CD-RW Burns SLOOOW! - Tech Support Forums

Brainchild · November 28th, 2002, 03:07 PM

I use this burner all the time,without problems. Just now I went to burn of a CD with a bunch of pics from the digicam,. and it took forever. 350mb of pics, took almost 18 minutes.This is burning @16x, What is wrong with this thing?
Audio,Data,VCD,ect, it burns a 700mb CD in around 5 minutes.Why is hte pics taking so long?

XP Pro
750 tbird
128mb ram
lit-on CD-RW
Nero 5.something

Thanks
BC

NeoStarO1 · November 28th, 2002, 03:24 PM

Im not an expert with burning but I had noticed that myself with burning pics. My guess that there is so much information in a picture that it takes longer to burn all the codes that make up the picture. Whereas other formats has less info. My logic of thinking is that for each pixel thier is a code to correspond to that pixels that identifies that color whereas if its data a byte of infomration is repesented as machine language in 1's and 0's thus easier to translate as overal even tho the size of file might be same as picture a picture is loaded with much more infomation pixel per pixel whereas data doesn't go by per pixel infomation and but rather by 1's and 0's.
So each pixel needs to reprensent a machine language that can interpret the picture pixel for pixel. because there is no white space involed in pictures like in data and other file formats.

That make sense? I may be way off base here but that is how my logic is thinking on this.

Kory · November 28th, 2002, 03:30 PM

Make sure that no other programs are runnning, look at the CPU usage. One time I burned a cd and it took me 26 mins, for 375mb, I look at the CpU usage a forgot I hate an antivirus running.

NeoStarO1 · November 28th, 2002, 03:32 PM

Anti-virus running in the background should not effect the burn rate. that is if its not actively running a full scan.

I have 2 AV's prog running in the background all the time and it does not effect my normal burn rates.

Wouldn't hurt to see what the cpu usage is during a pic burn tho.

Kory · November 28th, 2002, 03:34 PM

It was in full scan, it was an error by me I must have been running for 4 days! But, thank god I delelted that program. After I quit the program, I burned it at a normal rate.

DutchMaster · November 28th, 2002, 03:34 PM

I know it might have problems building up the TOC when you have like 1000 of files.
As for the pictures, by the burningsoftware they are represented as normal data AFAIK.
What picture formate are those, JPGs?

PresterJohn · November 28th, 2002, 03:35 PM

no, pictures do not take "longer" to burn than any other file format.

i regularly burn graphics/photos to cd (that's what i primarily use my burner for) and it doesn't take longer than if it were copying data files.

although, burning many small files WILL take longer than burning a few large files for the same amount of megabytes...

implexant · November 28th, 2002, 04:02 PM

john is right. one of my clients has a sony 16x that came with his Dell, he burns more pics than anything (has a sony digicam) and they burn at pretty much normal speeds.

-Chris

Brainchild · November 28th, 2002, 06:02 PM

Well to get 500mb of pics, it's normally 1000 or more jpg's. I don't know if this is normal or not, I have no problem burning anyother format, just pics.
I was under the impression that a data file was a data file no matter the type, just the size as far as transfer rate. But I guess maybe that doen't apply to this

BC

DutchMaster · November 28th, 2002, 07:03 PM

Yeah I haven't figured out why, but burning many many small files will bring you to a longer burn time. Lead-in and Lead-out take more time and I think it needs to spin up every time after burning a file. But a reason why or I solution, sorry I don't know.

BTW there is no differance between jpg or any other ordinary data files, its more about how many files.