Print

[mxwizard]

When backing up an original game disc with Schtrom360extract and then burning with clonecd I receive a different value of sectors in comparison to backing up an original game disc with XBC. Could someone kindly explain why this might be? The image once backed up with either of the 2 programs passes all the stealth tests and kreon check(and yes I know this isn’t needed if running ixtreme 1.4>) but I am keen to understand why the 2 give a different value of sectors within clonecd.

Using the same original game disc but with ripped with each of the 2 programs I receive the following values….

Schtrom360extract returns a value of 3825631
And
XBC returns a value of 3697696

 Could someone please enlighten me as to why?

Cheers.

[mxwizard]

43 views and no replies lol....Come on guys.... help me out here... surely someone knows why this is???

I'm wondering since there is a difference in sectors is this something M$ could use to target for a ban because if so then obviously I'd rather be backing up using the safest of the 2 programs lol

[cory1492]

Check them both with mulleter or shctrom stealth check, I bet the difference is splitvid vs xtreme3.0

[mxwizard]

Cheers for your reply....as I orinally stated... I have checked them and both pass all mulleter tests and both good kreon rips. The answer is seek is why they show a different value of sectors when it comes to burning the image with clonecd.

[cory1492]

QUOTE

The answer is seek is why they show a different value of sectors when it comes to burning the image with clonecd.

Because the filesize is different?   Pretty good reason why one would have more sectors than another...

A splitvid has the video partition inserted twice, once on each layer, and xtreme 3.0 or whatever it is had the video bit put in only once - they will both pass the stealth checks fine (which wasn't what I was telling you to look at when using schtrom/mulleter - I'm telling you to look for some specific information those programs give that ISNT "stealth passed" or "stealth failed"), but will list the image as being different in the video portion. That would account for the size difference, even under clonecd (the software that burns it doesn't matter, the number of sectors burned would not change from software to software.)

Here is what I have for valid filesizes that check out under shctrom's stealth check (that lets you get the additional CRCs):
7,835,492,352 (7.29GiB) - splitvid = 3825924 sectors
7,572,881,408 (7.05GiB) - xtreme 3.0 = 3697696 sectors
7,705,657,344 - NME patched = 3762528 sectors

"Schtrom360extract returns a value of 3825631"
= 7,834,892,288 (not a value I have seen before, a diff of 600,064 bytes to what I'd expect it to be)

[IId3fi13rII]

Yeah cory is right.

It deals with the way the splitvid vs non-splitvid rips are..

As you can see the splitvid is bigger but neither matters and both options work under ixtreme 1.4!

thanks for explaining cory
 

[HOMiE7]

What iso is better? splitvid or xtreme 3.0?

[cory1492]

QUOTE(HOMiE7 @ Mar 12 2008, 04:44 PM)

What iso is better? splitvid or xtreme 3.0?

Whichever works.

It should be pointed out that apparently the most current ixtreme (1.4x atm) redirects reads from the second video partition to the first one (the one that is required to be present by x3.0), so basically even if you have made a split vid the second video is not set up to be used. That said I'd suggest splitvid if given a choice, (very) small chance that if you do so... at some point in the future you may get away without having to re-burn.