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?

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

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.

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.

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"

huh?

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.

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.

For the third time, that claim is false. To quote this article:

“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.”

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.

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???

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

If nobody cares about it, why do you care so much about it?

You can’t say never now, as it has become the topic.

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

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"

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.

Going further back through the thread it appears you are correct. It was an honest mistake on my part.

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