ISO Disk Image Structure Question

Discussion in 'AnyDVD HD (Blu-ray issues)' started by random, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. random

    random New Member

    If a BR disk is directly decoded to an ISO image file on disk using AnyDVD/CloneCD or AnyDVD/ImgBurn, the resulting image contains a SLY! folder.

    However, if the same BR disk is first ripped to disk using AnyDVD and the rip is then used to create an ISO image on disk via ImgBurn, no SLY! folder is included and the image file is a few GB smaller.

    Can anyone enlighten me on the differences? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  2. Humpa

    Humpa Well-Known Member

  3. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    My original post doesn't include the lastest information on that issue. It was thought that ImgBurn was padding the ISO but that turns out to not be the case at all. James believes it's an issue with interleaving on some BD discs that cause the discrepency. When you rip directly to a folder, the interleaving is lost and thus the smaller size. The ISO keeps the entire file system in tact and will have the interleaving in place. What's the "better" solution is a matter of opinion. If you intend to burn the image, probably leaving the interleaving information in place is a better option. If you simply want to play back from the hdd, then the smaller size without the interleaving might make sense. It's really up to you.
     
  4. random

    random New Member

    I understand. The interleaving must be beneficial when playing from the DVD drive as opposed to the hdd. Perhaps improved drive transfer rates.

    Thanks for the info! :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2008
  5. profcolli

    profcolli Well-Known Member

    Does this mean that with (e.g.) a Disney BD that has crazy interleaving of many titles that the AnyDVD "rip" will put them back together into one .m2ts file? This would be cool to say the least for anyone who wants to convert without the BDedit playlist hassle....
     
  6. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    No, not at all. It's a layout issue of how the files are placed in the file structure. It doesn't affect the number of files.