AlbertEinstein
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AlbertEinstein
-
-
1 hour ago, dbminter said:
That sounds a bit slow for a BD-R. Unless it was a DL BD disc.
No, it's not. Although, I have some BD-R DL I have burned, this specific disc isn't that.
-
46 minutes ago, dbminter said:
I'm not familiar with that model. I have used the WH16NS40 and NS60 before. I used the NS60 for years. I never had such issues.
Firmware probably wouldn't make a difference in a case like this.
I just used ImgBurn to verify the disc and it finished in 12+ minutes. No reported errors. So, this is the randomness I speak of. But again, it might be more related to the Windows software than my hardware. ImgBurn had no trouble at all verifying the disc.
-
14 minutes ago, dbminter said:
A sector by sector read approach, as ImgBurn would do, would be faster than the somewhat brute force method that File Explorer does.
What BD drive are you using, BTW? The locked up responses sound more like hardware inconsistencies, which would be down to the drive. For instance, it rarely takes more than 10 seconds for a folder's contents on a BD-R to be recognized on my system in File Explorer.
My BD-R drive is an LG WH10LS30 with firmware 1.02 which is the latest available according to the LG support website.
-
8 minutes ago, dbminter said:
I have tended to notice varying degrees of response times for BD-R's. For instance, writing the LeadIn for a BD-R in ImgBurn can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 3 minutes and 30 seconds. There appears to be no rhyme or reason. Next time you think you need to kill the process, wait 5 minutes first just to be sure. 5 minutes is more than enough time.
Oh, I have believe me. I'm a patient person who likes to learn and understand things. But seriously, waiting 5 minutes for the bump'n'grind to stop just to get a damn root folder up on the screen tells me something isn't right. That's what I hate about optical media. When people laugh at me for still using it today I always have the reliability argument to fall back on. And I still stand by that argument. I think BD-R can last up to 20 years, let alone M-Disc lasting up to a 100 years. But this this painful bumping'n'grinding is what I hate about optical media. If that could be done away with somehow I would be more proud to use this older technology without question.
And btw, I think I have said this in times past, but it seems like ImgBurn can get a read on discs faster than Windows, at least sometimes. And I think that has to do with the way the software attempts to read the volume and file descriptors on the disc. So, there's that factor also in all of this craziness.
-
Okay, firstly, I burned the BD-R as a data disc. Yes, it contains some video clips in mostly .mp4 video container formats. But I wouldn't want to view all the videos to verify the quality of the burn. It contains all manner of different files besides video including images, text files, etc. So, just think of it as a data disc.
So, this flakiness I speak of means exactly that. Sometimes, I'll try to read the BD-R disc and Windows spins....*quitely* a few times to get synchronized to whatever the hell it's syncing up with and then it shows me the root folder on my optical media in the 'File Explorer" or a good old fashioned PowerShell prompt (I use both).
As I stated, sometimes this process is very quick, sometimes I hear a lot of bumping'n'grinding before I get the display of a root folder. And sometimes I have to end up killing the process because it's just not happening. Much like some blind dates in real life might go down...it's *just not happening*. So you kill the process.
And yes, this is on the same disc at different times.
-
I've recently mastered a freshly burned BD-R 25GB disc. Sometimes it seems to behave properly for the Windows OS and sometimes not. This randomness is the reliability of an optical media disc, literally, from day to day is what puzzles me most about optical media. Is it that flakey? What metrics, if any, can be used to check the quality of a burned disc, if that's even possible.
Thanks for reading!
-
Thank You very much for your reply. It's all that was needed to make me feel better about the wait. As long as there is progress I'm sure the wait will be worth it.
-
I have this intuition inside me that says it's best to first compress hundreds of small files into single larger files before backing up and burning this data to optical media. And the reason is the horrid noise making that occurs from my past experiences when Windows has to browse through a folder of small files, especially folder/files that are images.
I hate the constant grinding noises that occur when browsing optical media full of small files. So, I guess what I am saying (or asking) is should I be using my optical media to archive only and not browsing the data on it as though it were an acceptable device for browsing the data it holds, other than possibly video files which would be written, and likewise, read mostly sequentially anyway. And therefore be larger files by the same token.
-
I would like to know the state of this software. It's like a mystery. Is there a planned public release date? Is there a planned definite time frame for period of beta which would be to work out bugs and a public release target date for a newer version? I can't help but think the reason for all delays is related to monetary issues. If so, that's perfectly fine but keeping the user base is the dark is not going to effect those issues. At least, I wouldn't think so.
It seems like enough time has passed now to work out any bugs. But just some tidbit of what is going on behind the scenes would be nice.
