i recently purchased a (cheap) pioneer BDR-XD04 because it had excellent reviews. i am very happy with it. surprisingly, i did not have any integration work to do. my mac instantly “recognized” it, and enabled BD burning. stay away from LaCie. they charge you a lot of money for the design. inside it doesn't match the performance of a pioneer drive, and probably not of a samsung.
On 14 December 2013 00:44, Gene Youngblood <ato...@comcast.net> wrote: > I'm looking to buy my first Blu-ray burner. Any suggestions? > > -----Original Message----- From: Aaron F. Ross > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 3:12 PM > To: Experimental Film Discussion List > Subject: Re: [Frameworks] HD cam 24 vs 25? vs DCP? > > If you're stuck with Blu-Ray, definitely use > professional optical media. Taiyo Yuden is the > gold standard. They make DVDs under their own > brand as well as others. For Blu-Ray, I think > Taiyo Yuedn have an exclusive with JVC. I go to > supermediastore.com, they have the widest selection of media I've seen. > > /////////////// > > For H.264 encoding on Windows, Adobe Media > Encoder is the best I've worked with. Definitely > better than the Sony AVC codec, which seems to > have issues with properly converting/flagging > Studio IRE 16-235 levels, leading to contrast > issues in playback. Quicktime has notorious > problems with this as well, sometimes encoding or > playing back MP4s at the wrong levels. > > ////////////// > > Aaron > > ///////////// > > > > > > At 12/13/2013, you wrote: >> >> The problem for the filmmaker in the digital age is that there is >> absolutely no standardization between different screening venues. Some folks >> want files, but only take certain codecs and containers (and different ones >> at different places, of course...). And some folks want physical media: >> tapes (still a variety of formats) or discs... It all depends on what tech >> the venue has invested in, and what their 'projectionist'/tech-person can >> handle (and, alas, such folks are often less than competent to deal with any >> kind of curveball*). >> >> Unlike todd, I haven't had any problems with Blu-Ray, and I'd guess that >> Blu-Ray players are pretty common now. With any home-burned optical discs, >> the quality of the media matters A LOT. NEVER buy cheapo generic blank >> discs. Folks making shorts should keep in mind that up to a half-hour or so >> of material in MPEG2 will fit on a standard blank DVD5 in Blu-Ray format, >> and will play-back in any DVD player. If you do that, get some of the >> premium Taiyo-Yuden blanks from one of the internet outlets, and you should >> get good reliable results. (And always burn at the slowest available speed.) >> >> At least Blu-Ray is better than the least-common-denominator default >> pretty much EVERYBODY can handle: a standard DVD (meh). And with Blu-Ray, as >> long as your disc plays at all, there's really no way the folks on the other >> end can screw it up. >> >> Of course, if you're dealing with venues that take files, todd's >> thumb-drive idea is a great way to go. Flash memory just keeps getting >> cheaper. (32GB USB thumbs can be had now for just over $20... cheaper than >> 'professional' tape stock, not to mention film prints...) >> >> So, I would say that an artisanal filmmaker needs: >> • Decent software and hardware to author and burn Blu-Rays (and if you're >> doing the short-running-time BR on DVD5, you don't even need a Blu-Ray >> burner. >> • Proper software to transcode your digital 'master' into whatever format >> a venue desires. On a Mac, that means a combination of Apple Compressor and >> the old-reliable (and free) MPEG-Streamclip. On a PC, I don't know... >> (Aaron??) >> >> I suspect some of Moira's specific problem is that she's working in Avid >> (on a PC, I'm guessing), which uses some sort of proprietary codec and >> offers limited options for output to standardized formats. The closest we >> seem to be to a high quality file standard for distribution is ProRes 422. >> And as recently noted here, ProRes isn't available on PCs. Given what >> production houses charge for transfers, it might behoove PC based folks to >> invest in a used older Mac Pro (~$500) if only to make ProRes files. >> >> Finally, if anybody wants you to send files via the Net, they'll probably >> want some kind of h.264 coded file (in either a Quicktime or .mp4 >> container). It's very compressed and lossy, of course, but it can look damn >> good if you encode it right. The thing to note here, is that different h.264 >> software codecs are not created equal, and Apple's version is notoriously >> meh. What you want is the open-source x264 encoder. (x264 is not a codec, >> it's just a means of encoding h.264). There's lots of settings inside this >> thing, most of which I don't understand, but if you set the right >> frame-rate, choose one of the higher quality presets ('Slower' or 'Very >> Slow') and throw in the 'use 3rd pass' option for good measure, you'll get >> the best visual-quality-to-smaller-file size ratio in existence. And AFAIK, >> you can use x264 in the PC version of MPEG Streamclip, (and probably a >> variety of other PC-based shareware or freeware converters as well.) >> >> djt >> >> * I will never forget my experience at a good-sized film festival, in a >> city of some 1.3 million residents, at which the organizers had hired a >> "professional" video projectionist. There were three pieces screening >> simultaneously in adjacent screening rooms of the rented multiplex, and EACH >> ONE was screening in the wrong aspect ratio: the ones that should have been >> 4:3 were stretched out to 16:9, and the ones which should have been 16:9 >> were squeezed into 4:3. >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 11:25 PM, todd eacrett wrote: >> >>> >>> From a presentation perspective, I'd nix both of the rapidly obsolescing >>> HDCam and Blu-ray in favour of a ProRes file. Blu-ray is a pita for >>> screenings. I've had discs that tested fine one day then wouldn't read the >>> next. Even with a BR data drive and the software it's a slow and potentially >>> lossy process to rip it back to a file. >>> >>> >>> If you're sending out a physical object (hard-drive/memory stick) with >>> files on it, consider including multiple versions with different resolutions >>> and/or bitrates. When I have the time to re-encode a file I'm pretty >>> careful, but if I have to do so an hour before a screening, not so much. >>> >>> >>> You don't mention the running time, but a file that can be up//downloaded >>> is theoretically cheaper/faster than shipping a tape or disc. At least it >>> pushes the economic and environmental costs of the server farms onto the >>> next generation. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Aaron F. Ross > Digital Arts Guild > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks -- “A brave flat world.” marco poloni usedomer strasse 8 d – 13355 berlin gsm de +49.163.6294080 gsm ch +41.78.6322028 skype marcopoloni _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks