DVD vs CD for offline storage

[LumenLux]

Over the years, PTE has become my main vehicle for enjoying selected photos from the thousands that I snap. I now need to refine (or establish) a better system/workflow for moving more of the photos off-line.

I recently decided it would make sense to move the thousands of photos onto DVD's instead of CD's. My first batch of files, July - October of one year, required 4 DVD's. But the DVD's took "forever" to burn. I think it would have taken less time to burn the many more CD's that would have been required. Then when I try to view the 2000 or so files on the DVD, it really does not seem practical. That is, it takes a very "long" time for the DVD photos to show up on screen. Maybe this has to do with my slow machines 750 mhz - 1.6 mhz on the DVD equipped PC's. Sometimes, the files seem to be on the DVD but "never" will show up with the others when trying to view the entire DVD photos.

What experiences and conclusions have some of you come up with in this regard? DVD vs. CD for photo storage?

[alrobin]

Robert,

I haven't started using DVD's for image storage yet, but I have about 100 slideshows on a DVD, and the file list comes up right away when I insert the disc. It takes 2 1/2 minutes for win XP to re-draw each of the little icons in front of the file names, though.

And when I highlight all the files and right-click to see the properties (total files, and total file space, etc.), the DVD player clicks and churns away for several minutes before coming up with the information. The slideshows themselves play very promptly, and smoothly right from the DVD, though, so I think it will be OK as an image-storage medium. This is on my main P4, 2.8 GHz, machine.

[Ken Cox]

Robert

the physical space savings alone is a plus -- i sent some shows and it was 7 cd's -- sent again new collection was 1 dvd -- big savings in postage as well

as they say you cant have your cake and eat it too:)

but i would include a text file to help you document/find what is on the dvd

see

http://www.homestead.com/algor/

FolderPrint

Freeware utility allow save listing of directories(folders) and files on a hard drive or any removable media (local or networked) into the text file(comma delimited option for importing into database). Listing can be printed out in Standard Letter size ( 11 x 8 ) or in ZIP, CD, Jet, Jaz, etc... case layout; sorted by name, size, date, etc. Win95 ,Win98 , NT4.

Size 360 Kb (180 Kb compressed.)

Note: There are known issue with 'Browse' button under Windows ME and Windows 2000. A new release will have fix.

works fine on xp

ken

[Conflow]

Hi Guys,

We also tried DVD Data & Image Storage both here at Conflow and at BSL.Ireland and found it to be impractical for the following reason:-

If you select 1 x JPeg Image and convert this to a DVD-Image System (PAL Europe Standard) -

In fact what you are doing is making 25 Images of the origional JPeg because the TV.System requires 25 Frames/per/Sec to operate and a further 25 Interlaced Frames derived from the origional 25 Frame set. This has to do with Screen phosphur persistence etc;

The TV.System generates 'apparent motion' because each of the 25 Frames are different. However the PTE JPeg Image is a 'static image' - none the less, 25 Frames must be made of that image for the TV.Scanning System to work.

I won't go into 625 Line TV.Technology so the above explaination is very much simplefied so you can understand the principles involved. (There is much more to it than that)

Hope this helps -

Brian.Conflow.

[alrobin]

Brian,

I agree with what you are saying, but for simple image storage we are not converting them to DVD "movie" format, but just using the DVD medium in the same way as we would a normal CD, except that the capacity is much greater. When I copy PTE shows to a DVD, they are still just regular PTE shows, and not in DVD "PAL" or "NTSC" movie format such as would be the case if I used the "video" function in PTE and converted them into "movies".

[Conflow]

Hi Al,

Sure, I agree with the point you made, provided you are using a Computer to replay the recorded DVD Images directly from the Disc - but you will have to wait for your Images.

LumenLux wanted to archive ...Thousands of Photo Images to DVD....Not the completed Shows !

