In article <>, Jacky
<> wrote:
> Whether or not people want to call it "rot", all it takes for a DVD-R
> to go bad is for the organic dye inside to change its reflectivity
> enough to transition to different data. When you consider all it takes
> is a certain powered laser to cause the dye to transition, why can't
> poorly made organic dye start to break down on its own over time
> without a powered laser? Anyone who might think chemicals (organic or
> not) are guaranteed to be perfectly stable over time is wrong.
And anyone who thinks DVD-R manufactures just use any old dye is
equally wrong. Longevity was likely a factor in the very design of
DVD-R technology, and the dyes used in the process would obviously be
formulated to remain stable. Besides, a catalyst such as oxygen would
be required anyway.
> The answer is the dye break down can occur, and I've had it happen on
> Princo media in under a month.
You get what you pay for.
> Nothing else can explain perfectly good
> media becoming unreadable after sitting on a shelf away from light or
> excess heat. I still call it rot, but some people insist that it
> isn't. Other better brands of media have not yet died, but that's not
> to say they won't someday.
Sure, maybe 40 years from now.
> I agree it's a bit risky to archive important data on DVD+-R until
> it's been around for more years. I'm probably wasting my time
> archiving what I have because it'll probably go bad in a few years.
> With CDRs at 10-20 cents each, it's not so bad if they go bad (and
> none of mine have so far) but with DVD+-Rs in the $1 to $1.50 range it
> is bad if they start to rot en masse.
Doesn't matter what the media costs, it's the content.
|