Final word on DVD .ISO support?

[evilpenguin]

Originally Posted by morikaweb

This entire argument seems completely pointless to me. The fact is half the customer base wants it and half the customer base does not. Now why should half the customer base have to go without simply because the other half would not use it?

That kind of reminds me of when kids say "They'd rather starve than eat their vegetables".

The only reason ISO people are "without" is because they're too stuburn to suck it up, use winrar/7z to unzip their ISO's (if they're all in the same folder you can do it in one click), and start enjoying rather than bitching. I did it a few years ago and i've been quite happy ever since.

Edit: That came out a little harsher than I meant it. My basic point was, I can say from *years* of experience railing against Sage's short comings that you'll get a lot more out of Sage (and a lot less frustration) if you stop trying to bend it to your will and just embrace the product as it is.

[vikingisson]

Let me ask this, is it a major coding effort to support iso if it is so easy to manually extract it? I don't see the format as a dinosaur that needs to go away. It is quite useful and is still the primary format for delivery of CD/DVD images for other uses. I've never burned a linux CD that came via a folder structure, it is always an .iso.

I'd vote to include the format support. But I guess I'm old and stubborn like 1/2 the people apparently.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by morikaweb

This entire argument seems completely pointless to me. The fact is half the customer base wants it and half the customer base does not. Now why should half the customer base have to go without simply because the other half would not use it?

It's not half and half though, there's a few requests for ISO now and then, but there are probably hundreds on the forum using folders.

Also it seems, as stanger89 has gone to lengths to prove, very easy to support ISO. All an ISO is in essence a compressed/packaged file structure like a .rar/.zip file. It should be even easer to support since the code must already be written as the HD-200 supports it in stand alone.

What I'm saying is conceptually, there's not a big difference, implementation though is a different story. SageTV Media Center (PC) uses directshow for pretty much all media playback. In other words, they leverage 3rd party software/development to support playing things like DVDs and the like.

To the best of my knowledge there isn't a directshow filter that supports playing an ISO directly. Developing direct/native ISO support in the confines of Sage's directshow playback architecture would be non-trivial in my estimation.

Originally Posted by PredatorVI

This thread is a REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT for SageTV MC. If you don't want that enhancement, then don't request it and don't use it if it gets added.

Sorry I interpreted the thread as a question as to whether ISO would or would not be supported natively.

With that, it is true that I haven't played with folder support and it might be better handled today but does it really matter? I have ISO's and like them, I don't have to navigate or see the mess of files for any reason.

What it matters is Sage does what you want (as near as I can tell) today, with folders. The only hold up for you is your unwillingness to change.

Yes, folders are technically a container, but from a user perspective they are really a heirarchy that must be seen and dealt with. I don't find them elegant or desired if I have the ISO option.

That's just the issue, you don't have an ISO option. If you want to use Sage today, you have to use folders, or extenders in standalone mode.

The point...since SageTV MC doesn't support ISO but SageTV HD Theater does, it would be nice if SageTV had native support so as to not lose functionality from the HD Theater when switching from stand-alone mode to client mode.

It might be nice, but I don't know that it will happen. But FWIW and this maybe should have been pointed out up front but I thought the extenders supported ISO even in extender mode, it's just the software clients that don't.

Originally Posted by vikingisson

Let me ask this, is it a major coding effort to support iso if it is so easy to manually extract it?

It would be non-trivial to implement I think, yes.

ISO is a great format for transport or if the desired target/use is burning to disc (much like a zip file). However it's about as useful as a zip file if you want to use the contents.

Think about it this way, everything you download comes in a zip file right (unless it's an installer)? But when you want to use what's contained in it, do you open the files from insize winzip, or do you extract the zip to a folder? I look at ISOs exactly the same way.

[mtyme]

With that, it is true that I haven't played with folder support and it might be better handled today but does it really matter? I have ISO's and like them, I don't have to navigate or see the mess of files for any reason.

As I was reading through your post, I was thinking to myself, I wonder if he's even tried using it with folder support. Then I saw what you wrote up there. It always amazes me when people complain about something they
haven't even tried to use.

