Jump to content

Talk:LightScribe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should the development status changed?

[edit]

Because the webside isn't available any more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.122.193.28 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChqrC (talk • contribs) [reply]

Should it be added?

[edit]

To write the labels the disks must be upside down in the CD/DVD driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.122.193.28 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions... "Another interesting modification is to place the burned disk label side down onto a photosensitive PCB and expose the (CDR) side to UV light, producing a PCB for the cost of a lightscribe disk and the blank PCB material."

Not everyone knows what a PCB is, or at least I don't. An explaination or link to one would be helpful. Whatever it is, it does sound interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.83.44 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A PCB is a printed circuit board. But I doubt this would work because I doubt that the unburned disc is transparent to UV light. I think the possibility of photoresist etching based on this should be removed from the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

[edit]

I am curious as to how high-resolution this is. The pitch of the tracks in a DVD is very fine, so this technique should be extremely capable speaking of resolution strictly. Maybe somewhat hampered by the curvature of the printed lines though? Not sure how well the adjacent circles will really match up though, they probably match up much worse than the in-track dots do.... Otoh inkjets have a very high resolution aswell but I think a DVD laser easily bests them

Agreed. Somebody report on the resolution.--Kramers.ws (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I don't remember the details. When burning DVD data the laser is running at very high resolution, both in terms of width of the spiral and how rapidly it changes from one state to the other. But when burning content for us people to see, the disk spins more slowly and absorbs a lot more heat. Presumably that spreads the area that changes for more than just the bit targeted. Also note that the LightScribe image is done as a series of concentric circles, not a single spiral. SteveLoughran (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LightScribe claims the resolution to be the equivalent of 1,200 dpi. I say "equivalent" because it does not print in dots per inch, but rather in a series of concentric circles as stated above. Text, by default, will burn at the drives maximum output resolution, presumably 1,200 dpi. Line art and photographic images should be at least 250 dpi otherwise they appear "washed out". Image files that are 1500px X 1500px (300 dpi) seem to work best. Higher resolution can be used, but will slow done the print process considerably and the quality of the print is virtually indistinguishable from it's 300 dpi counterpart.--Beetlejoos (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just tidying up.

[edit]

This article, although it's a stub, is poorly written for an encyclopedia article, and contains information that actually constitutes a new article.

I'm going to move the "Improving Image Quality" section to another article, "LightScribe Image Quality."

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the technology to really write an article, but I'll do my best throughout the evening and see where it all ends up.

I am not the original author of this article. But I have experience with articles that aren't up to par (having tried to write a few of them), so I'll try to get it right, this time.

Changes...

[edit]

Removed "stub" because this article seems complete enough so that it is no longer a stub, added categories.

"The Lightscribe Template Labeler and Simple Labeler software will not install in Windows 8 or 8.1 (Template Labeler not even in compatibility mode)."

The most recent version of Simple Labeller works fine on Windows 8/8.1. However, the Control Panel setting for darker labels no longer works in 8.1 (x64 at least). Paul Coddington (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optical disc authoring technology

[edit]

I've added a section to Optical disc authoring technology (a new article) of which this is now the "main section" -- please expand that paragraph as appropriate. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 12:24Z

IS this even "authoring"? The authoring article refers to data, not labeling discs, which this essentially is. Alvis 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Place Sentences.

[edit]

Because the labels are laser-etched--not printed--there's no ink, no smudging, and no peeling. Your labels can be whatever you want them to be. Create one-of-a-kind designs with your own photos, text, and artwork using your label-making software. Or choose from the many free backgrounds the software provides.

These sentences look like they're trying to sell you LightScribe rather than tell you what it is. I won't remove it myself, though, I'll just give my opinion. --CCFreak2K 08:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


missing date

[edit]

When was lightscribe invented? or when it was released to the public? Please add this information to the article MarioV 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software support

[edit]

There should be a section for LightScribe enabled software here. I know Nero has support for it, since version 7 I think. Rob Enduro 05:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Better Description

[edit]

I have added a better product description. Exothermic Reaction —Preceding comment was added at 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawbacks

[edit]

My experience with LightScribe suggests that it burns discs slowly -- around 20 - 25 minutes for a basic design. The article should address the technology's drawbacks to ensure that this is not a "puff piece" for HP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider adding a section on limitations. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the "Drawbacks" part is blown way out of proportion. It looks like some competitor is trying to bad mouth the product. Compare, for example, with the "LabelFlash" article that doesn't even have a "Drawbacks" paragraph ... Lupusmaximus (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the last paragraph (regarding how long it takes to create a LightScribe label) from the Drawbacks section. The claim of the average time to create a LightScribe label is uncited; according to information at the LightScribe and LabelFlash websites, the burn times for the two technologies are similar; and 20 minutes is within the claimed burn time for both LightScribe and LabelFlash. Furthermore, listing the claim that burning a LightScribe label takes longer than burning data onto the disc is unreasonable - it has not been established and documented that there is an expectation that the two operations would take a similar amount of time. After all, it may take longer to paint a house than it does to install carpet, but that is not seen as a drawback of painting the house. AtxApril (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File format?

