Storing 200-300 DVDs?

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
something.

Anybody got a storage method they like?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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
off-site.

 

Well he's organized.

 

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."

 

Now all we need is for Sony to make a 300 plus disc juke box that reads
BluRay.

 

Per UpGrade:

I wonder if the juke box concept is already obsolete even for
BluRay.

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?

 

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.

 

In message

In shit quality.

 

Your appeal has been denied... like you knew it would be.

 

No.

"Playing" a disc, and streaming a BD quality stream are two different
things.

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
player.

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
receiver.

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
had.

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
soon.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Per Archimedes' Lever:

Dunno from SAS, but I'm already doing the rest w/Windows Home
Server.

 

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
there.

SAS is where things should move. Doesn't mean they will though, in this
royally screwed society.