Burn More Data in CD

[phkninja]

Well using a cd over 800MB is not the way to go either as drives dont have to support anything over the 800MB standard. If you want it to definateluy run on machine then your stuck to 800MB.

BTW.

Tape is lower quality, harder to copy protect and a pain to use. Trust me im an engineer and with tape medium or cd is the same difficulty for me to copy, but cd is less hasstle to carry the same data and doesnt get damage every time you put it in the machine to read (tape gets stretched by the machine and also gets ruffled the more you use it. And being a magnetic storage device it picks up metallic junk)

[Jeremy]

One reason is that I want to be able to use a medium that I can use in almost any PC out there and the other is so that I can mess around with VCD

I don't "mess around" with "VCDs", I burn DVDs... meaning I don't waste media until the product to be burnt is finalized. This can be done by saving the project to ISO and mounting it to a virtual drive with Daemon Tools.

...and writing games. Also most PC games out there have CD versions of the same game.

True, which I can't stand. I hate having insert CD1, 2, 3, 4, then 1 again before setup is finished and then have to keep CD1 in the drive just to play the game. I don't even bother making a DVD from the setup files, which usually just requires moving all the CAB or PAK files to the same folder and editing an INI or .MSI file with Orca. I install the game, patch it if necessary, then back it up with any needed registry keys to an ISO which I burn. If I want to play that game far into the future, I just extract it from the backup. It doesn't get any easier than that.

CD is the main disc storage unless you want to go back to double sided laser disc. No in fact Lser discs are still the main meduim but since CD is in high production so why not?

I've never seen anyone backup files to a laser disc. I've only seen a laser disc once in my life and it was in Grade 7 during a class presentation. It contained still images which were poor quality. I've been using CD-Rs since I was 15 and DVD+/-Rs since I was 16. You sound like you're living in the past. DVD storage is by no means whatsoever "new".

By spliting our data into more pieces we are able to protect the data rather then protecting some Blessed disc mounted on the wall fo everybody to see.

Have you not heard of password protected archives or encryption, or just keep your belongings close by you at all times when travelling? My personal files do not hang on the wall, they sit inside a binder which is near me at all times.

Another great thing about a CD it is that easy to copy then any video cassette tape meduim out there. If musicans and movie makers really wanted to roll in the doh they should go back to tape.

Not so much, no.

[eidenk]

Dear Folk,

I am new commer to MSFN. I am happy to get myself as a member of this group. I am in great miss information about buning CD. I have got some CD that containts more then 1GB Data. When I copy it to HDD then file size increase more then 1GB. If I burn CD to CD it has no problem. But how it is possible to store more then 1 or 1.5 GB data to a 650 or 700MB capasity CD . CD containt was WinXP customise OS, And another CD containt windows 2003. And another CD containts some Software that my friends gift me. Both were CD not DVD.

Can anybody help about this information.

Thanks

ALO

Data on CD is stored contiguously, ie, without empty gaps. Fill a 700MB CD with 1kb files. Then copy that to HDD with a cluster size of 32kb and see how much disk space it occupies. 32 x 700MB or 22GB but in fact there will only be 700MB of data. All the rest is lost.

This issue has nothing to see with overburning IMO or mode 2 CD or whatever of that sort but everything with the fact that there cannot be 2 files on the same cluster on HDD (at least on FAT32 dunno for NTFS).

On CDs no space is lost, on HDD the space occupied by a file will be a multiple of the cluster size. If a file is the size of one cluster + 1 bit, it will occupy two clusters.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[CoffeeFiend]

CD is the main disc storage unless you want to go back to double sided laser disc. No in fact Lser discs are still the main meduim but since CD is in high production so why not?

I'm significantly older than Jeremy, and I've NEVER seen a single laserdisc of my whole life. Saying it's the main medium is just ludicrous. And these days, DVD sales outnumber CD sales in many (most?) places, and the trend continutes. I don't have any old CD/CD-RW drive anymore (haven't had one for 2 or 3 years now) - just like floppies. DVD media basically costs the same, but holds like 6x more stuff. Both types of drives are pretty much at the same price point (dirt cheap).

