Pudah Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) First of all, I luv the new version. The ability to create images is just the ticket. Great work LUK and team! Since I was very much looking forward to this new feature, I wanted to try it out right away. I tried specifying a particular date and time that I wanted on the folders in my build. However, the time that I specified (8:44) is not the time that ended up on the folders (9:44). Here is a screen shot of the folders when viewed in Explorer after having mounted the image with Daemon Tools: Am I doing something wrong, or could this be a small bug in the program? Edited August 5, 2006 by Pudah
polopony Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 is everything set up correctly for your area eastern time, central, etc. the difference of an hour makes it seem like a daylight savings time thing
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 Ugh.... times were recently changed and I guess we didn't test this fully! Basically it's applying the daylight savings time bit twice. It's taking your system time as the 'local' time (which already included DST) and then adding DST onto it again, hence you're 1 hour fast. I guess I need to check if DST is already active and then add the appropriate offset in hours. IsoBuster is handy to see what timezone bits are being applied.
Pudah Posted August 5, 2006 Author Posted August 5, 2006 LUK, IsoBuster is handy to see what timezone bits are being applied. I was able to see the 8:44 when I opened the image in IsoBuster and changed the time display options.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 Redownload it from the ImgBurn mirror and it should fix your dates problem.
Pudah Posted August 5, 2006 Author Posted August 5, 2006 That took care of it. Thanks a ton for the speedy turn around and the great program!
fordman Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 I guess I need to check if DST is already active and then add the appropriate offset in hours. Actually, what about disregarding the timezone altogether? If I want my files to have a time of 8:44, why consider at all the time zone and whether daylight saving time is active or not? Just simply put a time stamp of 8:44 unconditionally? Is this just the baggage of programming through with the Windows operating system - i.e., does it force conversion to local time and date stamps? I assume the time zone is also embedded in the file attributes somewhere? Nero had this same issue with time stamps, and they acknowledged it as a bug in a reply e-mail, stating that their intention was supposed to set the time to what I wanted regardless of time zones or DST. However, they never seemed to bother "fixing" it and I had to go through an elaborate routine to check whether DST was active during the date I was selecting, and if so, I actually set the desired time to one hour less than what I wanted so that when it advanced it would actually be what I wanted. Then if I wanted to be really obsessive, I would also change the system date and time right before burning so that the current (period) and parent directory entries (double period) (as vied from a command prompt) would have the same time and date as the files themselves, so that the DVD actually did look like it was authored on that date... This is actually what I've been doing to build dual layer ISOs with PGCEdit... I'll have to check out the ImgBurn build mode now - this looks promising, and I'm anxious to see how it handles all this. This looks great - thanks!
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 You can't do that I'm afraid! Part of the date structure includes a timezone offset. If you don't set it correctly the files will always show in UTC time. Windows etc uses the timezone part of the structure to ensure you (the end user) see the right time. i.e. if you select 8pm as a time and I write that in the file attributes, if I don't also specify 10 hours timezone offset (if you're in Oz), then you see files (in explorer) with times of 10am (or 6am... can't remember which!)
fordman Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 You can't do that I'm afraid! Part of the date structure includes a timezone offset. If you don't set it correctly the files will always show in UTC time. Windows etc uses the timezone part of the structure to ensure you (the end user) sees the right time. Ok, that's what I was afraid of. I'm anxious to try this feature out once I clear disk space! Any plans on adding a straight read mode for copying simple images to the hard drive for subsequent ImgBurn burning? I've been using ISObuster for that, and it works OK.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 I'd like to one day but I have things that might get in the way.
blutach Posted August 5, 2006 Posted August 5, 2006 i.e. if you select 8pm as a time and I write that in the file attributes, if I don't also specify 10 hours timezone offset (if you're in Oz), then you see files (in explorer) with times of 10am (or 6am... can't remember which!) Sorry Boss! Blame this thread on the fact we are not in DST Regards
volvofl10 Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 is it vital to actually have a specified time stamp though, or would just a date stamp suffice ?
