CRITICAL ISSUES:

1. Is there a workflow method which creates DVD-R videodiscs that play correctly across the spectrum of 2nd gen to current DVD-/+ RW formats, in addition to PC formats running Apple OS, Win2K, and WinXP?

2. Does the DVD-R videodisc producer need to create multiple fininshed consumer product formats to accommodate at least two classes of system playback:

a. PRE XP: Win2k and pre DVD+R formats

b. POST XP: WinXP and DVD+/-R formats

DVD-R compatibility issues revisited:
A report & study inspired by the introduction of standalone DVD +/- RW DL recorders

A. Observational Experience with Microsoft Operating Systems DVD videodisc playback:

1. Win2k based Windows Media Player software does not support DVD video disc playback or recording.

2. WinXP Windows Media Player adds support for Record & Playback to DVD-/+ R discs, and will supports DVD video playback.


B. Late Model standalone DVD recorders -

2005+ consumer set top DVD video -R, +R, -RW, +RW player/recorders introduce new incompatibilities with DVD-R videodisc playback systems.

Test Machine:

2006 manufactured LiteON LVC9016G set top DVD & VHS combo recorder produces DVD-R's using its internally supplied real time MPEG2 & DD2.0 encoders.

These DVD-R discs are created with directory folders containing:

1. Video_TS Folder containing the traditional .VOB, .BUP, and .IFO files.

2. A new Video_RM folder with .IFO, .BUP, and .DAT files

3. The traditional Audio_TS folder does not exist.

A. A Major problem with DVD video discs created in this standard:

DVD-R discs created with this standard are NOT recognized, fail to initialize, and will not play on 2nd gen DVD set top Players such as the 1999 Pioneer DV-525, once recognized as a compatibility standard setting test machine of its time.

An Experimental Work around:

1. Transfer only the Video_TS folder to a DVD-R disc.

2. Do not transfer the Video_RM folder on the disc.


B. Compatibility test results of the modified DVD-R videodiscs created without the Video_RM folder:

1. The disc can now be recognized and played correctly by the 2nd generation machine set top DVD players with DVD & DVD-R playback capabilities.

2. This disc will also play correctly PC based systems configured with Win2k, including:
a. Win2k Ahead Nero Showtime
b. Win2k Cyberlink PowerDVD
c. Win2k Intervideo WinDVD

3. BIG TROUBLE WinXP DVD-R video disc playback:

A DVD-R videodisc missing the Video_RM folder will have playback problems Windows XP PC based systems including:

Windows Media Player

WinXP Intervideo WinDVD

Playback problems include:

a. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder initialize slowly or corrupted

b. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder prematurely stop playback - after Chapter 12.

c. Region code recognition trouble, and or playback format problems selecting between thumbnail or full screen images have also been described to me by customers.

What then is the real purpose of the Video_RM folder and its contents?

Why don't you use bit setting? Then all your DVDs will appear as DVD-ROMs (i.e., pressed DVDs).

Thank you Emre.

A simple solution like "bit setting" is an excitement!

Forgive my ingnorance, but could you elaborate on how you do this.

Tx ggd

It's easy, really. First, you make sure your DVD burner supports bit setting. I bought my BenQ specifically for this ability. Next, enable bit setting in your DVD burning software or with an OEM utility. After that you should be good to go! Read more here (http://www.booktypefaq.com/).

for best compatibility with dvd-r's, i believe that you need an audio_ts and a video_ts folder on the disc... the former will typically be empty.

i don't have the slightest idea what the Video_RM folder is, but i can tell you from the experiences of my neighbor that liteon makes lousy standalone dvd recorders... return that turkey, and ask for a refund.

as i understand it, no version of the windows media player comes with full mpeg2/dvd playback capability, because of the licensing costs... same thing with quicktime, so whatever problems you are having there could be related to dvd software player issues.

region coding is not part of the dvd-r format, so it should not be an issue with any player... i send hundreds of dvd-r's to england every year, no problems with region coding.

Windows XP Complicates DVD-R playback compatibility.

