LIGHTNING UK!

I'm sure the update shouldn't / wouldn't have caused this error. Could you get a full log of you burning + verifying a disc please so I can see what's going on. Thanks As a side note, have you also just recently got new discs or moved onto a different pack/spindle of them? They might be different to your last log - even if they are stamped with the same 'brand' name. This is the most common cause of things working and then suddenly not working.

By the sounds of it, you're comparing different sized images - so of course the MD5 will differ. When you compare a disc to an image, you compare the disc to the image, you don't compare the image to the disc - if that makes sense! So if the image is smaller than the disc, it still only compares the number of sectors in the image - meaning the extra stuff on the disc is never looked at (and hence not included in the MD5 calculation). The problem you're facing the DVD+R padding up to the 16 sectors marker is 100 times worse if you burn to DVD+RW. That I know of, there's no way to get the size of burnt data on a DVD+RW disc. It will always return the FULL size of the media and that never changes - even when you've burn 10 sectors and the rest is just empty (formatted) space. So whilst it might seem logical to read ALL the sectors on a disc, even when comparing to a smaller image, it doesn't work in practice.

calweycn, You have to remember that although other modes have speed settings, those are totally controlled by the drive, not by the program. The program always works at 'full steam ahead'. To slow it down for Build mode I'd have to perform some sort of throttling via wait (sleep) commands as and when I/O transfer rates went above a certain level. It's too much faffing around for very little gain. If there's something you urgently need to do and a 'build' is slowing you down, just pause it. If you must build an image rather than going direct to disc, build it to a different physical hdd and your machine will find the task much easier. If you don't have one of those, maybe it's time to invest in one - especially if you're going to be doing this kind of thing frequently. While you're at it, stick some more RAM in your PC too. Sorry but the answer is still no.

db, are you STILL going on about this?!?! lol Your board (assuming it's still the same one I have) only has 1 USB controller on it and that's the one in the ICH5R chip. That chip supports USB 2.0 and so all your USB ports are capable of that speed. http://support.intel.com/design/motherbd/bz/index.htm The Intel 875P chipset pages also state that it supports 8 v2.0 ports. I don't recall ever seeing a chipset where it supports X ports at 2.0 speed and Y ports at 1.1 speed. That would be pretty 'cheap' of them! Either it's USB 2.0 or it's not - and in your case it is! Here's another handy little tool for examining USB controllers/ports http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/strea...ap/UVCview.mspx

Because I don't want to have to keep updating it for every drive that gets released. All the major players (except LG!) remember the bitsetting settings anyway. So really it's an LG problem

If you had a layerbreak in the first place it should be easy (ish) to spot in the dialog box that ImgBurn presents to you. For the DVD you've presented here, it seems the LB has been removed at some stage. If it's feasible to keep using the original one, do so. As I said before, IFO/BUP 32k padding is a 'nice' thing, you do not 'need' it. Your discs will play perfectly fine. However, if you have the intention of scratching the hell out of them, it's best you wait for a fixed version of ImgBurn that won't have problems when 32k padding is enabled.

It could just be a simple 'bitsetting' problem. Is your drive performing bitsetting on the DVD+R DL media to make it look like DVDROM? You can check it (or let us do it) but putting a burnt disc in the drive and copying + pasting all the text from the info panel on the right. What speed are you burning the DVD+R DL at?

Normally, I believe higher burn speed = higher jitter. Of course if the drive in question has a better write strategy for burning at 16x than it does at 4x, it would make sense that the 16x one is producing better burns. I would think a lot of drives are geared towards burning at full speed (if not faster!) on media now. So the faster write strategies probably see more testing etc that the much slower ones do. Unless there is a fundamental flaw in the drives hardware, a firmware update can fix most things.

Are you actually clicking (right clicking actually!) the option to apply settings to all selected files? If not, you're only changing that option for 1 image - the one whos details are displayed in the lower part of the Queue window.

I have no need for the emulation options myself so they're all turned off (as is default anyway). I would like to think that even when the options are enabled, they only effect the DT drives an not the entire I/O subsystem!

DT is fine, I have to use it quite a lot for tests etc, never had a problem with it.

