Thanks Mike,
That's along the lines of what I was thinking. So I will need a dual layer capable burner and need to purchase dual layer discs? I haven't seen the dual layer discs yet, is this correct or are they the same disc?

It sounds like another wait and see purchase for me. I remember the discussions of quad layer DVD's a few years back, so I'm sure this will be the next step in in the progression.

Is this a data DVD? What kind of file structure does it have? Like, is it one or two huge files or does it have several files in several directories? If the latter, you should be able to simply copy the files to your harddrive and use a data DVD burning program to copy as many files as you can to one DVD-R and the rest to a second DVD-R. Until you get a dual-layer burner...

Rob

Dual Layer Disc

I just ordered these last night.

MIchael

This is the problem with emerging technology. I got my DVD burner for Christmas last year. I made sure it wrote to DVD+R and DVD-R discs and could also write to DVD+/- RW discs, so it would likely be compatible for awhile. Here I am 9 months later, and I can't back up a DVD because now I need a Dual Layer burner. Can someone just come out with a quad layer burner that burns at 52x already, so I don't have to buy all the interim prototype burners?

bStro,
This is a DVDrom with several sub folders. It looks like one folder is broken up into several smaller map region files. So I guess my plan is to back the entire disc up to my hard drive and then create a DVD copy without some of the regions, and hopefully this will work where I can just get rid of the regions in North America where I don't travel too.

Actually, the next battle seems to be between blue vs. red. 16x is currently seen as the max speed because the disks start to come apart if you go any higher.

Hard to say if any of the new formats being proposed will be well accepted by the public. I think they'd have to offer some really nifty features before you could get folks to fork out $200-$300 for a new player when you can pick up an adequate player for the current format for $40.

--Scott

Personally, I'm not really worried about moving up to dual layer discs. For most of my purposes, 4.37GB is plenty. For now.

I wouldn't expect "quad layer burners" or "quad layer discs" at all, really. They're working on different technologies than just stacking in more layers, though obviously these new techs will require upgrades, as well, on the consumer's part. But it's either that or remain stagnant.

Rob

Hold on a minute....let me back up a bit. To play a dual layer disc you need a dual layer player? Oh good grief now. So anyways, here's what I'm wondering. In my original question I asked about the DVDrom having 7.8gig worth of information stored on it and was informed it must be a dual layer DVD. I have a Pioneer DVR-A06U DVD burner which I used to read the disc......so does that mean my DVD burner is dual layer reader capable......but not dual layer writable?

Correct.

You need to remember that the technology involving writing DVD's is evolving behind the technology associated with stamping DVD's.

Most players can read dual layer (not all though, as even the dual layer standard was still being defined when the very first players were manufactured).

So, probably most players, say 99.9% can read dual layer, but dual layer writers are only now becoming available - at an amazingly low price I might add because most of the time there's no physical difference between single layer and dual layer burners, beyond a change in the firmware and the media involved.

First, let's use the right terminology. ;-) We're discussing a DVD-ROM here, correct? Not a DVD-Video? So the word "player" isn't really applicable -- you're not "playing" the disc, you're reading it, copying from it, etc. You do those thigns with a DVD-ROM drive. Generally, a "player" refers to the thing you watch movies with...whether it's connected to your television or it's a piece of software like WinDVD. Data goes in a drive. Movies go in a player. Except for when you're watching the movies on a computer -- then movies go in a drive and you watch them with a player. ;-)

But I digress... The disc in question is a DVD-ROM, so "players" have no place in this discussion.

Now: There's no such thing as a "dual layer DVD-ROM drive." As long as it's not ancient, damn near any DVD-ROM drive will read a dual layer DVD-ROM. (That goes for DVD players and DVD-Video discs, as well.) Being able to read (or play) a dual layer disc isn't a feature these days, it's an assumption. :)

Writing dual layers is a different matter. For now.

Hope this makes things clearer. ;-)

Rob

Careful with that writing terminology as well (as you can see, I'm just as sloppy with the terms) ;-) With +R DL you are talking about "double layers" not dual layers. There's no such thingy as a dual layer +R (don't ask me, I think someone has trademarked the use of the term "dual" in this context, probably the -R crowd - all I know is that I was carefully corrected when I was talking to the folks in the Ritek booth at WEVA).

--Scott

Um. Okay. Well, since I don't know the difference, can you (or someone) explain it to me? ;-)

Is it just a matter of copyright or is there a physical and/or logical reason? Anyone...?

I tend to avoid +R anyhow, so they can keep their "double layers." <g>

Rob

Ya got me. Anywhere outside of the industry the terms seem to be interchangable; I just recall the Ritek guy saying "Double Layer is +R and Dual Layer is -R" (or something like that). I think I'll just stick with DL.