Jump to content

Deletion of old LB flag


fordman

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I re-mastered a DVD to ISO (I reverted to PGCEdit because I wanted 32K padding), and after deleting the source VIDEO_TS files on my hard drive, I discovered I had let the old LB flag in when I changed the layer break position to the previous cell (wanted it to coincide with a scene change).

 

So, I have an ISO file with two LB flags - one at VOB/Cell ID of 1/31 (the new correct one), and the old one at VOB/Cell ID 2/1 (the previous one that is no longer needed). Yes, I ensured that the cells had the same mux rate...

 

So, if I burn this ISO as it currently is, will Imgburn offer to delete the old one? When I use the view layerbreak tool, it shows that the new one I set is the only valid one, so I'm guessing that it will not offer to delete the old one. Is this the case? Should I therefore extract the files and remaster it?

 

Thanks,

Ford Man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is just burning an ISO file. There should be no offer to delete.

 

I'd extract the files and remaster it - quest for perfection and all that.

 

Regards

 

Thanks blutach,

 

That's what it seemed would happen, but I wanted to be sure. The only reason is that I once had an .ISO that had an old LB flag that was no longer valid, but a potential position that wasn't flagged. I believe it was a PTP image that just happened to have a valid cell where an OTP disc could switch to the second layer. LUK suggested imgburn (1.3.0.0 at the time) should have offered to delete the old flag when it inserted the new, valid flag. I ended up with two flags in the burned disc, one at the new valid point, and the old one. LUK modified the code to do better checking...

 

Anyway, this is a different circumstance, where there is a new, valid flag, so I figured it would NOT [edit] trigger any such checks.

 

Regards,

Ford Man

Edited by fordman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will only remove a flag if you select a cell that's not already marked as non seamless.

 

Ooops, yes, that is what I meant to say, I meant to say would NOT trigger any such checks. I modified my post to reflect that. Otherwise it made no sense...

 

Thanks for the verification, LUK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.