Hi Michael. You are probably right about the CDs. When CDs are requested, we always send two. I don't think I know who Richard Seltzer is or what he does. Like you, I have been watching dual layer DVDs, but the price is still quite high. Shop4tech.com has them for $2.50. It doesn't make sense considering that one single layer DVD costs just $0.26. Thanks. Aaron On 7/16/09, Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com> wrote:
First thoughts:
I've not sure there is any need to send CDs except when requested, and they will be, probably by those who need them most, but we are here and now living mostly in an age DVDs, so send two of them.
When they ask for CDs, send two of those. . .even if the same one.
We can also refer people to Richard Seltzer.
I should also mention dual layered DVDs, but every time I look the price still seems too high.
More thoughts?
MH
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Aaron Cannon wrote:
Hi all.
I'm sorry for disappearing for a while. I've been dealing with some health issues, work, and school, but mainly health. Anyway, I think it may be time to create a new DVD. The latest one is 3 years old this month. However, the project has obviously grown drastically in that time, so I'm wondering if one DVD still makes sense?
The drawbacks to creating a 2 DVD collection that immediately come to mind are: 1. In the DVD/CD mailing project, we have consistently been sending two copies of the DVD, or a DVD and CD. This will either have to change, or we will have to pay more for postage. 2. It takes twice as long to download. On the other hand, if you can download 4GB, it's probably not that big of a stretch to download 8. 3. It's not as elegant as one DVD. This is probably the least important, but just thought I'd mention it as it might prove important to some.
It is of course possible to stick with just one DVD, but it will require leaving out a lot.
Any thoughts/ideas?
Aaron _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Cannon<cannona@fireantproductions.com> wrote:
Like you, I have been watching dual layer DVDs, but the price is still quite high. Shop4tech.com has them for $2.50. It doesn't make sense considering that one single layer DVD costs just $0.26.
It's not about simple production costs; it's about the value of producing in quantity. Everyone and their brother have single layer DVD drives, so the media is produced in the billions. Dual layer drives are much rarer, so the media isn't mass-produced in the same quantities. However, looking at shop4tech.com, I'm seeing several offers of dual layer DVDs at ~$1.00 a DVD; are those not suitable for us for some reason? -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
Hi David. There's no reason that media wouldn't work. I apparently just didn't look hard enough. However, the other problem with publishing a dual layer DVD is that not as many people would be able to burn it, because, as you say, there aren't as many burners out there that can do dual layers. Other thoughts? Aaron On 7/16/09, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Cannon<cannona@fireantproductions.com> wrote:
Like you, I have been watching dual layer DVDs, but the price is still quite high. Shop4tech.com has them for $2.50. It doesn't make sense considering that one single layer DVD costs just $0.26.
It's not about simple production costs; it's about the value of producing in quantity. Everyone and their brother have single layer DVD drives, so the media is produced in the billions. Dual layer drives are much rarer, so the media isn't mass-produced in the same quantities. However, looking at shop4tech.com, I'm seeing several offers of dual layer DVDs at ~$1.00 a DVD; are those not suitable for us for some reason?
-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 08:28:23PM -0500, Aaron Cannon wrote:
Hi David.
There's no reason that media wouldn't work. I apparently just didn't look hard enough. However, the other problem with publishing a dual layer DVD is that not as many people would be able to burn it, because, as you say, there aren't as many burners out there that can do dual layers.
Other thoughts?
