AlbertEinstein

I thought the File Systems and the TOC were the same thing. Thank you for the clarification on that.

What do you mean by "it's really down to simply what the drive does"? Aren't there many factors that determine the burn speed? Isn't the rated burn speed hardcoded into the media itself? Of course, since there are varying reports on this, as revealed in the BurnPlot images below, it seems it is somewhat dynamic which is good for the consumer in the event that 8x doesn't seem appropriate. I have a stellar burn history using my LG burner and RiTek data discs as shown in the custom image I created using multiple windows from BurnPlot: The last plot showing the "Speed End" @ 2x was, I believe, due to high CPU usage activity on my system. You know the nature of Windows 10 these days is to constantly be updating itself. I tried, yet another burn, last evening and it failed at 98%. These failures near the end are just weird, abnormal, and not in line with past burn performances. I honestly think there's something else that has changed. I've added an old USB Lexmark printer and I've updated Windows 10 twice under the Insiders program. My burn success rate has only gone down most recently, over the last 3 or 4 burns. I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with my burner or the quality of my media. I will keep searching for answers. I will solve this riddle, I hope. The first error was a "Loss of streaming error" and then they're all this one: The disc is mostly still good as in the past. I successfully sha-1 verified the biggest 5 files over 20+ GB...again.

So your saying there is a pre-allocated finite amount of physical disc space set aside for the TOC, i.e., the file system information? The number of files/folders in each individual project doesn't have a direct impact on the final physical disc space required to store this information relative to the number of folders/files? That may be true when 1 file system is burned to a BD-R disc. I don't know for sure. But what I do know by experience is that even when the "free space bar" has been in "the green", your project will warn about not having enough disc space when multiple file systems are included for backwards compatibility. I've had to remove these 1 at a time, starting with the most horrendous "Joliet" file system and then "ISO-9660". This may be a special case because it's burning multiple file systems to the disc. None the less, it raises my eyebrows, each time this happens. Although, I'm getting to the point where I care less and less about backwards compatibility. This quest is all about understanding though.

I'll definitely be watching my P's and Q's when I execute my next burn. I still have about 10 blank RiData discs left on the spindle. I'm taking everything in I can to make sure the next burn doesn't fail, if that's possible. Another issue for me that has been completely unpredictable is the max burn speed of these discs. Looking back over some recent graphs in DVDInfoPro and just generally watching the ImgBurn software as it actually burns, I've noticed some burns reach a max speed of 8x which is twice the rated speed of these BD-R discs. But I also noticed, a recent burn which was successful, prior to this last (failed) burn, burned all the way through at only 2x. I didn't have any say in the burn speed as I always just leave "max" selected. Maybe I'll try restricting the rest of these BD-R's to 2x burn speeds. And examining the bottom surface for any visible issues prior to the burns. ***EDIT***: I'm noticing in these 2 graphs that the "Capacity" differs in sectors between discs by about 32 sectors. That's very interesting. The bottom image shows no sector was left unburned while the top one had 3000+ unused sectors. Or is that difference in "Capacity" sectors the difference representing the sectors used for the TOC? Nope, scratch that theory. The Capacity/Data numbers in the bottom graph are the same which would mean, by my theory, no space was used for TOC and that's not logical. Shouldn't that "Capacity" value in sectors be the "exact same value" on every disc in a spindle? God, not even the same in a spindle but consistently the same across discs and even spindles as a media standard? If it's true that each disc varies in it's quality near the edge, even in a given spindle, then my filling these discs to capacity is exactly what's causing these bad burns. These 2 images represent successful burns but they still seem to provide some valuable insight about the inconsistencies between discs If I'm reading the graphs right. *****EDIT*****: So the first image shows the burn failed @ sector 12,190,752 out of a total of 12,219,392 sectors which means there was about 59 MB's of available physical disc space left it could have burned. Is the TOC written at the end of the disc and is it written at the end of the burn process or at the beginning of the burn process? What about the lead-out which is nothing but empty space/sectors, how much space does that require? I'd like to eliminate the possibility that ImgBurn is not fully accounting for all the space that may be required to fully process a disc being burnt to full capacity.

