1) The drive (via O.S.) shows source as 4.7 When I try to make a copy using a cheapie dvd ripper, it reports the source now as 7.4 gig so appears not to fit to the dvd-r. Is that like CSS copy protection interfering or some setting I need handle within the copy program? 2) Then trying to install use DVDXCOPY 1.X - a. It runs the install part okay; b. I activate it; c. says drivers are not properly installed; d. I install drivers provided by the link the general install sets up; e. Requests a reboot, I do that; f. Retry to launch program. Same error. client: Windows ME DVD/R+ 16X burner
First can DVDXcopy it is old and there are no updates and it won't work properly. Second I am not sure what you mean by cheapie ripper. All you need is two free programs DVD Shrink and DVD Decrypter and the guides to go with them. Guides: http://www.dvdplusvideo.com/index.htm http://home.comcast.net/~bbmayo/
1) oh so that commercial version of DVD X Copy is bad/won't install at all??? that's pretty odd... 2) cheaper - as in I picked up pinnacle's "instant dvd copy" that I picked up for pretty cheap. that's the one that again as a 7.4 gig dvd but the OS reports it just as 4.7 gig, so didn't know what the problem was except kinda thought it maybe copy protection or ???
You can have original dvds with as much as 8.5 gig on them. These are dual layer. I don't know why you are getting 2 different readings off the same dvd. Also blank dvd media show 4.7 gig but actual size is around 4.36 gig. So don't try to fit 4.7 gig of data on a blank without a compression program. Jerry
Yes odd its given 2 different readings. I thought it maybe copy protection going on & generates false reading? Or does the OS report only the single layer at a time? Also even how a 4.7 drive can handle like a 7-8 gig of data. Is that through compression?
The discs that have more than 4.37GB are essentially 2 discs glued together. You can get blanks that size but they're pretty expensive and you have to have a newer burner that supports writing to them. I finally bought a new burner a couple of weeks ago but I have no plans to spend the money on the media (about $4 each in bulk). Why the OS would show 4.7GB even if it was only reading a single layer at a time is truly a mystery since Windows uses the standard base 2 version of a gigabyte (2^9 bytes - sometimes referred to as a gibibyte or GiB) which means 4.7 billion bytes would be 4.37GB. The larger number used for marketing purposes is technically correct since Giga is a metric prefix which refers to a base 10 numbering system, making 4.7 billion bytes 4.7gigabytes but I've never heard of any OS calculating space that way.
Well OS is reporting a 4.XX gig amount v. maybe 4.7. I was just using that figured based on what they are sold as to contain. As well if 2 "glued" together would I physically have to flip it for the drive to read the other amount right? But the software is reporting the 7.XX amount but without flipping it over for the knowing the amount on the other side. Hence my confusion/questions.
Both layers are on the same side of the disc. The layer that's glued on has alternating rings of data and transparent material where the data rings for the first layer are, allowing both layers to be read. You're confusion is justified since what the OS is reporting doesn't seem to make any sense. Clearly your drive isn't having any problems reporting the correct size elsewhere so that issue is apparently with Windows.
Oh so the OS (win me) is the one actually misreporting and its actually more data on it and you think the dvd ripper software is reporting accurately the amount of data stored on the disc? but i could use like dvd shrink/decrypter or another tool to get what i want off to a 4.XX blank cd-r then?? if i did with like dvdxcopy that wouldn't fit since it wouldn't fit with a 7.XX gig to a 4.XX gig blank right?
Sounds like you've pretty much got it. Just rip with Decrypter and compress with Shrink and you should be fine. For most discs you can actually rip with Shrink, but there are some newer ones it won't handle. Personally I don't compress with Shrink due to quality considerations, but I always recommend that people start with it because it's free and even if you move on to another program you'll have a standard to compare it against before you spend any money.