Aaron
It's time for a new DVD. The current DVD has the majority of all the PG content as .zip txt, plus a variety of other content in other formats. So, to do the same thing today would take somewhat more space (I don't know how much). It seems many modern drives can read dual-layer discs. Has anyone seen statistics on this? I think we could also releas the dual-layer content as a pair of DVD images, for those who would prefer it that way. It would allow us to retire the older DVD image. In fact, I would probably start a new dual-layer DVD image with the full contents of the "best of" CD (updated to reflect changes to the eBooks since then...maybe with a new call for "best of" nominations). These days, it seems fair to have only DVDs, not CDs. We can certainly afford to purchase a handful of external or internal dual-layer DVD writers for people willing to do the burning. Media are more expensive, but as David mentioned, we can shop around and buy in bulk to help offset costs. Generally, the CD/DVD giveaways have paid for themselves in returned donations, so I suspect they will remain self-supporting even if costs go up - we just need to ask, when discs are sent. -- Greg
On 7/16/09, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Aaron Cannon<cannona@fireantproductions.com> wrote:
Like you, I have been watching dual layer DVDs, but the price is still quite high. Shop4tech.com has them for $2.50. It doesn't make sense considering that one single layer DVD costs just $0.26.
It's not about simple production costs; it's about the value of producing in quantity. Everyone and their brother have single layer DVD drives, so the media is produced in the billions. Dual layer drives are much rarer, so the media isn't mass-produced in the same quantities. However, looking at shop4tech.com, I'm seeing several offers of dual layer DVDs at ~$1.00 a DVD; are those not suitable for us for some reason?
-- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero. _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Hi All, Actually, there are more DL-burners out thier than you think. As mentioned most should be able to read DL-DVDs. One thought though: If somebody is willing to download the 8 GB whether DL or two DVDs I do not think they will burn it. At least I have not burned the images I have. I have the images on my drive and just mount it when I need it. No fuss with having to carry a DVD along. It is also, possible to put the image or its content on a USB-stick. Second, if the users can burn a DVD they could divide it themselves. With a carefully crafted index.html and a little javascript magic one could easily divide the content among two DVDs. All they need to do edit the index.html in one place for the two DVDs. Another approach would be to use two directories for the content containing say DVD1 and DVD2. Then if somebody has a DL-burner s/he can you that and who only can burn single layer can do that. I see no big problem using DL-images. Then again I maybe to savvy. Personally I would prefer an image with all the PG-content zipped. I use to ftp the PG directories. But, at one point the guys at the unversity ask to me to take it easy because one day I had effectively used almost all bandwidth by using "get -r *.*". That was a long time ago, maybe I should try that again. All aside, I would suggest using the second model containing directories, this way in another couple of years we can use the same model for even larger images and we do not need to bother with what type of burner the user has whether it be single, DL or even Blue-ray, or whatever might appear. regards Keith.
Hi Greg, Keith and all. I found this quote at http://www.burnworld.com/howto/articles/intro-to-dual-layer.htm: "Dual layer DVD recordable discs offer up to four hours of high quality MPEG-2 video, or up to 8.5GB of data on a single-sided disc with two individual recordable “layers.” Dual layer capable recorders will have the ability to record on the new dual layer DVD recordable discs, as well as on traditional single layer DVD discs and CDs too. Want more? Because a recorded dual layer DVD disc is compliant with the DVD9 specification, the discs are compatible with most consumer DVD players and computer DVD-ROM drives already installed in the market." It reads as if it were written before DL burners became available (or shortly after the first ones were released), so hopefully the author knows of what he speaks. My initial tests have shown that just the zipped text content of all the books (excluding all HTML, and non-ebooks except for a little sheet music, and also excluding some of the larger data files such as the HGP files and the numbers) weighs in at about 5.5 GB. This is also excluding ASCII encoded files when UTF-8 or ISO-8859-X files are available. This does not exclude any images that were included in the zip files with the text version, nor does it exclude any copyrighted texts. 5.5 GB leaves us a good 3 GB more to play with. I think it would make more sense to offer the dual layer DVD ISO, and also offer two single-layer DVD .iso images for folks with only a single layer DVD burner. A lot of people who have emailed us in the past have had a hard time just burning the .ISO. If possible, I would like to keep things as simple as we can for them. I'll have to check to see if PG's 11-disc burner can handle dual layer drives, or if by any chance it already has such drives installed. It might take a firmware upgrade, but I would be surprised if it can't at least use DL drives. Greg, do you by chance have an easily accessible record of what model of duplicator we bought? If not, I can open it up and check the model numbers on the controler. I just don't have the email anymore, and there aren't any labels on the outside of the case. Thanks. Aaron On 7/17/09, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
Hi All,
Actually, there are more DL-burners out thier than you think. As mentioned most should be able to read DL-DVDs.