My point was simply this:- If you use any of the DVD TV.Formats (Pal or NTSC Standard) irrespective whether its a "still image or not" it still creates 25 Frame Copies of the origional JPeg on to the DVD-Disc otherwise the TV.Set simply can't work-

If you use other 'System Image Software' akin to MP2 etc; you still need to use the 'DVD Burner Software' to get your Images on to the DVD.

That poses another problem because DVD Discs require special 'Formatting' usually provided by a compatible Program to the 'DVD Burner Software' which tends to be "biased" towards Video Reproduction or Streaming Reproduction and where 'Single Images' are processed with difficulty.

This is a totally different animal compared to a simple Write-Read CD and its 'Burning Software'-

The consequence of this is 'Long Access Times' when the PC is trying to read 'Single Images'with DVD Software (not suited for this job) - which is further aggrevated by the sheer Data capacity size of the DVD itself, from 4-8Gb.

I also made the point that we at Conflow and BSL Ltd. ditched this DVD "Archival Photo Library Method" because no matter which System we used the resultant 'access time' was prohibitive because the DVD is a 4-8Gb Mechanical device being read by VideoSoftware no matter what way that's dressed up !

The more effective and elegant solution is to use 'Compact Flash Cards' which are more reliable and provide virtually 'instantaneous' access with a 'USB-2 Interface'.

These Cards are now available up to 4 GigByte Capacity with 10Gb just around the corner (I did predict some time ago that the "Bell" is already ringing for the demise of the CD).

For instance a 512mB Card when used to reproduce 10"x8" Photos (1600x1200 Res) canhold 980 to 1864 JPeg images - which means that you can have Multiple Libraries on one card. Now the 4Gb Card has 8 times that capacity. It makes one think......

I sincerely hope that this discourse between Al and I has not confused other Readers, but I for one don't know of any Software capable of 'parking' hundreds of Images on a DVD and then offering 'Fast Access Retrieval' of selected Images ???

If our Readers have anything like that...dare we ask ?...let us know about it ?

Brian.Conflow.

[LumenLux]

I also made the point that we at Conflow and BSL Ltd. ditched this DVD "Archival Photo Library Method" because no matter which System we used the resultant 'access time' was prohibitive because the DVD is a 4-8Gb Mechanical device being read by VideoSoftware no matter what way that's dressed up !

I sincerely hope that this discourse between Al and I has not confused other Readers, but I for one don't know of any Software capable of 'parking' hundreds of Images on a DVD and then offering 'Fast Access Retrieval' of selected Images ???

If our Readers have anything like that...dare we ask ?...let us know about it ?

Brian.Conflow.  

alrobin Posted on Dec

Thank you Brian, and Al. Granted, I have been confused by some of the information but your last post clarifies and the first quote above is very helpful.

I too continue to welcome any other members knowledge. For now, my question to you Brian - If I am un-ready to purchase more flash memory cards or devices for permanent storage, is CD the best way to go?

[Conflow]

Solid-State Flash Memory

Hi LumenLux,

Yes there is an alternative to 'CD-Mass Image Storage Systems' -Its a new Technology used on Locomotives and Aircraft to record 'On-Route Data' some what like the ubiquitous 'Black Box' used on Aircraft but infinitely faster and more powerful.

Its called "Solid State Flash Memory" - not to be confused with 'Flash Memory Disc Systems' such as the 'Multi-Disc Raid System'

The new 'SSFM Device' comes in 2 User formats:- 'Consumer Stand-Alone Package' and the'Industrial Plug-In Package' used in Trains & Aircraft.

There is a choice of Solid State Memory capacities from 4Gb - 13Gb - 60Gb. Access Time:-80mS. Temp Range: -40°C to +85°C Guarantee: 8 Years. Unfortunately they are type identified as would be for the mechanical Flash Drives,viz:- 1.8" ~ 2.5" ~ 3.5" XXXX

The Consumer Type

Price Type:- 250 Euro. Operates on 2 x AA Cells. Non-Volatile Memory. Colour LCD Screen and USB-2 Communications to Camera & Computer. (Cheaper than a Digital Camera).