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 6, 2006 Posted August 6, 2006 Either way you'd have the same problem. No time would probably just register as 12 o clock. So with the timezone stuff you'd still be out by x hours.
fordman Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 I built my first image with ImgBurn 2.0.0.0 and all went well - I was pleased to see that even the "period" (present directory) and "double period" (parent directory) directory entries were stamped with the desired time! No more messing with file dates and the system time manually before burning - great! I did use PGCEdit still to turn off the PUOs for the title and root menus from the copyright warning screen before building with ImgBurn. I used IsoBuster to examine the ImgBurn 2 image against some (but different) images built with the PGCEdit/MKISOFS combination. I noticed that on those built with PGCEdit/MKISOFS, the properties of the ISO file system (in the advanced tab) showed a difference of two sectors between the Root address and the PT address, while the ImgBurn Image showed only a difference of one sector. Meanwhile the PT length was the same (42) and the PT address precedes the Root address. I did look at a commercially authored DVD with IsoBuster, and it showed only one sector difference between these two addresses, so ImgBurn isn't necessarily wrong. If anything, perhaps the PGCEdit/MKISOFS ones are - for instance isn't only one sector needed between the PT address and the ROOT address if the PT is only 42 (bytes?) long and precedes the ROOT? I suppose I need to brush up on my DVD file system and structure. I just started poking around when I saw someone state that AnyDVD reported that an ImgBurn built and burned DVD was invalid...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 You would think it only need to be 1 sector, yes. The anydvd thing (I believe) was related to the offset in the IFO files, not the filesystem.
fordman Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) You would think it only need to be 1 sector, yes. The anydvd thing (I believe) was related to the offset in the IFO files, not the filesystem. Yes, then I expect that PGCEdit and/or MKISOFS is doing something wrong by reserving 2 sectors. After my post I did see that you acknowledged an error, had fixed it and would advise when the new version was available. I still have my source files for the one built image, so I'll go back to ensure that I don't have the 32K problem with that one. Will you be incrementing the builds as these small fixes are made? I've been keeping on top of the discussions and realize that you re-released 2.0.0.0 with the DST fixed on the date stamps, and then you re-released 2.0.0.0 again with the "verify against small image" issue fixed. I've been tracking the ImgBurn file dates and times to keep them straight, but others not "in the know" may have grabbed an older version of 2.0.0.0..... For such a major change, you and the beta testers seem to have really stomped most of the nasties! Edited August 7, 2006 by fordman
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 7, 2006 Posted August 7, 2006 Well the time thing was changed at the last minute. It always worked fine for me but not for people in different timezones. That change then screwed up the DST stuff and I probably didn't then test a custom date so I wouldn't have noticed the daylight savings hour being added on twice. The verify issue only happens if you add a single file of 0 bytes to the image. That doesn't happen very often in real life and I guess that's why it wasn't noticed! Anyway, thats enough excuses Yes I will change the build number now that there have been a few other bits done. I just released as v2.0.0.0 again because I wanted quick fixes out there. It wasn't really my intention to leave it like that, I knew there would be other things to do too in the very near future.
Defenestration Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 (edited) I've been playing around with using IB to create an ISO from a previously burnt DVD-R. The disc has the ISO + Joliet + UDF file-systems. On the disc are 2 root folders, each containing a few files. The problem is that in the resultant ISO, the date of both root folders on all 3 file-systems have the current date instead of the date of the root folders on the disc. The files within both root folders all have the correct date equivalent to their respective counterparts on the disc. I have the Folder/File Dates setting set to "Use File Date & Time". Is this a bug ? On a slightly different note, I was using LCISOCreator to create an ISO of the same disc so I could compare the two ISO's created by IB and LC. Aside from the root folder dates being "incorrect" on IB, the number of blocks was 1 less for the ISO created with IB. Any ideas why ? EDIT: BTW, IB was about twice as fast at creating the ISO! Edited August 29, 2006 by Defenestration
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 Folder dates are not preserved, this was on purpose as I believe it's also how Nero works.
LIGHTNING UK! Posted August 29, 2006 Posted August 29, 2006 Hmm maybe I messed up when I looked at images made by other programs... I could have sworn it (Nero) didn't copy the date over for directories last time I tried it! I've added the code now (well, removed some) so that 'modified' dates are preserved for directories too.
