Okay, right now I do have a HP Lightscribe dvd burner (don't know the model #) but it came with my HP Media Center PC.

I burned one of the photo on the lightscribe dvd by HP and used the best quality possible.

It burnt fine but I don't think it's really sharp or looked really good.

So I wonder if I got the cheap lightscribe dvd burner on my PC.

So my question is, if anyone here that has or knows the best quality lightscribe dvd burner out there that would burn the best quality photos and all onto the lightscribe dvds?

I really appreciate it.

Okay, right now I do have a HP Lightscribe dvd burner (don't know the model #) but it came with my HP Media Center PC.

I burned one of the photo on the lightscribe dvd by HP and used the best quality possible.

It burnt fine but I don't think it's really sharp or looked really good.

So I wonder if I got the cheap lightscribe dvd burner on my PC.

So my question is, if anyone here that has or knows the best quality lightscribe dvd burner out there that would burn the best quality photos and all onto the lightscribe dvds?

I really appreciate it.

The technology is generic, so it should not vary from one drive to another.
The variation would exist in the media as the production process can possible produce such variances.

There are several options available to you.

The first option is to re-insert the disc and burn the same label again. You do have the ability to burn that label as many times as you choose and it shows more contrast with each repetition.

The second option is to try one of the more recent media that uses the new Lightscribe 1.2 technology instead of the older Lightscribe 1.1. These new media has reduced labelling time and better contrast.

The third option is to employ the use of the HP Lightscribe Extended Label Contrast Utility. It extends the labelling time to produce better contrast. Application of the utility will vary based on what version of the Lightscribe Driver is installed on your system.

The final option is to convert the images used in the label to black and white before applying them to the label. The contrast can then be optimized for maximum enhancement.

Lightscribe is a gimmick in my opinion.

Good idea in theory, and fun the first few times, but in practice it produces poor results compared to printing, and it's slow.

I'd rather just buy a decent printer that can print direct to CD's/DVD's, like one of the Canon Pixma range, which aren't that expensive.

I totaly agree with Insomniac on this, i have a lightscribe burner NEC DVD/RW ND-4551A, not impressed with the results, so i dont bother using it for this.

colin.

I totaly agree with Insomniac on this, i have a lightscribe burner NEC DVD/RW ND-4551A, not impressed with the results, so i dont bother using it for this.

colin.

I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
The NEC drives do not employ the use of the Lightscribe technology, but rather the LabelFlash technology.
The basic principles and end results are similar.

Direct to Disc labelling will not impress everyone.
I agree that a single-pass etch is quite unimpressive.
However, for those who don't mind the time, multi-pass etching can be rather impressive.

Although I do not advocate the use of Direct Labelling for everyday use, it is certainly a better alternative than using a Sharpie marker when one desire to present a professional looking product.

One could also argue that a printer that prints labels directly to inkjet printable CDs/DVDs would be a better alternative.

There was a point when I also had reservations regarding the technology.
But until you have actually had first hand experience with the different possibilities of this technology, it is unfair to pass judgement.
While I have not completely embrassed the technology, I would not employ the use of the word "gimmick". The technology is still in it's infant stages and will probably evolve into a more practical and economical labelling system in the future.

Observe the difference between single-pass and multi-pass in the Lightscribe Review.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/239/5

I'm afraid you are mistaken here.
The NEC drives do not employ the use of the Lightscribe technology, but rather the LabelFlash technology.
The basic principles and end results are similar.

The technology is still in it's infant stages and will probably evolve into a more practical and economical labelling system in the future.



I'm afraid you're mistaken here.

It's called LabelFlash to avoid royalty payments, the end result is the same and you couldn't pick the difference (even though LabelFlash has a few advantages over LightScribe), so what's your point?


And how do you figure it's a new technology?

Drives have been available for well over a year, and HP were talking about it over 2 yrs ago.

That's an eternity in technology.


Basically, it's a niche product that will satisfy a small sector of the market.......

It's called LabelFlash to avoid royalty payments, the end result is the same and you couldn't pick the difference (even though LabelFlash has a few advantages over LightScribe), so what's your point?


Actually, I thought the point was quite clear.
I corrected chandler68 because the NEC ND-4551 uses the LabelFlash technology and not LightScribe as he stated.
Currently, NEC is the only optical drive manufacturer that employs this technology.

Lightscribe is applicable to CDRs and DVD+R media and etches only on the label side of the media.
LabelFlash is applicable only to DVD+R media and etches on both the label and data side of the media.

It's called LabelFlash to avoid royalty payments
LabelFlash was announced October 19, 2005 by Yamaha Corporation and Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
LightScribe was announced on January 4, 2004 by HP.
Besides the fact the the end results both technology are similar, I fail to see how royalty comes into play. Different technologies introduced by different companies using lasers that operate at different frequencies and different media has no relevance to royalty payments.
Your statement would lead one to believe that LightScribe and LabelFlash are the same but LabelFlash was renamed to avoid royalty payments.
This rumor is simply not true.
Since there are no patents on direct disc labelling technologies, what we have here are several companies with competing technologies that have similar results.


And how do you figure it's a new technology?

Drives have been available for well over a year, and HP were talking about it over 2 yrs ago.

That's an eternity in technology.

Advancements in technology are not measured chronologicaly. Advancements are measured by the evolution of the technology regardless of time.
For example:
The LabelFlash technology is based on Yamaha's Disc T@2 technology was debut over four years ago. Evolution was stagnant and most people never heard of this. Currently LabelFlash is not available to some countries, notably it is not (and may never be) available in the USA. Consequently, it is fair to say that the average PC consumer is not even aware of the existence of the technology in the USA. I would say that the technology is new, wouldn't you?
New would describe the level of awareness possessed by the consumer.
Regardless of how long the technology has been in development, it remains new to the consumer when introduced.
Quite frankly, the average consumer is aware of neither Lightscribe nor LabelFlash. Therefore the technology is new as such.

I would agree with you that the current status of either products is as such that you would be correct in describing the technology as a niche product in terms of applications based on current consumer awareness.

I apologise to all for hijacking this thread. I will desist and allow the discussions to continue on topic.

You aren't hijacking this thread, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and frankly if more people expressed it, forums would be a better place.

Anyway, no use going on about it, you obviously like the technology or think it may have a promising future, and I obviously don't.


(Point regarding the names are the end result is the same and you couldn't tell the difference, so it's irrelevant as far as this topic and thread is concerned)