You forgot this:
DVD Identifier V3.6.1
Finalized support for DVD-R DL (dual layer).
Updated manufacturer database.
Added a work-around for rare situations where bad behaving drives resulted in an incorrect disc type being detected.
Due to drive limitations the detection of certified recording speeds of DVD-R/-RW media has been removed. Note that the ‘drive capabilities’-section still returns the drive’s write speed descriptors.
Retrieval of write speed descriptors using the ‘Mode Sense’-command is turned back on by default since it is still often useful when dealing with already written discs.
Various small changes, fixes and improvements.
Surely people know how to go to Revision History on the site
I know but some users like to see what was aded and are quite lazy.
Also while some people don’t use this tool (shame on them. ) they do like to track it’s state of progress.
Ohyeah one thing in the next database update we will have another manufacturer listed which wasn’t there so far.
hey, for some reason it has trouble with my emprex 16x drive 1016m(btc) drive
oh well , i will just check my media codes on my other boxes
Have tried this latest version, but cannot identify DVD-R. DVD+R seems ok. All previous versions were doing fine. Did I miss something? Following is copy of status report:
06:11:03] DVD Identifier V3.6.1
[06:11:03] Initializing ASPI/SPTI Drive Interface
[06:11:03] SPTI Drive Interface Successfully Initialized
[06:11:04] 1 Supported Drive Found (Out Of 3 Available Drives)
[06:11:04] Manufacturer Database [01-FEB-05@529$76] Loaded From File : (@529$76) Entries Found
[06:11:04] Internet Version Check Postponed Since Last Check Happened Less Than 1 Hour Ago
[06:12:06] Waiting For Drive To Initialize Disc…
[06:12:06] DVD+R/+RW Medium Detected. Starting Identification…
[06:12:06] ** Initiating ADIP Retrieval Method 1 (Original ADIP)
[06:12:06] ADIP Read M1 Failed : Illegal request - Invalid field in CDB [05/24/00]
[06:12:06] ADIP Read Method 1 Not Supported ; A Firmware Upgrade Is Recommended
[06:12:06] ** Initiating ADIP Retrieval Method 2 (Copy Of ADIP)
[06:12:06] ADIP Read Method 2 Completed Without Errors
[06:12:06] Disc Identification Completed Successfully
[06:13:35] Waiting For Drive To Initialize Disc…
[06:13:45] DVD-R/-RW Medium Detected. Starting Identification…
[06:13:45] ** Initiating LPP/CDZ Retrieval
[06:13:49] CDZ Read Failed : Blank check - Illegal track number [08/AB/80]
[06:13:49] Disc Identification Did Not Complete Successfully
In order to fully support DVD-R DL I introduced a new command in the DVD-R identification sequence.
Unfortunately, there seem to be some drives that do not support this extra command (but I haven’t got an idea of exactly how widespread these incompatibilities really are).
Anyway, I’ll have a look at it and will probably introduce a work-around for this problem in the next version of DVD Identifier.
Kris - Author of DVD Identifier.
Feel free to let me know some details about the problems you are encountering on your emprex 16x drive 1016m(btc) drive.
This way I can determine if this is something that can be fixed or if the problem is caused by a limitation of your drive.
If you like, you can also contact me directly at the e-mail address listed on my site.
Kris - Author of DVD Identifier.
Thanks for your reply, Kris.
A couple of things for your information
- It’s the blank DVD-Rs that are not identified. The burned discs can be identified.
- My burner is a LG 4120B with A111 firmware
Could you check something for me ?
The extra command I’m using should return the disc’s parameters regardless of its current content. However, since it only works with your drive when the disc is already written I am curious to know how the capacity is reported…
Could you insert a partially written DVD-R and do an identify ? The full capacity of of blank DVD-R should be 4.38GB (1024) or 4.71GB (1000).
Does DVD Identifier still correctly report the disc’s full blank capacity or does it report the actual written capacity (if it does the latter the drive’s implementation of that command is incorrect) ?
Have checked a partially written disc as you have requested. Yes, it reports the actually written capacity, not the full capacity.
Unique Disc Identifier : [DVD-R:OPTODISCR004]
Disc & Book Type : [DVD-R] - [DVD-R]
Manufacturer Name : [Optodisc Technology Corp.]
Manufacturer ID : [OPTODISCR004]
Blank Disc Capacity : [1,288,736 Sectors = 2,517.1MB = 2.46GB (2.64GB)]
[ DVD Identifier - http://DVD.Identifier.CDfreaks.com ]
The newly released V3.6.2 should solve any compatbility problems.
I have a question. I notice that you were having this error message "
CDZ Read Failed : Blank check - Illegal track number [08/AB/80]" I am having the same issue with TYG02 media made by Taiyo Yuden Co. Ltd. I have bought a 50 pack of these and I have tested about 10 of them right now and they are all giving me that error, what does that mean??? Are my DVD’s bad???
No. Your DVDs aren’t bad. I’m assuming identification in the DVD-tab completes still just fine. There error/warning you are seeing is because your drive is not able to handle the new additional DVD-R Dual layer identification code (single layer detection will still work just fine). As a result you get this this warning “WARNING : DVD-R Dual Layer Detection Is Not Supported By This Drive”.
It’s just an informational message without any consequences other than the inability to detect dual layer (which should be no problem since your drive most likely is also not capable of dual layer write).
I know about the dual layer warning, but what abou the error message that I posted in my original post " CDZ Read Failed : Blank check - Illegal track number [08/AB/80]"
what does that mean?
Actually, the warning you get is a consequence of the CDZ read that has failed. Reading the control data zone from the lead-in is required to determine the number of layers of the disc. Since the drive is unable to return that info for the disc in question (it returned sense data 08/AB/80) I cannot determine if this is a dual layer DVD-R, hence the warning.
Perhaps I would be less confusing if I did not report the error code, but instead only report the warning. I’ll take this into consideration for the next version.