A 2005 vintage LiteOn DVD+/-RW standalone recorder will produce DVD-R discs containing an additional “VIDEO_RM” folder. The contents are two small 32kB .IFO & .BUP files, and a 1MB .DAT file. The classic “AUDIO_TS” folder is not present. The actual purpose of the “VIDEO_RM” folder – ? My personal opinion at the end of report.

These discs play on at least 3 different apps running Win2k. These discs also play on multiple apps running WinXP. I am OUTRAGED because these discs are not even recognized on older vintage standalone DVD set top players (1999 Pioneer DV-525 for example).

My first attempt to preserve backward compatibility was the obvious deletion of the “VIDEO_RM” folder, and the addition of an empty “AUDIO_TS” folder. DVD-R discs created in this manner play correctly on vintage DVD playback machines, OK on all tested forms of Win2k PC playback, but have serious problems with WinXP PC playback.

A very helpful dvinfo.net forum contributor advised implementing “bit setting”. The trail of research led to a freeware authoring tool available at www.videohelp.com/tools/ called FIXVTS. EXE. The primary application of FIXVTS is to correctly reconstruct the navigation pointers in .VOB menu files ripped from DVD-ROM and improve playback compatibility for DVD+R discs on stand alone set top machines. User feedback posted at the site about the tool call it “a genius piece of software”.

The FIXVTS tool claims that it rewrites the .IFO files. Perhaps it also forces a media descriptor flag that will identify the disc as a DVD-ROM, but does not make this claim specifically.

The FIXVTS modified DVD-R discs containing only the “VIDEO_TS” folder play on all Win2k PC playback setups, and on vintage DVD players. These discs will now play on 3 out of 4 tested WinXP playback systems.

Problem XP machine: A WinXPSP1 with Cyberlink PowerDVD 4.0 initializes, plays back, but allows program video to play out for a second, and then blanks the video feed with a green screen!

The other XP machines now work: A WinXPSP2 with Cyberlink PowerDVD 4.0 plays the disc. The audio continues to play. WinXPSP1 WMP 8.0 & WinXPSP2 WMP 9.0 play the DVD-R with FIXVTS processing.

Is 3 out of 4 good enought?

The presence or lack of the empty “AUDIO_TS” folder on DVD-R’s seems to be irrelevant to playback compatibilities across the range of playback devices.

Roxio Media Creator 7.0 prohibits burning both “VIDEO_TS” and “VIDEO_RM” folders to DVD-R. The “VIDEO_RM” folder is not written.

Opinion from direct experience: The “VIDEO_RM” folder seems to be a conspiratorial “Rights Management” layer, designed to prevent commercial Hollywood product from being replicated on set top DVD recorders. Trampling the rights and efforts of independent producers to create legitimate new product – just collateral damage. This is a devil’s triangle in a temporary truce between Hollywood political muscle, Seattle Microsoft XP OS monopoly, and east Asian hardware manufacturing interests.

Stay tuned, after I reconfigure hardware & software to burn both FIXVTS version “VIDEO_TS” & “VIDEO_RM” folders to a DVD-R.

The FIXVTS modified DVD-R discs.

as you just posted, that bitsetting is only for the dvd+r format, so i can't understand why you'd attempt to use it for the dvd-r format.

claiming that it somehow fixes a compatibility issue with dvd-r is not correct, and it might lead other people out here to attempt the same thing... the last time i looked, the dvd-r format can not take advantage of that aspect of bitsetting.

I agree on the bit-setting. Evidently it's to address the compatibility issues of the non-standard DVD+R format, which should, for all our sakes, just be allowed to die.

I agree on the bit-setting. Evidently it's to address the compatibility issues of the non-standard DVD+R format, which should, for all our sakes, just be allowed to die.
In the real-world the difference in compatibility between DVD-R and DVD+R is minimal. To quote the DVD FAQ (http://dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#4.3):

"Very roughly, DVD-R and DVD+R discs work in about 85% of existing drives and players, while DVD-RW and DVD+RW discs work in around 80%. The situation is steadily improving. In another few years compatibility problems will mostly be behind us, just as with CD-R (did you know that early CD-Rs had all kinds of compatibility problems?)."

