Is there a way to burn 750 meg of data to a 80 min. CDR in N

[cosmichippo]

The tile says it all. I am trying to burn 750 meg of zipped QT files to a CDR using Nero.

Are there settings that will allow me to do this like when you burn VCDs that have 800 meg of data? I think that I need to use mode 2 format but sellecting this doesn't seem to give me any more room to write to.

If this is possible please advise me of what I need to select. CD-ROM, ISO, UDF Mode 2 etc.

Thanks for any help,
Mike

[cfitz]

You don't want to burn in mode 2 form 2 like VCD, because it eliminates a layer of error detection and correction code that you really want protecting you when burning data files. Here is some information about the various modes and their implications:

http://www.cdrlabs.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8075

You can try to overburn to fit more than 700 MBytes on an 80-minute disc. The amount you can overburn will depend on your drive and the media. Check out Spazmogen's overburning guide:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/brad.ormsby/spazmogen.htm

cfitz

[cosmichippo]

As always, cfitz, thanks for the reply and info.

[cfitz]

You're welcome.

cfitz

[Spazmogen]

The guide is for audio, but the process is pretty much the same for data.

[cfitz]

Hey Spazmogen, there has been a huge rash of overburning questions lately. Any chance of convincing you to enhance your handy guide by including some information about overburning data discs and overburning on normal capacity (74- and 80-minute) discs? Additional links for further study might help some people as well.

cfitz

[TheWizard]

For overburninig 750MB of data onto a 700MB CD-R, I suggest using a blank disc that is proven to overburn well. Fuji Taiyo Yuden discs are the best choice followed by Ritek.

[cfitz]

Fuji/Taiyo Yuden discs measure out to 82:43.45 minutes capacity when overburned on my Yamaha CRW-3200EZ. That would be about 727 MBytes of mode 1 data. Even the "biggest" 80-minute disc will only overburn out to about 733 MBytes. So there is no way to fit a 750 MByte data file onto an 80-minute disc written in mode 1, no matter what brand of disc you use.

It could be done if written in mode 2 form 2, but as I noted that isn't suitable for writing data files due to the lack of error detection and correction code (not to mention the lack of support for burning data files in mode 2 form 2 using Nero). And in cosmichippo's case the danger of missing ECC would be even greater because he wants to burn a compressed file, which is even more vulnerable to corruption than a "normal" data file.

Of course, TheWizard, your general point about using high-quality discs when overburning is a good one. When you overburn you are pushing the limits of the media, so you want to start out with a good quality disc that can take being pushed. You are asking for trouble if you start with a disc that is marginal to begin with and then try to push it right out to its limits.

Cosmichippo, if you are still checking this thread, one thing you might want to try is to compress the files with WinRAR. I have found that it can often compress files more tightly than zip. Or, of course, you could leave out some files or split the archive.

cfitz

[Spazmogen]

Hey Spazmogen, there has been a huge rash of overburning questions lately. Any chance of convincing you to enhance your handy guide by including some information about overburning data discs and overburning on normal capacity (74- and 80-minute) discs? Additional links for further study might help some people as well.

cfitz

I'll try.

It won't for a least another week at the earliest. My son's 2nd birthday party is this weekend, and I've got 4 auctions on e-bay coming due. My spare time is limited this week. But I'll try and get a start on it.

[cfitz]

No hurry. But if you get time and feel the inclination to do so, I'm sure some would appreciate it. If not, that's okay too!

cfitz

[MediumRare]

Code: Select all

spazmogen: Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 7:34 am   
citz:      Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:30 am

Are you guys working nights ? These times are UTC, which means ca. 2:30/3:30 a.m. EST

G

[Spazmogen]

Yeah, I'm on nights again tonight-keeping the public safe from itself.

It's 05:42hrs and the end is near !


cfitz is just an insomniac.


We-here at cd-r labs-are working hard around the clock to answer your posts. Actually, your posts help keep me awake at my post.