Yes, folders are technically a container, but from a user perspective they are really a heirarchy that must be seen and dealt with.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never needed to go browsing through my DVD folders to deal with a mess of files.. There is a folder structure there, sure, but you don't need to navigate through it! SageTV does all the work for you. Maybe that's where you're confused (since you haven't tried it and all)? You don't have to navigate to the .vob file you want to play. When you're in Sage it shows it as 1 item - <YOUR DVD NAME>. You highlight it and play it. Sage handles the rest. You don't see folders and files. In sage it appears as 1 file...just like you are used to with your ISO.

It's like trying to get my 4 year old to eat strawberry icecream. He loves strawberries, loves icecream...won't touch strawberry icecream. Why? Because "he hates it"...never tried it mind you, but he knows that he hates it.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by PredatorVI

This thread is a REQUEST FOR ENHANCEMENT for SageTV MC. If you don't want that enhancement, then don't request it and don't use it if it gets added.

The problem with the "Don't want it? Don't use it!" argument is that features aren't free. They cost developer time. Every new feature that I don't want is a missed opportunity to add some other feature that I do want. So non-users of a proposed feature have a legitimate interest in arguing against it, and both sides should be taken into account in prioritizing new feature development.

In this particular case, the requested feature adds no new capability to the product. As Stanger has been at pains to point out, you can already do everything you want this feature to do simply by extracting your ISOs to VIDEO_TS folders. So that too should count for something in assigning development priorities.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done ever. (There's obviously no such thing as a "final word" on this issue.) But there are a whole lot of other things I'd rather see done first.

[HelenWeathers]

Originally Posted by mtyme

It's like trying to get my 4 year old to eat strawberry icecream. He loves strawberries, loves icecream...won't touch strawberry icecream. Why? Because "he hates it"...never tried it mind you, but he knows that he hates it.

When I was in high school I was in marching band. One Thanksgiving our band was in a parade that was televised. When I got home I asked my mother if she watched and enjoyed our band's appearance on TV. She replied:

It was lovely, Helen. But everyone was out of step but you.

[vikingisson]

They cost developer time. Every new feature that I don't want is a missed opportunity to add some other feature that I do want.

It was lovely, Helen. But everyone was out of step but you.

Reminds me of a request to make sage tweet. Excitement and everything over that but I have no opinion and since it won't interfere with other things I don't care even though I fail to see the value considering it costs somebody time to do it. But if it replaces some other perfectly fine method and I'm told to change and get with it then I'll be upset. So I'd still welcome .iso support even though it really doesn't matter. Gawd forbid it would cost devel time just like any other feature. Oh well.

I don't much care either way, it is just odd how certain things get emotional reactions.

[HelenWeathers]

I find discussions on things like this to be enlightening. It's good to hear all sides of issues.

I just am having trouble understanding the notion that iso brings any advantage over folder as far as file management is concerned.

And folder has one big advantage over iso. It is currently supported by SageTV.

My choice was to enjoy now, even though it involved a bit of work (over 100 Blu-rays to re-do from single file to folder at the time).

YMMV.

[vikingisson]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

....

I just am having trouble understanding the notion that iso brings any advantage over folder as far as file management is concerned.

And folder has one big advantage over iso. It is currently supported by SageTV.

My choice was to enjoy now, even though it involved a bit of work (over 100 Blu-rays to re-do from single file to folder at the time).

YMMV.

The advantage *could* have been that you didn't have to convert all those files. But either way will work. Choice of either or both ways is even better. I will have to convert as it is so until I do then there is a definite advantage to having .iso support.. I could argue that adding folder support if it didn't have it would be a waste since I already have the tried and true .iso. So we'll call it even if I go through the thrill of converting.
No attraction to .iso, just happens to be what some folks have like others have brand Y.


.and that's my $0.02 point of view, adjusted for inflation and exchange rate; C$0.03.

[Taddeusz]

I actually have a different problem. I would like my movies to be lossless but at the same time be able to have them playable over Placeshifter. While ripping the DVD to a VIDEO_TS folder is lossless I don't have the ability to watch those movies over Placeshifter. The solution is to extract the video and audio from the DVD and put it into a different container such as an MKV. Sure, I lose the menus but I gain the ability to watch those movies remotely over Placeshifter.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

I just am having trouble understanding the notion that iso brings any advantage over folder as far as file management is concerned.