I believe those numbers may be out of date (I think the compatibility percentage is higher for both formats now, but couldn't find the numbers I think I've seen previously). In any case, a mere 5% difference is pretty small, if not non-existent once the margin of error is factored in. Personally, I wouldn't advise losing any sleep over it.

And the BitSetting (also called BookType) is a standard flag on the lead in of the DVD that identifies what format the DVD conforms to. The purpose of changing the BitSetting to DVD-ROM is to avoid problems with a few older players that balk if a DVD is not flagged as a DVD-ROM. In other words, it sounds as if the compatibility problem could just as well happen with DVD-R media. See the VideoHelp.com Glossary for more information (http://www.videohelp.com/glossary?B#BitSetting).

Thank you Mr. Lefchik thank you for pointing this thread in a practical direction.

Thank you Mr. Euritt for offering cogent advice; throw away the LiteOn. Cosidering costs of my time and disturbed customers, he is correct.

Stating the facts again: Using the very same "VIDEO_TS" folder data set:

Pre FIXVTS fails 100% on XP platforms, and

Post FIXVTS worked on 75% of tested XP platforms.

I can make no claims as to why or how this comes to be.

I am hours away from hardware reconfigurations to permit burning both a FIXVTS type "VIDEO_TS" and "VIDEO_RM" folders to a DVD-R....

The goal is to re-establish 99%+ compatibility with late model + legacy standalone set top players, and the WinXP platform PC's.

And thank you for taking the time to do these tests and post the results. Please do let us know how things turn out.

LiteOn Created DVD-R data compatibility Final tests

The remaining qualifier tests remaining with regards to LiteOn generated “VIDEO_TS” & “VIDEO_RM” folders, after having run the FIXVTS utility; What happens when both Folders are burned to DVD-R?

Results

1. Legacy DVD-ROM set top stand alone – OK
2. Recent vintage set top DVD+/-RW recorder – OK
3. Win2kSP4 Cyberlink PowerDVD – OK
4. Win2kSP4 – Intervideo WinDVD – OK
5. Win2kSP4- Nero Showtime – OK
6. WinXPSP1 – WMP 8.0 – Trouble with initialization & dodgy playback. (OK in previous test without VIDEO_RM folder)
7. WinXPSP1 – Cyberlink Power DVD 4.0 – Will not initialize.
8. WinXP SP2 WMP 9.0 – Loads slowly; recognizes the data set as Two titles with identical chapters, even though only one title is present. Navigation & Playback is OK from either Title/Chapter list.
9. WinXP SP2 Cyberlink PowerDVD – OK

Observed Test result summary:

1. The presence of the VIDEO_RM folder functions like a directory intercept "Rights Management" control system for WinXP playback. It also makes the DVD incompatible with legacy DVD-Rom standalone set top players.

2. LiteOn Authored DVD-R discs will not play on WinXP systems if the “”VIDEO_RM” folder is missing from the disc. All other test conditions OK.

3. The FIXVTS.EXE utility seems to function by correcting the .IFO & .BUP files in the “VIDEO_TS” folder, effectively eliminating the intercept redirect authorization control set up in the “VIDEO_RM” folder.

4. The DVD-R with a FIXVTS modified “VIDEO_TS” folder only, plays on all tests above, except WinXP SP1 with Cyberlink PowerDVD.

5. New WorkFlow process: One Pass Master to LiteON DVD-R during dv Master tape transfer to editor. Use the FIXVTS utility on the Direct master DVD-R “VIDEO_TS” folder data. The “VIDEO_RM” folder can be discarded. The DVD-R disc copies will play on XPSP2 WMP9, all WIN2k, legacy DVD-rom set tops, and recent vintage DVD+/-RW set tops. (Clients have quit asking for VHS dubs of the camera masters, and now request DVD dubs instead).

In the real-world the difference in compatibility between DVD-R and DVD+R is minimal.

it's not a question of format compatibility comparisons, because as doug indicated, that train left the station long ago... dvd-r is the dominant format.

rather, it's a question of whether or not you can use bitsetting on a dvd-r, which gregory isn't quite sure that he's actually doing with the fixvts software:

"Although you will understand that it’s not possible to change the booktype field for DVD-R discs there still excists a DVD-R bitsetting. Some claim that this increases the compatibility but this has not been independently confirmed by anyone and as it’s technically impossible to change the booktype field it will still be possible for the hardware to find out that a disc is a DVD-R. The booktype setting for DVD-R discs seems to be based on a workaround that has not been proven to be working.

