Talk:DVD/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

DVD is an acronym

DVD is an acronym and as such it needs to be identified as what it stands for in the first sentence of the encyclopedia article. I don't care so much about the debate over whether it's Digital Versatile Disc or Digital Video Disc, but standard practice in encyclopedias is to say what the acronym means in the first sentence of the article. For example, modifying the current opening sentence would give us,

DVD (Digital Versatile Disc) is an optical disc storage media format that can be used for data storage, including movies with high video and sound quality.

which is a much better opening sentence. Then in a later section in the article you can include the controversy over what it actually stands for. --Cyde 21:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not an acronym. The letters "DVD" stand for nothing in particular. Some people believe they stand for "digital versatile disc" or "digital video disc" but when the word "DVD" was coined there was no consensus on whether it was an initialism for anything. Rhobite 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Sources such as Sony's website state that DVD stands for Digital Versitile Disc. Other sources such as the initial standards committee state it doesn't stand for anything. If multiple sources have different points of view, then report the different points of view, or at least acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion. The standards committee isn't "the" point of view that overrides all other points of view. If a notable source (and Sony is about as notable in the electronics world as you can get) says it stands for Digital Versitile Disc, then report that poitn of view alongside the POV of the standards comittee that says it doesn't stand for anything. basic NPOV policy. FuelWagon 23:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
DVD definitely stands for Digital Versatile Disk. There should be no question about it. The "Video" came along when people heard the acronym and assumed in meant "video", and unfortunately it stuck. The term has plagued us for a decade. The whole idea of the versatile disk is that it can be used for so many things, such as audio or software. Why people don't see this is stunning. As one of the leaders in the information world, Wikipedia has the duty to report the facts; we can help fix this mess right now once and for all and fix the first sentence to read correctly, with a reference to the incorrect acronym. Let's stop the spread of wrong infomation.MiracleMat 11:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
You're spreading wrong information. As stated in the article, "DVD" originally stood for "Digital Video Disc." The term "Digital Versatile Disc" (which I agree is a better, more logical name) came later, and was never formally approved by the DVD Forum. Neither designation is officially correct. —Lifeisunfair 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
And in any case the OED defines acronym as a pronounceable word made up from initial letters - how do you pronounce "dvd"? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You're just picking on semantics now. Yes, technically "DVD" is an initialism, not an acronym. But in colloquial usage acronym has come to mean both. So live with it. --Cyde 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
We do report the different views, just not in the first sentence. I think that it would be a bad idea to have a POV discussion in the opening sentence. Bergsten 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The standard for articles is "name (acronym) is blah". I think that "DVD (sometimes called a Digital Versatile Disc) is blah" is a good approximation of this standard for articles, and acknowledges the different POV's about whether or not it is an acronym, without getting into a deep discussion about what the different points of view think about whether it is an acronym or not. FuelWagon 14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well it's not incorrect and it saves the POV discussion for later, so it seems like a fair compromise to me. Bergsten 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
How is it fair to single out one of the two terms, with no mention (at this point in the article) that a second term is widely used? If such a notation is to be included, it should incorporate both terms. —Lifeisunfair 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia policy says that the introduction should introduce the main points of view, based on the proportion of notable sources that use them. Most sources that I know of use "versatile", not "video". So, I'm not sure mentioning both in the intro is justified. Sony is one of the big manufacturers and they use "versatile". What manufacturers use "video" in the acronym? FuelWagon 16:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
In recent years, both terms have been commonly used. I don't know which companies prefer the term "Digital Video Disc." However, numerous sources (including our article) report that the DVD Forum never reached a consensus on the matter, so it's clear that its members were divided between the two terms.
The NPOV policy states that "articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly." With some support among DVD Forum members, and a Google count of about 384,000 (compared to a count of about 569,000 for "Digital Versatile Disc"), the term "Digital Video Disc" qualifies as a significant minority view.
Additionally, as noted in our article, The "DVD" initialism originally was derived from the term "Digital Video Disc" (which, in my experience, was the more popular term in the beginning). Toshiba (which subsequently decided to use the term "Digital Versatile Disc") used the term "Digital Video Disc" in its early documents. See, for example, this 1995 press release.
As for Sony, they use the term "Digital Versatile Disc" with greater frequency, but they also have used the term "Digital Video Disc." See, for example, this timeline, which indicates that "Sony help[ed] develop Digital Video Disc, the next-generation optical disc." Also see this page, in which Sony states that "[DVD] originally ... was an acronym for Digital Video Disc or Digital Versatile Disc, but now appears simply as DVD."
Also note that a Google search of the domain turns up about 225 instances of "digital versatile disc" and about 162 instances of "digital video disc."
For the record, I prefer the term "Digital Versatile Disc." —Lifeisunfair 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
To clarify: My POV is that none of them should be in the opening sentence, so when I said fair, it was with respect to my POV. I think you have a point, if there is no official meaning to "DVD", then it's not up to us to enforce one. Bergsten 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The standards committee for DVD's is just another source for wikipedia. If other sources conflict with the standards committee, then they are treated like other sources. So, there are three points of view: no acronym, "versitile", and "video". Can someone come up with a single short sentence that can go at the end of the introduction that introduces these three different points of views? FuelWagon 17:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with the current setup? —Lifeisunfair 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Nothing is technically wrong with it. It just reads a bit clunkily. I'm not attached either way. If bergsten goes for it, consider the matter settled. FuelWagon 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's ok by me. Bergsten 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I don't understand something here. So the official DVD Forum website says DVD stands for "Versatile." Yet the DVD Forum says it doesn't stand for anything??? How can the Forum disagree with its own website????? Maybe a new DVD Naming Controversy article is needed, because this is just crazy. Massysett 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention of the two interpretations in the intro would not be out of line, but it should include a "see below" reference (preferably linked to the relevant section)
Brian Patrie 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

