ImgBurn v2.0.0.0 Released!

[daman]

can anybody tell me if the new ver. will auto burn with shrink like 1.3.0.0 did??

[Jack Lurker]

Yes, as long as you have the updated version of Shrink that calls ImgBurn instead of DVD Decrypter. Its this version here you need:http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=63869

[daman]

Yes, as long as you have the updated version of Shrink that calls ImgBurn instead of DVD Decrypter. Its this version here you need:http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=63869

yup i have that version,,thats all i needed to know,thanks jack..

[blutach]

ok, so in other words, theres no way to make ImgBurn use the original layer break, you have to find where the original layer break is, and then find it in the 'Create Layer Break Position' box?

if so, how do i find out where the original layer break is? Pgcedit?

also, is there any reason why there is a "Ignore Layer Break Options" button? and in the next release, do you think it could be possible to allow ImgBurn to use the original layer break, if there already is one?

AFAIK, that function is covered by the "Don't update IFO/BUP files" checkbox. However, you still need to actually select a physical cell.

Regards

[LIGHTNING UK!]

rahzel,

If you're using Build mode, the original one will be visible and selectable in the dialog box that pops up. It just can't automatically decide if that's 110% the right one as there could be many 'potential' ones. Without reading the LB address from the physical dvd disc (which of course isn't possible when you're working with files on a hdd), there's no absolute way of knowing the real layerbreak when there are several potential candidates.

That rating system will help you find the best (original?) one and of course it helps to understand layerbreaks and what you're doing in general in the first place.

[rahzel]

ok, so you can select the original lb if you know where it is, and ImgBurn will find the best possible placement for the lb, which could possibly be the original lb, but not always? i could use Pgcedit to find the original layer break, and use that.

if i am certain the original layer break is there, can i just check the "Don't update IFO/BUP files" and ignore the layer break options, or do you ALWAYS have to select a lb position? if not, could you give me an example of when you would want to check "don't update IFO/BUP files"?

also, is it a safe bet to always go with the best choice ImgBurn gives you?

[LIGHTNING UK!]

Ughhhh, perhaps I'm just not being clear *sigh*

ImgBurn lists ALL the possible placements for the layerbreak. The 'original' one (or so it's called) is in that list somewhere. You can't really use PgcEdit to find the original one any more than ImgBurn could do it. There's still some degree of guess work involved. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

You're supposed to look at the choices and make an educated decision based on their ratings (shown by the little stars).

As I've mentioned before in this thread DO NOT CLICK 'IGNORE' to the layerbreak selection box. You will end up with some crappy physical LB position being used. All it will do is take the size of the image, split it in 2 and round up to the nearest 16. That is NOT what you want.

PLEEEEASE try to understand that!

Normally a 'real' layerbreak cell will have the SPLIP set to false so you just need to look down the list, find one where that's the case (again, use a little bit of guess work if there are loads), select it and click OK.

[rahzel]

i understood you before, maybe my message didn't come out right.

PgcEdit can find the original layer break position afaik. if you click on the actual movie portion of the DVD and click edit, there will be a checkmark where the layer break position is.

if you look at the attached pic, this is what im talking about. in this case, the layer break is removed, but this is the box that shows where the layer break would be. if there was a layer break, there would be a checkmark in one of the boxes.

[blutach]

@rahzel

Indeed, that is where the LB almost certainly is. 99.999999% correct, if not 100%. Cos that is the cell that is marked in the IFOs. However, LUK! is saying that not only does it need marking in the IFOs, it needs to be passed over to the burner so it can PHYSICALLY place the LB in an appropriate position that equates to that position in the IFOs.

ImgBurn also can identify a cell that has the LB flag on (it is seen as SPLIP false, which you may have learned before as the "layerbreak flag").

It is simply a matter for you now to say, I want this cell (or another of your choosing). This passes the physical info to ImgBurn and fixes the IFOs. If you choose a new cell, the old one is marked as seamless and the new one is marked as non-seamless (unless you also choose seamless layer break).

Seamless LB is another interesting thing. The IFOs will not show a LB cell at all (as in your pic, even after the burn)!!!!! But of course, the physical position of the LB is passed on to ImgBurn to let your burner know when to change focus and burn layer 1. Seamless LB is fantastic if your players support it.

Regards

[rahzel]

ok, i think i get'er now.

thanks to you both for clearing things up.

[daman]

Hmmm...... update on imgburn?

quote,LIGHTNING UK!

Hmm this is most odd. There's something in that bit of the code that doesn't appear logical at all... god knows why it was there in the first place, maybe it was left over from some testing/debugging!

I probably didn't try enough DVDs to get many without VOB files, so the 32k padding never really came into play that much. Or if I did, they were dummy files and so I wouldn't have loaded them into anything.

So anyway, one of the calculations was wrong and that's what was throwing dvdremake off. I guess the same can probably be said for AnyDVD.

It has been fixed now and I'll let you know when it's available to download.

http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?s=282a07c5862fd197449cb72004de...

[LIGHTNING UK!]

I've made over a dozen changes since v2 was released. Once it's had a little bit of testing this week (+ I've fixed any other issues that people notice), I'll probably stick another new version out at the weekend.

[daman]

Great,,nice work LUK!!

[blutach]

See? I knew we needed Betas 31, 32, 33 and 300!!!

Regards

[dirio49]

See? I knew we needed Betas 31, 32, 33 and 300!!!

Regards

LOL,
why not 3000 betas???!!!