Talk:Optical disc authoring

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

New Series

I'm creating a new series on Optical disc authoring. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 11:40Z

The phsyical process

Would someone knowledgeable add a description of the actual process of writing an optical disc with a laser? How, precisely, does it affect the disc? (Obviously it changes reflectance somehow so that the disc can be read in the normal fashion.) --Tardis 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page here offers some good information on the same: http://www.pcnineoneone.com/howto/cdburn1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.39.75 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blu ray authoring has become much more mature

In April 2008 there were quite a lot of compatibility issues but I think it has become much better now. Andries (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information track vs. sectors

If an information track consist of one or several sectors, how can one sector may contain several tracks ? That is a logical error. The correct one must be : An information track contains one or more sectors. DOT. One sector is the smallest addressable data. DOT. Observation: The physical track is another concept, related with the physical process of writing/reading CD or DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.201.138 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. The correct is : One session, instead of one sector. In fact, one session contains one or more tracks of one or different types. While a information track can contain one or more sectors.

What to say about information track definition ? It is the same that a physical track containing sctrutured data (instead of raw data containing "sound", for example) ?

I think I get answer in ECMA-130. Both , audio tracks and digital data tracks are information tracks, while a physical track is one 360° turn in the optical disk.

The ECMA-130 defines Information Track like : "Information Track - An area on the disk containing a collection of user information." We have to take care when interpreting "user information" here, because it refers to digital encoded audio well like "strictu sensu" user data (digital data tracks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.32.144 (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authoring versus Burning

Shouldn't this be called "burning"? Authoring, which is needed only for DVDs, is using software to gather the wanted files, creating a menu, first-play, etc. and then outputing the VOB and TS files, ready for burning. This is covered in "DVD authoring." NMackay (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "authoring" predates the existence of the DVD. That said, this article really does only discuss burning (desktop one-off disc creation). It doesn't handle commercial CD/DVD/BD authoring at all (i.e. for creating glass masters to press mass-produced discs from).--12:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Note" in section "Process"

Is the note appended at the end of the Process section correct? No cites have been referred and the content of it is however very interesting. Could anybody mention any program or OS that tend to behave like that? I'd rather be surprised to see GNU/Linux program acting in such a way. SMLVCFNCST (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating vs burning

The creation process of burning a CD, though intensive, is not as intensive anymore for modern hardware.

Even in 1999, my Pentium 90Mhz, could create the file, while burning the CD (on the fly), at 1x, 2x, and 4x speed.

Nowadays, processors don't really need to build a temp file, as SSD's are providing excellent burst read rates of smaller files; and the CPU is literally capable of processing the image more than double, triple, or quadruple the speed of the CD/DVD/Blueray max write speed;

Real disc write speeds, are often lower than that, for reliability reasons

CD duplication (professional bulk-burning)

This article seems too much geared towards the burning of individual discs in a PC CD drive or similar. I was rather more interested in reading about professional bulk burning process carried out in factories as a cheaper alternative to CD replication. There appears to be a certain amount of material about this in the old CD duplication article (now a redirect) which could possibly be incorporated here.81.158.209.175 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article seems to heavily suggest that the majority of CD burning is piracy related, both in the lead and the first or "primary" image. 145.40.189.56 (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]