|
|
Posted by guv on 02/12/06 18:44
On 09 Feb 2006 21:35:40 GMT, "POD {Ò¿Ó}"
<DONT.EVEN.TRY.IT@DEADSPAM.COM> wrote:
>Finding Nemo would have been vastly more exciting had guv
><guv69@msn.com> been looking for him. instead of writing this in
>uk.media.dvd:
>
>> On 06 Feb 2006 21:38:44 GMT, "POD {Ò¿Ó}"
>> <DONT.EVEN.TRY.IT@DEADSPAM.COM> wrote:
>>
>>>Finding Nemo would have been vastly more exciting had guv
>>><guv69@msn.com> been looking for him. instead of writing this in
>>>news:7d1fu11cq9v2clfdo7nbhfhtl0pd5ou00r@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> It if performs a better burn, then surely that potentially makes it
>>>> more compatible?
>>>
>>>Not really, it's all down to symantecs. The compatability is all down
>>>to how it was authored, and it should play on anything, it's a quality
>>>issue, rather than a compatability one.
>>
>> If that were the case, burning the exact image should be the same
>> regardless. Ive had faster burns of an identical image cause the
>> "stutter" problems, but the slower burn play 100% ok - using the same
>> media from the same pack.
>Aye, the problem is your read laser, not coping too well with the
>quicker burn, it's not as acurate as it should be. The point I'm making
>is a pedantic one, in that it's not a compatability problem, but a
>quality issue.
Hmm. That sounds like the difference between pure water and H20 ?
--
www.senaction.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|