Sorry, this really is out of our control. You'll just have to keep messing around with drives / cables / drivers until the problem goes away. If you have anything else on the same cable as the burner, try disconnecting it. Make sure the drive is configured as a Master / Slave device. Do not use the 'Cable Select' jumper setting. You could also take a look at your filter drivers using the free tool available from www.bustrace.com Maybe it'll show you (us) a driver that could be messing things up.

I don't recall changing anything for CDRW. It's not a format of media I do *anything* with these days! Here I am trying to reproduce whatever the problem is you're having.... Put disc in drive... This is what the program says in the box on the right: The status bar reads: I then select an image to burn and hit the 'Write' button. Now this pops up: I click 'Yes'. It then begins to erase the disc. Hmmm... no problem there! Do you actually have a full log handy of you doing what I've just done?

It will be in the next one. At to whether it should be switched on or not.... well that depends on the files you're building an image from! There could be occassions where you need: 1. The DVD Video content before the DVD-ROM stuff. 2. The DVD Video content mixed in with the DVD-ROM stuff. 3. The DVD Video content after the DVD-ROM stuff. Each disc could be different so it's really down to the user to decide what works best for the image they're trying to build. All 3 options are now possible within ImgBurn v2.1 (not out yet!). I default to the 'Mixed' one.

ImgBurn is a burning tool, not an authoring tool. What you're asking for is way out of the scope of the program.

Hmm, I don't like optodisc myself. To be honest there aren't really any great dyes for any sort of rewritable discs. The Ricoh 4x DVD+RW ones are ok but the 8x ones are very unreliable in current drives (with current firmware). I don't bother with DVD-RW because I can live without having to erase them each time I do a test burn (I have to do a LOT of tests!). With DVD+RW I can just overwrite the existing data.

They might put those files after the DVD Video content. I've just added an option to ImgBurn so you can do that too. Normally the folders are just added in alphabetical order etc. Enabling the new 'Force Video Content First' option will move the AUDIO_TS / JACKET_P / VIDEO_TS folders + their content to the front of the disc.

How big are these files exactly? By that, I mean the total size of the DVD-ROM part. Could you get me a screenshot of the layerbreak dialog box when you don't add the DVD-ROM content? I guess the DVDROM files are shifting it too far and so no cells can be correctly aligned for a layerbreak.

lol can't you read Japanese?! I didn't check the exe personally so I didn't see where it linked to etc. Normally it's just a case of selecting the right drive and clicking 'start' though - so even in foreign languages, it's quite a straight forward process. Still, so long as you're on JL13 now, that's all that matters. Disc wise you want to be looking at MCC or TY (Tayio Yuden) dyes. No need to pay massive attention to the 'brand' name, it's the dye that's important. Oh and yes, the log seems to show your drive having trouble burning to the media. If your firmware is up-to-date, the only other thing you can do is buy better (supported) discs.

Can't say as I've ever heard of / seen that media before! ?1 for 4 isn't really all that cheap, you can get decent discs for that price from www.svp.co.uk Try the newer JL13 firmware available from here: http://forum.rpc1.org/dl_firmware.php?download_id=2126

If the layerbreak bit plays ok then you've nothing to worry about. Your player probably just isn't fussy about them - as is the case with most players now. Keep an eye out for v2.1 as it will/should fix this issue.

You'll only be missing a few sectors at the end davidw89. You may need to close the disc manually but it should still play ok.

It makes sure there's at least 32k worth of data/nothingness between the IFO and the BUP file. That's supposed to be enough data to ensure they're not phyiscally next to eachother on the disc. i.e. one file is round one side of the disc, the other file is on the other side. Click Tools -> Options. Switch to the 'Build' tab. The 32k IFO/BUP padding option is down the bottom on that screen.

Do you still have the files you built the ISO from? If so, are they DVD Video files? i.e. IFO/BUP/VOB ones. During the initial build did you get a 'Create Layer Break Position' dialog box come up? If you did, can you please get it up on the screen again and take a screenshot of the window - perhaps with the same option selected that you selected when you actually built the image. Basically the MDS file is wrong and that probably means the padding for the layer break is wrong too. (Since v2 was released I've fixed a couple of bugs to do with 32k padding on certain sets of dvd video files. One of these bugs could indeed cause this padding problem.)

The option is in the settings on the 'Build' tab. Unless you just so happen to scratch the DVD so that it cannot read one of 'IFO' files, you'll never have a need for 32k padding. It's a 'nice' option, not a 'vital' one.