-
Thank You very much for the help on this. I'll pass your comments on to the developers applications that fall short of this feature!
-
ImgBurn is, at the moment, the only software package on the Windows platform that I am aware of that supports the maximum character limit of 126 characters for an optical media label using the UDF file system. However, it is fully supported, again AFAIK, on almost every Linux operating system. I keep pushing everyone I can for the adoption of software developers, including Microsoft, to fix this shortcoming in their software packages. But one question I have is, how ImgBurn supports this feature when the Windows Operating System itself, does not? I would be very interested to know so that we could at least offer this solution to other developers interested in supporting the UDF file system properly.
-
Well, then why won't Microsoft fix this issue? Why does their crappy File Explorer still only show 32 bytes of data for a Volume label these days? I hate that crap!
-
I think your software got the fields backwards. I read in the UDF standard that the 'Volume Identifier' has a maximum length of 32 characters and it's actually the 'Volume Set Identifier' that get's the recommended maximum length of 128 characters.
Not that this matters all that much to me. Because I would rather get 128 characters for the 'Volume Identifier' as I never even really use the 'Volume Set Identifier' when authoring my discs. It's just something I realized today when reading over the standard. Your software has the names backwards but that's a good thing.
Anyhoo, looking forward to the next release of this software, if it ever happens.
-
3 hours ago, dbminter said:
I don't think such metadata is stored on discs themselves. That would require extra work that the disc manufacturers frankly don't want to do. I think the only kind of similar metadata to what you're looking for that is contained on a BD-R is the MID/DID.
What you could do in future is something I adopted. Put in the UDF Label field a brief description and maybe include the date. Or develop some kind of system like Stack 2023-05-19 Disc x. I also tend to, in Build Mode, put a folder and subfolder structure in the root directory with a description of the contents. This usually includes a folder named for the date when the disc was burned.
Thank You for your post. It's not a big deal really. I was just curious if the metadata was there somehow. I guess not. Maybe it's in that real small print literally on the inside ring of the disc? I'll pull out my magnifying glass out and see what I can deduce there. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. I use a regular old black Sharpie marker to label most of my media. It's a perfect stand-in until I find extra time and ambition to do up some fancy laser printed labels.
And if it's so damn hard to tell them apart then why treat them as such? LoL! I crack myself up!
-
I've bought multiple spindles of BD-R media and I was curious to know if I got 2 spindles discs mixed up somehow I could reorganize them into their proper spindle by way of a batch code or something unique that ties them all to a specific spindle? Like a manufacturer date or whatever?
-
On 5/6/2023 at 1:20 AM, ThaCrip said:
but yeah, flash media is appealing due to convenience as it seems many opt for convenience over long term data storage as I would never trust flash based media over optical media for long term data storage, especially if flash based storage is a persons only data backup source. with that said, flash based storage can be a nice additional backup source to more typical long term storage on hard drives and optical media though.
I totally agree with you. Optical media (BD-R @ 50 GB disc for me) plus flash for supplemental backups, not for long-term storage. Or more transient backups when you wanna move files between PCs in a physical way. It's all good.
-
On 4/28/2023 at 5:37 PM, ThaCrip said:
That's ultimately why CD/DVD is still a good option for long term data backup (I have a fair amount of DVD's from 10-15 years ago still working well today and scan well with KProbe which gives one a good ball park indication of burn quality etc) as long as one does not have a boatload of stuff to burn (lets say 'boat load' means TB's of data), it's practical. I never got into BD burning as it's not enough of a benefit for me to justify the initial investment cost and not only that CD/DVD are far more common/standardized among the masses to as it will be easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD many years from now than BD discs since just about any optical drive will read DVD's and all will read CD-R's basically. all-in-all, I prefer 4.7GB DVD for more limited high importance data backup (in addition to typical hard drive backups).
but besides a more limited amount of higher importance data I just backup data on regular hard drives since it offers the best storage space and reliability for the price for most data backup.
p.s. in terms of CD-R's... personally I almost exclusively use these for that occasion I want to burn a standard audio CD (ImgBurn can even overburn these to as on the standard Verbatim CD-R's (100-pack CMC Magnetics media code for about $20 for 100 discs) I have successfully burned to basically 82min15sec(shows up as 82min12sec on my standard CD player from the early 1990's and plays to the end without issue)) since standard audio CD's are still the best all-around available physical format available as the sound quality can't be improved upon since it already exceeds human hearing abilities as all of that 'HD' audio is marketing BS and just wastes storage space as standard 44.1/16bit is already more than good enough.
Well, I have to question your claim that CD's can't be improved on. I mean, you can buy flash/SDXC storage and use them in portable devices these days in most new vehicles. And there is no chance in hell of the disc skipping if you hit a large pothole. The sound quality of music on a flash stick would be the same as it is on a CD-R.
