Tech Support > Computer Hardware > CD/DVD > 6 minutes to burn, 25 minutes to verify? wtf?
6 minutes to burn, 25 minutes to verify? wtf?
Posted by zutroi on November 27th, 2004



my Pioneer 108 burns a full disk at about 6 minutes. but the verify part
of the burn takes 25 minutes or more. is this normal? i thought it would
be faster somehow. my firmware is the final 1.14 >nil: fix, which is
f'ing awesome...

--

Posted by Mike Fields on November 27th, 2004


You don't say what software you are using, but my A07
burning at 4x burns and verifies at the same rate (10 min
burn takes 10 mins to verify) this is using Nero 5.5.10.?
under winXP. The few 8x burns I have done also seem
to match times for burn and verify. Not sure what you
are seeing there.

mikey

"zutroi" <zutroi@microsfot.com> wrote in message
news:%YVpd.3691785$yk.567758@news.easynews.com...


Posted by doS on November 27th, 2004


why verify, if is a bad burn, its a bad burn...

"zutroi" <zutroi@microsfot.com> wrote in message
news:%YVpd.3691785$yk.567758@news.easynews.com...


Posted by Doug Ramage on November 27th, 2004


'Cos when you come to restore your data backups, you're shafted if they are
corrupt and it's too late to re-burn?
--
Doug Ramage

[Watch Spam Trap]

"doS" <kobo65@hotsohotMail.com> wrote in message
news73qd.6903$KH2.4348@fe06.lga...


Posted by who fa? on November 27th, 2004


yeh, but this is a VIDEO newsgroup...

"Doug Ramage" <ramage@XXukaccountant.net> wrote in message
news:30rtksF344afdU1@uni-berlin.de...


Posted by Bill Vermillion on November 28th, 2004


In article <D73qd.6903$KH2.4348@fe06.lga>, doS <kobo65@hotsohotMail.com> wrote:
I verify my video burns. It's better to know it's bad than try to
watch it later and find out it's bad and then may not have the
ability to burn again, or having to find the source again.

I'm moving hundreds of video tapes I've made over the past umpteen
years to DVD. If I found several months later it may be almost
impossbile to locate the original in a reasonable amount of time.


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Posted by zutroi on November 28th, 2004


Mike Fields wrote:
using Nero 6.3.1.6. this has been happening since my A05->A06->107->108
using Nero steadfastly. my colleague is having the same problem. 6
minutes to burn, 20-odd minutes to verify. annoying.

--

Outgoing news/mail is NOT certified Virus Free.
For all I know, there's a dirty big fsckin' virus stuck onto
the end of this message and if you're using a Microsfot product,
then I'd say that you're fscked.

Posted by MCheu on November 28th, 2004


On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:46:46 -0500, "who fa?"
<kobo65@hotsohotMail.com> wrote:

Same thing applies to video. If you convert your home videos over to
DVD format and store it on disc, at burn time, you've still got the
master files on the hard drive. A few years down the line, you might
dig that disc back out to check out Timmy's 1st birthday. If the disc
turns out to be a coaster, where are you going to get another copy?
The files will have long since been deleted from the hard drive.

If it's a commercial video, if it's a bad copy, and the original's
destroyed, you can always get hold of the movie in whatever is the
prevalent format at the time. If it's something more personal,
getting another master to copy from is going to be much harder.

Better to know if the disc is good before you put it away in the
album/scrapbook/memory box.
---------------------------------------------

MCheu

Posted by sid@nospam.com on November 28th, 2004


On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:59:52 -0000, "Doug Ramage"
<ramage@XXukaccountant.net> wrote:

I had a disk that nero said was good that turned out to be bad.
Haven't used verify since. I make an .sfv file for the target files
and reparent the directory to the DVD after it's burned.



Posted by Doug Ramage on November 28th, 2004



<sid@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2ufjq05agfmmf5oq8n2je0oe3rdvb8qfsg@4ax.com...
CDSpeed)?
--
Doug Ramage

[Watch Spam Trap]



Posted by Darrel Christenson on November 28th, 2004


Bill Vermillion wrote:

I'm in the same boat you are, but I just made the decision
up front of one series at a time or one small stack of
videos at a time - rip, burn, watch for quality, then move
on to the next batch.


drc


Posted by Bill Vermillion on November 28th, 2004


In article <hLlqd.167311$R05.25416@attbi_s53>,
Darrel Christenson <darrel.christensen@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
If I'm burning ISOs I use DVDDecryptor. There is a verify after
write. And during writes you can set your retries for writes and
reads.

