|
|
|
Mysteriously "cursed" dual layer movies
|
|
|
smsmike
Member
|
2. October 2005 @ 16:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
arniebear: (said in part) If you had said Decrypter was unable to break the encryption on a rip then AnyDVD would prove valuable, but as stated it has no control over your burn.
One of the reasons I switched from DVD Decrypter to AnyDVD was that I could not get a clean enough "decryption" for a dual layer burn in some of the movies I tried to process with either Decrypter or Shrink.
Decrypter and Shrink gave me perfectly acceptable compressed files that would burn to single layer disk with no problem noted, but NOT dual layer disks with No Compression.
Oddly enough, some of them would work if I used Shrink to Re-Code them after transfering to HD with Decrypter, but told Shrink to use No Compression (go figure). Anyway, the conclusion that I reached was that what DVD Decrypter may have missed, DVD Shrink caught. Might not be what happened, but the results were as stated.
AnyDVD works each and every time, with No Fuss. So, with the price of Dual Layer Disks being so high, why take chances with programs that are no longer being up-dated, or systems that were never designed for Dual Layer applications?
I always say that each person should use what works best for them.
AnyDVD works best for ME .
- Mike -
I stopped counting when I reached 60!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
forker
Junior Member
|
6. October 2005 @ 04:35 |
Link to this message
|
A final note on probability...
A recurring problem burning specific movies is statistically unlikely to be caused by media if other movies burn without a problem. Even if the media elitists (no pun intended) say that 1/3 burns with memorex fail for them, the chances of 2 movies failing 3 times each and even discounting that all 20+ other burns have been successful for me, it is still extremely unlikely to be caused by the media, ((1/3)^3)^2 = 1/729. Of course this becomes even more unlikely when one accounts for the probability of 20 successful burns (1/729*(2/3)^20). Correct my math if I'm wrong; it's been a long time since I took discrete math.
In any event, Memorex DVD+R DL has been a very dependable media for me, without a single failed burn other than the two movies with which I have had a problem.
Maybe I'll use Verbatim regularly when their prices go down, but in the meantime, I would recommend Memorex without hesitation, and would hope that posters would not automatically assume that it's the media.
|
Moderator
|
6. October 2005 @ 05:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
i was never too good at maths :)
i go from experience as opposed to probability/statistics, ie from my own media problems and from those of hundreds, more likely thousands others in my time here at afterdawn; anyone that knows me will happily state that i (like many others) don't go on about bad media to make ppl spend more money; far from from it, we see endless problems and using basic common sense troubleshooting, with a huge dollop of common sense and experience we attack all the symptoms, then hopefully end up with just one culprit. No it's not always the media, however using my afterdawn experience alone i can quite happily stand tall and say the amount of problems i've dealt with that were due to top notch (and not costing more than subpar media) media are incredibly low. the subpar media are way up there however.
You have your way of diagnosing media failures, i'll stick to mine!, however i (or others) won't knock anyone that is having success with such media. But what i won't do (and would be bang out of order if i did do it) is to recommend such media to the general populous as that would not not be good advice for the majority.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. October 2005 @ 05:28
|
Member
|
6. October 2005 @ 07:11 |
Link to this message
|
Forker, your heart is in the right place, but believe me, and all the other WAY more experienced guys here such as Creaky, memorex may seem fine now, but in a year, try to burn it. Good luck. I have some old burns on memorex that are fine so far, but they were from a better than average supplier to memorex. If you try a spindle of genuine Taiyo Yuden discs, or two, or three, and never have a coaster or a movie that is pixelated or skips, you will understand.
Nobody here is getting money for recommending good media which is readily available for as good prices as the cheapy crap. Just try burning a movie on memorex then on quality media and check them with k-probe or Nero. You will definitely see the difference.
smsmike, the whole "bad media" thing may seem like it is overused to you, but in my time here and in my own experience, bad media is the number one cause of peoples problems starting out. Creaky, Kivory, all these guys are here to help, not to mislead. Memorex may seem to be working for you now, but sooner or later you will see the light.
