Whom shoud I trust? Scenarist or IfoEdit?

[GrofLuigi]

Hopefully, a quick answer to a quick question that bugs my curiosity. :D

If I author a DVD in Scenarist 3.0.1 - just a simplest possible DVD with video and audio, and if I run it through IFoEdit's "Get VTS Sectors" it finds an error and corrects it.

Both versions play OK, but shouldn't a $$$ program make correct output? Or is it a bug in one of the programs?

Unfortunately, I deleted the files (low on disk space), but will try it again in a couple of days (happened many times after I first noticed it). The message, as I remember it, was something about correcting numbers "6" and "twenty-something"...

GL

[mpucoder]

Well, that's not much to go on. But both programs could be correct as there are optional ways to layout the disk. IfoEdit uses one plan, Scenarist may be using another equally valid plan.

edit: I'd bet that VIDEO_TS.VOB is less than 16 sectors (or not used).

[influenza]

There are just multiple ways to get things right I guess, just like mpucoder stated. I also do always have differences between ifoedit and ifoupdate.

[GrofLuigi]

OK, I guess it's not so important anyway, but I managed to write down the messages - now there are two of them maybe because I connected the post command of the only PGC to beginning of "title_1" (or the other one, whatever it was called... you know, you do that in order your DVD to repeat after playback).

Here are the messages of IfoEdit:

Corrected sector addresses in table [VMGI_MAT]:
Last Sector of VMG: [old:21] [nes:5] (VIDEO_TS.VOB)

and the other one:

Corrected sector addresses in table [VMG_PTT_SRPT]:
Title_1: [old:22] [new:6} (VTS_01_0.IFO)

GL

[mpucoder]

That's exactly what I thought was happening. Notice the difference is 16? That's the size of an ECC block, the actual "data unit" of a DVD. Scenarist wants to ensure that VIDEO_TS.IFO and VIDEO_TS.BUP are in seperate ECC blocks. The same for VTS_01_0.IFO and VTS_01_0.BUP
Either one is acceptable, but Scenarist's way is more error resilient.

[GrofLuigi]

Thank you for the explanation, I guess I'm a little smarter now. :)

GL