threatens to break every time it's used. --M.Neko 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While cracks and such are troublesome withe discs, if a person values their recording, either tape or disc, this point is moot. Coffee4binky (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CD recorder

Article CD recorder overlaps significantly with this. Needs to be merged or otherwise refactored. Please comment at Talk:CD recorder. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 09:47Z

Photo of a DVD recorder

I think the article is very good. It's better than the German one. I have uploaded Image:DVD recorder.jpg to the Wikimedia Commons. You could use it for this article.

The author of the German DVD recorder article. --217.250.3.60 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with that too. German recorder article is quite hard to understand. It's very nice to see a dvd duplicator article like this.

Finalisation

"Nonetheless, DVD recorders remain costly compared to VCRs, and may require extra steps to initially format the disc for recording and to finalize the disc to view in other DVD players. (This disadvantage does not apply to DVD-RAM and DVD+RW disks, which require no finalization.)". This statement is true with relation to DVD-RAM discs, but not so regarding DVD-RW discs. Whilst I can't vouch for all models of DVD Recorders, all Panasonic varieties require that the disc be finalized before it can be played back on a DVD player or any other hardware such as PCs. What are your thoughts on editing this line and replacing it with, "(This disadvantage does not apply to DVD-RAM discs which require no finalisation due to their random access nature.)" or thereabouts? Also I think the word 'disk' should be changed to the correct 'disc' when referring to optical media (as is the definition Digital Versatile Disc and Compact Disc)? c-bro 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)C-Bro

• Ok so there were no objections to my post so I edited the article as described. c-bro 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)C-Bro

It says, 'without generation loss'. This is not strictly true as a DVD recorder's recording will have slightly less quality each time it is copied. If 2 DVD recorders were connected and one disc copied to another then the transfer is analogue as well as digital (due to SCART/RF connections being analogue). c-bro 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)c-bro

Progressive Scan

What are the pros and cons of "progressive scan" DVD recorders? AncientBrit 20:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I'm entirely sure what you mean - as far as I know there are none that can record from progressive sources via component input. Regarding playback, they display a much better picture quality than Composite, s-Video and RGB (although this is less evident). Progressive scan can offer sharper picture quality output. If recorders of progressive scan material do exist, they will obviously record a clearer image and produce better recording results. c-bro 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)c-bro

I wasn't sure either. :) What you say makes sense - that the progressive scan capability applies solely to playback.

However, I keep seeing promos for progressive scan DVD recorders that specifically say things like: "Record crystal-clear progressive-scan DVDs from TV movies, shows or sportscasts to DVD-R/RW", which implies that the recording format is progressive scan. This may be just be marketing hype (= downright lies).

I did some background research and couldn't find anything that supported the idea of using prgressive scan during recording - but I may not be looking in the right place, of course. I'll keep at it, when I have time. AncientBrit 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes I think I've managed to cut through the manufacturer's hype- they are referring to capabilities to record (in whichever format- probably RGB) and then playback the recorded material via progressive scan. So technically this will produce better picture quality than if the material was played back via RGB but the difference would be negligible. The implication, therefore, is that it records progressively but in actual real terms it records via conventional methods and only playsback the material progressively. A classic example of sales spin if there ever was one, I think you'll agree. Hope this helps, c-bro 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)c-bro

---

I find this article rather too technical. I am looking for practical information as a consumer considering buying a DVD recorder as a replacement for VHS to use with my TV. What do I need? can I record one channel while watching another, what is the difference between RW+ and -, etc etc

• Well, Wikipedia isn't really a consumer guide, but basically: 1) A DVD burner (standalone that is) operates more or less the same as a VCR, with some added plumbing to handle disc authoring and the like. In theory, you can record one channel while watching another, but if you have a cable box, in all likelihood you're limited to just the channel on the box. As for + and -, best bet there is just to look up the articles on the subject. Haikupoet 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Delete Comparison of 2007 ATSC DVD recorders

This section is old. I'm planning on deleting it with in a few weeks. Alternatively we could call it historical comparison or create separate article for it with same title. Let me know what you think. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That section was completely against the spirit of WP:NOTCATALOG. Its gone. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you say this comparison differs from History_of_video_games_(seventh_generation_era)#Comparison? Or are you going to delete that one also? There are tons of other comparisons I can point you to, if you have an appetite to delete. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

An excellent strawman argument, as I would give that page an example of a good comparison page. Very focused (only three units, unlike a dime-a-dozen DVD recorder page) and heavily detailed. It also includes a use of cost that "may" be justified (launch price only). This particular table was an incomplete catalog that didn't belong on this page anyhow. If you wish to make a new page with a list of 2007 ATSC DVD recorders, feel free. I personally don't think it would survive an AFD, but who knows, Wikipedia is afterall a democracy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

TIME

Might be a good idea to put how much time a stand alone dvd recorder can record. like a vhs tape can take for 6hrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.144.43 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are your times, sir:

XP - 1 hr. SP - 2 hrs. ?P - 3 hrs. LP - 4 hrs. ?P - 5 hrs.

EP explained below:

These are only for EP or longer:

(Note that the resolutions, when using Handbrake to extract, are terrible.)

In most DVD recorders, 6 hrs. per DVD, with some extra buffer time on the end.

In all Panasonic models 2003 onward, it's 8 hrs. per disc with no buffer time, or 7.3 hrs. per layer on DVD+R DL discs. These Panasonic recorders have to finalize one layer before recording to the next layer, and yield total time of around 15 hours.

Using VisualHub on a Mac, a person can make either an 18 hour DVD or, using DL, a 36 hour DVD.

By accident, I've make, at resolutions of like 80 x 64, 24 hour DVDs using Toast 8 on OSX. These are unwatchable.

