A particular ISO image always seems to be failing when attemptingto burn

[Yousuf Khan]

I have an ISO image of a DVD that keeps failing to burn. I first tried
it on my desktop, which has two burners on it. I tried to burn it on
both burners, and it failed on both. In one burner it got through the
burn, but failed verification, while in the other burner it failed even
before it began to burn. This is under Windows XP and Nero. I rebooted
and tried to burn it on the same machine, but in Linux this time, same
thing happened again.

I figured there might be something wrong with both my burners (because
they attached to same IDE cable). I then took the same image and
transferred to my laptop and tried to burn it again on the laptop. It
failed on the laptop too. This is also Windows XP and Nero. I even
extracted the files from the ISO image with WinRAR and tried to burn
them directly onto the disk, and this also failed.

I'm not sure why this is happening, other ISO images work just fine. The
image is 4,819,195,904 bytes (4.48 GB) long, which makes it slightly
larger than the size of a single layer disk (4.38 GB), so I've been
using dual-layer disks here. Is it possible that since it's so close to
the transition limit from single-layer to dual-layer disks, that it
perhaps gets confused and doesn't switch to the second layer?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

I have an ISO image of a DVD that keeps failing to burn. I first tried
it on my desktop, which has two burners on it. I tried to burn it on
both burners, and it failed on both. In one burner it got through the
burn, but failed verification, while in the other burner it failed
even before it began to burn. This is under Windows XP and Nero. I
rebooted and tried to burn it on the same machine, but in Linux this
time, same thing happened again.

I figured there might be something wrong with both my burners (because they attached to same IDE cable). I then took
the same image and transferred to my laptop and tried to burn it again on the laptop. It failed on the laptop too.

You do get some bad ISOs.

This is also Windows XP and Nero. I even extracted the files from the ISO image with WinRAR and tried to burn them
directly onto the disk, and this also failed.

I'm not sure why this is happening, other ISO images work just fine.
The image is 4,819,195,904 bytes (4.48 GB) long, which makes it
slightly larger than the size of a single layer disk (4.38 GB),

Thats likely the problem, its just too big.

so I've been using dual-layer disks here. Is it possible that since it's
so close to the transition limit from single-layer to dual-layer disks, that it perhaps gets confused and doesn't
switch to the second layer?

That would be easy to prove by regenerating the ISO with one file missing etc.

 

[Ed Light]

Do you need a dual-layer specific ISO to burn dual-layer media?
--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Use RW media (saves getting lots of coasters), or try a Nero test burn,
or see if it will produce a virtual DVD.

Would do, except I have never seen dual-layer RW media.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Do you need a dual-layer specific ISO to burn dual-layer media?

I don't think there is a special identifier bit or anything like that,
it just becomes dual-layer if the size requires it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

My experience has been that if the .iso is too big it will
still burn, but there may be problems reading what over runs the
outer edge.
Some burning apps have a bargraph with green, yellow, red,
areas for CD/DVD media.

Yeah, yeah, I know about that. I did originally try to fit it into a
single-layer by overburning, but this was just a bit too big to fit in
an overburn, it was 100 MB too big. Nero rejected it right away.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

You do get some bad ISOs.

It's starting to look like it was bad media now. I typically expect to
see one or two bad disks randomly in a pack, but I saw several in a row,
which is unusual. It also seemed like the bad disks were tactically
placed toward the bottom of the pack, because this particular pack
seemed to be very reliable at the top of the pack.

Anyways, Fujitsu was the brand name on the disks, but the real
manufacturer was this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique Disc Identifier : [DVD+R-DL:RITEK-D01-001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disc & Book Type : [DVD+R DL] - [DVD-ROM]
Manufacturer Name : [Ritek Corp.]
Manufacturer ID : [RITEK]
Media Type ID : [D01]
Product Revision : [001]

Life always throws you a loop that you never expected before.


Yousuf Khan

 

[Rod Speed]

Yousuf Khan wrote

Rod Speed wrote

It's starting to look like it was bad media now. I typically expect to
see one or two bad disks randomly in a pack, but I saw several in a
row, which is unusual. It also seemed like the bad disks were
tactically placed toward the bottom of the pack, because this
particular pack seemed to be very reliable at the top of the pack.

Anyways, Fujitsu was the brand name on the disks, but the real
manufacturer was this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unique Disc Identifier : [DVD+R-DL:RITEK-D01-001]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disc & Book Type : [DVD+R DL] - [DVD-ROM]
Manufacturer Name : [Ritek Corp.]
Manufacturer ID : [RITEK]
Media Type ID : [D01]
Product Revision : [001]

Thats pretty common, that Riteks are rebranded.
Hardly anyone like Fujitsu manufactures media.

Life always throws you a loop that you never expected before.

Always is overstating it, but yeah, life can bite on on the arse when you least expect it.

Thats the reason I use LG drives, they are rather less picky about the media than most.

 

[Arno]

I have an ISO image of a DVD that keeps failing to burn. I first tried
it on my desktop, which has two burners on it. I tried to burn it on
both burners, and it failed on both. In one burner it got through the
burn, but failed verification, while in the other burner it failed even
before it began to burn. This is under Windows XP and Nero. I rebooted
and tried to burn it on the same machine, but in Linux this time, same
thing happened again.

