AlbertEinstein

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!!!

I personally don't think it's "ImgBurn"s place to think of every evil deed that can be executed with their software and post a request on their front page not to engage in those acts. Just like it's not Ford Motor company's job to ask people from refraining from every criminal act that can be executed with one of their vehicles. It's silly. Should they also put up a notice requesting that no one use their software to burn kiddy porn? Do not use "ImgBurn" to transport classified information outside the United States of America? Do not use ImgBurn for x, and y, and z, and aa, and ab? But again, it's their website, so they can post whatever they want on the frontpage. It's just 'somewhat' amusing. that's all.

I noticed this statement on the home page of this website: "Please do not use this software to make illegal copies of copyrighted discs." Since when was ImgBurn capable of making back up copies of copyright materials? And if it's not capable, which was my understanding, why put that statement on the home page? It would be similar to a gun manufacturing company putting the slogan "Please do not use this gun to rob banks" on their packaging. Or for a rope company to put the slogan, "Please do not use this rope to tie people up/down with". Maybe gas stations should put up signs on each pump that say, "Please do not use this gasoline to engage in acts of pyromania". LOL. It's just somewhat amusing to me. But if it's there for no other reason than to try and nudge people in the proper moral direction they should at least change it to make a little more sense. "Please, do not use this software in conjuction with other software to make illegal copies of copyrighted discs." ImgBurn alone has no power to do so.