burning questions from a newbie video-editor
 

Have decided on most of the hardware for my new computer, just have a few more questions about burners:
1)If you have a Blu-ray burner, why would you need a DVD burner?
2)Is the only advantage of a Blu-ray burner to fit more video on a disc?
Or, is the quality so much better as well?
3)Can ALL Blu-ray burners create discs with AVCHD format on a regular DVD disc? (I'm thinking of getting the LG GGW-H20L Blu-ray burner)
4)What's the difference between "write" and "RE-write"?

thanks!

1. You don't need one, most people have it so you can direct copy from DVD to Blu-Ray without copying all the files onto your computer.

2. It fits more on a disk. Which is the advantage. Nearly 6 times as much with non dual layer. A DL (Dual Layer) Blu-Ray disk can hold about 50GB. Which means you can fit more high quality material. You can have the exact same material on a dvd. But would not be able to have nearly as much on a DVD compared to Blu-Ray.
Say you have 120 min movie on BD in full 1080p, you could only be able to fit about 22 mins of that same film at the same quality onto a dvd.

3. Yes they can, it depends on the software you use to burn it. I use Toast for Mac.

4. Write is when you just write onto a normal dvd/BD(Blu-Ray) and you cannot write over it, kind of like a usb flash drive if you will. When it's RE-write, it means you can use it to keep writing over it and erase stuff of of it, kind of like a usb flash drive.

Direct copies from DVD to Blu-ray?
 

Thanks for your quick answers, Bradley!
So, are you saying that someone may want to copy footage from a DVD disc to a blu-ray disc directly? Just to make a copy of the video?
Wouldn't it be faster to make another copy of your movie from your hard drive?

But, thinking more on this.....brings up other questions:
For archiving purposes -
1)Would it be feasible to archive lots of movies on one Blu-ray disc, instead of using up the hard drive space?
2)Also, in case something happens to my hard drive (and external drive also), could I take the videos from the archived Blu-ray disc and import the footage back into a hard drive?
IS this possible? ....and would I retain the quality of the videos?

And, assuming that digital disc media is virtually indestructible, this would be great long-term storage media.
(My music CDs survived through Katrina, after being flooded in salt water and baking in hot sun for weeks outside!)

Yes, but an external hard drive costs less per MB.

Yes, it would be an exact bit-for-bit copy.

Not in my opinion. Optical disk media is FAR from being indestructible. Disks are easily scratched, and a single scratch could render the entire disk unusable. Personally, I'd trust an external hard drive more than a Blu-ray disk.

DVD to blu-ray and external size?
 

Okay, back to Bradley's comment on transferring data...........what would be the reasons why someone would want both Blu-ray and DVD burner/drive? I would assume that if you don't have the files on your computer already, and just want to copy a disc, you'd need another drive. ??

External storage: what size do you recommend?

thanks again, guys!

I guess you might have two to save wear and tear on your Blu-ray drive if you're mostly burning DVDs. A DVD drive is $30 or less while a Blu-ray recorder is still $250 or more. Even if I had two drives and wanted to copy a DVD, I'd probably still set up Nero to copy to the hard drive first, then burn to disk. That way you're less likely to end up with a coaster.

As big as you can afford. 1tb external drives are hovering around $100 or so.

thanks!
 

Ya'll are a wealth of info - I just LOVE online forums. I've got lots more to learn about all of this, so I'll surely be delving into dvinfo NETwork quite often!

I can't argue with any comments previously posted, but here are some additional thoughts. Don't need one, but given the price differential between the two, I burn DVDs on a DVD burner and save the BD burner for BDs only. I have a USB Sony external DVD burner so I can move it around.
Depends upon where you want to use the footage. If you don't have a BD player connected to your TV then stick with DVD if all you want to do is watch it. For archiving, the decision gets a bit muddier. $/GB... DVD is cheaper than BD at the moment, but the gap is closing.
I have the LG and did a lot of research before buying it. So far I'm quite pleased.

Chris' comment about hard disk cost/GB is correct, but if you're archiving the footage for long-term storage, I'd go with optical disk. Rotating magnetic storage, aka: hard disk, is not the best archival media. If you put a My Book in the closet with your important stuff on it, don't expect to go back in five years and find it all still there. DVD or BD will last much longer.

Whoa, five years is kind of a worst-case scenario. I suggest you don't bet money on your hypothesis, because any hard drive will easily last five years. Almost all hard drives will outlast the useful lifetime of the stored data. Regardless, a redundant archival system of multiple hard drives or a mix of drives and optical disks would work best for critical data.

That's incorrect. Whilst a hard drive may last five years in daily operation, the story can be much different if a drive is stored away and not used for that length of time. Drives can get grumpy for a variety of reasons when they are not used. Sectors can go "soft", bearings can seize and heads can stick. There's a litany of things that can go pear shaped on a drive sitting on a closet shelf.

Optical is a much better archival medium and tape is better still.

This knowledge comes from over 20 years in the computer storage business, so I'm not just talking through my hat.

Well you and I could probably talk shop and bore everyone (as another with more than 15 years in IT.) But I was just taking exception to the implied position that a hard drive unused for five years will *most likely* go bad. I know it can happen, but the odds are overwhelming that it won't.

I don't have the same professional experience as you two in IT, but I do have a fair bit of experience with hard drives going bad. I have yet to let a hard drive sit for more than about a year without finding chunks missing.

If the budget were available, it seems to me that some sort of redundant, active storage like a Drobo would be ideal. It could keep the drives spinning 24/7, and if a drive goes down, you simply pop it out and replace it, and it will do the rest.

No, I don't work for Drobo, and no, I don't have the spare funds to go out and try my suggestion :)

Yeah... probably could.

I cannot disagree with you. I strike a cautious note because I know how sensitive one can be to lost data. I'm still upset that my entire radio career went poof when a stack of CDs delaminated.

I just want to make sure that people use rotating magnetic for archiving with eyes wide open.