[cfitz]

Like Spazmogen says...

cfitz

[TheWizard]

Fuji/Taiyo Yuden discs measure out to 82:43.45 minutes capacity when overburned on my Yamaha CRW-3200EZ. That would be about 727 MBytes of mode 1 data. Even the "biggest" 80-minute disc will only overburn out to about 733 MBytes. So there is no way to fit a 750 MByte data file onto an 80-minute disc written in mode 1, no matter what brand of disc you use.

cfitz

Which file size reading are you using, cfitz? I am referring to 750MB in DOS, not in Windows. The file size in Windows is inaccurate, it always comes up short. You can burn 750MB (the real file size according to DOS) of data in Mode 1 onto an 80 minute Fuji/TY disc, I've done it on multiple occasions. No errors whatsoever, just keep the burning speed at an acceptable rate: 16-24X is fine.

[cfitz]

I'm talking about the actual number of bytes in the file: 750 MBytes = 786,432,000 Bytes = 384,000 mode 1 CD sectors = 85:36 minutes, and that won't fit on an 80-minute disc even with overburning.

If you are quoting file sizes using the 1K = 1000 unit of measure hard drive manufacturers like to use to speciously inflate the perceived size of their drives, then 750 MBytes = 750,000,000 Bytes = 366,211 mode 1 CD sectors = 81:41 minutes, and, yes, that will fit on an overburned Fuji/TY disc.

By the way, Windows file sizes aren't inaccurate. They are just using the accepted standard, within the computing world, of 1K = 1024. The numbers you see in a DOS box are the sizes measured in bytes, not KBytes or MBytes. To convert to MBytes, you need to divide the number shown in the DOS box by 1024*1024 = 1,048,576, not 1,000,000.

cfitz

[jjones]

Is it just the Fuji/TYs that have the overburn capacity or other TY CDRs from Memorex, HP, etc?

[cfitz]

TY has pretty consistent quality control, so I would guess there is a reasonable chance the overburning capacity for differently branded TY discs is the same. But the only way to be sure is to try it yourself and see. As with any "over-" activity, your results may vary. Different media and different drives will give different results.

In general, however, every disc from every manufacturer will have at least some overburning capacity. There is nothing magic about TY media in that sense, and they aren't the only discs that can be overburned.

cfitz

[TheWizard]

I'm talking about the actual number of bytes in the file: 750 MBytes = 786,432,000 Bytes = 384,000 mode 1 CD sectors = 85:36 minutes, and that won't fit on an 80-minute disc even with overburning.

If you are quoting file sizes using the 1K = 1000 unit of measure hard drive manufacturers like to use to speciously inflate the perceived size of their drives, then 750 MBytes = 750,000,000 Bytes = 366,211 mode 1 CD sectors = 81:41 minutes, and, yes, that will fit on an overburned Fuji/TY disc.

By the way, Windows file sizes aren't inaccurate. They are just using the accepted standard, within the computing world, of 1K = 1024. The numbers you see in a DOS box are the sizes measured in bytes, not KBytes or MBytes. To convert to MBytes, you need to divide the number shown in the DOS box by 1024*1024 = 1,048,576, not 1,000,000.

cfitz

I like DOS! Oh, and by the way, Nero uses the 1K = 1000 bytes measurement system too. Therefore, I like two things: DOS and the makers of Nero.

[cfitz]

Oh, and by the way, Nero uses the 1K = 1000 bytes measurement system too.

No, that's not true. Just because DOS and Nero display some file sizes without multipliers doesn't mean that they use the non-conventional (in the computer field) interpretation of 1K = 1000. It is true that both the DOS dir command and Nero's compilation windows display file sizes in bytes, without any multipliers attached. But whenever DOS and Nero display sizes with the K or M multipliers, they adhere to the conventions that 1K = 1024 and 1M = 1,048,576. In Nero, check the "Info" tab in the burning dialog as well as the compilation size bar at the bottom of the main window and you will see that this is so.

