What is VIDEO_RM???

[mntentman]

I posted a bit ago about problems making a copy of a DVD I burned on a Philips DVDR75. Disks from that unit open on a Mac with two folders -- one is VIDEO_TS and the other is VIDEO_RM. Does anyone know what the latter is, and if it is somehow related to the difficulty copying one of these? Thanks.

[WiseWeasel]

Well, what's inside it, and how big are they on average? Does it work ok if you just copy that folder to your HD in the Finder and add it to the folder you rip the VIDEO_TS folder to? Does it work if you only have the VIDEO_TS folder? One possible tool to use to rip if the two cases above don't work is OSEx in DVD Image format. It takes forever, but is very compatible.

[mntentman]

Here's what's inside:

VIDEO_RM.IFO, 32K
VIDEO_MN.DAT, 4K
VIDEO_RM.DAT, 1MB
VIDEO_MN.IFO, 4K
VIDEO_RM.BUP, 0K

I could not copy to the HD -- got a -128 error message. Copied individually to a like-named folder, "seemed" to work but the file above that is 0K was 2K in the original. Not sure if that is significant. But I am adding to folder VIDEO_TS is in. We'll see if it works.

I can make a DVDBackup of just the VIDEO_TS folder, but if I try to go to disk I get "invalid media file" message.

I will tey OSEx if the above doesn't work.

Thanks for your help.

[mntentman]

No go. Unless I make a disk image, nothing seems to work at all. Tried OSEx but it crashed if a disk was inserted. See my other recent post... I can get this work using Toast disk imaging (which does copy the VIDEO_RM file) but it will not work in all players.

So, I guess a recap:

-- burning with the VIDEO_RM, works in all players except Pioneer
-- burning with just VIDEO_TS, works in only Pioneer.

There has to be some pro out there who those why this is, right?

Thanks for any advice.

[dcsos]

as far as I know the RM files are only for navigation on a SETOP DVD RECORDER
Not a PLAYER..I'm told the player doesn't need these....
I thought they were just there in case you want to record again on the blank

With Phillips recorded dvd's you dont get two folders as in VIDEO_TS and AUDIO_TS....like you do on a normal dvd.....
You get two folders called....VIDEO_TS(like normal) and VIDEO_RM(the RM folder contains DAT files, IFO files,and VIDEO_RM.BUP files)

The strange thing is that if i want a copy of a phillips recorded dvd, i just rip it and burn the VIDEO_TS folder..as you normally do (using this method it doesn't burn the VIDEO_RM folder).

Or i just do a dvd copy with the Nero wizard (in this case it burns the VIDEO_RM folder too)

This is very strange, because the dvd's are playable whichever method i use to burn them.

Therefore: the VIDEO_RM folder doesnt seem to be doing anything really?

http://forum.digital-digest.com/archive/topic/23311-1.html

[Emmit]

The VIDEO_TS folder is basically all you need for a standard video DVD.

The AUDIO_TS folder will hold the audio for a DVD-AUDIO disk, but is created blank for a standard video disk.

The VIDEO_RM folder is a non-standard folder created by Philips writers, and doesn't have any impact on the video for most playback devices. You can safely ignore it.

[flashandpan007]

incredible, this thread is already 5254+ days old ...

[TechLord]

I just did a bit of research, and found this website to add here: http://www.afterdawn.com/glossary/term.cfm/video_rm

VIDEO_RM

Folders found in a DVD file structure can often contain a legacy folder called VIDEO_RM. Essentially, this folder is rather useless to most set-top DVD players as it is a folder referenced on Philips brand DVD recorders as well as Philips clones. For reasons unknown, Philips decided not to abide by standards of DVD file structures and used this VIDEO_RM folder to hold information about the recording device a DVD was created on.

The folder, when viewed through several DVD re-authoring tools will show that it is useless much in the same way an AUDIO_TS folder is.

There have been cases where DVDs created with the VIDEO_RM folder have caused several other brands of set-top players, DVD re-authoring programs and other devices to not read the DVD information correctly. Often an error similar to "unrecognized file structure" will be given as whatever device is reading the disk does not understand what to do with the Video_RM folder. Simple fixes include loading the DVD in File mode on certain DVD re-authoring programs and deleting anything associated with the Video_RM folder, then compiling a new, clean ISO.

Related glossary terms:

• AUDIO_TS
• Authoring
• DVD
• DVD+R
• DVD+R DL
• DVD+RW
• DVD-5
• DVD-9
• DVD-R
• VIDEO_TS
• VOB

·•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··•··• ··•··•··•··•··•·

[I]ncredible, this thread [119080] is already 5254+ days old …

5287 days now (Timestamp: 20180102131051 W.E.T.). However, that does not make it lesser relevant.

[flashandpan007]

Of course the threadstarter waited so long that somebody found it 14/15 years later. Lol

[Cornucopia]

@TechLord, that quote you referenced is WRONG on many counts:
1. VIDEO_RM, NOT a legacy folder. The spec postdates the DVD-Video spec.
2. Referenced by any recorder that uses the RM spec (mostly, but not only, Philips).
3. It is its own standard in keeping with DVD Forum, but used for other purposes than consumer playback of prerecorded films (DVD-Video), so no surprise that it is useless to DVD-Video standard.
4. Some authoring/ripping tools can make use of its assets (yes, there are assets in there), but most cannot.
5. AUDIO_TS folder is useful for DVD-Audio spec, and rare has any video assets, but is far from useless, especially with DVD-Audio material (where it is more important than VIDEO_TS).
6. Anytime one is using a dvd that has both VIDEO_TS and VIDEO_RM, one should ignore the VIDEO_RM folder completely when gathering assets. And one should ALWAYS reauthor from raw or plain multiplexed assets, and not original VOB structure, in order to have a clean new structure.

What Emmit said is enough for most users.

Scott Warren

[tuskacz]

Of course the threadstarter waited so long that somebody found it 14/15 years later. Lol

You present your ignorance by saying something like this.
Thread is read not only by thread starter but by people like me who had exactly same query and found answer for it no matter because it was posted years after but because it was posted - and I'm very glad for it.
Just because someone replies to very old thread doesn't mean he replies to original poster, but provides his input to ALL people having this query and for future lookers.
That's why I support the idea to leave threads open because unanswered questions get proper answers.

[flashandpan007]

I am glad you found what you are looking for.