I can think of one way. There have been times when I've been moving DVD rips around and something will go wrong half-way through the transfer. In the case of DVD folders, I might end up with a DVD that was only partially transferred. But, if I was transferring an iso I'd either get all or nothing, because if something goes wrong half-way through a transfer Windows seems to automatically get rid of the partially transferred file. That's sort of a toy example, but it has happened to me before.

Still, I'm perfectly happy going with the folder method. It seems cleaner to me, from an implementation perspective. As stanger pointed out before, having DVDs in iso format seems akin to placing all your documents in zip files. Basically the application is just going to unwrap the iso layer and get down to the folder with the .vob files. Why not get rid of that wrapper?

[MattHelm]

Originally Posted by vikingisson

I've never burned a linux CD that came via a folder structure, it is always an .iso.

That's not the same thing. A linux distro MUST be in a .ISO format, so it can be bootable. You could send it in a zip (or whatever) format, but then you have to make sure the receiving person knew how to add a boot loader to the CD or DVD they were creating.

[PeteCress]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

The solution is to extract the video and audio from the DVD and put it into a different container such as an MKV.

That sounds like something I SB doing bc 95% of my movie DVDs are ripped "Main Movie" only.... so menus are no loss.

[stanger89]

You do lose chapters when you go to a different container though.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by stanger89

You do lose chapters when you go to a different container though.

Sort of. I forgot to mention that part. MKV does support chapters. All my MKV rips have chapters. The rub is that SageTV doesn't currently support MKV chapters. I know it is on their priority list. But I don't know how high it is on their list.

Since they recently began supporting MKV subtitles I am sure that chapters will follow eventually. It's just a matter of time.

[PeteCress]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

MKV does support chapters. All my MKV rips have chapters.

If I re-rip to Matroska, will I be able to do it with DvdShrink? The MKV site said something about installing "Combined-Community-Codec-Pack".

Or am I looking at a multi-step process?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by PeteCress

If I re-rip to Matroska, will I be able to do it with DvdShrink? The MKV site said something about installing "Combined-Community-Codec-Pack".

Or am I looking at a multi-step process?

For now, at least for me, it's a multi-step process. MakeMKV, which looks as if it's going to be a great progam, is pretty much one-click. But it is still in an early beta phase. It's still quite functional and works most of the time.

[rusten]

Ugh.. And so it goes.. A simple post about the current status of .ISO support turns into a religous debate, just as every other.

Honestly, I really don't care whether someone else prefers folders. I've *personally* used both at the 200-DVD library size, and I *far* prefer .ISO. There is no issue with my being concerned to convert, it only took me a week to put my initial library into .ISO rather than going with the original folders.

If it were up to me, I'd like to see everything in a container like MKV ... Eventually. However, the reason the .ISO standard is so popular beyond this forum or AV-enthusiasts, is that it allows the true structure of a disk to be replicated.

And regardless of what you say, clearly there is benefit in that alone. I can make a backup if my original disk gets scratched (I have over 30 disks from <2000 that have issues, and not more than half of them have scratches).

Of course, as you responded to every other issue with your own personal version of why ISO-enthusiasts needs are not shared by you, it doesn't change the fact that there are a great deal of users who prefer this format.

I really don't care about changing anyone's mind, I'd simply like to see this supported in the "software" as opposed to the HD Theater only. If it's not going to be supported, that's all I need to know.

[Brent]

Has anyone put in an official feature request to SageTV for iso support?

I don't see much of a need for iso myself, but I don't see any harm in having the flexibility either. Even if it's been requested before I think it might be worth asking them for it if you're one of those wanting iso support.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by rusten

I really don't care about changing anyone's mind, I'd simply like to see this supported in the "software" as opposed to the HD Theater only. If it's not going to be supported, that's all I need to know.

I'd say don't hold your breath then.

Originally Posted by Brent

I don't see much of a need for iso myself, but I don't see any harm in having the flexibility either. Even if it's been requested before I think it might be worth asking them for it if you're one of those wanting iso support.

I'd bet that if it were easy, it would be in already.