@dbminter, The disc burned successfully up to 99% completion. If a scratch caused the burn failure at 99% completion it would be visible at the extreme outer edges of the disc. From what I can see on the disc, the physical location of this scratch looks like it would be encountered at about 75-80% through the burn process if it were already on there. The picture shows the largest portion of the circular scratches. There is a second smaller one also. As you can see, the scratch lines up perfectly with the natural spiral track of the disc as well. I honestly wonder if the disc is getting scratched up, post burn, from all the bumping and grinding that the drive engages in because of the disc not being in a perfect state of completion with an accepted optical disc file system standard. The drive tries really, really hard to read the disc when I go into ImgBurn's "Read Mode" and it does it successfully after a lot of bumping and grinding. This seems the more likely cause of the scratches I see on the disc. Maybe the spindle motor is getting so old that it's wobbling and rubbing the disc the wrong way. Or, what looks like a scratch is where the laser was positioned when the software attempted to close the disc session and that's where the laser has written twice over itself? I'm just guessing. Nah, the scratch would be more uniform through 360 degrees of the disc.

Then be surprised my friend. I state again that I successfully sha-1 verified over 20+GB of data across 5 .ISO files...on this disc. I will say this. The drive makes a lot of noise when it's being read by your software. It's obviously messed up and I'll probably just end up recycling this one with all my other older DVDs and bad BD-R burns. In fact, I took the disc out and visually examined it under a desk lamp. You can see what appears to be scratches on the disc. But they must be laser scratches of some sort because I never scratched the disc. The whole experience is bizarre. I guess I should take more notice when people recommend a certain brand of media. I don't know though. Some burns are perfect, some aren't. It's just the nature of the beast I guess.

@LIGHTNING UK! It took me awhile to figure out that you meant to go into "Read Mode" in ImgBurn. I never could find it in DVDInfoPro. I captured the topmost portion of the Window in ImgBurn but it wouldn't all fit. Here's a little bit more just in text form that got cut off from the image: File System Information: Sectors: 12,218,810 Size: 25,024,122,880 bytes Time: 2715:19:35 (MM:SS:FF) TOC Information: Session 1... (LBA: 0) -> Track 01 (Mode 1, LBA: 0 - 5898559) -> LeadOut (LBA: 5898560) It "looks like" the ImgBurn software misread the size of the disc when it attempted to write the lead-out and so the lead-out was written at the wrong LBA making the disc look like half it's actual size. It does show that the size is only half of what it actually is in the top portion of the image. But on bottom it shows double. So, the metadata about the disc is a little off but I did successfully read 20+ GB of data. So, DVDInfoPro cannot be held completely responsible for the erroneous information on the total amount of data on the disc. @dbminter, I've been very happy with my LG drive. The bad burns have been at a very low percentage and when they occurred I almost feel like the blame lies on me. For trying to fill discs to capacity or letting screen savers kick in while AFK making coffee. Or just weird stuff. So, my experience with this LG burner has been nothing but positive. Even the bad burn today isn't a total waste. It's just not up to specs but that doesn't affect (most of) the data at all. I have yet to purchase any DL media. I've been waiting and waiting for the prices to get as low as they can. I'll probably buy some soon when I catch a good sale. I will let you in on a little secret though. After checking my purchase date on this drive it's going on 7+ years of age. I bought it at the end of 2010. I think the spindle motor may fail soon but who knows for sure. It makes some really weird sounds sometimes. Weird sounds but, in reality, "normal" for an optical disc drive.

LG drives are rotten? I'm sorry but I don't think so. This is certainly an issue I'd like to resolve but I think your jumping to the wrong conclusions. Like I said, I've burned...oh wow...I don't know...50-75 BD-R and most are without issues. But out of those 50-75 burns only about 25 were customized by me. Being filled to capacity as much as possible. I'm not that worried about getting an extra 1% of disc space if I have to pay a hefty premium on a better brand BD-R disc. Now, if I see some Verbatim on a good sale price, after I burn out all my current stock, I might give it a shot. This isn't the biggest issue in the world because I can simply dial back my neurotic tendencies a bit and stop filling the disc so full. But from a technical standpoint I would like to know what's wrong. I tend to agree with you, it's probably my current media being a bit cheap. I wouldn't be so quick to blame the burner itself. I think LG is a good brand! On another side note, what's up with the DVDInfoPro software? Not so pro thinking there's only 11.25GB of data on the disc. I sha-1 verified 5 files having over 20GB+ of combined data on the disc with "Hash Check Shell Extension" in Windows 10. So, I'm pretty sure the DVDInfoPro is wrong. Theres 1 movie clip at the end of the disc that won't play around 10 minutes near the end which matches up pretty closely with the 99% burn completion on the screenshot I took. Edit: Come to think of it though. Those first 50 BD-R discs I burned may have been Optical Quantum brand discs. So many possible factors, so little time.