DVD is not an acronym. I don't see what everyone is arguing about. DVD doesn't need to stand for anything. British Airports Authority (BAA) became BAA upon privitisation, with no words linked to the letters. It was an acronym, but is no longer. People still can say British Airports Authority, but that doesn't change the fact that the company is called BAA, and nothing else! Let DVD be DVD, and report that various people assign a meaning to the letters, but the official story is that there IS no meaning! -- 21:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current set up, but you seem rather confused. BAA is a company and as such, they can decided, what if anything their company stands for. DVD is not a company. While the DVD forum may have invented the DVD, it is now a common use word. As such, the meaning, if anything of DVD depends on not just the DVD forum, but on what other people say. Finally, your claim that the official story is DVD stands for nothing doesn't seem to hold water. The DVD forum FAQ, claims [1]
What does DVD mean?
The keyword is "versatile." Digital Versatile discs provide superb video, audio and data storage and access -- all on one disc.
I haven't yet seen anywhere where they state that DVD doesn't stand for anything but even if there is, all it proves is that the DVD forum itself is unable to come to an agreement. Therefore, your claim that DVD stands for nothing is simply your personal opinion, shared by some other people including perhaps some members of the DVD forum but cannot be called the official story of the DVD forum (which as I have said, is not the end all either) Nil Einne 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DVD stands for Digital Versatile Disc: DVD-Video is Digital Versatile Disc-Video and not Digital Video Disc-Video NexGen game consoles use the format of Digital Versatile Disc not Digital Video Disc The DVD forum did not develop the technology and is not in charge anything but promoting the technology.