Another great thing about a CD it is that easy to copy then any video cassette tape meduim out there.

Yeah, like putting a cassette in the other deck, hitting record on the blank tape side and play on the other is hard... Or just plugging the line out to a sound card. It's equally trivial to copy. I guess the only hard part about copying blank tapes is finding somewhere that still carries blank tapes - protection by obsolescence! Just like gramophone recordings would be "harder" to copy because nobody sells blank wax cylinders.

If musicans and movie makers really wanted to roll in the doh they should go back to tape.

You forgot about 78rpm records, 8 track tapes, and 8mm film reels for movies.

It's the age of high quality digital audio/video, multichannel/surround sound, digital players (computers, portable mp3/video players, consoles, etc), PVRs, HTPCs and everything HDTV.

So basically you're saying they should back 20 years+ in technology, and offer low quality analog stuff, on olde crappy tape media that degrades significantly over time, costs more to produce, takes more space, and won't play on most devices where we take it for granted by now? Perhaps the plan is to make more money by alienating their paying customers by providing them with useless low quality crap that belongs in a museum? Perhaps we should buy walkmans again to replace our nice and expensive mp3 players, and carry along hundreds of tapes if we want some selection? Or we just all have to bother with doing an analog capture off junk tape media and then reencode it to have mp3s?

Yeah, I'm sure that would go over real well! That's like the ultimate, very best ever thing they could do to kill their sales altogether, and have all P2P traffic increase 10 fold overnight.

[phkninja]

if you were right then an installer of 32mb removed from a cd would take up 1073741824 bytes on the had drive with a cluster size of 32kb (so it would be 1GB or 1024MB of data on had drive space). How come then it always copies as 32mb?

The actual reason has been explained numerous times. Firstly there are different sizes of cd media, and secondly most cd's that are extracted and take up 1.5GB are usually those with duplicate files on the cd which are referenced rather than copied to the cd twice. Like in a file archiver, you dont want to copy the same data twice when you compress it so the compression scheme makes a code word for the first occasion and uses this codeword to reference the next occurance.

[eidenk]

if you were right then an installer of 32mb removed from a cd would take up 1073741824 bytes on the had drive with a cluster size of 32kb (so it would be 1GB or 1024MB of data on had drive space). How come then it always copies as 32mb?

I guess you haven't properly read what I wrote. I have never said that a 32MB file from a CD would occupy 1GB on HDD.

Edited February 21, 2007 by eidenk

[Jeremy]

So basically you're saying they should back 20 years+ in technology, and offer low quality analog stuff, on olde crappy tape media that degrades significantly over time, costs more to produce, takes more space, and won't play on most devices where we take it for granted by now? Perhaps the plan is to make more money by alienating their paying customers by providing them with useless low quality crap that belongs in a museum? Perhaps we should buy walkmans again to replace our nice and expensive mp3 players, and carry along hundreds of tapes if we want some selection? Or we just all have to bother with doing an analog capture off junk tape media and then reencode it to have mp3s?

Yeah, I'm sure that would go over real well! That's like the ultimate, very best ever thing they could do to kill their sales altogether, and have all P2P traffic increase 10 fold overnight.

ROTFFLMMFAO!!! :lol::lol:

Pwned.

[sleepydvdr]

I think we have gotten way off topic. So I will rant a little now: I must say that the max profit is not made in ANY media format. Max profit is made in the most recent offerings: digital downloads. Near zero manufacturing/delivery costs yet almost the same amount of $ is charged. No brainer - max profit and no one can reasonably argue with that. And there are only two kinds of people out there: those smart enough to break digital copy protection and those who can't (unlike the people on this forum, I bet the general public cannot break digital encryption). However, I remember back in the 80s there were these things called "high speed dubbing cassette decks". Load the original tape in deck #1 and the blank in deck #2 and press down on a button called "High speed dub". Not too technical. Bootlegging has been around for many decades. Why do record companies complain so much now? Oh, that's right. They hit their peak and they are now experiencing their inevitable decline. So they cry like children do when we grab a toy from them. They think a good thing will last forever. Hint: I think music has hit its peak and is on its decline. So has the economy. Adapt like everyone and every other company in the world has done and quit whining. OK, enough off-topic stuff. Back on track now...

