What is the current state of this software - why does it linger in limbo?

[AlbertEinstein]

This was one of the best optical media mastering programs of it's time. It's a shame it appears to have been abandoned. I am here today after discovering yet another bug. I consider it a bug because there is no warning about what the user is about to do. And you see this in other area's of the software asking, "Are you sure you want to do that?".

I've discovered that, if you start a project by allowing Unicode support in the volume labels, entering in X number of Unicode characters into the label field. And then haphazardly going back to disable Unicode support in the labels, the ImgBurn software will not warn you that the final master will not be what you intended it to be? How did this situation arise to begin with? I'll tell you.

It happens when you eagerly start a label with Unicode characters but quickly realizing that you're volume label needs more than 66 (or whatever the max is) Unicode characters. So, this happened to me. I started my label with a few smiley faces for XXXXs and giggles. But then realized I needed more than 64 characters to describe all the data on the disc. I checked the "Disable Unicode support" box to double the volume label width and BOOM, no warning, no prompt, no erasure of the volume label to protect the user.

But this is just one gripe in a sea of many. What is the state of this software? If the author wants money to sell the rights, let us know. Open source this software if there's no interest in it anymore. Something, tell us something. This software is too good to just let it simply languish to death.

Case in point. Coincidentally on the same burn, there were several missing files that should have been where they were when they were added to the folder/file list but weren't. The software paused 5x so that I could add the missing files and I finished the burn without any issue whatsoever. That is amazing. Let's keep this goodness going.

[dbminter]

The current state is easier to answer.  There was a beta released around November 16th of 2021.  So, it's still being developed, just very slowly.  As for why it doesn't appear to be updated, the answer is most likely the developer has a job.  :)

 

[LIGHTNING UK!]

It tries to be idiot proof, but you just made a better idiot.

Technically, it would be still doing everything it's supposed to be doing if you disable unicode having entered a unicode volume label, it just doesn't go out of its way to tell you that you've enable (disable) something that's going to mess up something else you've configured. There's nothing in place to prevent you from typing whatever you want into that udf volume label box anyway and all it does is limit the length. The rest of the stuff only gets dealt with when creating the actual image.

Sure, I can add a little test to check for differences in the UDF Volume Label field if you turn off Unicode support, but like I said, there's no validation on user input into the field anyway.

 

I will also add a little warning line to the log if unicode is disable and the ansi version of the volume label doesn't match the original version. I already do that for any file name changes (due to unicode/ansi or length limitations).

[AlbertEinstein]

That warning dialog would absolutely help. I got question marks instead of smiley faces. I would see that instantly and be like, "Ahhh, hell nah!" And then I would fix it.

Thank You!

[AlbertEinstein]

Can I become a beta tester so that I can get the latest features? As long as my media aren't turned into coasters I can deal with bugs. And I try to master at least 1 BD-R a month. To back up data that I need to backup, not just for kicks and giggles. It's time consuming, trying to categorize what you want to burn and then doing it.

[dbminter]

Of course, LUK makes the final decisions regarding who is a beta tester, but I don't think we've had any new ones added in over 10 years.  So, there probably aren't any openings for one right now.  But, maybe you'll get lucky. 

[AlbertEinstein]

Just now, dbminter said:

Of course, LUK makes the final decisions regarding who is a beta tester, but I don't think we've had any new ones added in over 10 years.  So, there probably aren't any openings for one right now.  But, maybe you'll get lucky. 

This whole project is a bit unusual. Last release over 10 years ago. I think there was a time when the thought of abandonment was in the head of the developer. I understand having to work for a living as I do also. But 2 year beta releases? How many beta testers does this project have now? And why wouldn't more beta testers be a good thing? I walk a fine line myself between walking away from optical media or not. I still think it's superior to the life of a 1 TB flash SSD but that's only because I have CD-R that have lasted over 20 years. That's some reliable shiaught!!!! So, I figure my BD-R will last that long as well.

Seriously, let me get in on this deal. I am actively burning the software and have used it for years.

[ThaCrip]

On 4/27/2023 at 4:32 PM, AlbertEinstein said:

I walk a fine line myself between walking away from optical media or not. I still think it's superior to the life of a 1 TB flash SSD but that's only because I have CD-R that have lasted over 20 years. That's some reliable shiaught!!!!

