1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Difference between burning a DVD from ISO image or hard drive files?

Discussion in 'DVD Shrink forum' started by cassandraann1, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. cassandraann1

    cassandraann1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    I am trying to backup a dvd using DVD Shrink and burn it to a blank dvd with ImgBurn. I think I understand the difference between 1) backing up the dvd to hard drive and 2) creating an ISO image, but I don't understand if you can burn with ImgBurn using either method or how they differ? Is the difference just that you have more flexibility in compression and options when you backup to hard drive? I tried searching the forum and searching the internet but still don't understand.

    Thank you!!
    Cassie
     
  2. xboxdvl2

    xboxdvl2 Regular member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    48
    an iso is a disc image (basically the data on the disc packed into one file).when ripping to hard drive you can compress it,leave stuff out,edit it,change the format of video files.i just opened imgburn and had a look (i dont use it very often).click write image file to disc then select the iso and should burn the iso to disc.i use dvdflick to burn avi files to dvd.i use dvdfab to make a back up of a dvd.

    easier way to make a back up on disc would be rip as an iso and burn the iso to disc.
     
  3. attar

    attar Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    11,509
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    128
    There's no difference as far as compression, etc.
    The image or the files saved to a folder are identical.
    Some media players on the PC don't want to playback from an iso file (preferring the folder) - but once burned to disk you have the same VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS structure on the disk from either method.
     
  4. ps355528

    ps355528 Regular member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yes indeed.. I have had to show people time and time again that it is as easy to burn a working dvd as a data disk just containing the video_ts and audio_ts directories as go to all the trouble of making a pointless iso.. and quicker :)
     
  5. Chetwood

    Chetwood Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Pointless? Yeah, right. Also, what kind of trouble is it to select "output to ISO" and get one file that can e.g. played back by VLC without prior mounting? And can easily be burned with ImgBurn?
     
  6. xboxdvl2

    xboxdvl2 Regular member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,186
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    48
    i remember a few years ago backing up a dvd without making an iso.stuck the disc in my dvd player and it didnt play.it came with with 2 folders on screen audio ts and video ts.yes i could go into video and play each file manually but had i done it as an iso it would of played straight away and i wouldnt have to search through folders.
     
  7. xtago

    xtago Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    There is no compression in an ISO image.

    An ISO image (and all the other disk image formats) is simply 1 file that is a full sized DVD that is ready to be written to a blank DVD.

    The reason why it is around is that when CD recorders first came out the IO bus couldn't transfer data in 2 directions on 1 bus, IDE can have 2 devices per IDE bus, so if you have a HD and a CD recorder on the 1 IDE bus then you couldn't read/write files from the HD straight to the CD recorder.

    The bus speed would slow down too much and the CD writer would stop recording and you'd end up with a dead disk as there was no recording skip like you have in all cd/dvd/bluray burners today.

    So what you'd do back then was...
    Have the HD and the writer on septate IDE buses, HD on primary and writer on secondary/slave

    You'd have 2 partitions, the reason was you could easily delete this partition and defrag it fast and it'd be ready for a new CD image, also it'd be the same size of the disk you were going to write generally it'd just be 750 megs as CDs were only 70mins long = 700megs plus disk setup and post write CD data.

    the 80min= 800meg CDs are only around because people found some writers at the time could do a over write on the disk thus giving some extra space.

    You'd select all the files you wanted to be written then you'd make an image to the CD partition because it's a clean partition you will be able to read into the CD writer buffer quickly and hopefully the transfer rates will keep up with the cd writer, thus allowing you to do a complete disk with out it becoming a dud disk due to the data not being transferred properly.

    These days with writers having 4 and 8 meg buffers on the drive and the software having 80meg ram buffers and the HD and SATA buses allows for 100's of megs of data to be transferred both ways on a single bus with multi devices on them, you generally don't have to worry about the image side of things anymore.

    These days people generally use CD images simply to transfer the data quickly and easy via the net or USB drives etc.
     

Share This Page