I've burned a lot of BD-R discs successfully. Now, I'm not monitoring the situation that closely to know how much space I'm leaving free on each disc. But this is really only my second bad burn at 99% in the burn process that I can recall in my most recent disc burns. I've burned 2 discs prior to this one at 100% success rate. I'll check the free space on those to see what I left open. If I have to I'll just start leaving a little more free space in my burn projects.

Since you cannot get log files when the software doesn't complete a burn successfully I've resorted to screen captures. Here they are: Of course, the software is not able to successfully close the disc and the infinite grinding loop continues until I reboot the PC. As far as I can tell there are no errors on the disc itself. I've taken the liberty of writing .sha-1 hash files for all of the biggest files burned so I will check those. While this looks pretty bad and it's no fun having to jump through all the hoops by "attempting" to close the session and actually having to reboot the PC, the burn still seems to be okay. I left about 1 megabyte of free space on the BD-R in the project editor window. So, I am filling these discs to capacity. I think there may be an issue somewhere in that regard. Maybe the discs I'm using are about 200 sectors shy of meeting the official BD-R requirements? To fill my discs full, I am burning some small files in the name of redundancy. How can I control what folders/files would literally be burned near the end of the discs where this type of failure is most likely to occur? I want to engage in this practice. Okay, I just tested a small video file near the end of the disc. It does appear to be messed up near the end of the video. So, it looks like the files are written to disc in the order of the actual folder/file structure used to master the disc. No worries. 99% good, I'll burn the bad file to another disc. Still, what's causing this? DVDInfoPro thinks the disc is only half full:

Yep, it's amazing how much data you can collect over the years. I'm a bit of a digital hoarder. That's probably putting it a bit mildly. Lots of images, text files, programming projects from Visual Studio over several years, scanned documents, etc, etc. Yes, I have almost always used the "Advanced" input mode. I switched it to "Standard" just now to see what that even looks like. My first impression was that I've gone blind and have to navigate everywhere now blindly. It just looked scary to me. But, I might play with it a bit and see if I can get used to it. Okay, I played with it. So, I tried "Standard" input. Not being able to see how much space I have left as I go? Yeah....ummm......no. Hehehehe. That mode looks so very primitive when compared to the "Advanced" input mode. Honestly, I think the modes are named backwards. The advanced mode, to me, seems 10x harder to use. I fill my discs up as full as possible and that requires a lot of adding/removing files to get things just right. If I'm not using at least 99% of the full capacity I'm not happy. The issue with your software isn't such a big deal now that I understand it. But I honestly thought it would be easier than you make it sound. I thought as the programmer you could work on a large task in chunks and then tell Windows, "Okay, I'm done for a bit but I'm going to give control back to you just long enough for you to hand it back to me again". I've also thought about zipping a lot of my smaller files, like images, and programming documents, into single files. The sound the optical drive makes when reading/copying lots of really small files off an optical disc is just horrible. It's like the optical laser is just bouncing around looking for stuff more than it is actually reading data. So, at the end of the day, there's always a solution to the problem. Just an FYI for you if you can come up with anything. Maybe a simple check that looks at how many files are in a users project and throws up a warning dialog before it's starts grinding away? "****WARNING**** Your project contains a ridiculously large amount of files. You've been flagged as a digital hoarder. This software may appear as though it's not responding. So, patience is a virtue!".

I am working on a project right now with 74k+ files and 13k+ folders. When I load the project the CPU usage goes sky high and Windows 10 reports the application as not responding. I closed your application 2 or 3 times thinking it was crashed before I realized that if I waited long enough that it would eventually begin responding again. I'm guessing at least 60 seconds (I counted a second time at about 72 seconds) passed before your application responded again. Can you release control of your application to Windows 10 on a more regular basis "or" provide visual feedback to the user that shows progress is being made and ask for patience? The waiting and not knowing if anything is happening combination is what makes the situation more frustrating than it needs to be, I think. On top the fact that Windows 10 actually shows "Not Responding" in the title of your application also.