Also, Panasonic recorders use FR down to the exact minute, using most of the disc for anything over 45 mins. with this option.

Coffee4binky (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the equivalent speed of published movies on DVD? My Panasonic only has XP-1 hr, SP-2 hr, LP-4 hr and EP-8 hr. While SP looks good, the LP I have to use for the numerous movies over 2 hrs. is significantly worse (lots of tiling and rough edges) and unacceptable for a permanent recording and I don't consider myself a video connoisseur.

At the lower 'speeds' the horizontal resolution is halved to 360 pixels hence the more jaggy appearance. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a speed between SP and LP that the Panasonic's missing that produces near-SP quality or is it just not possible for a consumer recorder to record over 2 hrs. at near-SP quality due to the less advanced (MPEG-2) compression it uses vs. the ones DVD publishers use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconner69 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Record modes

DVD recorders offer several recording modes with different levels of compression. The highest quality is makes for about an hour of recording. These modes should be detailed somewhere, assuming they are standard across all recorders.--SkiDragon (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Links

I noticed that the article has a number of citation links, all [1], that do not link to anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.40.230 (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

copy-protected TV shows not allowed to be recorded on DVD

I tried to record one game show on the LG DVD+VHS combo recorder, but it became impossible due to copyright issues. Is it possible that VHS tapes are the only reliabilities to do so, especially when trying to use VCR-2-PC player? --Gh87 (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DVD/HDD combo recorders no longer being made

I own a Panasonic HDD/DVD combo recorder. My unit is still working fine, but I went out in the market to look for a backup unit. In short, you can't find these units in stores. They appear to have been replaced with TiVo. I used to see TiVO boxes with built-in DVD burners, but I don't even see them in stores any longer. I know that places like eBay still have them (which I ended up doing), but I'm wondering if there are any sources that talk about why the industry pulled away from HDD/DVD combo units. Is it a copyright issue? Did they think that other technologies are better (i.e. PC-based media centers, etc.) Groink (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Doing some research on the matter, there is no one source that explains the disappearance of the HDD/DVD combo recorder. Panasonic hasn't said anything. Neither has JVC or Sony. There are, however, some speculations about its disappearance via message boards. And, maybe by me explaining it, someone can find valid sources we can actually use in the article. One possible reason is that the need for recording and archiving television has been replaced with streaming and P2P. Instead of recording an episode of Desperate Housewives, one can wait a few days and eventually download it from the likes of Pirate Bay or even a licensed video streaming source. This makes perfect sense: TiVo is for people who want to record and watch a show later on, but don't want to save the show. For others, the Internet is basically a HDD in itself. But even if the streaming/P2P was the reason for the disappearance of HDD/DVD units, I think it was much too soon. For one, streaming/P2P is built purely on the interest of the person providing the content. Just pulling a number from out of the air, only one percent of all programming is actually downloadable. For everything else - especially sports and regional programming - you can't find these shows. And, try recording the final round of The Masters on even a dual-layer DVD-RAM - you really can't without major quality loss. Another huge impact on the loss of the HDD/DVD recorder is the re-sale market. While DVD recorders' "blue book" value are virtually nothing on the used market, the HDD/DVD recorder price is about 50 to 60-percent of the original retail price. For a unit that is five or six years old, just a 50-percent drop in value is simply amazing! A Panasonic DMR-E85H still sells for over $400 on eBay. And, as I've been monitoring these units for the last two months, the average winning price is rising. This is unprecedented for an electronic appliance! Hopefully, this information can be used as an outline of sorts for editors who want to take this article further and actually find reliable sources. Groink (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

DVD/HDD combo recorders are still available in the UK but then again TiVo (as opposed to generic equivalents) never really caught on over here. 86.112.200.84 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Recording speeds

Suggest article should include a mention of Recording speeds/times/resolutions/data rates

Speed	Recording time (Single layer 12cm)	Resolution (PAL)	typ data rate (aprox)	remarks
HQ	> One hour	720 x 576 ("Full D1")	9450 Kbps	Audio (typ) 256 kbps @ 48KHz.
SP	> Two hours	720 x 576 ("Full D1")	4750 Kbps	Commercial Movie DVD's normally use this speed.
LP	> Three hours	352 x 576 ("half D1")		Audio (typ) 256 kbps @ 48KHz.
EP	> Four hours	352 x 576 ("half D1")		Audio (typ) 256 kbps @ 48KHz. (see note below)
EP	> Six hours	352 x 576 ("half D1")		Audio (typ) 192 kbps @ 48KHz. (see note below)
SLP	> Six hours	352 x 288		Video degradation particularly noticable.
MLP	> Fourteen hours	352 x 288		Video very poor. Audio (typ) 96 kbps @ 48KHz.
SVCD	aprox 35 minutes	480 x 576	1575 kbps typ (2600 max 2756 inc audio)	Included for comparison. Audio (typ) 224 kbps @ 44.1KHz.
VCD	aprox 74 minutes	352 x 288	1150 kbps	Included for comparison. Audio (typ) 224 kbps @ 44.1KHz.

Note: The terms HQ/SP/LP/EP/SLP/MLP may not be univerallly applied by all manufacturers. In NTSC countries "Full D1" resolution is 720 x 480

86.112.200.84 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the recording times are not standardised beween manufacturers, particularly the longer playing times although the recordings will usually play back on alternate machines (with less compatibility as the recording time gets longer). For example, a three hour mode is far from universal. The longer durations also vary widely as to the actual max. recording times implemented. However, a suitably genericised table could be used to give an idea of how the quality varies (the change points of video resolution are pretty constant). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)