That's ultimately why CD/DVD is still a good option for long term data backup (I have a fair amount of DVD's from 10-15 years ago still working well today and scan well with KProbe which gives one a good ball park indication of burn quality etc) as long as one does not have a boatload of stuff to burn (lets say 'boat load' means TB's of data), it's practical. I never got into BD burning as it's not enough of a benefit for me to justify the initial investment cost and not only that CD/DVD are far more common/standardized among the masses to as it will be easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD many years from now than BD discs since just about any optical drive will read DVD's and all will read CD-R's basically. all-in-all, I prefer 4.7GB DVD for more limited high importance data backup (in addition to typical hard drive backups).

but besides a more limited amount of higher importance data I just backup data on regular hard drives since it offers the best storage space and reliability for the price for most data backup.

p.s. in terms of CD-R's... personally I almost exclusively use these for that occasion I want to burn a standard audio CD (ImgBurn can even overburn these to as on the standard Verbatim CD-R's (100-pack CMC Magnetics media code for about $20 for 100 discs) I have successfully burned to basically 82min15sec(shows up as 82min12sec on my standard CD player from the early 1990's and plays to the end without issue)) since standard audio CD's are still the best all-around available physical format available as the sound quality can't be improved upon since it already exceeds human hearing abilities as all of that 'HD' audio is marketing BS and just wastes storage space as standard 44.1/16bit is already more than good enough.

[Ch3vr0n]

I asked hit access to that beta a while back. No access here either

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[AlbertEinstein]

On 4/28/2023 at 5:37 PM, ThaCrip said:

That's ultimately why CD/DVD is still a good option for long term data backup (I have a fair amount of DVD's from 10-15 years ago still working well today and scan well with KProbe which gives one a good ball park indication of burn quality etc) as long as one does not have a boatload of stuff to burn (lets say 'boat load' means TB's of data), it's practical. I never got into BD burning as it's not enough of a benefit for me to justify the initial investment cost and not only that CD/DVD are far more common/standardized among the masses to as it will be easier to find a drive that can read CD/DVD many years from now than BD discs since just about any optical drive will read DVD's and all will read CD-R's basically. all-in-all, I prefer 4.7GB DVD for more limited high importance data backup (in addition to typical hard drive backups).

but besides a more limited amount of higher importance data I just backup data on regular hard drives since it offers the best storage space and reliability for the price for most data backup.

p.s. in terms of CD-R's... personally I almost exclusively use these for that occasion I want to burn a standard audio CD (ImgBurn can even overburn these to as on the standard Verbatim CD-R's (100-pack CMC Magnetics media code for about $20 for 100 discs) I have successfully burned to basically 82min15sec(shows up as 82min12sec on my standard CD player from the early 1990's and plays to the end without issue)) since standard audio CD's are still the best all-around available physical format available as the sound quality can't be improved upon since it already exceeds human hearing abilities as all of that 'HD' audio is marketing BS and just wastes storage space as standard 44.1/16bit is already more than good enough.

Well, I have to question your claim that CD's can't be improved on. I mean, you can buy flash/SDXC storage and use them in portable devices these days in most new vehicles. And there is no chance in hell of the disc skipping if you hit a large pothole. The sound quality of music on a flash stick would be the same as it is on a CD-R.
I think the biggest plus for optical media is the longevity of the burn and the cost per gigabyte if you get a good buy on the media whether it's CD-R, DVD-R, or BD-R. Of course, I use BD-R because they store 5x as much data as DVD's and up to 50x data over CD-R if you buy dual-layer. And for $5 a pop you could buy a BDXL disc to store 100GBs of data. That is equivalent to 1000 CD-Rs. No swapping of discs would be requiring but then again flash is the most convenient replacement for optical media these days.

Edited May 5, 2023 by AlbertEinstein

[ThaCrip]

16 hours ago, AlbertEinstein said:

Well, I have to question your claim that CD's can't be improved on. I mean, you can buy flash/SDXC storage and use them in portable devices these days in most new vehicles. And there is no chance in hell of the disc skipping if you hit a large pothole. The sound quality of music on a flash stick would be the same as it is on a CD-R.