One thought though: If somebody is willing to download the 8 GB whether DL or two DVDs I do not think they will burn it. At least I have not burned the images I have. I have the images on my drive and just mount it when I need it. No fuss with having to carry a DVD along. It is also, possible to put the image or its content on a USB-stick.
Second, if the users can burn a DVD they could divide it themselves. With a carefully crafted index.html and a little javascript magic one could easily divide the content among two DVDs. All they need to do edit the index.html in one place for the two DVDs. Another approach would be to use two directories for the content containing say DVD1 and DVD2. Then if somebody has a DL-burner s/he can you that and who only can burn single layer can do that.
I see no big problem using DL-images. Then again I maybe to savvy. Personally I would prefer an image with all the PG-content zipped. I use to ftp the PG directories. But, at one point the guys at the unversity ask to me to take it easy because one day I had effectively used almost all bandwidth by using "get -r *.*". That was a long time ago, maybe I should try that again.
All aside, I would suggest using the second model containing directories, this way in another couple of years we can use the same model for even larger images and we do not need to bother with what type of burner the user has whether it be single, DL or even Blue-ray, or whatever might appear.
regards Keith.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
I was mistaken. It actually weighs in at 4.5. So, it does in fact fit on a single layer DVD (verified with Nero). In fact, we have about 87MB to spare. So, in light of this new information, the question is whether we want to create a DL DVD or not. Thoughts? Aaron On 7/17/09, Aaron Cannon <cannona@fireantproductions.com> wrote:
Hi Greg, Keith and all.
I found this quote at http://www.burnworld.com/howto/articles/intro-to-dual-layer.htm:
"Dual layer DVD recordable discs offer up to four hours of high quality MPEG-2 video, or up to 8.5GB of data on a single-sided disc with two individual recordable “layers.” Dual layer capable recorders will have the ability to record on the new dual layer DVD recordable discs, as well as on traditional single layer DVD discs and CDs too. Want more? Because a recorded dual layer DVD disc is compliant with the DVD9 specification, the discs are compatible with most consumer DVD players and computer DVD-ROM drives already installed in the market."
It reads as if it were written before DL burners became available (or shortly after the first ones were released), so hopefully the author knows of what he speaks.
My initial tests have shown that just the zipped text content of all the books (excluding all HTML, and non-ebooks except for a little sheet music, and also excluding some of the larger data files such as the HGP files and the numbers) weighs in at about 5.5 GB. This is also excluding ASCII encoded files when UTF-8 or ISO-8859-X files are available. This does not exclude any images that were included in the zip files with the text version, nor does it exclude any copyrighted texts.
5.5 GB leaves us a good 3 GB more to play with.
I think it would make more sense to offer the dual layer DVD ISO, and also offer two single-layer DVD .iso images for folks with only a single layer DVD burner. A lot of people who have emailed us in the past have had a hard time just burning the .ISO. If possible, I would like to keep things as simple as we can for them.
I'll have to check to see if PG's 11-disc burner can handle dual layer drives, or if by any chance it already has such drives installed. It might take a firmware upgrade, but I would be surprised if it can't at least use DL drives. Greg, do you by chance have an easily accessible record of what model of duplicator we bought? If not, I can open it up and check the model numbers on the controler. I just don't have the email anymore, and there aren't any labels on the outside of the case.
Thanks.
Aaron
On 7/17/09, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
Hi All,
Actually, there are more DL-burners out thier than you think. As mentioned most should be able to read DL-DVDs.
