Advice on Blu-ray burner/media for Mac?
 

I have been looking at blu-ray burners and media for storing data/video, not blu-rays. I was hoping to buy a Pioneer 209-DBK and connect it externally to a Mac via a SATA to USB. I don't know if this will work, since Pioneer does not have firmware updates for Mac.

I looked at the LG WH14NS40 for its lack of riplock and support for BDXL, but the Pioneer seems superior, though I don't know if there is a big difference when considering only HTL blu-ray discs.
http://club.myce.com/f61/lg-bh16ns40...ml#post2726719

Regarding disc media, I could not find the blu-ray blank media guide, but LordSmurf recommended Phillips media:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/medi...-ray-disc.html
Otherwise, I was going to purchase the Verbatim or Panasonic, though I don't know how good the Panasonic would be after traveling thousands of miles in poor packaging
https://amzn.com/B005RY6J4K

I also read that Verbatim switched their media supplier and according to the French study Verbatim HTL did not do as well as Sony or Panasonic
http://club.myce.com/f33/french-stud...chival-329441/

This study finds triple layer Verbatim discs to be significantly better than dual-layer. Huh? I thought the more layers, the greater risk of errors. I don't know if this means they are also better than single-layered blu-ray. http://www.mcmedia.co.jp/enterprise/...ummaryVer1.pdf

Thanks for any advice...

I believe that the Pioneer drive you quoted does not support BDXL.

As to the media quality, Panasonic BD-R SL media has the best demonstrated quality of burns together with Pioneer drives. Unfortunately they don't seem to manufacture SL anymore as of few months ago, only DL and above.

Verbatim SL media tends to be CMC nowadays so it's a hit and miss even for the HTL variants.

Some of the Verbatim DL media are made by Panasonic. Have a look at MyCE forums for further details.

BD just never caught on. We have several burners, all are rarely used. I mostly use mine for testing media and burning DVDs. And I rarely burn DVDs these days. It's all about streaming and HTPC (Raspberry Pi, WDTV, etc). This is a main reason manufacturers haven't done much with the format. Example: Apple not caring about it.

Even MyCE isn't much more active than this site. Times have changed.

To be honest, BD-R media isn't as nutty as DVD-R/+R media was. It's not so variable. It's more like CD-R. You have a lot more good discs than bad. And there's not as many marginal discs. It's either quite decent, or quite terrible.

That sounds to be a stupid study. There's no way that 3x is better than 2x. It would simply come down to media quality. No different from a Verbatim DVD+R DL being better than a PRINCO DVD-R.

BDXL is too late. Too much stuff doesn't work with it.

The whole format honestly sucked. I test it, and use it begrudgingly, but that's it. It's just not convenient like DVD or even CD. The only useful thing was the BD video specs, as it left the land of over-compression, and is comparable to broadcast quality. We needed that.

Why do you want to get into BD burning?

Thanks for the responses. Yes the Pioneer BDR-209DBK does not support BDXL, but I don't know if I want to use TL and QL media anyway Pioneer BDR-2209 burns BDXL, but the reviews have not been as smashing. Others say they are the same exact model except for software.

You're not going to like this, but I am looking into another backup for my backup. DVDs are great, but they don't hold much at 4.7 gb. Given the quality of blu-ray media, my plan was to just buy M-discs and use them for stuff like raw footage that I do not want using space on my hard drive, and don't necessarily need for eternity.

I am not a fan of M-discs, but it's a Hobson's choice at this point. HDDs are cheap, but you are at the whim of probability. The risk include:
--corrupt servo data
--tracking problems (nonrepeatable run-out)
--SMART limits exceeded (error monitoring)
--Magnetic changes
--large variance in reliability across and within suppliers, such as due to batch differences and design changes
--bit errors (rare)
--increase in fly-write height, such as due to lubrication build-up
--hydrocarbon contamination, thermal asperities (erasure), corrosion, and scratches
http://entertainmentstorage.org/arti...the%20ugly.pdf

Optical disc archiving does not seem dead yet--look at the Sony-Panasonic Optical Disc Archive line. Unfortunately, they are not cheap.