This is a load of bs. DVD has stood for Digital Versatile Disc ever since it was first mentioned in the press (look up old tech magazines if you don't believe me). It was the mass market release and subsequent adoption of DVD players for film that spawned the interpretation of "Digital Video Disc". In fact, the press at the time highlighted the fact that "Digital Video Disc" was a common misinterpretation. People (all over the web, not just here) keep saying that there was dispute about this within the DVD Forum, yet there isn't a single shred of actual *evidence* to support that claim -- surely an organization would have documents reflecting this debate, if it existed. The idea that DVD started out as "Digital Video Disc" seems to be nothing more than a rumor that has outgrown the population's ability to disprove it, created by a collective ignorance of the mass market. More than likely, the first place most people ever heard of DVD was in the film section, and goodness forbid that the majority should be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:40, December 11, 2006 (UTC).

I am not sure whether this debate was going on ~1995, but I remember reading a Scientific American article in 1994-1995 where the authors defined DVD as digital versatile disc (and stated that many would likely be referring to them as digital video discs because of their primary commercial application). I no longer have this issue and I am too lazy to go to a library, I just wanted to point out that at least some of the developers of DVDs were referring to them as digital versatile discs before DVDs were sold on the market and the idea that digital versatile disc came after the term digital video disc (as implied in the main article) is incorrect. ---- Joe

Edits to the article from the IP address on January 17, 2007 are actually from me -- didn't realize I wasn't signed in at the time (oops).

-- Fishbert 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is CSS only for region control?

Taw (and perhaps others as well) has repeatedly edited the DVD article to say that the content scrambling system was intended only to enforce region control restrictions, while others seem to think the encryption was intended to try to prevent (or at least reduce) copying. Perhaps others have the same understanding as Taw. I suggest that we figure out which view is really the one that is most correct or at least most prevalent in objective reports. So which is the correct interpretation? (We probably need to cite some sources.) Mulligatawny 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • My impression has always been that it's about more than just region control. See DeCSS. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The region coding is separate, and there can be one without the other. The purpose was to prevent people from copying the VOB files to their hard drives and then burning them to a blank DVD. Of course that's pretty much a joke now, and numerous software packages - both free and commerical have been around for years now that easilly cut right through the CSS as if it weren't even there. See or for more info. Blackcats 05:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The article "Copy Protection for DVD Video", in the July 1999 issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE (a very authoritative peer-reviewed journal source [2], page 1268, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph) says that the two purposes of CSS are copy protection (specifically preventing copies from being playable) and motivating manufacturers to make compliant player devices. There is no mention of region control as a motivation at all. This leads me toward an even stronger view that Taw's opinion is not the prevailing encyclopedic position. Mulligatawny 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think opinion matters at all in cases like these. What matters is the truth, and in an issue such as "What is CSS supposed to do", the truth is very easy to find, and it appears that we have already found it. The article should be edited to reflect the truth. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • CSS was created by MEI and Toshiba in response to Hollywood studio requirements for content protection. There is absolutely no question that CSS is content protection mechanism. What may have confused Taw and others is the point that region codes in players are not required by the DVD specification (or the DVD Forum), and are instead a requirement of CSS (more accurately, the DVD CCA). When a player or drive manufacturer signs the CSS license they agree to implement region playback control. JimTheFrog 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blu-ray link

Some anonymous user keeps reverting the page to include a link to [3]. I contend that the link does not belong because it talks about Blu-ray, which is its own separate format, but more importantly, because the link is entirely in Japanese. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 03:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I left the user a boilerplate spam warning on their talk page. Rhobite 03:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DVD Purple picture.

The purple DVD picture is out of focus and reflecting items in the background. A better picture is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whursey (talkcontribs) 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Size in bytes?

About " DVD-5: single sided, single layer, 4.7 gigabytes (GB), or 4.38 gibibytes (GiB) " : this is not equal :

4.7 * 10^9  = 4700000000.0 != 4.38 * 2^30 = 4702989189.12

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 13:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Rounding. Kaleja 07:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The table that has the sizes of the DVDs in various formats might include the sizes in Gibibyes aswell? I don't know what the standard is moving towards (Binary or Decimal), but is it acceptable to include both? 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Rob MacKenzie

Actually, since this is talking about computer data sizes, saying a gigabyte is 1 billion bytes is wrong. If you look at the gigabyte page, you will see that it states this as well. If there are no problems with this, I will change the article to reflect the true size of a gigabyte. The problem is that everyone who does not understand computers and computer systems always rounds these values down. Beowulf7120 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

+ and - ... What's the difference?