When I said CD's (meaning standard AUDIO CD's) can't be improved upon I meant strictly in terms of the sound quality they produce, since they already exceed human hearing abilities.

sure, if you could carry lossless audio files (i.e. FLAC etc) made from standard audio CD's on a device that can play them, that's equally as good to and would be inline with what you said about it not skipping etc.

but in regards to putting music on a flash stick and playing it in a car... technically, unless it can play lossless (FLAC etc) there would be some level of sound decline. although in practical real world use (which is where it really matters)... once a lossy file (i.e. MP3/AAC etc) reaches a certain point (like bitrate) us humans pretty much can't tell the difference especially when just sitting back and enjoying the music. but I like to always have a lossless source to convert to lossy files when needed since no matter what audio formats change to in the future, you always have a high quality source to convert from as FLAC will never get outdated simply because as long as it was ripped from a standard AUDIO CD the sound quality is already exceeding human hearing abilities.

there are listening tests over on hydrogenaud.io website etc for people who like learning/reading up on this stuff. but what I am saying here is the gist of it. even LAME(MP3) @ V5 (130kbps average) scores pretty well in a public listening test to where I am confident many people would struggle to notice the different between that and the lossless source (FLAC or original audio CD and the like) and even those who can tell the difference, through ABX tests (which you can run on Foobar2000), it's not going to be a obvious difference when you are just sitting back and enjoying the music. but it's basically common knowledge (at least on that hydrogenaud.io site) that AAC(standard AAC-LC)/Opus do better than MP3 at lower bit rates. lets say lower bit rates are about 128kbps or less (but probably more around 96kbps and less). but at higher bit rates (say about 128kbps or higher or not all that much beyond this) it don't really seem to matter much in real world whether you choose MP3/AAC/Opus etc.

 

16 hours ago, AlbertEinstein said:

I think the biggest plus for optical media is the longevity of the burn and the cost per gigabyte if you get a good buy on the media whether it's CD-R, DVD-R, or BD-R. Of course, I use BD-R because they store 5x as much data as DVD's and up to 50x data over CD-R if you buy dual-layer. And for $5 a pop you could buy a BDXL disc to store 100GBs of data. That is equivalent to 1000 CD-Rs. No swapping of discs would be requiring but then again flash is the most convenient replacement for optical media these days.

Yeah, clearly longevity of the data storage is where optical media shines and is the primary reason I still like having them around for some level of high importance data backup.

also, while I am sure BD-R offers more storage space for the price... it's initial investment costs etc and lack of drives out there are probably what I would say is the biggest problem with it compared to more standardized/widely used CD/DVD. plus, it's not been around as long as CD/DVD media so it's a bit less time proven and not only that you are packing a lot more data into the same physical space which just this alone makes me think it's more picky and 'may' be more prone to data corruption as time passes. especially if you count the non-standard 25GB BD-R media with more than one layer as I imagine dual layer (or higher) media is more susceptible to issues than single layer media.

so even if I did use BD-R media, I would almost certainly stick strictly to the standard 25GB discs as they probably have wider compatibility vs 100GB BDXL etc types of discs and cost per disc is probably a lot more reasonable etc.

but yeah, flash media is appealing due to convenience as it seems many opt for convenience over long term data storage as I would never trust flash based media over optical media for long term data storage, especially if flash based storage is a persons only data backup source. with that said, flash based storage can be a nice additional backup source to more typical long term storage on hard drives and optical media though.

p.s. but like I said in the past... I generally avoid CD-R's for storing data (unless someone has a very limited amount of high importance data backup) because it's not as practical as DVD (given DVD's hold 6.7x the amount of data of a CD-R) and disc cost between CD/DVD is about the same and data reliability is probably similar between the two assuming one uses quality media.

[AlbertEinstein]

On 5/6/2023 at 1:20 AM, ThaCrip said:

 

but yeah, flash media is appealing due to convenience as it seems many opt for convenience over long term data storage as I would never trust flash based media over optical media for long term data storage, especially if flash based storage is a persons only data backup source. with that said, flash based storage can be a nice additional backup source to more typical long term storage on hard drives and optical media though.

 

I totally agree with you. Optical media (BD-R @ 50 GB disc for me) plus flash for supplemental backups, not for long-term storage. Or more transient backups when you wanna move files between PCs in a physical way. It's all good.