MS Windows XP MCE SP2, Intel P4 3.20 GHz, 2.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce FX5600, Seagate 7200 rpm 200GB HDD, Sony SDMHS93 19" LCD, Field Value
Audio Adapter Creative SB0317 Audigy LS Sound Card, Liteon models,SHM-165H6S, 167to6c, All burns exclusively on genuine Taiyo Yuden and Verbatim media!
|
|
xaqster
Newbie
|
6. October 2005 @ 13:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Forker, Just a little on Descrete Maths.
I don't mean to flame you, just want to put forth my understanding, such as it is. I may be wrong, and frequently am.
There are 2 problems with this calculation. There is no weighting for the likelyhood of each outcome ( all 729 possible outcomes are equally likely) and the sample size really is not big enough.
<Lecture mode>
Whan you are observing descrete events, you cannot allow the past performance to influence your calculations. For example, imagine flipping a coin 20 times. Heads or Tails should show up 1/2 of the time right? Say all 20 throws came up Tails. What is the probability of the next throw being heads? 1/2, same as on all the other 20 throws.
When examining descreet events to determine the probablilty of one outcome, you need a large sample size. For example, take the coins again. Throw them 25 times. Say you get 5 Heads and 20 Tails. This does not mean that the probability of Heads is 5/25 or 1/5 and Tails is 20/25 or 4/5. It means your sample size is not big enough. When observing real world events to determine the probablilty, you cannot ever give an exact figure. You have to say "The probability tends towards n as the number of events tends towards infinity". The bigger the sample size, the more accureate your probability figure will be. Try this for yourself. Flip the coin 26 times, and see if you get 13 heads and 13 Tails every time. I think you will be surprised. To get a really good probability figure, you would probably have to repeat upwards of 1000 times.
Now on to the Memorex. If we are saying that, on avarage, 1/3 of the disks are bad, then it is possible to have a spindle of 25 that are all good, and a spindle of 25 that are all bad. Most will be somewhere inbetween. If the last disk was bad, the next disk still has a one in three chance of being bad. Looking at some of these chaps burning numbers, over 1000 burns does not seem too far out of the ordinary. I would say 6 bad out of 26 burns is better than most are getting on Memorex ( 6/26 = 0.23, 1/3 = 0.33 ) You seem to have got a pack that is better than most.
<Rant mode>
I really do not like adverts using stupidly small sample sizes to promote their product. You know the ones "87%* of Women asked said that after 3 days their skin felt like a teenagers - - * Sample of 187, Self assessed, all are enrolled at Felixstowe sixth form." This is meaningless. I would go on, but I think I have probably used up all my ranting electrons!
</Rant mode>
If anyone is interested in knowing more about this type of maths, and the ways to conduct studies to get the results you want, don't hesitate to PM me, and I'll do my best (see me after class, Jenkins!)
</Lecture mode>
Again, this is in no way meant to flame Forker, I just hope I can straighten out some maths here.
Time to crawl back under my Geek rock..
A Jet-ski is a motorbike modified so that it sinks more slowly -Terry Darlington
|
|
akyllonen
Member
|
6. October 2005 @ 17:51 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
this happens only with specific movies and it fails EVERY TIME I try to burn these movies
Have you deleted the ISO and re-ripped to the HD each time you tried burning?
Also do these code out as RITEK? I asked before, but didn't receive a reply.
2.4 Celeron;512k ram; 80gig HD; 60gig HD; Windows XP(SP1).
Sony DRU-710A (BYX4)
DVD Shrink/DVD Decrypter.
TYG02;YUDEN002;MCC blanks.
Favorite Media: Sony 8x+R(MADE IN JAPAN)
Laptop: 1.4 Ghz;256k ram; 40 gig HD;Windows XP
NEC ND-6650A Burner
|
|
forker
Junior Member
|
7. October 2005 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
akyllonen - Ritek. I am aware that it has received mixed reviews on reliability. I used the same image with most of the burns, although I think I did re-rip the first one at least once, and of course the final success of AI was a re-rip.
xaqster - I am aware that I cannot say that all Memorex media will have the same success rate as mine, that would of course be absurd considering I have such limited experience with it. I suppose my backing of Memorex is more reactionary than anything. But as to my calculations, I'm not quite sure what you're disputing. First of all, the "sample size" is completely irrelevant, because we're not calculating a new average fail rate - we are assuming that 1/3 of all Memorex media are bad and then simply finding the probability of my event occurring with bad media as the only problem.