The Industrial Type

Plugs straight into the 40 Pin IDE Parallel Port on your PC. Some versions are powered directly from the USB Port - others have a small external 5vDC Supply.

As I write this,my son Greg is going up Aconcagua Mountain in Chile with a 13Gb device which will download a (Weatherproof) Sony Digital Camera on a daily basis. So in fact we are in the process of evaluating one of the Consumer device. I dont have the details here so I shall getback to you in a few days when I make contact with them.

Data on the 'Industrial Plug-In Types' can be had from www.memtech.com and may I suggest you contact them to find if they are suitable for your usage - I see no reason why not ?

In relation to DVD-Drives

Most of these 'Record' at 4X Speed - 'ReWrite' at 2x and 'Play' at 12x. Considering the Software limitations for 'Image Storage' - they really are slow.

Compared to a Standard CD-Drive

Records at 16X - 'ReWrites at 10X and 'Plays at 32X.

Compared to a CD-AOpen Drive with Just-Link (which we use)

'Records' at up to 52X - 'ReWrites' at 32X and 'Plays' at 52X.

This may be of use to you, contact www.aopen.com for further Data.

I hope this provides some help as to your 'Mass Image Storage' problems.

Brian.Conflow.

[Marcovelo]

As I write this,my son Greg is going up Aconcagua Mountain in Chile with a 13Gb device which will download a (Weatherproof) Sony Digital Camera on a daily basis.

(Out of topic):

Actually, Cerro Aconcagua is located in Argentina, not in Chile (near the border, yes, but in Argentina).

Altought the altitude of its sumit is often discussed (22,835 ft, 22,840 ? etc...), the mountain is fully inside Argentina territory.

This is true that weather conditions can be especially extreme (wind, cold...) on this mountain, mostly because of wind.

I know the discussion concerns "long term storage" more than "extreme weather condition", but I'm interested in Greg's experience with Hi-Tech equipement.

It's very interesting in my opinion, and it would be great if you can report to us, Brian, if possible. Thanks. (Also with details on battery models used and real weather conditions.)

Personnally, I experienced up to -47°C on Aconcagua (Febrary, 1997), and I used only an old and classic camera with no battery at all ! .

I whish Greg a very nice climbing and good luck about weather (and nice photos !).

Marco

[LumenLux]

I guess unless someone else counters, that CD is "better" than DVD for storage of photo files.

And Marco, I would also be interested in your 1997 climbing experience. Do you have a PTE presentation of that experience? I am not a climber, but having last week only hiked briefly at over 17,000 ft. in Peru, I have new appreciation for high-elevation efforts of climbers.

[Conflow]

To: Marcovelo & LumenLux

Marko,

Many thanks for the kind wishes, I shall pass them on to Greg and of course I shall get back to you with Photo's & Performance details on the 'Flash Image Storage System'.

I had not realised that Aconcagua was factually in Argentina - I shall have to re-draw the Border on my Atlas as it clearly shows the Mountain in Chile , AAhh well even Printers make mistakes !

Lumenlux I hope the details were of some use to you, I had forgot to mention that 'AOpen' make a 56X Speed CD-Writer - its about the same price as the 'Consumer Flash Storage Unit' -

Speaking for myself I have 2 Burners on my PC and use 'Nero 6'. I got caught out last year when the Laser on my old burner failed - did I curse,not because it failed, but because it's a terrible job installing and setting-up a New CD-Burner and getting it running correctly.

In your case I would suggest the purchase of a 'Stand-by Burner' for the reason that it really gets 'punished' (and overworked) in the process of burning Images - it never gets a chance to cool down when processing really large Image Files such as yours.

Cheers,

Brian.Conflow.

[Ken Cox]

well i couldn't let this rest without trying

so

i took my picture file for the test and burned a couple dvd's -- i needed to do a backup anyways

my system description and results follow

PICTURES ON DVD TEST

6:08 PM 12/4/2004

Operating System System Model

Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 2 (build 2600) To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M.