I've also used the Media Verifier from Vcomm - that used to be
the OnTrack software - it's part of a tools suite.

Since I've been admining Unix systems for years I've learned that
you need to verify right after you perform a backup, and on those
I've always used a bit-level to make sure the tape matche the HD
exactly. Using CRCs is no good if data gets corrupted between the
read and the write, and the subsystem will write the CRC based on
the corrupted data is sees.

When copying +RW from my settop DVR to a +R on my computers, I see
errors now and then on reads, and though I will get a lot couple of
frames DVDDecryptor continues on and inserts blank data so I'll get
a freeze frame, but I will get a copy that works with some minor
video problems.

I've found that usint that tool I get more reliable writes/verifies
than commercial burners. But that of course is after you have
an ISO.



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Posted by tp on December 1st, 2004


On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:49:58 GMT, zutroi <zutroi@microsfot.com> wrote:

I don't waste my time on verify because I buy better brand media so
don't have to worry about doing a verify.

I use nero 6.3 on my a08 and it takes me 6 minutes to burn at orion 8x
or ridata 8x disc. Nero burns these at 12x.

Burnt hundreds through my a08 at these speeds and not seen a problem
with playback to date.


Posted by tp on December 1st, 2004


On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:02:00 -0500, MCheu <mpcheu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Who in here records to dvd and then not watch it for a few years.
Anything I record to I often watch a little later.

But surely if you rent a dvd movie and make a copy you are bound to
watch it or even making a backup you are bound to watch it after
backing it up.


Posted by tp on December 1st, 2004


On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:42:23 +0100, Vlad <vlad@nospam.Invalid> wrote:

If you are buying high quality media this never happens anyway.
Verify is not that accurate in any case.


Posted by Iain Laskey on December 1st, 2004


In article <41ade144.9012828@news-server>, tp@nowhere.com (tp) wrote:
and be shagged 6 months later. At least verify maximises the chances the
disk will be good at some point in the future.

Posted by MCheu on December 2nd, 2004


tp@nowhere.com (tp) wrote in message news:<41ade0a0.8849046@news-server>...
That's kind of the point. An earlier post suggested that it wasn't
worth the effort to check the disc at all. A data backup point was
raised, and how it would suck to find out it was a bad disc later when
the original data was gone. Which brings us to here. My point is
that whether it's video or data doesn't matter. At some point in the
future, you're going to want what's on that disc, so knowing sooner
that the disc is iffy is better than later.

Posted by Octavian on December 2nd, 2004


"Vlad" <vlad@nospam.Invalid> wrote in message
news:mvkuq0ps418sn2gt1h2sjou38s09r5efh5@4ax.com...
In general, quality is checked by sampling. If selected portions of a burned
disk could be checked for correctness, then the time spent checking could be
reduced. Statistical methods could be applied to provide a confidence level
of the correctness.

Demand for high confidence would require a high sampling rate. Such would be
preferred for data archiving.

Lower sampling rates would provide lower levels of confidence. This could be
useful for instances where some small possibility of undetected data
corruption could be tolerated, such as audio/video.



Posted by inhale_exhale@nospam.com on December 4th, 2004


On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:13:47 +0100, Vlad <vlad@nospam.Invalid> wrote:


You assume verify works correctly.

I had enough proof it didn't using data disks.



Posted by tp on December 4th, 2004


On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:13:47 +0100, Vlad <vlad@nospam.Invalid> wrote:

When I have tried cheap media like the princos and are doing a burn
and Nero comes across a error it stops and comes up with a failed
burn.

I can't see any point in doing a verify when Nero has already stopped
the burn in the first place.

If you want accuracy then download dvd info or speed cd and do a scan
which is faster than Nero 6 is at checking the disc.

I've burnt hundreds of disc over the past 4 years going back to my
pioneer a03 to the present and all my good media still play back
today.

Buy the better brand media to begin with and then no need to worry
about wasting time with surface scans after the burn.

If you want to be 100% sure then use dvd info, speed cd and then play
it back in the dvd player and even then there is nothing to say that
the disc may not get scratched in the future.

All the good shows I've recorded I do 2 or 3 backups just in case of
scratches or knocks. Early on I did a burn and then accidently
scratched the dvd burning surface on the tray of the drive. After that
experience I started making backups of my fab copies or movies I've
recorded to.



Similar Posts