One thought though: If somebody is willing to download the 8 GB whether DL or two DVDs I do not think they will burn it. At least I have not burned the images I have. I have the images on my drive and just mount it when I need it. No fuss with having to carry a DVD along. It is also, possible to put the image or its content on a USB-stick.
Second, if the users can burn a DVD they could divide it themselves. With a carefully crafted index.html and a little javascript magic one could easily divide the content among two DVDs. All they need to do edit the index.html in one place for the two DVDs. Another approach would be to use two directories for the content containing say DVD1 and DVD2. Then if somebody has a DL-burner s/he can you that and who only can burn single layer can do that.
I see no big problem using DL-images. Then again I maybe to savvy. Personally I would prefer an image with all the PG-content zipped. I use to ftp the PG directories. But, at one point the guys at the unversity ask to me to take it easy because one day I had effectively used almost all bandwidth by using "get -r *.*". That was a long time ago, maybe I should try that again.
All aside, I would suggest using the second model containing directories, this way in another couple of years we can use the same model for even larger images and we do not need to bother with what type of burner the user has whether it be single, DL or even Blue-ray, or whatever might appear.
regards Keith.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Hi Aaron, Well it depends! Do we want to put the html zipped version on it or even non-ebooks? I believe some prefer html over text. Maybe a dual aproach. "normal DVD with text version and a DL with more on it. Of course it is possible to make two "normal" DVDs. I would prefer a DL. regards Keith. Am 18.07.2009 um 00:15 schrieb Aaron Cannon:
I was mistaken. It actually weighs in at 4.5. So, it does in fact fit on a single layer DVD (verified with Nero). In fact, we have about 87MB to spare. So, in light of this new information, the question is whether we want to create a DL DVD or not.
Thoughts?
That is in fact the question. Is the extra content worth the inconvenience and expense of the DL format and/or the creation of two discs? I personally could go either way, though just releasing one single layer DVD would be easier. Incidentally, I have compiled a list of files which will fit on 1 single layer DVD with about 87MB to spare. Whether we choose the single or dual layer, I propose that this list serve as a starting point. If anyone has any files that they feel should be included or excluded, please let me know. The list is available as tab delimited data at: (as a .zip file) http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/cdproject/dvdfiles.zip (as a .bz2 file) http://snowy.arsc.alaska.edu/cdproject/dvdfiles.csv.bz2 The data was generated as follows: 1. using the catalog.rdf file downloaded on July 14. 2. Removing all books that have a "type" assigned in the RDF record. This basically gets rid of almost everything that isn't an Ebook, including audio books, music, data, ETC. 3. removed books 2201 through 2224, books 11775 through 11855, and books 19159, 10802, 11220, and 3202. 4. removed files with formats pageimages, msword, text/xml, audio/mpeg, application/octet-stream type=anything, tei, html, pdf, rtf, tex, folio, palm, raider, and unspecified. In a few cases this removed entire titles, but in most cases, this just decreased the number of formats a given title was available in. 5. If a title was available in UTF-8 and/or ISO-8859-X, and also available in ASCII, then the ASCII version was not included. 6. If a book has a zipped and unzipped version in the archive, then only the zipped versions were kept. Again, suggestions are very welcome. Thanks. Aaron On 7/18/09, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
Hi Aaron,
Well it depends! Do we want to put the html zipped version on it or even non-ebooks?
I believe some prefer html over text. Maybe a dual aproach. "normal DVD with text version and a DL with more on it. Of course it is possible to make two "normal" DVDs. I would prefer a DL.
regards Keith.
Am 18.07.2009 um 00:15 schrieb Aaron Cannon:
I was mistaken. It actually weighs in at 4.5. So, it does in fact fit on a single layer DVD (verified with Nero). In fact, we have about 87MB to spare. So, in light of this new information, the question is whether we want to create a DL DVD or not.
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
participants (4)
-
Aaron Cannon -
David Starner -
Greg Newby -
Keith J. Schultz