Reason: Cannot Write Medium - Incompatible Format

[pbz]

Burning a CD from ISO with the same computer, the same drive, blank CDs from the same stack

worked earlier today. three times, with different ISOs.

 

Now I get a failure: Reason: Cannot Write Medium - Incompatible Format

I run test first, that seems perfectly happy with the iso and the drive.

 

For all I know, the blank CDs are still untouched, but I tried repeatedly with

fresh CDs from the stack, regardless.

 

Can someone please suggest a process I can follow that will converge on a

diagnosis of my problem. I don't have access to another CD burner drive.

 

TIA -- pbz

 

log below:

 

 

 

I 12:32:36 ImgBurn Version 2.4.4.0 started!

I 12:32:36 Microsoft Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600 : Service Pack 3)

I 12:32:36 Total Physical Memory: 457,200 KB - Available: 115,748 KB

I 12:32:36 Initialising SPTI...

I 12:32:36 Searching for SCSI / ATAPI devices...

I 12:32:36 Found 1 DVD

[mmalves]

I 12:41:11 Destination Device: [3:1:0] HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4081B A100 (D:) (ATA)

Update the burner's firmware (remove any disc and close the tray before updating then reboot after it's finished) and try again. You might also want to try a lens cleaning disc on that burner.

[pbz]

I 12:41:11 Destination Device: [3:1:0] HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4081B A100 (D:) (ATA)

Update the burner's firmware (remove any disc and close the tray before updating then reboot after it's finished) and try again. You might also want to try a lens cleaning disc on that burner.

 

Thanks for the information. I will update the burner.

 

I did another experiment, before getting into modifying firmware.

I tried again but using an .ISO file that had worked earlier, AND using the blank CD that had originally failed.

This worked fine, test, burn, verify, reading the disk aftewards too.

 

So my question is what can I do to make sure an ISO file is adequate for burning purposes

without risking wasting a blank CD?

 

Put another way, what is the point of the test step?

 

FYI I've attached the log of the test which succesfully wrote to the same blank CD,

using the same SW and hardware, only the .ISO file was different.

 

TIA --pbz

ImgBurn3.log

[mmalves]

Test Mode simulates a burn but doesn't actually write to the disc, while the Verify process compares data on the disc against the source image/files, and tells you if they're different (e.g. a bad burn or computer problems).

[pbz]

Test Mode simulates a burn but doesn't actually write to the disc, while the Verify process compares data on the disc against the source image/files, and tells you if they're different (e.g. a bad burn or computer problems).

 

Yes I gathered that. But it does not answer my question.

 

Verify is immaterial, it takes place after a burn is completed.

My problem was in failing to *achieve* a burn.

 

According to the evidence, I conjecture that my problem is a consequence

of the source ISO file, not the burn hardware, nor firmware, nor the blank CD.

If the issue has nothing to do with those, why did the simulation not pick it up

a problem that the attempt to burn *did* pick up? Repeatedly.

 

Not being well informed about the engineering details of CD burning,

I can't come up with a reasonable guess as to what could there

be about the contents of an .iso file which would be overlooked

by a simulation yet cause a burn to fail.

 

My question restated:

 

What types of errors or defects is the simulation intended to catch?

 

What would be an example of an error or defect in an ISO file which

the simulation would *not* catch? Is there some other tool which

would do better catching such errors?

 

TIA

--pbz

[mmalves]

The drive doesn't care about the contents of the image: it's just zeroes and ones.

 

Test Mode, as the name says, is a test burn where everything goes like a normal burn except that data isn't actually written to the media. You can use it for any situation where you want to simulate the burn process yet you don't want to waste a disc on doing so (e.g. to check if your system can burn a DVD at 24x with a new drive). But you can only simulate so much...

 

Normal burning, though, is a much more complicated process from the hardware's point of view. For example: just before starting the burn process, the drive has to calibrate the laser power so that it changes the right spots on the disc. This is known as OPC (Optimal Power Calibration) and it isn't done in a simulated burn. There's also the problem of dirt on the lens, which affect the lens focusing ability and results in a lower quality burn, if it can burn at all.

 

I think you get the picture by now...

[pbz]

I 12:41:11 Destination Device: [3:1:0] HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GSA-4081B A100 (D:) (ATA)

Update the burner's firmware (remove any disc and close the tray before updating then reboot after it's finished) and try again. You might also want to try a lens cleaning disc on that burner.

 

Here is my parting note regarding this issue.

 

I updated the the firmware as suggested. (Thanks mmalves)

I tried again and the problem continued as before.

In the absence of any clue as to how to narrow down a diagnosis of the

actual problem, I was reduced to clutching at straws.

 

I tried another program. http://www.cdburnerxp.se/

I tried it twice, it rejected the first blank CD I put in, it succeeded on the second

blank CD. I suppose ImgBurn would have succeeded with that blank CD too.

I'm still no closer to diagnosing the problem, but I've managed to get it out of

my way. I *guess* this is a transient problem related to marginal quality

media or hardware or both.

 

I intend to continue using Imgburn, but to keep the other too as fallback.

 

I offer this constructive criticism:

Tools like these need to be used with understanding. Good information is the

real mark of a quality tool. Information about what tends to go wrong and why,

about how to navigate your way out of problems and how to avoid them.

That kind of information was in short supply, nor did I get much feedback like that

in this forum. I'm still at a loss as to when to use 'test' and when not to use it.