According to Michael Spath who studies both the +R and -R format and is known as an expert on technical DVD recording issues; "the trick is based on the fact that some drives read the booktype from the last border-in and not from the lead-in. Therefore if you create a second session on the disc you will create after the first session a new border-in, where you should normally copy the informations from the lead-in (including
the book type). With this trick, you instead write a DVD-ROM booktype in this second session, which violates the - standard. Also drives which read the booktype from the lead-in will not be fooled by this method (eg. some Pioneer drives".

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/150

VIDEO_RM? That was not part of the original spec that I remember (it does not show up at the Demystified FAQ either.) So, the Lite-On is creating a non-standard disc. It may not be XP, but the reader in the computer that is not handling it also. Dash R or Plus R are just a red herring. It looks like the file format is the problem.

Remaster the disc using your tools on a computer (without RM). If you wish to use booktype of DVD-ROM, get a NEC 35xx and Liggy's at CDFreaks BIOS flash. I create all of my writable disc on TY 8X +R media with the booktype set.

I am kind of confused why you would master it on a stand-alone in the first place.
Edit- had a thought. Are you going Firewire to the recorder live?

Ive been going very deep into this for the past week and i have found some very interesting stuff. DVD+R/RW is a very rough format created by sony. DVD-R is the standard and is supported by the DVD-Forum. DVD-R are the next best thing From DVD-RA discs which are used for pro authoring. at the end of the day its all to do with the discs you get.

it's not a question of format compatibility comparisons, because as doug indicated, that train left the station long ago... dvd-r is the dominant format.
What Doug actually said is that the bitsetting was evidently "to address the compatibility issues of the non-standard DVD+R format, which should, for all our sakes, just be allowed to die."

There are a couple claims being made here. One, that the bitsetting was created for DVD+RW compatibility problems. As I already proved earlier, the bitsetting is not in existence to address compatibility issues with the DVD+RW format. Two, that since DVD+RW is not a DVD Forum sanctioned format, it has more compatibility problems. That is correct, but as I proved with statistics the difference is very small.

As for your claim that DVD-R is the dominant format, I'd love to see the documentation for that. You certainly can't base that claim on DVD burner sales, as practically all DVD burners now can burn either format. So, my question is, what is the documentation for that claim?

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/150
That's interesting. Thanks for the information. So, this is an area where the DVD+RW format holds an advantage over the DVD-RW format.

goto the dvd-forum website and see what they say about formats

goto the dvd-forum website and see what they say about formats
Considering the DVD Forum only officially recognizes the DVD-RW format, what do you expect them to say?

It would be nice if you had provided a link to the specific page on the DVD Forum site. You can't expect most people to attempt to track down the information themselves.

As for your claim that DVD-R is the dominant format, I'd love to see the documentation for that. You certainly can't base that claim on DVD burner sales, as practically all DVD burners now can burn either format. So, my question is, what is the documentation for that claim?

so you've never seen any stats on it one way or the other, but you are going to bicker with me, doug, and nathaniel about it? too funny.

There are a couple claims being made here. One, that the bitsetting was created for DVD+RW compatibility problems. As I already proved earlier, the bitsetting is not in existence to address compatibility issues with the DVD+RW format.

as gregory first posted, "Is there a workflow method which creates DVD-R videodiscs that play correctly" ...this was never a thread about dvd+rw compatibility.

and to correct your post, the only purpose of bitsetting is indeed to address compatibility issues with the DVD+RW format, because bitsetting can't be used with the dvd-r format, as i just posted in that link: "When the booktype field (bitsetting) is changed to DVD-ROM then DVD players are fooled and will think the user has put in a DVD-ROM disc instead of a DVD+R disc and will read it accordingly... it’s not possible to change the booktype field for DVD-R discs"

That's interesting. Thanks for the information. So, this is an area where the DVD+RW format holds an advantage over the DVD-RW format.

huh?

so you've never seen any stats on it one way or the other, but you are going to bicker with me, doug, and nathaniel about it? too funny.
What’s funny is that you are the only one in this thread who claimed the DVD-RW format is dominant, yet you try to drag the other two posters into your position with you.

