I notice much scepticism here about M-Disc. Much of which is not unfounded.
But does anyone here think it makes a good additional copy? The lack of a reflective layer is what sold me the idea, and the fact that it 'etches' as opposed to burns dye with some kind of hard layer (making it closer to a factory-pressed disk, and needs a more powerful laser to write). 1000 years? nah, the glue will fail long before then, as will we. Our society won't be here in 1000 years as we know it!
I use verbatim AZO and M-Disc as a duplicate. I believe there is promise in such a technology, and testing my burns I was happy with them as an addition. Worth the premium? Not sure, i will check back in many years. I will say that the verbatim Azo disks I used as a child and even the RW disks were worth their premium, still readable today with very few errors on a couple of disks (one was a RW disc with severe damage, one was an AZO disc that was not stored too well (was lost, and found inside the sofa years later!), and no errors on most (both RW and R discs all well stored), being 15 years old some of them.
The secrecy behind it and the overmarketing doesn't give much confidence, but if the claims are even half true (and some guy tested by leaving them outside to see what they could handle):
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...sc-review.html
Tells me there is some credibility in there about the layers they are using and the fact it needs a more powerful laser to etch it and no reflective layer to fail, but it is not for 1000 years, that is garbage. And even so, why keep only a single copy? I talk about the DVD's mostly, as HTL blu-ray seems to result in a much more chemically stable result than standard dye on a DVD, so I doubt the M-Disc having much of an advantage for blu-ray unless stored in harsh environments.
I have planned a similar test, taking different brands and dye types ( M-Disc, cheap ass disks, Fuji Oxinol, Verbatim Azo, RW, RE, and whatever disks, and leave them exposed to a british summer outdoors) and see what happens when exposed to such conditions.
I do think for general use, Fuji Oxinol Ritek and for archival, Verbatim Azo are more than good enough for most needs. But isn't an additional copy of crucial data on an M-Disc worth the shot at it? I keep three disc masters of each project: 1. Verbatim Azo / 2: Ritek Oxinol discs 3: M-Disc - Coupled with HDD storage and cloud storage/offsite/onsite. I could use TY disks, but I have loads of Ritek Oxinol discs I got for 20 pence from a boot sale, and will use them until I am out! I used to avoid ritek like the plague as a kid, but they have cleaned up their poo and the Oxinol dye sounds good.
I will confess i use BD-RE XL discs sometimes for backups, that backup set saved my ass recently for client projects when cloud backups, primary drive, and secondary backup drive failed me.
And for pictures, printing them on low-fade materials is the best way of long term storage. Printed cannot be beaten if it isn't video, pigment inks and good quality paper (wilhelm institute has good info on these). They will be view able long after readers vanish.
Verbatim AZO is tried/tested and should be the go-to for any crucial projects. But M-Disc is worth a shot for an additional of crucial projects, in my opinion. Just verify your burns, ensure they are good, and chill! They are expensive though, not for non-crucial projects
I think its worth the punt, mostly because of the lack of a reflective layer, even if the marketing claims are a bit dubious as if they are even half true they will be quite stable, though the 'glue' is a problem as is the lack of info about their blu-ray discs. I never bought into the 'gold' discs, as it was obvious at the time, the lower reflective may cause problems.
Is there anything I am missing? Not intending to ruffle feathers, as this seems to be a polarising issue. Is there anything I am missing with these discs? Personally I wouldn't trust them for a sole copy, but then again I won't ever do a sole copy.