I'm sorry I don't see any data related to the failed burn in the log. I think you've stated in the past when the application exits the wrong way that the log data is not written? Your application tried to "close the session", I think, and the drive tried but never would stop growling. So, I had to do things the hard way. So, that's what happened. I'm going to wise up and start using my screen capturing utilities like GreenShot and ShareX or even just the Windows print screen function. Because there are Windows that pop up with the specific error messages in them. I just never can remember exactly what they say. The last one was something about a stream or streaming error. There was no power loss. New question for you: I'm working on a new project to burn and your software complained about filenames being the same in a folder on my hard drive. And they actually are the same, except for casing in the file extension. I have a lot of images that have the same filenames but the extensions are .jpg and .JPG. That is enough for Windows 10 NTFS to "allow" the duplicate filenames I guess. Since they exists that way. Your application detects them as the same and offers to rename them. Your hands may be tied on this issue but I was just curious if this is something you could fix in a future version. No big deal for me to just give each set of files their own folder to avoid all of the brouhaha.

I just burned a 25GB BD-R. I went to make a cup of coffee while I let the BD-R finish burning. I came back and my screen had gone black. I have my screen set to turn off after 10 minutes. The system is set to go to sleep in 30 minutes. But I know I wasn't away from my computer that long. I had to enter my password to get back to the Windows desktop. It looks like the burn was 98% finished. The software put up some weird error on the screen about a streaming error or something. It asked me if I wanted it to try and close the session. So, I said yes. The BD-R drive moaned and groaned for a good 3 or 4 minutes before I got tired of it and just rebooted Windows to save the BD-R motor from burning up. When I got back into Windows 10 I checked the disc and it is readable so it's not a complete loss. I think at the moment my screen turned off the burn got messed up somehow. Or it got messed up from me just hitting "enter" on the keyboard to wake up the screen and enter my Windows log on pasword. Can you please confirm anything I have said here? I honestly think this messed up burn @ 99% finish is wholly related to the screen shutting down and then being woken back up by me. Maybe if I had just waited until I heard my BD-R drive stop spinning everything would have been okay? Obviously, in the future, I'm going to try and not be away from the keyboard so long so I don't take any chances. But what are you thoughts on this issue? Thanks for reading!

Can you please explain this message (link below) in a bit more detail? Does this mean the same thing as just burning a disc without having done any tests? If that's the case then there's no more chance of ruining a good disc opting into "Test Mode" then having skipped the test. https://imgur.com/ftsXnFN The way you word the message in the dialog makes me pause and ask myself, "My God. What am I doing. Do I really want to test this disc?" Also, can you please explain what the test would actually reveal? Is "Test Mode" good to find bad sectors in advance that might be a result of a finger/thumb print smudge or dust particle that could be wiped clean and then pass? Thanks for reading!

Again to be clear, I'm talking about ejecting the disc while the software is frozen, that is waiting, for a response from the user. Not just ejecting the disc willy nilly while it's writing data. I appreciate your comments but you sound like your guessing as much as I am. My impression was that since the software is basically at a stand still, waiting for you to answer, "Yes, please retry" or "No, just close the disc" and there is no timer as to how soon you need to respond, that at this point, the process is basically frozen until you respond. Like I said, thank you for your input but I hope to get a more definitive answer soon that tells me what I want to hear. "Yes, you can take the disc out and try to clean it without harming the current process. Good day to you sir. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as well!!!'. That's what I want to hear.

About a week ago I was burning a single-layer BD-R disc. And shortly after I began the burn process I got a warning window that popped up. I don't remember the exact error message. But to the best of my recollection it was something like "Cannot interpet" or "Bad interpretation". I just don't know. Anyway, the software kept asking me if I would like to re-try (re-reading the bad sector I'm guessing) so I kept hitting re-try a few times. But after several re-try attempts I just said, "fuh-get-about-it" and had the ImgBurn software close the disc so I would have a successful yet very small partially burned BD-R. I wanted to take the disc completely out of the burner in between these re-try requests and see if I could spot check the disc for stray dust particles and wipe it clean if necessary. But I was also afraid that the software might abort the burn completely and I would have nothing but a completely worthless BD-R. So, my question is, can I physically eject a BD-R disc mid-burn (obviously during these pop-up window messages) and check it for stray dust particles and wipe it clean if necessary and re-insert the BD-R disc without causing the software to abort the current burn process? I've burned so many single-layer BD-R discs successfully from Optical Quantum that I tend to believe this was my fault more than a defective disc. So, this is why I ask. Thanks for reading!