You made the claim. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you.

as gregory first posted, "Is there a workflow method which creates DVD-R videodiscs that play correctly" ...this was never a thread about dvd+rw compatibility.
He may have been just using that term as a generic reference to any burned DVDs. His post seemed to be more about burning DVDs in general (such as what folders should be on the DVDs) than any particular format.

and to correct your post, the only purpose of bitsetting is indeed to address compatibility issues with the DVD+RW format
For the third time, that claim is false. To quote this article (http://www.signvideo.com/btst-d.htm):

“Certain older DVD players, including DVD players in some laptop computers, will not load DVD-R or DVD+R disks at all because those formats did not even exist when the player's firmware was written. However, by changing the bitsetting on a DVD+R to DVD-ROM, those players should be able to load and play the DVD+R.”

because bitsetting can't be used with the dvd-r format, as i just posted in that link.
That fact doesn’t prove your premise, which I already refuted above, anyway. Your reasoning is faulty. The fact that custom bitsetting can only be utilized with the DVD+RW format proves nothing beyond the fact that the DVD-RW format was designed without that feature, and the DVD+RW format was designed with it. One format has it, the other doesn’t. That’s it.

What you need is evidence to prove that the intent and reason custom bitsetting exists in the DVD+RW format was to alleviate compatibility problems that existed only for that one format. So far you haven’t provided that evidence. Of course, you also need to refute the evidence I provided, namely, that compatibility problems exist for both DVD-RW and DVD+RW formats in certain DVD players, and that’s why the DVD-ROM bitsetting would be needed.

"When the booktype field (bitsetting) is changed to DVD-ROM then DVD players are fooled and will think the user has put in a DVD-ROM disc instead of a DVD+R disc and will read it accordingly... it’s not possible to change the booktype field for DVD-R discs"
That tells me nothing beyond what I already now know. One format can change the bitsetting, the other can’t. This fact says nothing about whether the DVD-RW format is superior. In fact, since the bitsetting can be changed on the DVD+RW format and thus DVD+RW format discs can be played in certain older players, while DVD-RW format discs can’t, I’d say the DVD+RW format is superior.

DVD-Forum are the creators of the dvd logo. you know where it say's dvd and there is a line underneath. if you look carfully you will not find that logo on any other +R/RW's discs because the dvd-forum do not supoort it
Also how do you create a dvd-rom disc on apple mac???

DVD-Forum are the creators of the dvd logo. you know where it say's dvd and there is a line underneath. if you look carfully you will not find that logo on any other +R/RW's discs because the dvd-forum do not supoort it
And what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

the point im tring to make is that dvd-forum hate DVD+R/RW's. sony made them in 2002 and if you look at sony they are always tring to create there own format. look at the memory stick duo for instance

the point im tring to make is that dvd-forum hate DVD+R/RW's. sony made them in 2002 and if you look at sony they are always tring to create there own format. look at the memory stick duo for instance
It doesn't really matter to me whether or not the DVD Forum hates the DVD+RW format. What matters is the best tool for the job. The DVD+RW format is a different case from Sony's Memory Stick. The Memory Stick is a proprietary flash storage device that can only be used by devices specifically designed to accommodate it. In contrast, the DVD+RW was a DVD format agreed upon by a number of companies, which can be played in most DVD players.

And from what I read, it was Philips, not Sony, who first proposed the DVD+RW format.

DVD+R is nothing like Minidisc or Memory Stick; it has very wide support. In fact, I bet Sony accounts for a very small portion of DVD+R media and equipment sold.

What’s funny is that you are the only one in this thread who claimed the DVD-RW format is dominant

you just quoted doug as saying it was a "non-standard DVD+R format" and now you are denying that he ever said it?


