ERROR processing Blu-ray disc!

Discussion in 'AnyDVD HD (UHD only)' started by Rew452, Oct 6, 2019.

  1. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    Sadly, this isn't entirely accurate, either. SOME of the MK firmware has worked as UHD friendly, but, not nearly all. The ones we typically care about on this forum, yes, generally do work as UHD friendly.
    coopervid and DrinkLyeAndDie like this.
  2. coopervid

    coopervid Well-Known Member

    @SamuriHL ,

    at least you see how hard it is to keep up with all the developments and keep track :sneaky:. I also missed the part when BH16NS55 firmware went to unfriendly. theosch had the same request that i had asked you: To put together an overview about all the firmwares and cross-flash options. I don't dare to do so. I still think you have the best overview but I also acknowledge that it's very tricky to not forget all the pitfalls that might come your way.
    theosch likes this.
  3. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    I have _ZERO_ interest in trying to put such a list together. There are far too many caveats and pitfalls on that plus it's a moving target. Quite frankly, my advice hasn't changed much. If you're on an ASUS drive, use the BW-16D1HT 3.10 MK firmware. If you're on an LG drive, my advice is slightly more tricky. Use the latest NS55 MK firmware at the time, then downgrade to the NS55 1.02 firmware. Then leave it the f*** alone. I personally have my ASUS drive on 3.10 MK and my NS60 on 1.00 unpatched official. It should be painfully obvious as to which drive is used exclusively with which program. LOL. External drives are far more complicated and this advice DOES NOT apply to them. That's another reason I have zero intention of ever trying to maintain a list. The gist of it is this, however:

    Get yourself on an MK firmware. Check for UHD friendliness (I.E. Doth AnyDVD play niceth?). If no, DOWNGRADE to a known UHD friendly firmware for the drive. Since you're on MK, you can downgrade and cross flash to your heart's content. That's really it. The simple golden rules in a nutshell.
  4. coopervid

    coopervid Well-Known Member

    @SamuriHL ,

    sounds a little upset and excited but it's great advice!! :thankyou::coolman:
  5. Ch3vr0n

    Ch3vr0n Translator NL & Mod

    No I'm not. I said 'AFAIK'. which means 'as far as I known, which pretty much means 'i'm not sure.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
  6. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    I've no issue with the afaik part. I take issue with the sarcastic I hate to say I told you so part.

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
  7. theosch

    theosch Well-Known Member

    Well when I was pretending and in case I wasn't 100% certain about it, I expressed it with a quotation mark in behind, like saying afaik. And that was nerving him.
    But now he writes opposite, that the afaik-part was not the issue, but just the sarcastic part to other person??

    I personally find it sometimes a bit difficult with talking, because they "appear" (a little bit) macho to me, (but really not extremely).
    Well don't know how to tell,
    Nethertheless I know they have very very much knowledge and can explain it very good and in short.

    Francly I still had no reason to buy a "good" UHD movie yet, next nice-looking movie I'll buy as UHD will be Avatar 2 (Red Bird 2), so I had no opportunity to do my homework with testing firmwares.
    But I'm still surprised, what would be wrong about those statements,

    OK'll have to propose, that at least thebfat one is wrong, as you said, to they were to restore MKV-functionality for Makemkv needs.

    I just let the possibility open, that Mike probably cannot restore makemkv-functionality (in all cases) for Makemkv, but when he releases such mk-firmwares (many mkv-versions are e.g. on a higher version from a stock firmware, (where were more flashing restriction where the DE_ firmware e.g. not flashable directly), there must be at least some benefit, otherwise he wouldn't release such, to at least enable downgradibility for example.
    I can't reproduce what was wrong about that "conclusion".

    E.g. the "DE_XX.bin" firmware are not called with an "mk" in filename, but they still work with makemkv, so didn't expect a shemata behind.

    But OK, things are anyway often more confusing to me than others. And Mike could have called those higher version without an "mk", too, if they didn't work with Makemkv.

    The "DE" firmwares also work even at stock with makemkv (but they are not called mk, because the stock one already works with AnyDVD and makemkv (just for downgradibility).