I figured there might be something wrong with both my burners (because
they attached to same IDE cable). I then took the same image and
transferred to my laptop and tried to burn it again on the laptop. It
failed on the laptop too. This is also Windows XP and Nero. I even
extracted the files from the ISO image with WinRAR and tried to burn
them directly onto the disk, and this also failed.

I'm not sure why this is happening, other ISO images work just fine. The
image is 4,819,195,904 bytes (4.48 GB) long, which makes it slightly
larger than the size of a single layer disk (4.38 GB), so I've been
using dual-layer disks here. Is it possible that since it's so close to
the transition limit from single-layer to dual-layer disks, that it
perhaps gets confused and doesn't switch to the second layer?

No. But the second layer on a DL is usually much worse, in addition
to the first layer already being significantly worse than with single
layer disks. It might just be a burn quality problem.

Data itself should not be able to cause corruption, the encoding
is much too sophistocated and basically projects any
data pattern about a signal with the same characteristics.

Arno

 

[2312]

No. But the second layer on a DL is usually much worse, in addition
to the first layer already being significantly worse than with single
layer disks. It might just be a burn quality problem.

Data itself should not be able to cause corruption, the encoding
is much too sophistocated and basically projects any
data pattern about a signal with the same characteristics.

Its in fact much more complicated than that, particularly with VCDs.

Those can be a real problem with just the data being burnt.

 

[Arno]

Its in fact much more complicated than that, particularly with VCDs.

Those can be a real problem with just the data being burnt.

And if you look at the VCD standard, you will find that it
has very little to do with the DVD standard. VCD uses little
redundancy, similar to audio CDs. For DVD that does not work.

Short version: You miss the point.

Arno

 

[2312]

And if you look at the VCD standard, you will find
that it has very little to do with the DVD standard.

Irrelevant to the fact that you can indeed get bad ISOs that arent bad media.

VCD uses little redundancy, similar to audio CDs.

Thats not the reason you can have a problem burning them.

For DVD that does not work.

Short version: You miss the point.

Like hell I did. I rubbed your nose in the FACT that the you can have bad
ISOs where the problem isnt the media, which you claimed cant happen.

 

[Ed Light]

It's starting to look like it was bad media now.

I can't remember if I suggested this, but -- you could run the Disk
Quality test on it in Nero DiscSpeed if it works for your burner.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Ed Light]

I can't remember if I suggested this, but -- you could run the Disk
Quality test on it in Nero DiscSpeed if it works for your burner.

And also you could try burning at a slower speed.

I have an Optiarc 7241S that wants to burn 2.4x Verbatims at 4x. But if
I let it do that, it makes some bad areas. They still read ok in the
Optiarc, but when I run the Nero DiscSpeed Quality Test, there are red
areas and it gets a 0% score. At 2.4x it comes out beautiful, with a
score of about 97%.

--
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[YKhan]

Thats the reason I use LG drives, they are rather less picky about the media than most.

Well, both drives in my desktop were in fact LG's, it made no
difference.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

Had one pack where all were bad, appeared to burn OK, but virtually
no difference in surface appearance between burned and unburned
area of the disk. All were coasters. Took a while to twig what was
happening.

What was happening in this case is that one drive, the older LG could
not even read its media id block, so it would fail right away before
even burning anything. The newer LG drive could read its media id
perfectly fine, but after it finished writing off to the disk
(successfully!), when it came time to read it back during verification
it would fail.

Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

And also you could try burning at a slower speed.

I have an Optiarc 7241S that wants to burn 2.4x Verbatims at 4x. But if
I let it do that, it makes some bad areas. They still read ok in the
Optiarc, but when I run the Nero DiscSpeed Quality Test, there are red
areas and it gets a 0% score. At 2.4x it comes out beautiful, with a
score of about 97%.

Well, actually my older LG drive could only burn it at 2.4X, that was
its maximum, and in that case, this drive could not even begin to read
its media block, so it would fail right away. In the newer LG drive,
it would actually try to burn the 2.4X media at 4X and it was actually
working in most cases. But again with the bad media, it would write to
the media, but when it went back to verify it, it couldn't even begin
to read it no matter what.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Fred Bloggs]

It's starting to look like it was bad media now. I typically expect to
see one or two bad disks randomly in a pack,

Hmmm. Ritek. Is the recording layer purple?

I had several unbranded (but ATIP said Ritek) dual-layer DVDs. They
split into two thin discs VERY easily, e.g. dropping on a desk surface.
One disc had the purple recording layer, the other appeared to be a
clear plastic disc.

 

[YKhan]

Hmmm.  Ritek.  Is the recording layer purple?

Yes, but I'm sure others are the same colour.

I had several unbranded (but ATIP said Ritek) dual-layer DVDs.  They
split into two thin discs VERY easily, e.g. dropping on a desk surface.
One disc had the purple recording layer, the other appeared to be a
clear plastic disc.

Are you sure this wasn't just a clear plastic top disk that protects
the pack? It may have just been stuck to the other disk.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Are you sure this wasn't just a clear plastic top disk that protects
the pack? It may have just been stuck to the other disk.

Absolutely sure (I had several split in the same way) - besides, they
wouldn't have fitted in the drive with the clear protective disc from
the top of the cakebox stuck to them.

Thing was, they worked very well. Even the old Toshiba DVD player
connected to my TV, which normally turns its nose up at recorded CDs and
DVDs, was happy to read them, much to my surprise.