System Serial Number: To Be Filled By O.E.M.

Processor a Main Circuit Board b

2.80 gigahertz Intel Pentium 4

16 kilobyte primary memory cache

1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache Board: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. P4P800-E Rev 1.xx

Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: American Megatrends Inc. 1002.002 02/25/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d

270.79 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity

96.74 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

HL-DT-ST DVD-ROM GDR8162B [CD-ROM drive]

HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4082B [CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy drive]

FUJITSU MPG3307AH E SCSI Disk Device (30.74 GB) -- drive 2

GENERIC USB Storage-CFC USB Device [Hard drive] -- drive 4

GENERIC USB Storage-MMC USB Device [Hard drive] -- drive 5

GENERIC USB Storage-MSC USB Device [Hard drive] -- drive 6

GENERIC USB Storage-SMC USB Device [Hard drive] -- drive 3

WDC WD12 00JB-00CRA1 SCSI Disk Device (120.03 GB) -- drive 1

WDC WD1200JB-00CRA1 [Hard drive] (120.03 GB) -- drive 0, s/n WD-WMA8C4785163, rev 17.07W17, SMART Status: Healthy 1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

Slot 'DIMM0' has 512 MB (serial number SerNum0)

Slot 'DIMM1' is Empty

Slot 'DIMM2' has 512 MB

Slot 'DIMM3' is Empty

Local Drive Volumes

HL-DT-ST DVD-ROM GDR8162B [CD-ROM drive] LG 16X DVD-ROM Drive

HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4082B [CD-ROM drive] LG GSA-4082B 8X4X12 DVD+-R/RW/RAM 24X16X32 CDRW OEM

D:\1Pictures> Created on: 12/04/04 17:49:39

Directory(Folder) summary: Size(bytes): 3.2 Gb

SubFolders Total:.... 716

Files Total:......... 12733

put disk in this drive

HL-DT-ST DVD-ROM GDR8162B [CD-ROM drive] LG 16X DVD-ROM Drive

opened a folder on the disk -- same was opened in +- 2 seconds

opened a jpg -- too fast for my fingers to operate the stopwatch

so IMHO i have to disagree with some comments

seeing is believing

ken

[Conflow]

Hi Ken,

Yes Ken thats O.K - but lets be honest, your PC is a rather 'Big Brute' with decent Memory,'Lots of Speed' and you had it 'uniquely configured' if my memory serves me correctly or that's what I believed when we last made contact -

You don't tell us what you were saving ? were they complete Shows or Individual JPegs? Have your DVD Drives got 'inbuilt' Cache Memory ? What Speed did you 'Burn' at ? and the 'Big Question" did you burn in DVD Mode to a DVD ? was this a Single or Dual Layer DVD ? or did you burn to a CD-ROM Disc in CD Burn Mode ? and as LumenLux inferred in his origional question - How long did it take to Burn in the 1st place?

I'm sure many of us would like to know how you done it with an access time less that 2 secs to a selected File - because it begs the question that many have tried and failed with everyday 'bog standard' XP and 2000 PC's where burning Data to DVD's took for ever to do - and the Data Recall was also extremely slow (Data=JPeg Images)

The combination of both 'delays' construed to make 'DVD Mass Image Storage' a non-started compared to storing on the faster cheap CD's or Flash Memory as alternatives.

Brian.Conflow.

