ImageBurn files to disk or ISO?

[juststarting]

Was told before that a burned ISO would play on more players than any other type of burning. Now I have read that the new ImageBurn burning files direct is supposed to be as good or better? Anyone know for sure?

Thanks

[jimmalenko]

Was told before that a burned ISO would play on more players than any other type of burning.

This is purely just opinion, but that sounds like a load of baloney to me. If someone can bring forth proof, then I'll sit quietly in the corner ...

[EAO]

You know I never heard of this until recently.

I have always - until this week - recorded using the video_ts folder and Nero. I have only found one old Cyberhome DVD player to choke on my backups.

It'll take some time but now that I started to backup this way I will bring along several new image burns and see if it makes any difference on the Cyberhome player and post results.

[mats.hogberg]

I think the reason for this is that the best way to create (under given circumstances) an as compliant Video DVD as possible is (was) to create the ISO with Imgtools classic, then burn with DVDDecrypter.
Along came ImgBurn, which burned ISOs as good or better than its ancestor DVDDecrypter.
Now ImgBurn can create the ISO and burn it in one go. Hard to tell if it's as good at the former as ImgTools, but time will tell!

/Mats

[VegasBud]

ISO was all DvdDecrypter, and ImgBurn v1 were set up to use, so it was the only way to get access to the superior burning engine both use. Now that ImgBurn v2 has build mode, there should be no difference whatsoever between the two methods (at least in terms of quality). The "create ISO first" method will take a little longer because of the added user interaction (extra steps).

If you want an ISO, and 32k gaps are a consideration for a certain dvd, ImgBurn v2 is actually better than ImgTools Classic. For dvd's where 32k gaps aren't a concern, either produces flawless output, and the choice is determined by your personal preference.