But don't worry about it. You aren't alone. The 1K = 1024 versus 1K = 1000 issue has created a lot of confusion over the years. In fact, the IEEE proposed a standard to try to eliminate the confusion by creating some new multiplier prefixes specific to the binary world of computers:

http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/pdf00106.pdf

However, I think inertia has pretty much squashed this initiative. I haven't heard anyone using the IEEE's proposed "kibibyte" and "mebibyte" terminology in general practice.

cfitz

[TheWizard]

Whatever dude, this topic is too bloody confusing, I need sleep.

[KCK]

cfitz:

I'm not sure whether Ki, Mi, Gi, Ti, Pi and Ei will win in the long run, but they already have quite strong support:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

[cfitz]

They are officially endorsed, no doubt, but I haven't seen them being used in common practice. And sometimes I think they are more popular with the physicists and such of the world who don't actually have need to use them in their own work but would like computer scientists and developers to stop bastardizing the physicists' SI units.

cfitz

[KCK]

Physicists don't care. But ask a computer scientist what 100 Mb/s and 10 Gb/s mean for Ethernet!

Actually it seems that 1 M = 10^6 throughout all ANSI and IEEE standards. Some companies (e.g., IBM) specify what 1 MB means in their documentations for RAM sizes, HDD capacities, and network transfers.

On the other hand, so far I have failed to locate even one standard which employs 1 MB = 2^20 B. If you do, please let me know!

[cfitz]

Physicists don't care. But ask a computer scientist what 100 Mb/s and 10 Gb/s mean for Ethernet!

That's because an electrical engineer designed Ethernet, not a computer scientist.

Actually it seems that 1 M = 10^6 throughout all ANSI and IEEE standards. Some companies (e.g., IBM) specify what 1 MB means in their documentations for RAM sizes, HDD capacities, and network transfers.

No surprise there, since IEEE came up with the kibi-mebi stuff in the first place. Moreover, most standards don't talk about file sizes or memory sizes, so the issue never comes up. They talk about things like MHz which has always been accepted to mean 1,000,000 Hz. And I would hope that any standard is quite explicit in its definition and usage of terms whenever there is any chance of confusion.

On the other hand, so far I have failed to locate even one standard which employs 1 MB = 2^20 B. If you do, please let me know!

I'm not aware of too many standards documents that refer to MBytes at all, regardless of usage, and I'm not going to search through documents looking for an example, but if I ever come across one I will post it.

However, that's not really my point. It may be that there are standards documents that treat 1 MByte as 1,000,000 Bytes, but in common usage, that isn't the case. There are hundreds of millions of desktops out there and programs running on them that display file sizes using the convention that 1 MByte = 1,048,576 Bytes. Of course, those same computers typically transfer data over IDE buses that define data transfer rates using the definition 1 MByte = 1,000,000 Bytes. So, what can I say but reiterate that it is confusing? I agree that it would be best if everything was expressed unambiguously.

cfitz

[KCK]

OK, I might have been too brief.

I agree that for file sizes reported on this forum, 1 MB should mean 2^20 B, even if this is not supported by any official standard.

Still, users should be aware that alternative conventions for 1 MB are commonly used in other contexts. For instance, most desktops nowadays have not only RAM, but also HDD's and network devices. Well, RAM sizes are easy. As for HDD's sizes, any hardware forum lists numerous complaints by users who feel cheated because Windows report less than what they bought. With network transfer speeds, it's a mess; just visit any networking forum.

As for whether the common convention of 1 MB = 2^20 B is supported by any standard, I was not asking you to search through documents. It's just a curiosity for me. Namely, some time ago on a networking forum I reported transfer speeds in MB/s, adding that 1 MB = 10^6 B in that context. This started a heated discussion with a crowd of computer scientist, who claimed that such usage was not supported by any standard. It took me a while to dig up ANSI and IEEE standards which supported my usage. Then, just for fun, I put the ball in their court, asking them for standards that employ 1 MB = 2^20 B. They have been quiet ever since.