[Ken Cox]

Brian

over here in the colonies most new computors sold today are equal to my 2.8 ghz

my burner burns at 2x

the file selected is comprised of jpgs and some data, shows etc

my on board show folders are far in excess in size of my plain picture folder

my p2e show folder which contains picts p2e shows mp3 icons data ec is 3.97 gig -- 11,417 files -- 389 folders

my collection of shows from members consisting of exes and very small amt of data is 4.857 gb - 10456 files and 847 folder

-- the contents of the D:\1Pictures folder which i burned for the test

D:\1Pictures> Created on: 12/04/04 17:49:39

Directory(Folder) summary: Size(bytes): 3.2 Gb

SubFolders Total:.... 716

Files Total:......... 12733

Name Size

1. [ 12000 collection ]

12.0 Mb ......

2. [ 12001 collection ]

611.0 Mb ......

3. [ 12002 collection ]

215.6 Mb ......

4. [ 12003 picts ]

91.2 Mb ......

5. [ 1997 collection ]

3.6 Mb ......

6. [ 1998 collection ]

8.2 Mb ......

7. [ 1999 collection ]

12.6 Mb ......

8. [ 1_2004 collection ]

822.1 Mb ......

9. [ 1SAMPLER ]

798.3 Kb ......

10. [ 1sites ]

65.7 Kb ......

11. [ 1sizetest ]

711.8 Kb ......

12. [ 320X240 ]

277.0 Kb ......

13. [ agent ransack search ]

100 b ......

14. [ black and white ]

1.2 Mb ......

15. [ BLAD INFO ]

1.1 Mb ......

16. [ boats ]

9.8 Mb ......

17. [ bridge data ]

7.7 Mb ......

18. [ bridge2 ]

20.2 Mb ......

19. [ cars ]

666.1 Kb ......

20. [ Digital Photography FAQ_files ]

2.3 Kb ......

21. [ doug booth ]

7.4 Mb ......

22. [ DOW ]

10.7 Mb ......

23. [ eclipse ]

71.2 Kb ......

24. [ F-18 ]

4.3 Mb ......

25. [ florida paint ]

541.5 Kb ......

26. [ foster ]

2.1 Mb ......

27. [ GRANDKIDS ]

6.5 Mb ......

28. [ gus stuff ]

9.4 Mb ......

29. [ ken picts ]

5.7 Mb ......

30. [ manleys steelcase ]

833.4 Kb ......

31. [ map shots ]

4.8 Mb ......

32. [ newspapers+st pat's football ]

25.6 Mb ......

33. [ ODD PICTURES ]

9.3 Mb ......

34. [ picts by others ]

47.1 Mb ......

35. [ picture scans ]

1.8 Mb ......

36. [ pictures sent with mail ]

1.6 Mb ......

37. [ ranson ]

1.1 Mb ......

38. [ ronand martha ]

397.6 Kb ......

39. [ sabre picts ]

0.9 Mb ......

40. [ scanner tests ]

2.9 Mb ......

41. [ snappy test spot ]

0 b ......

42. [ snappy2 ]

1.3 Mb ......

43. [ startrek sample folder ]

16.8 Mb ......

44. [ test folder ]

24.3 Mb ......

45. [ test zip folder ]

1.2 Gb ......

46. [ theme picts ]

2.5 Mb ......

47. [ trains ]

1.5 Mb ......

48. [ wallpaper ]

4.1 Mb ......

49. [ weather ]

1.4 Mb ......

50. [ XAPSHOT ]

0 b ......

51. [ zdnet web page ]

390.5 Kb ......

52. #15 enterprise.jpg

74.4 Kb ......

53. 4.01 FINAL P2E apr.exe.lnk

797 b ......

54. breezebrowser.dat

124 b ......

55. Calculating the Ideal Print Size.txt

1.4 Kb ......

56. desktop.ini

372 b ......

57. Digital Photography FAQ.htm

188.0 Kb ......

58. Easy Thumbnails.lnk

345 b ......

59. F-18.zip

1.4 Mb ......

60. Fire While Fueling_1.doc

719.5 Kb ......

61. FolderPrint.exe

360.0 Kb ......

62. Lee Greenwood - America the Beautiful.mp3

3.3 Mb ......

63. Lee Greenwood - The Battle Hymn of The Republic.mp3

3.5 Mb ......

64. Oscar's JPEG Thumb Maker.lnk

456 b ......

