Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by batagy

  1. Hi There!

    I just donated to LUK, because this is one of the best tool ever made. :thumbsup:


    I'm just wondering that don't donators get a small label in their forum profile that they've donated?

    I mean, I don't expect to get better service, neither I don't expect to be in beta testers group, so anything like that, but maybe if donators would get a small label in the forum which shows they donated, I think would be nice. Just an idea.


    Thanks indeed for this great burning tool.

  2. To add to what LUK! has said.


    If you burn a disk, then make an ISO and verify against the ISO, you'll find verify errors in the first few sectors. These are all time and date related (typically sectors 16, 32, 261 and 269). However, the sectors after the filesystem will (or at least should) show a good burn.




    Thanks indeed for your verification!


    I just tried it for myself, that I verified a builded burned disc against an ImgBurn generated ISO image, and indeed there were mismatch in the first area sectors, but the main was the same.


    From now on, I will using a method, that I generate an ISO image with ImgBurn, then I put it twice to the queue, and burn it with two different drive. So I get two exactly same disc written on 2 media (for archiving purposes). Then I generate Par2 recovery checksum files for the image on the hard disk.

    Why I say this? Because if I generate the ISO once, and burn it twice, the MD5 will be the same for both disc plus the ISO, because date and time won't change. (If I would burn both disc in build mode with device output, then date/time would be different). And the Par2 set later can be used the recover either of the two discs, since they are exactly the same.


    Sorry for the lengthy off-topic.

    BTW I just donated LUK, because I like ImgBurn much. :thumbup:

  3. Yes, Image MD5 is of the image file. Device MD5 is of the disc.

    Yeah thanks for the verification!

    So then we can't left out the verification process (reading back the disc) if we want to verify the burn.



    Another question:

    While I messing around with MD5 sums, I've noticed that in Build Mode, ImgBurn produces different MD5 when the output is the Device, compared when the output is an Image file. So everything is the same, content, settings etc, only difference is the output (Device or the Image file).


    I got this when I burned to disc in Build mode:

    I 20:28:30 Synchronising Cache...
    I 20:28:31 Closing Track...
    I 20:28:33 Finalising Disc...
    I 20:29:13 Image MD5: ec3c212c87ca6fec345fdccaf5a68970
    I 20:29:13 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:15:04
    I 20:29:13 Average Write Rate: 5 339 KB/s (3.9x) - Maximum Write Rate: 5 592 KB/s (4.0x)


    I got this when I made an image file as output:

    I 20:39:21 Destination File System: NTFS
    I 20:39:21 File Splitting: Auto
    I 20:39:21 Writing Image...
    I 20:43:45 Image MD5: 23f3792ea3f8dcf87e7e918d12b2a45f
    I 20:43:45 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:04:23
    I 20:43:45 Average Write Rate: 17 073 KB/s (12.3x) - Maximum Write Rate: 44 035 KB/s (31.8x)


    Why is that different?

  4. Hi there LUK!


    I also thought about this one.


    When you burns an image, without verifying, at the end of process you got an MD5:

    I 21:08:34 Closing Track...
    I 21:08:36 Finalising Disc...
    I 21:09:16 Image MD5: 23f3792ea3f8dcf87e7e918d12b2a45f
    I 21:09:16 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:15:04


    Is this MD5 the checksum of the image on the disk, or the MD5 of the burned disc?

    (I'm almost sure that is the MD5 of the image, because when you verify also, there's a "Device MD5", but this would be nice to be sure.)


    If that MD5 in the above log would be the MD5 of the burned disc, and if you would know the image MD5 before, then indeed the verification process could be shorter, just compare the two MD5. I guess this is not possible, so probably we need to re-read the whole disc anyway if we want to verify? Am I right?

  5. Any player / file system parser that doesn't support out of spec file systems will likely crash / refuse to work.


    You use 'Level X' stuff at your own risk.

    Thanks much LUK!


    I thought it shouldn't be problem, but I only thought for WinXP, since XP seems handles it, but I didn't think about other hardware players. Indeed for example a standalone hardware player for example if a DVD player doesn't support it then it might be problems. Thanks for clearing it up.

  6. Hi There!


    I would have a question related with file system.


    In Build Mode, if I set the Joliet level to "Level X - 110 characters", does it have any drawback?

    I had some longer folder name, so a yellow warning appeared in the log that "Joliet folder....", and it seems setting the Joliet level to Level X - 110 solved that yellow warning.



  7. and how long does it take you to burn using your set up?

    It takes such time as it would take with only one burner, maybe a very little bit longer because of some synchronisation by Nero. (I can't tell you exactly, because I burnt in March 2006 last time, and I can't remember exactly.)


    I made that configuration because I burn twice everything what I want to archive, and I wanted to decrease the burning time, so that I burn two copy simultaneously, taking only one burning time.

  8. Your setup will not work, not even with Nero. First off, you only have a single hdd. Second it's likely that 2 of your Pioneer burners are on the same IDE channel, just that alone will conflict already.


    In order to burn 2 simulataneous copies at the same time you will need either 1) RAID0 or 2) Two seperate hdd. There is no way one hdd will support burning for 2 drives without buffer underrun problems, let alone 4.


    I found this thread by searching, because I used to burn 2 simultaneous copies with Nero, and myself also wanted to check that if I could replace Nero with ImgBurn to burn simultaneously.


    So I think you're definitely not right, because I have a very similar configuration, I have only one HDD, and my two Pioneer burners are on the SAME IDE channel (same cable), one of them is master and the other one is slave. And the simultaneous burning works perfectly with Nero. Two HDD and different IDE channel is not needed! What is needed is that burners should support simultaneous burning, and Pioneers support that.


    About ImgBurn, yeah it would be great if ImgBurn could support that!

  9. I'm also looking for freeware to write data dvds. I found the Folder2ISO utility mentioned in conjunction with ImgBurn - does anyone know if it would work for non-video data?

    Folder2Iso is for non-video data definitely! (For DVD-video there is the Imgtool.)

  10. Yes, an interface to compile DATA DVDs (and CDs) would be excellent.

    I didn't find any good free program that can build an ISO from files. I tried VisualISO from Paehl, and correct me if I'm wrong, but VisualISO only creates a simple text file with file paths, and not an ISO image.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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