You say that I have 6/26 fail rate and this is to be expected and even better than the supposed average fail rate of 1/3. However, I'm not calculating the chances that I will have 6 failed writes out of 26. That would simply be 6/26. The chances that 3 discs fail in succession, and that this occurs twice, is 1/729. When combining two distinct events, you multiply their probabilities. I won't give a detailed lecture on probability or why this is true, but you can do a search and surely find futher information.
All of this is only to show that it is _very_ unlikely (one in 729 chance) that it occurred only because of the media.
edit:
Actually, I did not account for the fact that the problem did not occur twice in succession. My previous calculation would be correct only if the 2 events happened in succession (as in, 6 discs failed in succession). The actual calculation is much more complex, however. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.. For example, consider that I burned 30 movies. The chances of getting 3 fails in a row, twice, is (5 choose 2) * 1/27 * 1/27 = 10/729, which is still < 2%. As always, correct me if I'm wrong. So this means that there is less than 2% chance that 3 movies will fail in succession twice within 30 discs.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. October 2005 @ 19:16
|
|
akyllonen
Member
|
8. October 2005 @ 09:58 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I used the same image with most of the burns, although I think I did re-rip the first one at least once, and of course the final success of AI was a re-rip.
Could be a problem with the ISO. I'd try and re-rip another problem DVD with Decrypter any see how the burn goes.
As for the media I'd be worried if they were Philips coded...but Ritek coded ones should be fine.
Memorex made media is usually garbage, but I've had no problems with the Ritek coded SL Memorex discs (although I never buy anything but TY's now!). I am assuming your firmware is up to date???
2.4 Celeron;512k ram; 80gig HD; 60gig HD; Windows XP(SP1).
Sony DRU-710A (BYX4)
DVD Shrink/DVD Decrypter.
TYG02;YUDEN002;MCC blanks.
Favorite Media: Sony 8x+R(MADE IN JAPAN)
Laptop: 1.4 Ghz;256k ram; 40 gig HD;Windows XP
NEC ND-6650A Burner
|
Moderator
|
8. October 2005 @ 10:31 |
Link to this message
|
maybe we can have a Nero log (bearing in mind that Nero's no good at DL burning due to not handling the layer break correctly) ?. i know you've used Decrypter also but Nero is very descriptive in it's logs..
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
Senior Member
|
8. October 2005 @ 19:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
@forker
Statistics are wonderful things, and we can prove or dis-prove anything based upon statistics. The reason ppl here go straight questioning media first is, media is the easiest/cheapest thing to change in your whole set up when you have problems. Newer encryptions come out and they cause all kinds of different errors to pop up on programs not updated to handle the latest tricks. AnyDVD and DVD FabDecrypter seem to be right up on anything new coming out. The problem with bad media is usually found in the dyes used to make the disc media. Crappy dyes result in mixed performance thru-out the batch. Now if we had a large enough sample size, we could accurately test any media manufacture, and in an indirect way, we do have a large sample base. Users like you and i. Enough users report the same problem with the same manufacture of disc, no matter what type of equipment is used, then it must be a defect in the media. Not a defect in hardware used, techniques used, or the brainpower of the operators, but in media used. Statistics can be used to do a commonality report. Given a fixed error, what pops up as the most probable cause of freezing, pixilation, skipping?: burning too fast, and bad media would pop up as the biggest hitters on a chart. Followed by, in the distance, other problems. So when someone comes in here having problems, asking for help, and the media they used just happens to be memo-sux, don't be supprised that many ppl will chime in with suggestions to change the media. It is not because any of us have a vested interest in a particular brand of media, we are just trying to save the poster some headaches in the future. I was personally burned by cmc-mag, and the way i deal with that problem is to never buy memo-sux again, and to warn others about it. It isn't meant as a personal attack, or pontificating for the sake of hearing oneself, it is meant to help the person seeking help. Again, i hope you don't view this as me jumping on you, or anything like that. If everyone else in the world wanted to use cmc mag, and were happy with it, then enjoy. What ever works for your budget/skill/resources, go for it. As long as your backups work in all the players you use over an extended period of time. But, bad media can be a big crap-shoot, and who needs to take those kinds of chances? It doesn't hurt to try using other media, and maybe some day cmc mag may actually make some decent media. I am not holding my breath, and there is no need to when we have good media suppliers out there right now.