65. PICTURE LOG.TXT

78 b ......

66. pictures on D may 22 2001.txt

12.7 Kb ......

67. PTE_Tutorial.zip

345.8 Kb ......

68. setnametotime.exe.lnk

680 b ......

69. Thumbs.db

5.5 Kb ......

70. ThumbWizard.exe.lnk

809 b ......

my computer specs have been posted in various threads since i had it built in June this year - i never recorded how long it took to burn but overall burn time was likely +- 2 hrs for the 2 disks - i do not burn "on the fly" as failures can occur - recommended by Nero so the whole file was moved cache first before the actual burn starts

as i read Bob's original question -- he wanted to know if it was practical to store on dvd and after my test, i say it is

he brought up the flash memory as another option -- i would not consider flash for mass storage as burners are getting so cheap

-- my friend in Kansas bought an OEM nec dual layer for $69 +- + $4 shipping

http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_get...asterid=3648375

NEC 16X Double Layer DVD±RW Drive, Black, Model ND-3500A BK, OEM

Model# ND-3500A BK

Item # N82E16827152032

Specifications:

Write Speed: 16X DVD+R, 4X DVD+RW, 4X DVD+R9, 16X DVD-R, 4X DVD-RW, 48X CD-R, 24X CD-RW

Read Speed: 48X CD-ROM, 16X DVD-ROM

Interface: ATAPI / E-IDE

Buffer: 2MB

OS Support: Windows XP/ 2000/ ME/ 98SE

Features: High speed writing performance.

my drives which i included the specs for are slow in comparison to what is being offered today -- dual layer +R blank discs are $40 for 3 at one retail store i visit

ken

[Ken Cox]

to throw some more to the pot, i quote a part of a thread by one of the moderators of another group re dual layer

Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:58:25 -0500

From: Wayne Johnson <wdj@WAVIJO.COM>

Subject: Re: CD/DVD

At 03:29 AM 12/4/2004, Jim typed:

>Can someone please suggest a CD/DVD RW with

>the latest bells and whistles. Two sided DVD etc etc. I don't mean to

>start a war here -- so maybe a quiet offering in the corner.

I like the Pioneer line especially since they are the largest manufacturer

of burners & they were also the first for PCs. I believe you have confused

2 sided with dual layer as one could have a 2 sided dual layer disk which

would hold only 16 to 18g. Most any DVD burner will burn a 2 sided disk as

you burn each side as if it's a single sided disk but the dual layer that's

another issue entirely. IMO were NOT ready for DL [dual layer] disks yet in

that most stand alone players will not play them most likely do to the fact

that only the +R camp makes them & they are considerably slower at 2.4x

which is approximately an hour to burn 8g of video or data.

----------+----------

Wayne D. Johnson

Ashland, OH, USA 44805

<http://www.wavijo.com>

The WIN-HOME list is hosted on a Windows 2000™ machine running L-Soft

international's LISTSERV® software. To unsubscribe, write to

WIN-HOME-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM. If you have questions

about the list, write to WIN-HOME-request@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM.

Wayne is a self employed computer builder and repair person -- - has helped dig me out many times

-- he is a big advocate of Bart's bootable cd's

http://www.nu2.nu/bootablecd/

ken

[Conflow]

Hi Again Ken,

Well you guys on the U.S side of the "pond" are very fortunate indeed if the bulk of American XP-PC's are 'Feature-Loaded' as your PC is -and sold as is- as you say they are.

On our side of the "pond" you certainly don't get a "Bog Standard XP" with a 350.Gig Hard-Drive and 1.0 Gig of 'User Memory' and a 'Virtual 120.Gig SCSI Drive' along with all the other 'goodies' you have installed.

Most here are sold with a 100.Gig HD and a 'miserely' 256.Mb.of User Memory and a non-descript 'Combo DVD/R+CD Rom R/Write' (DVD Combo-Burner is much extra). This comes with a "stripped version" of Nero Express or some such like. Sure if you want to head upwards to the 2000.Euro mark you would get something 'akin' to your PC.

