1 / 25

DVD Compatibility Oliver Slattery (NIST) GIPWoG March 9 th , 2005

DVD Compatibility Oliver Slattery (NIST) GIPWoG March 9 th , 2005. Objectives. Need testing from consumer point of view Test ‘ Phases ’ keeps pace with technology Phase 1: results established a baseline, primarily with DVD ROM drives

tameka
Download Presentation

DVD Compatibility Oliver Slattery (NIST) GIPWoG March 9 th , 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DVD Compatibility Oliver Slattery(NIST)GIPWoG March 9th, 2005

  2. Objectives Need testing from consumer point of view Test ‘Phases’ keeps pace with technology Phase 1: results established a baseline, primarily with DVD ROM drives Phase 2: obtain results with latest technology and include DVD burners; Phase 3: Continue with higher speed media; Phase 4: Continue with set-top DVD recorders and test compatibility with players and drives Phase 5: Dual layer media. Encourage dialog between different sectors within the industry

  3. What is good compatibility? • Goal: DVDs recorded on one device, will play back flawlessly on other devices • Definition: a recordable DVD is “compatible” if its playback is equivalent to the playback of a pressed disc with identical content • Not testing specifications!

  4. DVD compatibility is critical • DVD Recorders are a fast growing segment of the industry • Can DVD Recorders replace the VCR and become universal without high compatibility? • The factors involved with recordable DVDs are complex • Hard to find objective information • Will consumers purchase players that are on Internet incompatibility lists? • Will consumers archive data on DVDs without high compatibility?

  5. Rapidly evolving market • High speed burners • High speed media • Source: Santa Clara Consulting Group

  6. Rapidly decreasing prices • High speed burners • High speed media • Tremendous downward pricing pressure • Source: Santa Clara Consulting Group

  7. Outline • Committee Description • Test phases ‘roadmap’ • Product selection • Overview of test (Phase 1 and 2) • Results • Observations • Conclusions

  8. What is the “OSTA DVD Compatibility Committee?” • A joint effort by 3 organizations: • OSTA (Optical Storage Technology Association) www.osta.org • NIST (Natl. Inst. of Standards & Technology – US Department of Commerce) www.nist.gov • DVDA (International DVD Association) www.dvda.org

  9. Committee Goals • The OSTA DVD Compatibility committee • Is format and vendor neutral • Writes and publishes test plans • Chooses products based on market data • Publishes anonymous results • Provides general guidelines for consumers • Provides detailed technical results to OSTA members (media and drive manufacturers) • We test compatibility from a consumer and market standpoint • We do not test specifications or standards compliance

  10. Core Committee Members • Subutai Ahmad (YesVideo, Committee Chair) • Oliver Slattery, Fred Byers (NIST) • Bob Zollo & Lee Prewitt (Software Architects) • Jim Taylor (Sonic Solutions, Chairman DVDA) • Dave Bunzel (Santa Clara Consulting, President OSTA) + • Active input from OSTA member companies (media and drive manufacturers)

  11. Test Roadmap • Phase 1 (2002 – 2003): • Created objective test plans • Assess compatibility of 1X media and DVD-ROM drives • Phase 2 (2003-2004): • Tested DVD burners, ROM drives and 4X media • Phase 3 (2005): • Testing higher speed (8X) media • Phase 4, 5 (2005): • Will test DVD Recorders, dual layer discs

  12. Product selection (Phase 2) • Key goal is to provide a snapshot of the US market • Select media and drives based on US market share data • DVD-ROM drives represent 60% market share manufactured during 2000-2003 • Burners represent 75% of US market share as of end 2003 • Media brands represent 65% (-R) and 85% (+R) market share • Thanks to Santa Clara Consulting Group and Fujiwara-Rothschild for market data

  13. Test Methodology • Record discs using a master ROM-disc as source • Disc image uses over 97% of the disc capacity • All discs recorded at max speed, with verify on • Phase 1 used 1X discs, Phase 2 used 4X discs • DVD Drive playback test • Install each drive in test PC • Compare data in recorded disc against control ROM disc • “Pass” requires 100% score on a byte to byte comparison basis against control disc • Check 1% of the data spread out across disc • Test plan published by NIST

  14. DVD Drive Test Plan Two drives required: • Reference drive Contains DVD-ROM title* of test disc • Test drive Contains the writable test disc Four parts to the test- • Disc detection (spin-up) • Byte to byte comparison • Data rate drop • Video and audio quality *(‘Saint Saens and Bizet’ for DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW) *(‘The Call’ for DVD-RAM test discs)

  15. DVD Drive Test Plan All passed = good compatibility

  16. Test Plan (Phase 1 and 2) • Test plan distributed as a NIST special publication www.itl.nist.gov/div895/pubs.html#DataPreservation

  17. Highlights of Test Results

  18. Phase 1 vs Phase 2

  19. Compatibility has improved 100% * 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003/4

  20. Matchmaking • Specific media-burner combinations have problems • Indicated by red rows • Important to update firmware on burners • Burner mfrs should ideally list media that work with their drives Phase 2

  21. Edge Effect 98% • Edge effect clearly seen • In Phase 2, 38 out of 50 failures were in the outer edge of the disc • “Edge” begins to appear around 10% from end of the disc and becomes significant around 5% from the end • Ignoring errors outside the edge, compatibility rises to 98% 91% Phase 2

  22. Media Quality 100% • There is a significant spread in media quality • Worst media brand scored 80.5% • Best media brand scored 100% 80% 70% Phase 2

  23. Other observations • No significant difference between formats • –R vs +R, or R vs RW • Media quality and edge effect are bigger factors • Burning was reliable • Only 1 disc failed to verify (4X media) • Write times consistent with rated speed • Avg 15 minutes to burn 4.6GB on 4X drives • Independent test validation was consistent Phase 2

  24. Conclusions • Overall results improving over time • Edge effect in failures is very clear • Accounted for the vast majority of playback problems • When recording, avoid filling up the disc for best compatibility • Media quality matters: • Significant variation in media quality • Media-Burner combinations matter • Consumer should update firmware on burners • Underscores importance in media/drive mfr relations • Updated firmware important.

  25. Thank You Did you fill the GIPWoG digital media life time survey? How long do you want your digital storage media to last? Take the survey: www.dvda.org/nist/survey Deadline: May 31st 2005.

More Related