Statistics are fine, but they all come down to guessing what is going to happen. I don't have to guess what will happen if i buy a bunch of memo-sux and proceed to burn at 16x or even 48x if they get that high. Even some cmc mags i have burnt at 1x fail to make a back up of a back up. Too many crc errors to recover a decent movie from.. Nope, i personally will not risk wasting my time and money on crappy media.
Sorry for the long rant on media. A line i remember from Outlaw Josey Wales comes to mind "Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining." That was directed at MEMOREX. not anyone else... is it real, or is it CMC Mag?? LOL
Die CMC Mag!!!This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. October 2005 @ 20:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. October 2005 @ 20:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
As stated several hundred times, Memorex does not make blank media. Their biggest problem is that they purchase blank media from anyone and brand them Memorex. Therefore you never know what you will get in the box. It is a step upwards that they are using some Ritek for their DL blanks and those should work well. However next week the DL blanks may be CMC MAG blanks again which everyone knows are junk. How can anyone recommend Memorex when you never know what you are actually buying. This is the main reason most older AD members state that Memorex are not to be trusted. It may be wrong to make a blanket statement that Memorex is junk, but until they change the way they purchase media its the best statement you can make. Use at your own risk. Just remember that most burn problems using Memorex blanks are usually corrected when the media is changed to a better/ well know blank media. That is all that needs to be said on the Memorex media.
Jerry
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. October 2005 @ 20:35
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
9. October 2005 @ 06:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree buying Memorex DVD media is like gambling, you may get lucky and get a good batch, or not. In my case I bought Memorex DVD media once and got the bad, out of 50 I got 10 good burns, although those had CRC errors. I never bought again. Until Memorex can make a consistent DVD media product I can't recommend it and that is based on my usage. I do however use their CD media for data backup purposes that works out okay for what I need it for.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
xaqster
Newbie
|
11. October 2005 @ 23:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
@forker,
OK, I can see where you are comming from. You say that you had 6 fail out of 26, and that there are 729 possible ways for this to happen ( 1st 6 fail, next 20 are ok being different from 1st 5 fail, next one is ok, burn 7 fails, rest are ok, being different from 1st 5 fail, next 2 work, burn 8 fails, rest are ok, etc, etc, etc) and the chances of one of these ways cropping up is 1 in 729. This I agree with. I contend that in this case it doesn't really matter which order the disks failed in ( 1st 6 fail, next 20 are ok is the same as 1st 5 fail, next one is ok, burn 7 fails, rest are ok, is the same as 1st 5 fail, next 2 work, burn 8 fails, rest are ok, etc, etc, etc).
If you ask 26 people if they like coke or pepsi, and 6 say pepsi, the probability of the next person you ask liking pepsi is 6/26 (very roughly!). The probablilty of _those exact 6 people_ liking pepsi is 1/729. I am saying for the small sample size (26) that while the figure 1/726 is technically correct, it is misleading. 6/26 gives a much more "Real world (tm)" probablilty of the bad burns.
Anyhoo, not to get into a rant here, I'm off to Storage-expo.
Again, If I am off im my calculations or reasoning, please correct me. I won't get upset, just possibly educated!
:)
Xaqster
Ps, I cannot spell today!
A Jet-ski is a motorbike modified so that it sinks more slowly -Terry Darlington
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. October 2005 @ 23:53
|
|