Yes, from an ISO standards perspective, I have no argument with you about that. But don't be so little-minded. Of course, a person could use those good sectors if he really wanted too. In a non-standard way. Acknowledge that now or look like a fool for life. In fact, I want you to be the person that writes the software that does this for me so that I can use those good sectors. I know you can do this. You have the knowledge to do this for me, for us all. Make it so!

I could do lots of stuff to it if I really wanted to. Why do you steal my hopes away so apathetically? There are still good sectors on the disc.

I have burned lots of BD-R single layer discs from Optical Quantum successfully. But today, as of the moment, was not one of those successful burns. The BD-R burning process failed after only finishing about 20% of the entire 25GB of data I had prepared for burning (see the embedded image). The software asked me if I wanted to finalize the disc so that I could use what little data was on the disc that had burned before the failure. So, I accepted the software request and now have a readable BD-R disc that has about 5GB of readable data on it. I'll just nick name this one disc DVD+R. With so much un-burned, unused and potentially good usable sectors left on the disc, as can be seen from the image, is there some way to exploit this partial successful burn to it's fuller potential? Because of my high percentage of successful BD-R burns in the past I am wondering if this happened as a result of a dust particle I failed to see on the disc? Normally, I'll take a fresh blank disc from the original disc spindle and put it straight into the optical drive tray. This time because I was in between two places and only wanted to transport a couple of discs, I had put this blank BD-R into an empty single jewel case and left it stored there for a few months. It seems such a waste to not make any attempts to get past the one bad sector (or bad group of sectors) on an optical media and finish using what space is left. Is it possible? If it's not possible via a current standard is it something that might be possible in an evolving or future standard? And lastly, would it be possible to write to those unused sectors in a non-standard manner? From what very little I know of optical media I think it's possible to use most of the rest of the good unused readable sectors on a partially failed burn. One should be able to simply query for the good sectors by performing some kind of disc scan. What if we were to pretend that the recording area started much further away from the theoretical center of the media. We could just pretend the first good sector to write too starts in an area past the already burned sectors and begin there, yes? But these are my thoughts from my limited knowledge. What do the experts say? **EDIT**: Lastly, I looked at the ImgBurn log file and there's really no good data there about what happenend. All it says is that my "close request was acknowledged"???? Yeah, per your close recommendation!!!! What up???!!! Oh yes, if my memory serves me correctly, this software records nothing if the burn process fails. That approach was not good in the past and I don't like it now. So, there is basically no log for me.

I always try to fill all my optical media burns as much as possible because after all, I paid for the media and so I should use all I can. Towards that goal it would help if I could see all the file/folder sizes in your "Disc Layout Editor" versus having to do a right-click->properties on everything. I know this is possible, the question for you (i'm guessing) would be if it's too much work. What are the possibilities of getting something like this in a future version?

I'm getting ready to burn a Blu-Ray disc with lots of video clips. I know that from Windows Vista onward the Windows OS generates thumbnail images for lots of different media files and stores these meta-data files in a single custom folder under the current Users folder path. I was just curious if it was possible to burn this data onto the Blu-Ray disc itself in a universal recognizable format that most operating systems would understand. I guess in the worst cast scenario, the thumbnail data gets generated when the media is first inserted and the operating system first reads/creates the meta-data. This is good enough I guess but burning the meta-data right on the Blu-Ray disc would be even faster. Does anybody have any ideas about what I'm asking? All comments welcome. Thanks for reading!