I think the biggest plus for optical media is the longevity of the burn and the cost per gigabyte if you get a good buy on the media whether it's CD-R, DVD-R, or BD-R. Of course, I use BD-R because they store 5x as much data as DVD's and up to 50x data over CD-R if you buy dual-layer. And for $5 a pop you could buy a BDXL disc to store 100GBs of data. That is equivalent to 1000 CD-Rs. No swapping of discs would be requiring but then again flash is the most convenient replacement for optical media these days. -
Just now, dbminter said:
Of course, LUK makes the final decisions regarding who is a beta tester, but I don't think we've had any new ones added in over 10 years. So, there probably aren't any openings for one right now. But, maybe you'll get lucky.
This whole project is a bit unusual. Last release over 10 years ago. I think there was a time when the thought of abandonment was in the head of the developer. I understand having to work for a living as I do also. But 2 year beta releases? How many beta testers does this project have now? And why wouldn't more beta testers be a good thing? I walk a fine line myself between walking away from optical media or not. I still think it's superior to the life of a 1 TB flash SSD but that's only because I have CD-R that have lasted over 20 years. That's some reliable shiaught!!!! So, I figure my BD-R will last that long as well.
Seriously, let me get in on this deal. I am actively burning the software and have used it for years.
-
Can I become a beta tester so that I can get the latest features? As long as my media aren't turned into coasters I can deal with bugs. And I try to master at least 1 BD-R a month. To back up data that I need to backup, not just for kicks and giggles. It's time consuming, trying to categorize what you want to burn and then doing it.
-
That warning dialog would absolutely help. I got question marks instead of smiley faces. I would see that instantly and be like, "Ahhh, hell nah!" And then I would fix it.
Thank You!
-
This was one of the best optical media mastering programs of it's time. It's a shame it appears to have been abandoned. I am here today after discovering yet another bug. I consider it a bug because there is no warning about what the user is about to do. And you see this in other area's of the software asking, "Are you sure you want to do that?".
I've discovered that, if you start a project by allowing Unicode support in the volume labels, entering in X number of Unicode characters into the label field. And then haphazardly going back to disable Unicode support in the labels, the ImgBurn software will not warn you that the final master will not be what you intended it to be? How did this situation arise to begin with? I'll tell you.
It happens when you eagerly start a label with Unicode characters but quickly realizing that you're volume label needs more than 66 (or whatever the max is) Unicode characters. So, this happened to me. I started my label with a few smiley faces for XXXXs and giggles. But then realized I needed more than 64 characters to describe all the data on the disc. I checked the "Disable Unicode support" box to double the volume label width and BOOM, no warning, no prompt, no erasure of the volume label to protect the user.
But this is just one gripe in a sea of many. What is the state of this software? If the author wants money to sell the rights, let us know. Open source this software if there's no interest in it anymore. Something, tell us something. This software is too good to just let it simply languish to death.
Case in point. Coincidentally on the same burn, there were several missing files that should have been where they were when they were added to the folder/file list but weren't. The software paused 5x so that I could add the missing files and I finished the burn without any issue whatsoever. That is amazing. Let's keep this goodness going.
-
I'm still using this software in spite of the few bugs it has. One of them I discovered recently has to do with when the log get's updated. It appears to only happen upon exiting the software. Which means, if you keep the software open over several days (which I do) and you perform several burn procedures over those several days (which I have) the log will not be as accurate as it should be.
I'd like to see this software updated, in spite of it's age, and it's dwindling utility in the world today. Shunned by some but, no means, by all.
-
I burned a new BD-R recently using Unicode characters with smiley faces. Okay, cool. But Microsoft's crappy File Explorer still only shows 32 characters. I submitted feedback telling them to update their crapware to support the 63/126 characters as stated in the OSTA UDF standard. But I couldn't pinpoint the exact section and field structure that verifies this. Can someone point that out to me? It just bugs me that the ImgBurn software is about the only optical media software to support this properly.
Yes, optical media is old, and less common, but I still think it's "dope" and I still use it. For awhile anyways. I hope they fix this someday soon!
-
53 minutes ago, LIGHTNING UK! said:
Yup, you're wrong.
"How long do you want me to fry. 5 years? 10 years? You want to play 'kick the dog' for the rest of your life?" I give up. Please do tell.
How can I check the quality of a mastered BD-R disc...by what metric/s is this goal achieved, more than one?
in ImgBurn Support
Posted
This is all well and good but I specifically do my burns at 2x because I'm very safe and conservative about the process. Does the burn speed literally burn the maximum read speed into the media as well?