 

Guessing your way out of problems is not on. Problem solving begins with diagnosis.

You need information to do that. Otherwise you are doing lore rather than science.

Alchemy rather than chemistry.

In the long run, alchemy will reflect badly on the tool whether it merits it or not .

 

Thanks for the tool. If I become savvy, I'll make a contribution to that information.

[blutach]

Tools like these need to be used with understanding. Good information is the

real mark of a quality tool. Information about what tends to go wrong and why,

about how to navigate your way out of problems and how to avoid them.

That kind of information was in short supply, nor did I get much feedback like that

in this forum. I'm still at a loss as to when to use 'test' and when not to use it.

 

Guessing your way out of problems is not on. Problem solving begins with diagnosis.

You need information to do that. Otherwise you are doing lore rather than science.

Alchemy rather than chemistry.

In the long run, alchemy will reflect badly on the tool whether it merits it or not .

Then read the bloody guides! There's one on the settings and one on the functions - which pretty much explain everything.

 

I've made it easy for anyone to do that, with big clickable links in my signature. And other helpful links. And it's not as if you have trouble finding these links/posts - use your eyes.

 

Geez! You accuse us of not helping - it is you who are not helping yourself. And I wonder just how much you paid for this wonderful software and free help?

 

And the media you are using is probably cheap junk - which explains the hit and miss nature of your burn. You didn't consider even giving us the brand of media.

 

Here's today's SFIOTD award winner.

[pbz]

<snip>

Then read the bloody guides! There's one on the settings and one on the functions - which pretty much explain everything.

 

I've made it easy for anyone to do that, with big clickable links in my signature. And other helpful links. And it's not as if you have trouble finding these links/posts - use your eyes.

 

Geez! You accuse us of not helping - it is you who are not helping yourself. And I wonder just how much you paid for this wonderful software and free help?

 

And the media you are using is probably cheap junk - which explains the hit and miss nature of your burn. You didn't consider even giving us the brand of media.

 

Here's today's SFIOTD award winner.

 

In fact I checked out both the faq and the guides before posting anything here.

This is what I found:

 

Test Mode

 

'Test Mode' will fake a burning. Every step involved in a real burning will be carried out, except turning on the laser. 'Test Mode' is not supported for +RW media.

 

What does this tell us about when to use test,

when not to use test and what can be inferred from cases

where test succeeds and burn fails?

 

NOTHING.

It leaves you to leap to your own misguided conclusions.

 

I didnt curse the terseness of the above.

I posted questions on the forum.

When I got little by way of insight on the question there,

I circumvented my immediate problem and took the time to offer

well intentioned and constructive criticism as my own small contribution

to the effort here.

 

So I would make the following suggestion:

 

Don't curse the darkness.

Light more candles.

 

You embarassed yourself with your outburst. I suggest you delete it

and this reply along with it and we can go back to behaving like adults.

[dontasciime]

offer this constructive criticism:

Tools like these need to be used with understanding. Good information is the

real mark of a quality tool. Information about what tends to go wrong and why,

about how to navigate your way out of problems and how to avoid them.

That kind of information was in short supply, nor did I get much feedback like that

in this forum. I'm still at a loss as to when to use 'test' and when not to use it.

 

It comes across as very rude and tbh a bit lazy info was there to be read if you took a minute to search and read it.

 

User error is generally the reason something goes wrong including being a cheapskate and buying rubbish media and buying the crappiest writer on the market. There is a wealth of info on the internet about which dvd writers are good and those that suck yet thousands of these rubbish writers are sold and end up on here

[Cynthia]

What does this tell us about when to use test,

when not to use test and what can be inferred from cases

where test succeeds and burn fails?

It's mainly a test to see if the data can be delivered to the writer quickly enough to avoid 'data starvation' as you can see in this log part:

 

W 10:17:05 Waiting for buffers to recover... (LBA: 102944)
W 10:17:11 Waiting for hard disk activity to reach threshold level...

It also gives a check that your writer can deal with the commands that is sent to it during the write phase.

 

As the laser beam is never activated, it can't test that the media will burn without burn fails, generated by bad write quality.

 

I'll add the above to the guide to avoid future confusion.

 

[pbz]

What does this tell us about when to use test,

when not to use test and what can be inferred from cases

where test succeeds and burn fails?

It's mainly a test to see if the data can be delivered to the writer quickly enough to avoid 'data starvation' as you can see in this log part:

 

W 10:17:05 Waiting for buffers to recover... (LBA: 102944)
W 10:17:11 Waiting for hard disk activity to reach threshold level...

It also gives a check that your writer can deal with the commands that is sent to it during the write phase.

 

As the laser beam is never activated, it can't test that the media will burn without burn fails, generated by bad write quality.

 

I'll add the above to the guide to avoid future confusion.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong in the following assertions:

 

-Only use test to confirm that the combination of hardware configuration, operating conditions

and medium can theoretically complete the burn.

Once you've determined this, using test is redundant for the given combination. There is no point

in repeating test each time you perform the same operation under the same conditions.

 

-When test succeeds and burn fails, you can rely on the conclusion that the issue is neither the

source being burned, nor the operating environment. You can conclude with confidence that

the problem lies either in the burner or the target medium, or the combination of the two.

 

-Unlike test, verify is worth doing every time. It confirms that the data was correctly

written to the medium.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

Sounds about right to me.