I actually have 3 questions. Let me describe what has happened first. I am using ImgBurn version 2.5.8.0. I just finished burning a 25GB BD-R SL RiDATA disc. The burn was 99% successful. I can see and access all (or almost all) my data on the BD-R disc. Windows 10 won't show the label name (WinHex shows the label just fine, and not just in the sector viewer). So I loaded up a hex editor to look at the actual sectors on the BD-R and the label is present in a couple of places. What's interesting is that WinHex reports the very last 18 sectors of the BD-R disc as unreadable. 18/12,219,200 total sectors. In terms of lost storage capacity the number is so small it isn't even worth caring about. I am a person who likes to get value for my money. I burned this disc with less than....1 or 2 MB of free space left according to ImgBurn's "free space bar" at the bottom of the screen. I've always been cautious about doing that. Also, it seems ImgBurn got stuck one spot or another at the end of the burn. While I did get the "Operation Successfully Completed" message the program would not exit. And there was nothing in the log file showing any record of this burn from start to finish. Anyway onto my questions: 1)Is it okay to keep adding files above the 99% full mark as long as it's still green at the bottom of the screen? 2) Does ImgBurn flush the log periodically during burns to prevent my scenario above, i.e., not one log entry for this 99.99% successful burn? 3) How did WinHex spot those 18 "UNREADABLESECTOR"'s almost instantly? Is a backup TOC stored at the end of a BD-R, that is at the outermost sectors? I've read that some BD disc formats do that and I was curious if that's how it recognized those bad sectors so fast. Thanks for reading! *****Edited after 6 views*****: I did possibly have an image mounted using WinCDEmu. That probably should have been closed.

I am a computer nerd and am asking this question out of pure curiosity since either answer makes no difference from the big picture perspective when imaging a movie DVD. ImgBurn reports what appear to be ranges of failed sectors in 64K chunks(32 * 2048 = 65536 bytes). But then follows up with different numbers of individual unreadable sectors beneath. In the first failed range of 32 sectors we see that it explicitly states 3 sectors as unreadable. W 20:52:56 Failed to Read Sectors 318208 - 318239 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:53:06 Failed to Read Sector 318208 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:53:06 Sector 318208 maps to File: \VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB W 20:53:15 Failed to Read Sector 318209 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:53:15 Sector 318209 maps to File: \VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB W 20:53:24 Failed to Read Sector 318210 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:53:24 Sector 318210 maps to File: \VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB In this second chunk of my log file we see that ImgBurn reported only 2 specific unreadable sectors: Failed to Read Sectors 409328 - 409359 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:55:19 Failed to Read Sector 409344 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:55:19 Sector 409344 maps to File: \VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB W 20:55:28 Failed to Read Sector 409345 - Reason: L-EC Uncorrectable Error W 20:55:28 Sector 409345 maps to File: \VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.VOB So my simple question is, given this example, is there 64 unreadable sectors or only 5 unreadable sectors? Does it dump sectors in chunks of 32 or at the individual sector level? The latter would be good to hear in spite of almost no practical difference, just because. **EDIT**: My follow-up question relates to the one above. Is the 32 sector range that ImgBurn "appears" to work with a hard-coded preset in the ImgBurn software? Can it be configured by the user? Or is this much more determined by your optical hardware device? Is the 32 sector range completely arbitrary or has it been determined as the optimal setting for DVD optical drives? The number of sectors read at a time is called a 'block'?

I was tinkering with my folder names in a way that is dangerous and it caused me to burn a less than perfect Blu-Ray disc. I had dragged and dropped a folder from the hard disk to the , what do you call it, the "root" representing my new blank Blu-Ray disc. Well, after I did that I decided I wanted a different name for the folder on the hard disk so I renamed it in Windows. Anyway, long story short, I highly recommend implementing a final path/folder verification check before starting the actual burning process to safeguard against user tinkering and stupidity like I have engaged in today. "I see that the source folders you have selected for copying no longer exists. Have you modified these folders since you selected them for copying? If you proceed without correcting these issues you may not be able to access files on your disc even though they appear to be on the disc. Shall I proceed?" Hell NO, you shouldn't proceed. This could have saved me a bad burn. Well, it's not a completely wasted disc. I actually realized that I could go back and rename the folder to what ImgBurn was looking for and so the burn finished successfully but only after I had skipped several files in the process before I got the idea to change it back to what it was. So, please, in the name of user stupidity, do a final confirmation before starting the burn that all source folders and files are, in fact still 100% valid. Anything less is not the idea scenario. Thanks for reading, love your software, but this safeguard really should exists for a more excellent software product. Protect your users from their own stupidity. Thank You!!!