Storing 200-300 DVDs?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by (PeteCresswell), Mar 15, 2009.

  1. Mine are all ripped to a media server and that's where we watch
    them from.

    Right now they're taking up a bunch of shelves in a bookcase.

    Seems like a waste of space bc they're hardly ever accessed -
    being on the server.

    My first thought was that there's gotta be loose-leaf binder
    pages made to hold a couple of discs.

    Trash the containers they came in, just fill up a few 3"
    loose-leaf notebook binders and stash them in a drawer or

    Anybody got a storage method they like?
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 15, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. (PeteCresswell)

    AnimalMagic Guest

    You could also build nice, Walnut vertical cabinets that would hold
    like 1000 titles each, once the cases are pitched, like you say.

    Notebook binders sound pretty lame. Like stamp collecting.

    I wonder how many Titles Per Terabyte I could get laid down on a nard
    drive. I already pump my 46" with my PC, so full bore media server would
    not be far off that, and I would stop burning through optical disc
    readers, which have gotten pretty lame on longevity of late.
    AnimalMagic, Mar 15, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Per AnimalMagic:
    I've got just under 150 on my server right now.

    For most of them I ripped only MainMovie, but did it with
    compression turned off.

    Godfather I MainMovie is about 8 gigs. Most of the others are
    less, but they're almost all at least a little over 4.

    The "Movie" drive is 1 terabyte and has about 135 gigs free as I
    write this.

    I ordered a copy of Windows Home Server last week. When it
    arrives, the plan is to rebuild the server and combine the two
    1-T drives with a third new 1-T drive into a single pool for both
    DVDs and OTA recordings.

    I use VLC Media Player to watch the .ISOs on my little
    Atom-powered laptop and SageTV HD200 "Media Extenders" to watch
    them on TV sets.

    Tried Microsoft Media Center, something called "MythTV", and
    something called "BeyondTV" - but found fault with each. I'm
    pretty much a happy camper with SageTV.

    I wish I had known about SageTV before I blew $300+ on a digital
    DVD/VHS recorder to replace the wife's analog version.
    (PeteCresswell), Mar 16, 2009
  4. (PeteCresswell)

    Bozo9 Guest

    1- I got rid of all the cases, gave them to people who care.
    2- I stored all my originals in a briefcase-style 8"x20"x18" aluminium case
    (up to 600 DVDs)
    3- I have a 1.5T drive, on which 257 movies occupy 85%. It is mirrored
    monthly to another 1.5T drive. I also have a separate 1T drive (also
    mirrored) for series.

    Works for me.

    When drive prices drop enough, I'll rotate my mirror drives with another set
    Bozo9, Mar 31, 2009
  5. Well he's organized.

    JeffryMakesSense, Apr 5, 2009
  6. Per (PeteCresswell):
    FWIW, been running it since a day after that post and, as
    somebody else said, "Microsoft hit the ball out of the park with
    Windows Home Server."
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 7, 2009
  7. (PeteCresswell)

    UpGrade Guest

    Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box that reads
    UpGrade, Apr 8, 2009
  8. Per UpGrade:
    I wonder if the juke box concept is already obsolete even for

    I had a juke box for my CDs years ago. Didn't have in long
    before that collection and much more fit on an iPod.

    Just finished ripping my couple-hundred video DVD collection to a
    few t-byte drives.

    Dunno what the turnaround time is on drive size, but can 100-T
    drives be that far away?
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 9, 2009
  9. Both Pioneer and Sony have had them for years, and folks buy even their
    most recent models.

    I now where you are headed though, and though we can put movies on the
    HD media server now, we still do not have BD quality in video, and when
    the dopes get that, they will still NOT get the audio streams BD has.

    So media servers are now, and will be for a long time, a poorer quality
    solution than the actual BD release. It will likely be that way for a
    while too, since the data rate required for BD is higher than the stream
    that a PC can provide continuously without interruption.
    iPuds are lame. Besides, I am talking about video not audio.
    If they are just DVDs, you could likely have converted them to a much
    smaller per disc file size, and not even noticed the difference.

    At least a decade away. SAS will become hot swappable drive arrays,
    and folks will simply add another 1 or 2 TB drive to their stack. That
    will last for a while.
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
  10. In message
    In shit quality.
    Father Guido Sarducci, Apr 9, 2009

  11. Your appeal has been denied... like you knew it would be.
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
  12. No.
    "Playing" a disc, and streaming a BD quality stream are two different

    Your retarded PC player does NOT "play" the DAT audio stream NOR does
    it play ANY of the other high bit rate streams. Also, it does NOT have
    an HDMI output to your display, so it cannot pass HD signals at the same
    rates yet either.