    And the LG 1.03 firmware from Mike has an "MK" in filename, because it works with makemkv, because the original-stock 1.03 one doesn't work with Makemkv.

    OK makes more sense to me what SamurilH was saying :)
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
  8. coopervid

    coopervid Well-Known Member

    theosch likes this.
  9. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    All I was saying is this:

    It is wrong to say that MK firmware never restores UHD friendliness, as it sometimes does.
    It is wrong to say that MK firmware always restores UHD friendliness, as it sometimes doesn't.
    It is wrong to say that MK firmware doesn't always work with MakeMKV, as that is the entire point of MK firmware's existence.

    That's it. My 3 corrections for people. My frustration comes from having to repeat this multiple times (not specifically anyone here....just in general) and watching false information spread like wildfire that then takes time to correct. People take what they read on these forums as gospel, and when it's wrong, it can cause all sorts of unintended consequences...from people flashing the wrong thing and bricking a drive, to not flashing the right thing thinking they're stuck and have no solution. I just want the proper information out there so people can judge for themselves what they can and can't do with the equipment they own.
  10. coopervid

    coopervid Well-Known Member


    therefore an ultimate guide would be helpful :). But since this is work in progress and most users have just 1 or 2 drives the variety of drives just can't be handled properly to make an educated guess or recommendation.

    And therefore we will continue to have the discussions in various forums for various drives for various firmwares. I will follow your suggestions when I am asked for suggestions. Keep it to friendly / if possible friendly - MK compatible. And that's it.
    theosch likes this.
  11. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    The situation is far more complicated than what you presented there, theosch. Here's a lengthy technical explanation as to why:

    Originally, we had dosflash to flash these firmware. It was error prone, and any screw up could brick a drive. Plus you needed equipment with IDE enabled SATA ports. Loads of fun to be had by all.

    Then, Mike released some information that allowed to have so called "DE" firmware. The DE is the so-called "downgrade enabled" firmware that, when patched with a DE byte (literally) at a certain address in the bin file, would allow the drive to be flashed with a lower version of firmware than what was currently on it. Mike warned us, and we knew, this was going to be a very temporary situation and indeed it was. At the same time that the "DE revolution" was going on, Mike was working on so-called MK firmware. The purpose of which is to restore the ability to upload firmware code to the memory of the drive and execute it. That's it. It's not about restoring UHD friendliness, although that sometimes happens as a by-product, it's about restoring the ability of the drive to be modified by LibreDrive. Currently, LibreDrive uploads firmware code that bypasses MKB revocation and disables bus encryption.

    Now, as we said, DE firmware's time in the sun was limited, as we knew they vendors would fight back. And they sure as hell did. First, they disabled the interface to dosflash. Then, they disabled the ability to set the DE byte for downgrade. Then, just to piss everyone off, they added additional checks to prevent downgrading on top of that. Hence, MK firmware. Mike modifies the firmware to remove the downgrade restrictions and re-enable firmware uploading to memory. That is why on these new drives with new firmware, you often need to flash it with a new MK firmware before you can then flash it to whatever you want. IOW, MK firmware will allow you to then flash a DE firmware if you wish to go backwards. This is very helpful when you want to restore UHD friendliness when the MK firmware itself doesn't.

    Hopefully this clears up any remaining confusion.
  12. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    I'm not doing it. The ultimate guide exists on MakeMKV and people still f*** it up. The information is often out of date hours after they update it. See my last post for "recommendations" and a history lesson on why this situation sucks and what needs to be done about it. It's a matter of flashing the latest MK firmware available for the hardware you have, then flashing whatever the hell you want after that. That's really it.
    theosch likes this.
  13. coopervid

    coopervid Well-Known Member

    @SamuriHL ,

    excellent summary of the history. Some of the technical details were outlined in my links for theosch but these didn't explain how it all evolved.
  14. theosch

