TCAS wrote:What you mean by saying "It wouldn't do it justice?, May be I can't read english?, could you explain.
You could not compare the visual differences by photo. Taking a picture of the disc would not accurately show you the printable layer's "performance". Even if the camera was really good, a lot of details can be easily missed if you are not able to personally inspect the disc.
As I have had the oppurtunity to sample the printing quality of quite some surfaces, I can deffinately say that I would not want to make my choices based off a photograph! For instance, one of the things that I always do when judging a printable surface is run my finger along it (unprinted) to see how smooth it is, and tilt in in several directions of the light, to see if there are crystallic elements to it (I don't know how else to put it, they look like tiny reflective crystals). But I suppose I have to be pickier then the average person, since the discs I use are laminated afterwards, and even tiny imperfections can be magnified by the process (although they are STILL noticable when not laminated).
Punch Cards -> Paper Tape -> Tape Drive -> 8" Floppy Diskette -> 5 1/4" Floppy Diskette -> 3 1/2" "Flippy" Diskette -> CD-R -> DVD±R -> BD-R
The Progression of Computer Media