One little comment about an earlier post: I have used my 850MB CDs in a very old CD player (made many years before 850MB came around) and they worked fine. They were DIVX and MP3 discs and did not contain redundant files in separate folders. They may not work on all older CD players, but they at least do on mine. I burnt the majority of them with a Plextor CD burner. I must admit I haven't burned one in over two years (I only use DVDs now), but the scheme worked.

Response to another comment... I can see a use for using CDs over DVDs. CDs are more universally compatible and there are many games that use the >700MB capacity as a cheap form of copy protection.

And finally, yes, the greater storage space is possible because of narrowing the space between tracks and by taking up some of the reserved space (I think it is the same space used for TOCs and artist/track naming that is rarely taken advantage of on retail CDs). On a way off topic subject, I once read that about half of a CD's capacity is used up by checksums. I know checksums are very important for recovering data from scratched discs, but if we eliminated that, couldn't we pretty much double the capacity to about 2GB? Just a thought. That would be an amazing feat for a format originally designed for a 650MB capacity.

[CoffeeFiend]

I think we have gotten way off topic.

Well, he got his answer in post #3: it's an optimized disc, where duplicate files are only there once (but are present in the TOC several times). Nothing new here... Even my old NT4 install CD had this a dozen years ago. Several apps can do this easily.

Max profit is made in the most recent offerings: digital downloads.

I have to agree mostly. The only reason why traditional CD sales sometimes makes more profit is that you can't just buy the one or 2 good tunes from the CD for 1 or 2$, but only the whole thing for 15$. Also, with traditional media they like to sell you the same tunes over and over again (on those "best of" albums, movie soundtracks and what not). And typically people buy the CDs without listening to them first. With digital distribution, most sites have previews, and people won't buy the boring tunes (some new CDs just suck altogether). But then again digital downloads are like ~100% profit, and because of DRM it's likely they'll manage to sell you the same song in another format eventually (another sale)...

Anyhow. If they want to make max profit, perhaps they should update their business model/way to do business? If they offered something like allofmp3 (but legal, no DRM) I'm sure they'd make a killing. That's what most people want nowadays (preferably with some format/bitrate choices). Well, that, and produce good music for a change - it just might help.

And finally, yes, the greater storage space is possible because of narrowing the space between tracks and by taking up some of the reserved space (I think it is the same space used for TOCs and artist/track naming that is rarely taken advantage of on retail CDs). On a way off topic subject, I once read that about half of a CD's capacity is used up by checksums. I know checksums are very important for recovering data from scratched discs, but if we eliminated that, couldn't we pretty much double the capacity to about 2GB? Just a thought. That would be an amazing feat for a format originally designed for a 650MB capacity.

Track density (how many tracks per inch) is more than the double. Pit length is also much shorter. It also has better ECC (wastes less space).

As for the "checksums" (ECC) on a CD, it's roughly 13% (2324/2048) - nowhere near half the capacity. You can burn CD/XA Mode2 Form2 (aka XCD) disc using special software if you want (storing ~800MB on a 700MB CDR). But if there's any dust or scratches at all, expect not to be able to fully recover your data. I've burned a few mpeg4 rips this way before but you can't read any of them now... DVD media also has ECC bits - there's no way around this.

[Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa]

Yeah, I'm sure that would go over real well! That's like the ultimate, very best ever thing they could do to kill their sales altogether, and have all P2P traffic increase 10 fold overnight.

Well this way we could raise buying the piece of music online and worsen the quality even further un purpose. 14 year olds would be walking out with a pile of 26 cassettes with only one piece of music per tape for seven dollars each. Then we could go back to VCD. Keep DVD and charge a ridicoulous amount of money to buy a single DVD.

The idea is that we release only small drops of water rather then pour on the slurpy. The only thing they would be sharing is shotty music and artifact filled videos.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa

[Chie]

hey i have a question guys.

just now i made an unattended ISO totalling 860mb, is there a way to burn it into multiple CD-R's? so that the setup says "pls insert disc 2". thanks.

Edited February 23, 2007 by berchita