[edit]

How do I create such an image that I can use with LightScribe software? Is there any special file format I should use? SVG? PNG? BMP? Is there any resolution I should use? 1200x1200? -- Frap (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, wikipedia isn't a place for questions. Try a help desk Nil Einne (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well probably either JPEG or PNG would work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.111.197 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements

[edit]

I've noticed two conflicting statements about the quality of successive burns. this sentence, from the 'mode of operation' section: "Each successive labeling will darken the blacks and generally produce a better image, and the successive burns will register up perfectly" does not agree with this sentence from the 'drawbacks' section: "Multiple Lightscribes, of the same image, increases contrast, but the image quality decreases with increased burns. Noticeable contrast variations are seen in solid shades" Nacnud89 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the statements are so much conflicting as opposed to poorly worded. It sounds like the contrast improves with succcessive burns and successive burns register perfectly. However with an increase in contrast you also get greater contrast variation. Whether or not the image is better quality depends on your POV Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that belongs in the 'drawbacks' section in the first place. I mean, the same can be said about a pencil! Write something down, and then keep rewriting over it repeatedly, and it'll get darker and darker, but probably won't be as uniform or have as perfect of edges. But I think we can agree that that'd be pretty silly to list as a 'drawback' in the pencil article! 139.57.100.71 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big drawback for audio

[edit]

Hi, personal experience and links discussing problems (e.g. http://www.cdrinfo.com/forum/tm.asp?m=133171) led me to contact my reseller of lightscribe disks. It seems the dye colour of the data side of most Lightscribe CDRs are generally more blue/green rather than silvery and are consequently less compatible with older CD playing audio equipment. I'm not a regular wiki editor and don't want to upset anybody by not following protocol or something so if somebody is able to update the article for other users benefit then thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.124.103 (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disk" v. "Disc"

[edit]

This article refers to the LightScribe media as a "disk." Shouldn't this be "disc"? I thought "disk" referred to magnetic media as in floppy or Zip disks, but optical media is spelled "disc" as in "Compact Disc Digital Audio." Then again, maybe nobody cares and I'm just nitpicking. 75.67.222.253 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, optical media is traditionally referred to with the "disc" spelling. There are no exact rules, we only have written tradition to rely on. Disk is an Americanized spelling of the word disc (which comes from the Latin "discus" which in turn comes from the Greek "diskos"). It was adopted for computing in 1947 and has been used ever since ... except for optical media. Changed occurrences of "disk" to "disc". Xot (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LightScribe Media Version 1.2 (MV 1.2)

[edit]

This is a link to a short Verbatim PDF discussing LightScribe Media Version 1.2 (MV 1.2).

http://www.verbatim.com.au/brochures/LightScribe_12.pdf

Apparently MV 1.2 can be used on all LightScribe burners having an appropriate software upgrade. Wikipboh (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Contradiction?

[edit]

The current last sentence in the "Mode of operation" section is:

Each successive labeling will darken the blacks and generally produce a better image, and the successive burns will be perfectly aligned.

The current last sentence in the "Drawbacks" section is:

Multiple Lightscribes of the same image increases contrast, but the image quality decreases with successive burns. Noticeable contrast variations are seen in solid shades.

Can someone more knowledgeable about the technology identify whether this is a contradiction? It seems to me that alignment is directly related to image quality. davewho2 05:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no reference, but personal experience shows the registration on re-burning is not perfect. Two light burns are much blurrier than a single dark burn. Paul Coddington (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

= Etching?

[edit]

The word "etching" usually refers to some process that involves the removal of material, historically by chemical means. (Refer to the Wikipedia article!) Since at least the 1970's, the then new-fangled laser was used to create patterns by vaporizing material from a surface. However, Lightscribing does not create its pattern by removal of material, as the article itself states. Rather, the laser beam transforms material from a light shade to a darker shade. The article uses the terms "etch" and "laser-etch", which can be very confusing to someone who has never seen a lightscribed disc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPHS61 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lightscribe is pretty dead.

[edit]

nowadays it is nearly impossible to buy lightscribe drives in the western world. only LG is still manufacturing and supply of media is shaky at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crass Spektakel (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on LightScribe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LightScribe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

--84.147.42.121 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:LightScribe&oldid=1206026927"