Defenestration Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 I was just about to post back after creating a test image with Nero which preserved the folder dates, but you beat me to it. Thanks for changing it. On a slightly different note, I was using LCISOCreator to create an ISO of the same disc so I could compare the two ISO's created by IB and LC. Aside from the root folder dates being "incorrect" on IB, the number of blocks was 1 less for the ISO created with IB. Any ideas why ? Got confused. It's actually the ISO created by LC that has 1 block less, so I guess that has a problem since all other apps I used to create a test image had 1 more than it. EDIT: BTW, IB was about twice as fast at creating the ISO! From my tests with other apps, IB is not only "The Ultimate Image Burner" but also the "The Fastest Image Builder". IB was at least 1 minute faster (and often more) when creating a 2.7GB ISO, and is also less disk intensive (no doubt due to the buffering) Re. the "create ISO from disc" and "copy disc" (create ISO from disc followed by burning X number of copies) features requested by myself and others, I can't see what the legal problems of implementing them would be (if that's the main reason for your reluctance) since the capability to do both is already present in IB. It's just that some of the automation is missing at the moment (ie. it requires a bit more manual intervention to achieve). Just a thought
blutach Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Re. the "create ISO from disc" and "copy disc" (create ISO from disc followed by burning X number of copies) features requested by myself and others, I can't see what the legal problems of implementing them would be (if that's the main reason for your reluctance) since the capability to do both is already present in IB. It's just that some of the automation is missing at the moment (ie. it requires a bit more manual intervention to achieve). Just a thought I do believe that the "manual intervention" you refer to is entirely justified to ensure this program does not suffer legal issues. Are you an IP lawyer? You can't see the legal issues - fair enough. When someone who is a senior IP lawyer says all is OK and someone else with long arms and deep pockets is prepared to fund any lawsuits, then and only then should you be advocating any risk be taken. It ain't your arse on the line mate. If people wanna copy disks, that is their business, not ours. Ours is about burning files and images. Full stop. Regards
Defenestration Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 I do believe that the "manual intervention" you refer to is entirely justified to ensure this program does not suffer legal issues. Are you an IP lawyer? I don't understand where all this animosity comes from, but then I don't have to live in Australia. I guess you all have chips on your shoulders down there (maybe originating from a lack of identity). Are you an IP lawyer by the way ? I thought not. Where are the intellectual property rights infringed when the disc that is being copied is a home movie created by yourself ? Exactly, there are none. Many other apps have no problems copying unprotected discs, or copying from unprotected discs (including Explorer). From what LUK himself said in another thread on this subject, he is not sure whether IB will ever support reading to an ISO in the same way DVD Decrypter did (ie. by reading raw sectors). He did not rule it out completely, and then there is always the alternative method of just reading the folders/files (as is already done), but just automate the things like copying over the same file system name/data. Ours is about burning files and images. Are you one of these same people who before IB 2 came out used to say "IB is only about burning images. If you want to burn files, use another app". Oh well, I suppose some progress has been made. If LUK still deems in inappropriate (even doing it with the with the existing capability) then fair enough. I was just voicing an opinion like so many of the other members on this forum do.
blutach Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 It seems you can't take no for an answer. Before v2, ImgBurn indeed was about "burning images". No, I am not a IP lawyer, but it is not I who is sprouting legal advice ("I can't see what the legal problems of implementing them would be") in this thread. Only dickwits like you. Put in a trust the several million $$$ that LUK! would need to defend an action against the MPAA, the RIAA and their associated members, and perhaps you would be given more credence. Till then, you should read the many times LUK has said NO. I shall choose to ignore your rather pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me by criticing Australians. For, wherever you come from, your mom and pop didn't hand you sufficient brains when you were, rather unfortunately, conceived. Regards
Defenestration Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Only dickwits like you. Ah, you know you've won an argument when the other person starts throwing childish insults around. Put in a trust the several million $$$ that LUK! would need to defend an action against the MPAA, the RIAA and their associated members, and perhaps you would be given more credence. Till then, you should read the many times LUK has said NO. Unlike yourself, I choose to leave the decision up to LUK since it is his to make. That does not mean that any other input cannot be made though. Do the MPAA or RIAA own the rights to my home movie ? No they don't. The most recent post by LUK on this subject indicated he was unsure he would ever implement raw sector copying, but did not really specify his intentions as the adapting the current file/folder copy method. I'm not sure if ImgBurn will ever support reading to an ISO in the same way DVD Decrypter used to. Ref: http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?s=&...ost&p=24167 Maybe you need to put your glasses on and re-read the posts LUK has made on this subject. I shall choose to ignore your rather pathetic attempt to get a rise out of me by criticing Australians. For, wherever you come from, your mom and pop didn't hand you sufficient brains when you were, rather unfortunately, conceived. If only I could come up with such witty acidic put downs. All the best!
Recommended Posts