DVD Shrink...a fast Imaging tool

[techreactor]

I was just experimenting and then stumbled upon this, yes, DVD Shrink can make ISO images much much faster than PGCEdit(using Imgtool).

I already had a copy of a DVD movie fitting into a DVD5, and therefore no shrinking was necessary. So I used that as a source and made an image file using DVD shrink and then using PGCedit and found that Shrink was faster in making images.

Try it to believe it.

[blutach]

No 32k gaps

Regards

[techreactor]

No 32k gaps

Regards

You can always use PGCedit to do that and then switch to Shrink for the image.

Although it needs to be seen if the Imgburn V2 is faster or slower vs shrink, since it can also make 32K gaps directly (as I heard).

[r0lZ]

Hum, just tried, and on my system PgcEdit tooks 3:26 and DVDShrink tooks 3:24. So, you're right, Shrink is about 1% faster than PgcEdit. Great news!
Anyway, if you add the time needed to do the first analysis in Shrink (approx 15 seconds), PgcEdit is still the winner.
And remember that Shrink cannot add the 32K gaps between files, and cannot do an ISO for a double layer DVD.

Anyway, I bet the winner will be ImgBurn v2 soon!

[techreactor]

Hum, just tried, and on my system PgcEdit tooks 3:26 and DVDShrink tooks 3:24. So, you're right, Shrink is about 1% faster than PgcEdit. Great news!
Anyway, if you add the time needed to do the first analysis in Shrink (approx 15 seconds), PgcEdit is still the winner.
And remember that Shrink cannot add the 32K gaps between files, and cannot do an ISO for a double layer DVD.

Anyway, I bet the winner will be ImgBurn v2 soon!

It seems you have a really fast HDD, in my system the difference was more than a minute.

[r0lZ]

You can always use PGCedit to do that and then switch to Shrink for the image.

That's not true. Shrink will recreate the VTS pointers in the ISO, and loose the gaps. You have to create the ISO with mkisofs. If you really want an alternative, you can save the IFOs with PgcEdit and create the ISO with ImgTool Classic (which uses also mkisofs.)

[Chewy]

When dealing with limited space and ripping from one hard drive to another,
it's always better to delete the first test before starting the second.

otherwise the first test will be faster

to see the effect simply analyze the target drive with defrag

my 4 gig iso's take ~2 minutes

[r0lZ]

It seems you have a really fast HDD, in my system the difference was more than a minute.

I create the ISO on another physical drive. If you create it on the same drive, it can take upto 10 minutes. And if another program accesses your drive, it can take again twice as much time. You have to do this kind of test in very precise conditions, or it doesn't make sense.

[EDIT] I agree with Chewy. It's one of those "precise conditions".

[techreactor]

I create the ISO on another physical drive. If you create it on the same drive, it can take upto 10 minutes. And if another program accesses your drive, it can take again twice as much time. You have to do this kind of test in very precise conditions, or it doesn't make sense.

[EDIT] I agree with Chewy. It's one of those "precise conditions".

I was doing a test under normal use conditions and not for optimized systems. Most users would fall under normal users.

[Chewy]

repeat the test, with clean and defragged hard drive, or reverse the order
of programs tested

[blutach]

You can always use PGCedit to do that and then switch to Shrink for the image.

Although it needs to be seen if the Imgburn V2 is faster or slower vs shrink, since it can also make 32K gaps directly (as I heard).

No, you can't. Shrink will close the gaps.

And yes, ImgBurn v2 can create gaps too. And it is very fast. And ....

yes, time freaks, ....

you
can
burn
on
the
fly!!!

Regards

[jm1647]

It is true, reading and writing at the same time on the same drive always takes longer. The poor lil heads on the HDD are jumping all over. I rip to one drive and shrink to another

[techreactor]

And it is very fast. And ....

yes, time freaks, ....

you
can
burn
on
the
fly!!!

Regards

I am sure it must be (L)ightening(UK) fast,

[r0lZ]

I was doing a test under normal use conditions and not for optimized systems. Most users would fall under normal users.

My system is not optimized at all. But you have to be sure that no other program interferes in the test. The best way to be sure is to start your computer in safe mode, without any network support, and without launching several programs manually. Do the test immediately after the reboot. Also, you MUST do both tests with the hard drives containing exactly the same things. This means, among other things, that you have to delete the image made by the previous test (as explained by Chewy), and you must also clear the hard drive buffers before starting the test (reboot to be sure).
Anyway, I'm sure both programs are almost identical in term of speed. The CPU usage when building an ISO is very low and doesn't influence the result very much, and most of the time is taken by disc accesses. Since the length of the ISO is (almost) identical in both cases, the operation must take approximately the same time unless something else has slowed your drive down.

[Chewy]

serial/sata only, no ide(safe mode)/pio is very slow