This is getting away from the Questions raised by LumenLux and Robert

LumenLux wanted a 'Fast Record & Retrieval System' for 'Bulk Image Storage'. Ken, he did say 'FAST' and I responded in that vein. DVD can not reach the 'turn-around' speeds of standard CD's running on a fast CD-Drive like the AOpen Drives. (Read his Post above)

Robert (Bob)

Apart from his PTE activities he asked the question is DVD suitable for "Backing-Up" Program Folders ?

I for one would not commit important (irreplacable) Programs to DVD and neither would BSL.Ireland - the least of our reasons being the 'dodgy' cross-compatibility of PC-DVD Drives -v- Laptop DVD Drives. This is what Bob wanted to do ?

Wayne's Posting-Addendum

Ken,we certainly know the difference between a Single Layer and Dual Layer DVD and what a Double-Sided DVD is - there is no confusion on our part for the reason that BSL.Ireland are "Microsoft Licenced' OEM Computer & Network Builders and are quite well known in Ireland. The Company is run by my son Brian (Jnr) and his excellent staff, their Web Site and Web Shop are available on:- www.bsl.ie

Hope this clears out the 'mis-interpretations' being picked up on this thread.

~HAPPY CHRISTMAS TO ALL ~ HAVE A WONDERFUL NEW YEAR~

I'm off on Holidays to Bavaria and the Austrian Tirol to get away from everything Computer !

Best Wishes to All-

Brian.Conflow.

[Ronniebootwest]

Wow! This topic has certainly raised some hackles.

The original question was about storing images on to either a CD or DVd and we certainly seem to have blown the topic out of the water. I share the desire (with the originator of this thread) to backup my images in some way. At the moment I simply use a 250gb external hard drive connected via a 'firewire'. When I run out of space on the first drive I will simply buy another and 'daisy chain' this with the first. With firewire, you can daiychain as many as you wish (up to a point.

However, back to DVD's - I am going to do a test for myself now to see just what the problem is. Watch this space!

Ron West

[DaveG]

I use the same approach as Ron although my USB Drive is not dedicated solely to Photographs. There is definitely a case for doing this and when I need the next one I might do a little re-organising. I tried the DVD approach and soon decided that was not the way forward.

DaveG

[alrobin]

Brian,

Have a happy holiday - I envy you.

I, too, am very interested in the solid-state backup device, having climbed Kilimanjaro three years ago, and having had to change batteries in my camera at the top at - 15 deg C in windy conditions, and with heavy mitts on my hands. The photos came back intact and all accounted for, however. But I wasn't shooting digital.

However, I wouldn't be using film if I were to repeat the trip (also unlikely - once is enough!). But we have conditions worse than that on some of our better winter days out in the woods on cross-country skis.

[Ronniebootwest]

I said in an earlier post that I was going to check the DVD approach for myself. Well I spent a few hours on the project and have concluded that it is far to slow for my liking. It takes forever to burn on to the DVD and then even more time to retrieve them. My method of using an external hard drive is my preferred method and I will be staying with this for the forseeeable future.

Ron West

[ccmanz]

My pictures are backed up every night to an external hard drive too. I have all my pictures divided up into Dir that will fit on a DVD. 2004 Part 01, 2004 Part 02 ect..... Then the Dir these are in, is set up as a mapped P: Drive (Pictures). This way it does not matter which computer I am on. My links to a picture is always P:/ . Then every night anything new on my P: Drive is backed up to my external hard drive. Once I have an amount that will fill a DVD I start a new Dir. And Burn a DVD for an additional hard copy. Right now I have 7 DVD's This would have taken about 49 CD's.