Is there any REAL noticable difference between recordable and rewritable DVD's that are either DVD+ and DVD-? I've heard that DVD+R/W is more compatible to most DVD drives, but I'm not sure. Other than that are their any differences in capacity, filesystem, physical characteristics and so on? 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)randomguy

Without getting into the technicalities, the '+RW' version of the format incorporates technology that permits a drive to rewrite the disk at the byte level. This means that the drive can overwrite a single byte within a file on the disk. by contrast, the '-RW' version of the format cannot do this, and can only access part of the disk to within about 2 blocks of data. This means that to edit part of a file on the disk entails reading, modifying and overwriting the entire file. DVD+R disks exist to provide compatibility with '+' only format recorders, they offer no advantages apart from a faster write speed on some recorders.

The relationship between DVD-VR and DVD+VR format DVD video recorders has no relationship to -RW or +RW disks. Either format can be written to either type of disk. In practice however, even minor editing of DVD+VR format disks can necessitate the complete rewriting of one or more of the .VOB files on a DVD-RW disk. When the same operation is performed on a DVD+RW disk only the changed parts of the files need be overwritten. Unlike DVD-VR format disks, DVD+VR disks can be played in an ordinary DVD-Video player. That said, this contributor's experience is that the DVD-VR format is more versatile, particularly when used with DVD-RAM disks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you say is not quite correct. DVD+R does have advantages, at least in every day life. A fair number of burners are able to change the booktype of +R (and +RW) DVDs, but few if any are able to do so with -R. I'm still not clear if this is a technical format limitation but it is limitation nevertheless. Perhaps more importantly, a number of drives have the ability to overburn with +R discs but not many, if any with -R discs. I'm not certain again if this is a format limitation but it is a limitation nevertheless. You may think overburning is stupid, but I regularly overburn with no problems (up to about 4620mb which is about ~140mb overburn). I usually use the extra space to store PAR2 parity files to make it more likely I will be able to recover the data if the DVD develops scratches (along with UDF 2.60). While you still shouldn't try to use it for serious or important archival purposes, it's good enough for me. However if neither overburning or booktype changing has any interest to you, then the poster is correct. I would recommend you go mainly by price and what media type performs better in your burner. Bare in mind I recommend you only use quality media, e.g. Mitsubishi/Verbatim or Taiyo-Yuden, whatever your burner and format. Nil Einne 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst you are, of course, correct: this advantage was not a necessity until after DVD+R discs became available. In any event, it would not affect the ordinary user.

best selling dvds

can't find this info anywhere on wikipediaTehw1k1 09:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Euro PAL DVD Movies and DVD-ROM drives in the U.S.

If I have a DVD movie from the U.K. and I want to play it on my Sony Viao (purchased in the U.S.) DVD+RW drive, will play it? I know for DVD Players I will at least need a PAL to NTSC converter, but is that required as well for a DVD-ROM drive used on American-configured computer systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I remember, no you shouldn't need a converter for a PC bought anywhere in the world to play PAL or NTSC format DVDs. The whole PAL and NTSC only appies to TVs. Others may correct me if I'm wrong. The only thing you may potentially need to do is to make sure that your player can play Region 2 DVDs, it may be locked to a specific region, or only allow you to change it 5 times, although there are players out there which can circumvent this restriction.Smoothy 16:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
PAL and NTSC issues only apply to TVs, not to multi-sync monitors. The vast majority of DVD-ROM drives nowadays are RPC2. This means you will usually have 5 changes of the region code before it's locked onto one region. However you can also use software which bypasses this region encoding altogether so you may be able to avoid your drive changing region code however be careful since Windows may automatically set the region code without asking. In many cases, you may also be able to obtain a modified firmware for your drive which will turn your drive into an RPC1 drive or alternatively an auto-resetting RPC2 firmware. For more info, you might want to check out this site [4]. Please bare in mind I have no idea on the legalities of any of this at your location. Finally be aware that flashing your drive with unapproved firmware could potentialy void your warranty. I would suspect, even if your manufacturer tries to claim otherwise, this should only apply yo the DVD drive, and it is quite unlikely the DVD drive will damage any of your other hardware. But be aware I'm not a legal expert and in any case, if you manufacturer choose to use your flashing against you, your only choice may be to take them to court which may not be cheap or easy. However in most cases, provided you ensure you are using the right modified firmware and read the instructions carefully, you should have no problem re-flashing your drive with official/approved firmware provided you have a copy of said official/approved firmware. Nil Einne 16:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Most DVD players now have the ability to internally transcode between PAL and NTSC, with a menu setting for the type of television or monitor connected. Once set, you don't need to change anything when switching between PAL and NTSC DVDs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


