ckhouston Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Can someone explain from the following log why a valid layer break point was not found? I 15:49:06 ImgBurn Version 2.5.6.0 started!I 15:49:06 Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600 : Service Pack 2) I 15:49:06 Total Physical Memory: 1,047,788 KB - Available: 525,624 KB I 15:49:06 Initialising SPTI... I 15:49:06 Searching for SCSI / ATAPI devices... I 15:49:06 -> Drive 1 - Info: HL-DT-ST DVDRRW GWA-4161B 1.00-04 (E:) (ATA) I 15:49:06 -> Drive 2 - Info: LG DVD-ROM DRD8160B 1.01 (F:) (ATA) I 15:49:06 Found 1 DVD-ROM and 1 DVD±RW! I 15:49:29 Operation Started! I 15:49:29 Building Image Tree... I 15:49:29 Checking Directory Depth... I 15:49:29 Calculating Totals... I 15:49:29 Preparing Image... E 15:54:01 Unable to find any cells that could be used for the layer break! E 15:54:01 The layer break must be between sectors 2038860 and 2086912. E 15:54:01 Sector 2038860 falls within VTS_05 (Title), which starts at sector 1423391. E 15:54:01 Relative to the start of VTS_05 (Title), the layer break must be between sectors 615469 and 663521. E 15:54:01 Relative sector 615469 falls within PGC 1, Cell 10, which starts at relative sector 596055. E 15:54:01 Relative to the start of Cell 10, try splitting between sectors 19414 (37.92 MB) and 67466 (131.77 MB). E 15:54:01 Operation Failed! - Duration: 00:04:31 I 15:54:03 Close Request Acknowledged I 15:54:03 Closing Down... I 15:54:03 Shutting down SPTI... I 15:54:03 ImgBurn closed Based on the available window of sectors 2038860 and 2086912 and the criteria that break points must be at the start of a cell and the start of a ECC block (divisible by 16), why are there not several potential break points between sectors 2038864 and 2086912 with the use of padding? Does ImgBurn use some other critera other than those to determine break points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I guess because Cell 10 starts before that location (2038860 / 615469) and Cell 11 starts after it (2086912 / 663521). If you pad Cell 10 so it starts at 2038860 you'd end up with more data on L1 than could actually fit on the disc. You need more Cells inserted between Cell 10 and 11. Follow the 'end of the world' guide in the Guides forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckhouston Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Thanks for replying. I am the curious sort that likes to understand how things work. And, from what I think I know about setting layer breaks, it looks to me that sector 2058288 would work for that project. Since Cell 10 starts at absolute sector 1423391 + 596055 = 2019446, 2058288 - 2019446 = 38842 padding would be needed. That leaves 2038860 + (2038860 - 2019446) = 2058274 sectors to be written to the second layer which is less than the 2058288 available. I must be missing something, maybe some data overhead that must be on L1, but adding even more padding can provide a little more space on L1. I will keep reading to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 It's difficult to work out without having all the figures but basically, nothing before 2038860 is any good. That value is calculated by taking into account the maximum amount of padding that can be applied. Cells before that point require too much padding and push too much data into L1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckhouston Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share Posted March 10, 2012 Thanks again, I know your time is limited. I'm still confused though. Even accounting for the data pushed into L1 if the LB is at the start of Cell 10, the amount of data to be written to L1 is 2058274 sectors which is less than the 2058288 on L0, unless I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Typically, now I've looked at the code which produces that screen, I think there's an error in the calculation. It's not a calculation which actually does anything though (i.e. prevents it finding LB positions), it's purely for the values put on that screen. If you don't mind, I'd like to build up a replica of your project here so I can see what's going on. I need the final path names of all the folders/files that will be present on the disc (this should just be the usual VIDEO_TS folder and its IFO/VOB/BUP files) and a list of the exact (to the byte) size of each file. Running 'dir' on the directory via the command prompt will do. Then I need you to zip up the IFO files and attach them in your post / upload them somewhere / email them to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIGHTNING UK! Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Correction, the calculation was fine. My brain was just letting me down earlier I look forward to getting the info/files I requested in my previous post. Oh and here's my working out as it stands currently... disc_capacity = 4173824 layer_size = 2086912 start_split = 2038860 end_split = 2086912 max_padding = 2086912 - 2038860 = 48052 image_size = (2 * 2038860) + 48052 = 4125772 Cell 10 absolute = 1423391 + 596055 = 2019446 size for Cell 10 and everything after it = 4125772 - 2019446 = 2106326 = too much for a layer (layer_size) size for start_split and everything after it = 4125772 - 2038860 = 2086912 = exact size of layer (layer_size) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckhouston Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 Sorry for the delayed reply, had an emergency. The log I presented was posted by a user on the CovertXtoDVD forum. He took some advice from me and was able to get a good burn but had to reconvert his project, so the old one is no longer available. I can ask him to reproduce the old project if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckhouston Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Oh and here's my working out as it stands currently... disc_capacity = 4173824 layer_size = 2086912 start_split = 2038860 end_split = 2086912 max_padding = 2086912 - 2038860 = 48052 image_size = (2 * 2038860) + 48052 = 4125772 Cell 10 absolute = 1423391 + 596055 = 2019446 size for Cell 10 and everything after it = 4125772 - 2019446 = 2106326 = too much for a layer (layer_size) size for start_split and everything after it = 4125772 - 2038860 = 2086912 = exact size of layer (layer_size) OK I think I finally get it. 2038860 is not half the data to be written as I thought, it is just the maximum sector where a cell can start and satisfy all requirements for a layer break. The data to be written is what LIGHTNING_UK! shows as image_size which is larger than I thought. Thanks for your patence, I'm better able to help with these problems in the ConvertXtoDVD forum. I will encourage them to ask their questions here for most questions from now on. Edited March 21, 2012 by ckhouston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts