Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
What oversimplification?

How is a disc not single layer if it's less than 12,219,392 sectors, or dual layer if it's greater?

- the original question had to do with whether it was the amount of data vs. whether the disc actually had data on one or two layers. So what would you call a disc that has 12,000,000 sectors of data written on a DL disc? That was one of the questions. You can't dismiss the question by simply choosing one of the answers and discounting other points of view.
- ever heard of "triple-layer"?
- ever take a look at the DVD specification and notice the overlap between DL and SL for +R?

(Seems like iPatsa beat me to it!)

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:

I have to question the motivation and agenda of the user who is changing discs with unused layers to dual layer.

Why do that? The person must think they are correct. The thread was started to ponder the question of correctness, not assail motives - that, to me, would be a really useless activity and count me out of that.

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
My question still stands. What possible use would it serve (to anyone) to classify discs with an unused layer dual layer? Still waiting for the answer.

Because the definition of Dual Layer (Industry Standard) does not require any data to be on the disc. Ever heard of a blank Dual Layer disc? This is useful because if you buy the wrong disc, your data will not fit, or your player will not handle it (e.g. XL triple layer). Question answered.

The question on the table is whether the Invelos definition requires data or not, based on the wording of the Rules.

This is at least the 2nd time I have answered you. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, I have no more to say to you on this matter.

Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I have no idea what in the world you are talking about...nor do I want to!

I am willing to bet that most of our users fall into this same boat.  I am also willing to bet that this discussion, and proposed fix, will mean very little to the average user.

Quoting TheMadMartian:

Quote:

I am willing to bet that most of our users fall into this same boat.  I am also willing to bet that this discussion, and proposed fix, will mean very little to the average user.

Something that applies to 99% of the discussions on this board... 

Quoting Grendell:

Quote:
There is NO useful reason whatsoever for the end user to know that a single layer Blu-Ray movie disc is actually stored on a BD-ROM that is dual layer, but the second layer is not used.

What usefull reason there is to know how much data the disc contains? People seem to think that more data equals better picture quality, but that isn't necessarily true. There are several variables which have an effect on picture/sound quality, for example video/audio bitrate, codec used for video/audio, amount of audio tracks, amount of extras etc. If we don't use dual layer info field just to define whether the disc has one or more layers (empty or not), why do we need at all? What usefull info does it tell us? 

Quote:
If a user is going in and changing profiles to dual layer if there is a second unused layer (however on Earth they are determining that)

By using correct a software for that function like VSO Inspector.

Practical use, I would say almost none.

Since this conversation is starting to turn nasty, this should be my last comment on the topic.  Everything that follows this is MY OPINION.

I have a problem using a filed called Dual-Layer for any purposes besides telling me how many layers the disc contains.  The field should NOT be re-appropriated to store any other data besides the number of layers the disc has.  And since we're only tracking the number of layers (it's not measured in GB), it works out to be very simple.

I'm hearing that other people don't like this; I guess they must use that information for other purposes.  And I'm fine with that.  But get a new field for whatever it is you're wanting to track.  This one already has a pretty clear definition, the number of layers on the disc.  If you want to use that number to infer some other attribute of the disc, that's fine.  If you want to put something other than the correct number of layers there because it's causing you to infer things incorrectly, get a new field and leave this one alone!  We DO have a feature request forum.

Finally, if you see no reason for doing things the way we are, too bad.  Unless you're Ken, you're understanding isn't a requirement. Just because *YOU* see no value in it doesn't mean others agree with you or that your limited understanding is correct.  Nor should your lack of understanding prevent those who do get it from discussing the topic.  Don't like the discussion?  Don't read it.