    theosch Well-Known Member

    My Aide-memory what I'd do first if I got a new UHD drive ,would be finding out current original stock firmware version number on the drive.
    If it's a newer version, finding if there's an mk-version of this available, and if, trying flashing mk-firmware-version from same-numbered version of this model.
    It could be possible, that flashing an older or newer mk-fw-version for this than the newer stock one, doesn't unlock flashing more fimwares, so I'd try same-numbered MK-version for the current-stock one first, to make sure.
    If there was not the same-numbered mk-version for the original-stock available for the time being, I'd wait some time until there's one there.
    (I hope thge fat passage is not guessing too much, and perhaps it get's answered a bit in coopervid's two links)
    If there's not the same-numbered mk-version currently available like the stock-one, and don't want to wait, maybe trying out an older MK-version, if developer could assure it won't brick drive, or wouldn't result in a kind of blockade.

    Is this a good guidance? Well that's how I'd understand SamurilH in Post #32. :)

    Or better asking Mike and/or SamurilH before ;)

    Thanks coopervid for the two links, And I hadn't read them actually.
    And thanks SamurilH for the more easy main guidance.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  15. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    Mostly. If you are on a new firmware version on a drive, you must flash the same or HIGHER version of MK firmware in order for it to work. Most of the time. That's not a HARD rule. For example, I've read someone who had an ASUS drive with 3.11 on it who was able to flash 3.10 MK. I've read others who were NOT able to do so with the same drive and firmware. So that isn't 100% clear when it works and when it doesn't. You won't brick anything by trying. You'll simply get an error code like error 4 or 5. Sometimes cross flashing another MK firmware from a different drive works. So getting TO an MK version for your drive can sometimes be problematic at best. However, once you're ON an MK version, you're good to go. Downgrade, cross flash, whatever you want. Usually when a new firmware version pops up, Mike will work with people to get it extracted so he can create a new MK version of it.

    But boiled down is: Get to an MK version however you can, then you are free to do whatever you'd like.
    theosch likes this.
  16. theosch

    theosch Well-Known Member

    Yes I've seen that there can be a difference even on same firmware version numbers tht are from several unit's (even on same model number).

    E.g. had looked at (older) Clean-Firmware LG BH16NS55 1.02 Clean firmware from
    And the older Clean-firmware "flash_HL-DT-ST_BD-RE_BH16NS55_1.02.bin" (more obselete firmware etc. and unuseful) has a bit different hex-data compared to my BH16NS55-1.02-dump
    (I mean even outside the unique Drive encryption signature area etc)

    But the "Clean"-firmware "flash_HL-DT-ST_BD-RE_BH16NS55_1.03.bin" firmware revision appears to match to my 1.03 BH16NS55 dump (corresponding parts identical)

    You can see here as e.g. proof:

    It's on the screenshot below below quoted text of the post (Press STRG+F, and search with cut and paste for that text)


    Interestingly I had used Teddies old hexrange, (which he later corrected, because he had noticed he did a small mistake with on his old hexrange for the old (unsafe) downgrade method.

    At beginning in that screenshot you see I've done a sha256sum checksum file compare check of Original BH16NS55 firmware dump and of "flash_HL-DT-ST_BD-RE_BH16NS55_1.03.bin" (copy) , before moving the data of the 1.03 dump into the 1.03 Clean firmware,

    Then after moving the hex-range-with dd-hexediting data from the 1.03 original dump into the clean firmware, the edited Clean firmwares checksum is identical. In screenshot is shown, that of couse only a tiny part of the firmware dump was copied into the clean
    Redid with EEPROM data moverm also edited Clean firmware checksum gets identical to original 1.03 dump.
    (Always worked with a copy of Clean firmware etc, so that it is no cheating)
    <==(Old unsafe method, just as example, that firmware's revisions are identical.

    Me pretending that "flash_HL-DT-ST_BD-RE_BH16NS55_1.03.bin" coming from unit with also identical encryption signature in the revision, possibly false statement from me removed.
    But at least rest firmware-revision identical see screenshot- (as I cannot know what the (whole) firmware looked like (including the drive encryption) before it was cleaned to a "Clean" firmware "flash_HL-DT-ST_BD-RE_BH16NS55_1.03.bin" [Edit]
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019