If my wife wants to use the laptop when we are away from home and Look through our pictures. It is a lot easier for us to take 7 DVD's then 49 CD's. This really does not answer your question of what media is better. But for me the DVD is the better choice for archiving my files.

cc

[MikeL117]

My two pence worth

1x CD = 150KB/s

1x DVD - 1350KB/s

so a 4x DVD recorder is equivalent to 36x CD recorder.

Yes it does take an age to write a DVD but taking into consideration the extra time for closing each CD how much longer does it really take to record the same amount of data on the six/seven CDs. DVD drives are getting faster (8x is equivalent to 72xCD and should write just over 4GB in 8minutes, 16x you are down 1GB/min - how long does it take to upload your images of you camera?)

One of the problems with reading DVDs at present is that Windows (in its many incarnations) is not overly happy with the UDF file system used by the DVD to allow it to hold files greater than 4GB each. It is possible to format the DVD as FAT32 which may make the access a little faster in the short term.

Large external hard drives are fast and hold a huge amount and relatively cheap and prone to catastophic failure. Great to get the files off your working machine but is it wise to use for archive purposes? The Iomega REV "promises" to be the archive solution, we shall see.

Solid state storage is likely to be the best solution in the future, but at present it is at least an order of magnetude more expensive than any other method.

I save my files on CD and more and more DVD. I know it is not perfect and I may have to re-do the process in a few years time, but it is affordable even making two copies (just to be on the safe side) not too arduous or time consuming (2-3min for CD, 15 min DVD).

[Ken Cox]

I have just burned 2 AVI'S TO DVD using my 2x LG burner

used Nero suite and added nothing other than the standard background and buttons

01 avi = 408688 KB 32.46 mins 512x384

02 avi = 43,634 kb 04.05 mins 512x384

time to encode and burn first disk was +- 60 mins

time to burn 2nd disk 6 mins 42 sec's

final size was 1.74 gig

worth every bit of the time to burn

ken

[LumenLux]

Thanks everyone. It does seem that we are getting some different results from personal experiences related. I am wondering now a little more about the software used to burn to DVD. Even wondering if the software used to burn may make a difference in read-time when later accessing the photos on DVD. I need to digest all the good info you have all provided and probably make some further explorations/tests myself before committing. Meanwhile, I had to move several gigs of pix from one HD to another. And . . . further input is still welcome.

[LumenLux]

And loading was equal on 1600 Mhz's PC. And on 3000 Mhz Jpeg will load even more faster. But reading from hard disc almost doesn't depend on speed of CPU.  

Above quote is from Igor (Admin) in a different topic.

My original DVD contains some 2200 jpg files. Most are 3-4 mb. Some psd files to 16 mb.

On a 1.6 mhz pc at home, some of the files never would appear as thumbnails nor open to the screen. But more of them would open on the 1.6 than on my slower 770mhz pc. When I tried to copy such "un-openable" files to the hard drive, I would get message about "not a supported dos function" or similar. I needed to know if the photos that won't open are actually valid files that I could access with a faster computer. If so, then the SLOW DVD access might still be worth using for some storage.

So I took my subject DVD and headed to the national retailer to test it on the latest retail "hot" machines.

I found some fast machines would display all the thumbnails of all the files on this DVD. I tried the DVD on the fastest (cpu) of several brand pc's. It was difficult to establish what common features of the machines made the difference. I did find (to my surprise) that the fastest, most complete display results, came via a Celeron CPU! The P4 came in second. And the AMD (Athlon?) came third. So, back to Igor's quote above, I am wondering what really makes the most difference for trying to use DVD as viable storage of jpg images? CPU speed, RAM, cache (which cache), hard drive speed, DVD medium, burn speed? Does the recording speed of the creator burner make a difference? Graphics card? One salesman claimed I might get better results using re-writeable DVD? Said the re-writeable burn actually makes real high and low spots in the disk while the -R or +R just make a "picture" of the high and low spots or grooves, etc.

I would like to know if anyone here is using DVD storage of your photos and if so, have you made sure you can access what is on the DVD? And if so, what specs does your equipment have. And Igor, what is your perspective?