    The video stream alone is 18Mb/s data rate. That, AND the audio stream
    a REAL BD player runs at is NOT something that a media streaming PC has
    the capacity to feed currently. The BD readers can read at those rates,
    but the decode software, as well as the fact that NO software as yet
    carries the HQ audio included on BD titles means that your claim is only
    half what it needs to be to be a valid claim.

    Good for you.
    You likely don't have the brains to notice the glitches, but I have
    seen them, and they are industry wide. I have worked in the industry
    though, and can spot video anomalies pretty good.
    For any idiot that downgraded playback is sufficient for. In such
    cases, a standard DVD is sufficient. Your claims of playback are lame
    because the disc does not play back the same as it does an a real BD

    Leaving out the HQ audio streams alone is enough to say that you are
    wrong, and uninformed.
    You are full of shit, considering that there are not even any PC audio
    cards out there yet that utilize it, much less feed it to your stereo
    Wrong. The best playback is from a real player, and as yet ALL PC
    players cannot match it (cannot even come close).

    The disc readers are fine. The software is the problem. The solution
    is a dedicated decoder card, just like the original PC based DVD players

    So actually, you are the one that must be joking, because you are the
    one that takes downgraded outputs and assumes that it is the same as the
    pro gear in the channel.

    Raeding a disc at a given rate and PROCESSING that stream are two
    different things. We are not yet there, and I don't care what you say
    about it, because I have watched this since the CD days.

    Without a hardware decoder that is CPU independent, a PC will not be
    streaming at the same rate or quality a dedicated player does anytime
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
  13. The data rates of the system and its interfaces are one thing.

    The data rate of a running decoder software process is far less.

    BluRay on PC needs to have a dedicated decoder card implementation if
    one wants to do it right.

    That is to match the resolution and audio performance of a dedicated
    player. Otherwise, it is a case of "Yes, it plays the disc, but the
    output is far less than what a dedicated player produces".

    Also, ANY current PC BD player/playback implementation streams
    EVERYTHING to your hard drive first, and then processes it. That
    increases my PC's temperature, and eats away at my hard drive longevity.
    I think it is a sad way to reduce underruns, especially with everyone
    touting how capable a machine is at doing such data rates. If that is
    the case, why do we need a huge HD based pre-cache of the data as it
    streams? Home players do not do that. Even the PS3 goes directly from
    disc to video. Why do PCs feel the need to cache hundreds of MB at a
    time as they read the disc? Sounds to me like the player software
    authors are too stupid to know how to do their jobs correctly.

    So far, all PC implementations of BD playback I have seen are all quite
    inadequate, and quite detrimental to one's PC hardware.
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
  14. You're a goddamned idiot.
    MAYBE in a memory based cache, but not on ANY hard drive. Are you
    having reading comprehension problems, boy?
    No shit. I said that.
    WRONG! PowerDVD8 most certainly buffers to HD, and it is in CONSANT use
    the entire time the disc is playing, even on the menus, which is pretty
    lame, and then the retarded software spends time AFTER playback, clearing
    their temp storage file area. Totally retarded behavior.

    PDVD does NOT EVER buffer to RAM. ANY idiot with knowledge of how to
    use Windows task manager can see and prove that fact. You should likely
    try to actually gather facts to write, instead of making shit up as you
    go your entire life. It is glaringly evident that it is YOU that has done
    no research on this.
    You're a total retard that is guessing as you go along. You have ZERO
    facts. On a PC where there is NOTHING running except for the player app,
    it STILL buffers to HD, you stupid twit.
    I have about ten PCs. Most are in storage. My current PC runs Vista
    and Windows 7 just fine, and benchmarks fine as well. You are about as
    clueless with this line of retarded remarks as all the other horseshit
    you have been spewing about your system.

    I suspect that you having been making up presumptuous horseshit most of
    your pathetic life.
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 9, 2009
  15. Per Archimedes' Lever:
    Dunno from SAS, but I'm already doing the rest w/Windows Home
    (PeteCresswell), Apr 10, 2009

  16. Serial Attached SCSI.

    It is typically a 2,5 inch or smaller form factor drive, and they spin
    (some of them) at 15k rpm. They have terrific numbers on them for data
    transfer and access. The size is the big important factor smaller
    platters have less mass, and last longer too. IBM really pulled off some
    great stuff with MR head technology. They got write densities WAY up

    SAS is where things should move. Doesn't mean they will though, in this
    royally screwed society.
    Archimedes' Lever, Apr 10, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.