Burning Data Back Up Discs Using IMGBurn ISO 9660+UDF 1.02 - Have I Made a Mistake?




I’ve burned many BD-R data back up discs on Smart Blu Media.
These back up discs contain FLAC files.

I’ve noticed that I have used ISO 9660 + UDF Revision 1.02/MODE1/2048 to burn all of these discs. Have I made a mistake? Should I have used ISO 9660 + UDF 2.50 or 2.60 instead? These discs contain files that I consider to be important (rare live concert recordings).

Should I reburn all of the discs again (50+, UGH)?
Or will be my collection of FLAC files be secure on discs burned in ISO 9660+ UDF 1.02 format? I’ll be using my LG Blu-Ray WH12LS30 Burner exclusively to view the contents of these discs on my PC.

Any help would be appreciated!

Thank You,



I’ve noticed that I have used ISO 9660 + UDF Revision 1.02 to burn all of these discs. Have I made a mistake?

No. This will work.

Should I reburn all of the discs again (50+, UGH)?

No need. The disks will read in PC with BD reader or burner.

UDF 2.50 is used to backup BD movie disks.
UDF 2.60 is used to record multisession BD movie or AVCHD like disks in personal recorders or cameras.

UDF 1.02 is the most compatible and supported by Windows.



Thank you for the rapid reply!
I feel so much better knowing that I have not wasted countless hours and a good amount of money backing up data to ISO 9660 + UDF Revision 1.02 discs.

I have one more question.

On the flip side, are BD-R data back up discs burned in ISO 9660 + UDF Revision 2.50 format, which contain FLAC files or MKV files any less compatible with Windows 7 than discs burned in ISO 9660 + UDF Revision 1.02?

Your help is appreciated.




Can’t remember if windows7 can read directly UDF 2.50 disks, but the iso9660 always be supported by any modern version of windows.


Thank you once again, zhadoom! :bow:

As long as my PC and PS3 can read my BD-Rs I’m happy, regardless of the UDF revision. :cool:

Have a great one!



UDF 2.50+ is natively supported in Vista+.

Using 2.50+ you get a backup of certain file system descriptors - which may come in handy should the initial set become unreadable for any reason.

So yeah, don’t worry about the disc you’ve already done, they’ll be fine.

Going forward, start to use 2.50+ :slight_smile:



Thank you for the information. I’ll stick with ISO 9660+UDF 2.50 going forward.
I love your product.

IMGBurn is a Godsend!



A few years back I was thinking of burning my BD-R discs the same way as you rockphantom, i.e. ISO 9660+UDF but after encountering certain problems with this configuration I began to burn in UDF exclusively. If I remember correctly, IMGBurn would shorten the file names to make them compatible with ISO 9660 which I didn’t want, so I went with UDF alone which is great for long file and path names.
For my own burns, I usually use UDF 2.60, but if I’m burning for someone else and there is a possibility of the disc being opened with Windows XP, I choose UDF 2.50.


Even if the file names stored in the ISO9660 file system are changed to 8.3 format, that makes no difference to the names stored in the UDF file system and therefore will never be seen by anything that can read and understand the version of UDF used on the disc.

XP can’t read UDF 2.50 or 2.60 without the use of a 3rd party UDF file system driver.


Thanks for clarifying that LIghtning UK. I will have to test this out on a rewritable disc. I was under the impression that when selecting ISO 9660+UDF IMGBurn shortens long names, that’s why I never went that route.
What is the benefit of selecting ISO 9660 along with UDF anyways? I can burn the discs in UDF 1.02 for backward compatibility with Win XP, but why burn ISO9660 file system on a blu-ray disc?


It does shorten them but it’s on a file system by file system basis. When building each file system, it always starts with the proper/full names and then applies the restrictions to them.

There is no point in just having ISO9660+UDF on a Blu-ray disc. Nothing that supports Blu-ray (from the same approx time period) is going to have a problem with reading UDF. If someone happens to have a device that falls back to reading non UDF file systems, you’d want it to fall back to Joliet rather than ISO9660 - so then you’d need to be using ISO9660+Joliet+UDF. At all other times, stick with plain old UDF.