"Unlike DVD-Video's CSS, as of 2005, CPPM has not yet been cracked." Has been "cracked" last year.


cracked in the sense that: "I just uploaded to RareWares a tool that enables WinDVD owners to rip full quality DVD-Audio tracks encrypted with CPPM. It does so by launching/patching WinDVD 5/6/7 and redirecting the stream to disk instead of the sound card after decryption.". 15:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This does not mean that CPPM has been cracked in the sense of the cryptographic elements being compromised as they were for CSS. This is circumvention -- it doesn't actually rip the encoded streams off the disc, it captures the decoded PCM streams. So the point is valid that it's possible to rip audio from CPPM-protected DVD-Audio discs, but it's not correct to say that CPPM has been cracked. --JimTheFrog 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dual Layer Recording --> DVD Merge

It has come to my attention (As short as it is.) that the Dual Layer Recording page is not only a stub, but a short and uninformative one at that. If we were to move it to the main DVD page, I'm sure that somebody with more experience in the field than I could rewrite it to be much more informative. Just a suggestion. Eagleguy125 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. I'd do it once enough consensus was reached. Idiosyncrat 20:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also have to agree. I atttempted to find the Dual Layer information by seaching for DVD's and had to find this seperate page. When I read it, I was disappointed to find it not very informative. Brett 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"More than a few viewers have worried that their dual layer discs were damaged or defective." - Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, but isn't the wording of this ("more than a few") against Wiki policy? Jpf51286 15:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information?

"Unlike compact discs, where sound (CDDA, Red Book) is stored in a fundamentally different fashion than data (Yellow book et al.), a properly authored DVD will always contain data in files readable by both the UDF filesystem and the ISO 9660 filesystem (often called UDF Bridge format)."

This seems to be incorrect to me. I'm pretty sure a UDF only DVD is fully within the specs, in fact, if I'm not mistake DVD Video can be UDF only. I' also skeptical whether UDF is required for DVDs either. While it might be used for DVD Video and Audio and is perhaps it is preferred to include UDF, I would like to see a reference to prove that a ISO9600 only DVD is not within the specs. From the sound of it, what the person who wrote this is trying to say is that DVDs are always written in data mode of 2048 sectors (similar to mode 1 for CDs) with the appropriate sectors used ECC/EDC info etc. A file system is also always included. The extra sectors used for the ECC/EDC cannot be used for other purporses ala red book CDs and mode 2 form 2. This is useful information but is not what the current text is describing. Nil Einne 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The DVD specification requires UDF bridge format, which is both UDF and ISO-9660. The correct point is that a DVD-Video disc should always have UDF and ISO-9660, but a generic "DVD" can use Mac HFS, Playstation filesystem, Windows NTFS, or whatever. --JimTheFrog 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
One thing that should be noted is the file and directory names for a video DVD may only have a maximum of an 8 character filename, a dot and a 3 character extention. Files or directories with longer names will be ignored by DVD players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)