The forensic specialist quoted here recommended M-discs over tape or HDD.
https://community.spiceworks.com/top...ray-hdd?page=3

The data storage consultant here also agrees that HDD backups may not be the safest bet
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomcough.../#44907bf25fab

This guy recommends M-discs or having multiple USB drives like in RAID.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/29845...your-data.html

Amazon Glacier is also another option, but only as a backup to the backups.

So, my plan was to have M-disc/HTL Blu-rays as a second/third backup. I already have a cloud plan, but a missed payment means everything is gone forever. And HDDs are too unpredictable. :praying:

FreeNAS+ZFS is the only way to get HDDs to reliably store data (in appropriate RAID configuration with ECC memory and periodic scrubs). This is what I personally use for my authoritative storage of data I care about. It gets also dumped to BD-R SL HTL and planning to rotate it there. Naturally I have copies of the data on a different external HDD with a different filesystem but don't treat it safe data corruption/degradation wise.

DVD+R is a decent choice with quality media and proper storage method. If anything it's more futureproof due to the abundance of drives and software. However it's capacity doesn't mean it can be always used.

Multiple copies of data in different formats is the best way to assert control over your data longevity.

Thanks, I would do that if I go the HDD route. What BD-R SL HTL do you use? For M-discs, I was considering going with the Verbatim brand, because I believe the ones sold under the Millenniata label are Ritek.

I was going to archive some 480i video as MPEG over a lossless format, but I have read that MPEG could compress too much leading to generation loss for every transcode and error such as "blurring, blockiness, shimmering and colour aberration."

I use only genuine Panasonic HTL BD-R. I believe that benefits of M-disc in DVD format is far more plausible compared to its BD-R counterpart. In other words M-Disc BD-R vs HTL seem very similar in terms of material durability (both are inorganic).

Archive your videos in the original intact format and make sure that you bundle software that will be able to playback the original file format. Example include VLC binaries along with the data if that software is known to play it. This assumes that you want playback on a computer and not a dedicated hardware player.

I probably would burn a copy on the Panasonic and M-Disc each. They also sell TDK media, but it's more expensive than the M-Disc. Do you buy the Panasonic BD-R HTL from Amazon?

The issue is that no Pioneers burn M-Disc DVD, only Blu-ray, because of the special laser required. The LGs do burn those, but from what I've read they might not give you as high quality of a burn. And even if I bought an LG I would have limited means to test it without then getting a scanning drive.

Some of the Pioneers do have support for M-Disc. Look for "Millenniata" http://pioneer.jp/device_e/product-e...v00002r_e.html They however do not carry the M-Disc logo markings on the drive itself like the LG counterpart drives. In addition to this, you can see:
http://www.mdisc.com/m-ready/

If you buy from Amazon or eBay chances are you're buying the media from the same seller as there is only a few sellers left who bother sending the media outside of Japanese market itself.

Samsung and LiteOn seem to be the only leftover choices for BD-R burned media quality scans. You'll need to dig around here to find out which ones:
http://club.myce.com/f61/bd-r-xl-sca...-exist-340937/

Thus is life. :o

- Optical is good in theory, often archival, not not always.
- HDD is good for size, often lasts longer than you're led to believe.

We already know that BD is not an archival format. Nor is CD. The formats have fatal flaws. You can spend tons of money on this, but it 10 years you may learn that it was pissing away money. That's how I felt about CD-R that was burned in the 90s, and had developed pinholes. Dye layer issues was a massive problem. (It was complicated by myths on "disc rot".) Only DVD is archival, if good. DVD is small, yes. It's for important stuff, not full HDD backups. Want better HDD life? Buy several, store in optimal conditions. It's no different from optical.

If you do this, do it in triplicate with multiple media types. This is good backup policy in general, but the more uneasy the format, the more important it becomes. M-Disc is on, standard HTL is another, and even a known-good LTH may be fine. Or two HTL.

Optical has risks, too. You have to choose something, just don't assume one is superior. Most conditions, like moisture and temperature, are universal. Everything from paper to disc to disk is easily ruined by it.