He may have been just using that term as a generic reference to any burned DVDs.

no, he was not doing that... he specifically stated, more than once, that he was burning dvd-r's... stop trying to twist everything around!

nobody cares about dvd+r vs. dvd-r, o.k.? it was never the topic of this thread... emre made the suggestion that gregory use bitsetting on a dvd-r disc, and i pointed out that it was not possible to do that... which you have now admitted is true.

you just quoted doug as saying it was a "non-standard DVD+R format" and now you are denying that he ever said it?
Nope. Saying something is a non-standard format and claiming something is dominant are two different things. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.

You still have yet to provide proof that DVD-RW is the dominant format. For that matter, you haven’t even clarified what you meant by that claim.

no, he was not doing that... he specifically stated, more than once, that he was burning dvd-r's... stop trying to twist everything around!
I looked through his first post before I wrote what I said in my previous post to you. If I missed something, I’m sorry, but the impression I got was that he was simply concerned about the general principles to make compatible DVDs. I don’t remember the format being central to his questions and tests.

stop trying to twist everything around!
All I can say is that in the two threads I’m currently engaged with you in, you seem to be consistently the one missing or distorting what I’m saying.

nobody cares about dvd+r vs. dvd-r, o.k.?
If nobody cares about it, why do you care so much about it?

it was never the topic of this thread...
You can’t say never now, as it has become the topic.

emre made the suggestion that gregory use bitsetting on a dvd-r disc, and i pointed out that it was not possible to do that... which you have now admitted is true.
Well, score one for you. It doesn’t matter to me, and it wasn’t central to the issue at hand, anyway. Which, as I recall, was the adamant claim you made that the bitsetting was only present on the DVD+RW format to alleviate compatibility problems exclusive to that one format.

-Christopher

If I missed something, I’m sorry, but the impression I got was that he was simply concerned about the general principles to make compatible DVDs.

quoted from his very first post in this thread:
"Is there a workflow method which creates DVD-R videodiscs that play correctly"
"Does the DVD-R videodisc producer need to create multiple fininshed consumer product formats"
"These DVD-R discs are created with directory folders containing:"
"DVD-R discs created with this standard are NOT recognized"
"A DVD-R videodisc missing the Video_RM folder will have playback problems"
"a. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder initialize slowly or corrupted
b. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder prematurely stop playback"

Which, as I recall, was the adamant claim you made that the bitsetting was only present on the DVD+RW format to alleviate compatibility problems exclusive to that one format.

that is correct, as i already proved... you should NOT try bitsetting with the dvd-r format, because it creates discs that are not fully dvd-r legal, which means that they may not work correctly on all players.

quoted from his very first post in this thread:
"Is there a workflow method which creates DVD-R videodiscs that play correctly"
"Does the DVD-R videodisc producer need to create multiple fininshed consumer product formats"
"These DVD-R discs are created with directory folders containing:"
"DVD-R discs created with this standard are NOT recognized"
"A DVD-R videodisc missing the Video_RM folder will have playback problems"
"a. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder initialize slowly or corrupted
b. The DVD-R videodiscs missing the Video_RM folder prematurely stop playback"
Going further back through the thread it appears you are correct. It was an honest mistake on my part.

that is correct, as i already proved... you should NOT try bitsetting with the dvd-r format, because it creates discs that are not fully dvd-r legal, which means that they may not work correctly on all players.
Which, for the last time, I acknowledge. The point I'm trying to drive home, and which you keep missing (for the life of me I don’t know how) or choose to plain ignore, is that the claim you made that the bitsetting was only present on the DVD+RW format to alleviate compatibility problems exclusive to that one format is wrong. The custom bitsetting on the DVD+RW format overcomes compatibility problems which exist for both DVD-RW and DVD+RW formats in certain older DVD players. Yet you continue to refuse to acknowledge this fact.

If you choose to belabor a point I’ve already acknowledged, ignore the fact that compatibility problems exist for both DVD formats to which the DVD+RW custom bitsetting is the solution, and ignore the question I’ve repeatedly asked you about your claim regarding the dominance of the DVD-RW format, then I’m through with this discussion.

Why should I be the only side in this discussion who acknowledges his mistakes?

-Christopher