I believe that's something else entirely. Not a consumer audio/video format that was retrofitted for computer use. Because that's honestly what CD, DVD and BD is.

I don't have the time to dissect those posts/articles, but it's a mish-mash of fact and distortions. That SpiceWorks post, for example, is just hearsay, and the person has written it in wrong context. Some is true, some is false conclusions. The PCWorld article is clearly from somebody that has limited experience in archiving, as he's mushed some facts together (and thereby made them false).

Remember that I've consulted on this topic professionally, and my resume is somewhat impressive.

But do you trust AWS? Not to mention that online backups take forever. Literally weeks to months to upload things that can be copied local in hours or days.

^^

None of this is to talk you out of, or into, anything in particular. Just don't be so willing to readily throw HDD under the bus, nor assume that all optical is the same (except size). That's a huge, huge mistake. For example, nowhere in the above articles did I see anybody discern between enterprise HDD in complex RAID configurations, and cheapo consumer drives.

So also be careful what you read. :wink2:

Your posts are all excellent and factual. :)

The issue is not if Pioneer burns M-Disc Blu-rays, since they use the same laser as normal Blu-Rays, but M-Disc DVD, which no Pioneer seems to support. So while there is more evidence for M-Disc DVDs, to burn those would require another writer of a lesser quality than Pioneer.

I have read some complaints from people saying the discs they bought were damaged in shipping. Do you think buying from someone who imports discs to the U.S. first before selling would be safer than someone who ships directly from Japan? My thinking is that someone who imports them all at once will have them packed better than one spindle bouncing around in a box.

Was DigitalFAQ going to publish a blank media blu-ray guide at some point? Or is it pointless now that demand has declined?

I don't trust them completely, but perhaps a bit better than my own ability to archive data long-term in a controlled environment. :blink:

Also, is it worth purchasing disc inserts to absorb airborne pollutants? They seem like a good idea, but they are expensive and I would expect that at some point the inserts themselves would cause more problems when they start to decay.... Archivalware Jewel Case Inserts W/Corrosion Intercept Technology

I cannot really find Amarays, but I was planning to go with double blu-ray/DVD cases or double not-silm Jewel cases unless single cases are better.
(25) Empty Standard Double Blue Replacement Boxes / Cases for Blu-Ray Disc
Maxtek 14mm Black Standard Double Capacity DVD Case and Outer Clear Sleeve
(25) STANDARD Clear Double CD Jewel Case

Fully non-transparent cases and put them inside a large fully non transparent storage box. An easy method to test transparency is to switch on the flashlight of your mobile phone and let it shine through the plastic martial of the enclosure then visually observe how much of it comes through.

I've got a habit of placing a few moisture absorber bags inside such storage boxes.

Material wise i wonder if they're compatible with the disks, the less odour the better. You can always ventilate them from time to time.

Silica gel desiccants are good for controlling moisture, but I do not know their effectiveness for adsorbing chemicals and pollutants. Hence the anti-corrosion inserts. Ventilating the cases is a good idea, or I could just leave them open for a few months before using.

You may be interested in the following new service offered by the M-DISC group:
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/rub...os-and-videos/
http://www.yours.co/

Thanks sengork! Glad to read this before I make a purchase decision. Though I don't know if it will stop me because they offer a monthly M-Disc backup of accounts on only Instagram, Flickr, Google Photos, Dropbox, Facebook and Google Drive, for US$8 a month. I am less concerned about losing my low-quality jpegs on Flickr than the stuff I don't save on those sites.

One possibility is to load a Drive account with 15gb of data I want to burn and replace it with new data each month. Still, that would cost more per month than if I burn it myself, long-term. I also don't know the quality of their burning to the M-disc. All they said is that they burn their discs using "asynchronous printing". :huh1:

I may have been unclear--by "asynchronous printing" I assume they just meant the use of a duplicator. But I don't know how that ensures their discs are good quality burns and are better than would result through the use of consumer writers.

I burned DVDs in 2004 that are now illegible :depressed: