Why won't this 4.4GB file burn to a 4.7GB disc?

AlBDamned · Mar 4, 2007

Hi guys,

I'm trying to burn to a disc a file that's 4.43GB.

I've got a spindle of brand new, Imation DVDs that are supposedly 4.7GB and it's saying the the file is too large.

Is this right and another symptom of the differences in opinion of how many megabytes are in a gigabyte, or is there something wrong?

I've only ever experience this before when a file definitely was over the disc size but the sizes corresponded then.

Cheers in advance!

VortexOfPain · Mar 4, 2007

A 4.7GB disc does not have 4.7GB of usable room, they usually have 4.3GB of usable room on them. Double check by inserting a blank disc and getting info on that disc, most I have seen is 4.38 usable on a single side DVD - which is really close to how much you need. If you have Toast, it has a built in feature to automatically fit to DVD... that is if it is a Video_TS folder and not data.

AlBDamned · Mar 4, 2007

VortexOfPain said:
A 4.7GB disc does not have 4.7GB of usable room, they usually have 4.3GB of usable room on them. Double check by inserting a blank disc and getting info on that disc, most I have seen is 4.38 usable on a single side DVD - which is really close to how much you need. If you have Toast, it has a built in feature to automatically fit to DVD... that is if it is a Video_TS folder and not data.

Yep, you've hit the nail there. Looking closely the disc has 4.38 and the file is 4.43 so it's not going to fit.

It's all data, media files and documents so I guess I'll have to split it across two discs. Cheers for the help

Fearless Leader · Mar 4, 2007

can you compress it?

eRondeau · Mar 4, 2007

VortexOfPain said:
A 4.7GB disc does not have 4.7GB of usable room, they usually have 4.3GB of usable room on them. Double check by inserting a blank disc and getting info on that disc, most I have seen is 4.38 usable on a single side DVD - which is really close to how much you need. If you have Toast, it has a built in feature to automatically fit to DVD... that is if it is a Video_TS folder and not data.

How do media manufacturers consistently get away with this??? Their "actual" capacity is always well below their "advertised" capacity. Yet it keeps happening! It's like buying a 18-cubic-foot fridge but only getting 16! Or a 6-channel surround-sound system that only comes with 5 speakers! Yet consumers continue to accept this -- and we're the ones who get caught, because we can't burn a 4.4GB file on a 4.7GB disc! I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!!!!!

emac82 · Mar 4, 2007

eRondeau said:
How do media manufacturers consistently get away with this??? Their "actual" capacity is always well below their "advertised" capacity. Yet it keeps happening! It's like buying a 18-cubic-foot fridge but only getting 16! Or a 6-channel surround-sound system that only comes with 5 speakers! Yet consumers continue to accept this -- and we're the ones who get caught, because we can't burn a 4.4GB file on a 4.7GB disc! I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!!!!!

I think it has to do with 1MB being = 1024KB, not 1000....what I mean is that if you buy a 60GB only like 55.5GB is accessible, because of the screwed up measurements..I read about it once but I can't remember the full details..

apfhex · Mar 4, 2007

emac82 said:
I read about it once but I can't remember the full details..

That's right. The disc/hdd/etc manufacturers measure in 1MB = 1000KB, whereas all computers measure in 1MB = 1024KB. They (the manufacturers) obviously do this as a marketing tactic.

eRondeau · Mar 4, 2007

apfhex said:
That's right. The disc/hdd/etc manufacturers measure in 1MB = 1000KB, whereas all computers measure in 1MB = 1024KB. They (the manufacturers) obviously do this as a marketing tactic.

You are absolutely correct of course. The source of my frustration is the fact that we, as consumers, continue to accept this misrepresentation by the media manufacturers. The title of this thread says it all -- "Why won't this 4.4GB file burn to a 4.7GB disc?" Because it's NOT a 4.7GB disc at all -- it's only 4.3GB -- that's the way it is, you can't do anything about it, sorry about your luck. Sucker!

yg17 · Mar 4, 2007

I could be wrong, but I don't think the 1024/1000 bytes thing applies to optical media. The disc is really able to hold 4.7 gigs, however, there's overhead taken up by the file system once you format it, leaving you with 4.3. So technically, the media manufacturers are doing nothing wrong with that claim.

Father Jack · Mar 4, 2007

AlBDamned said:
Yep, you've hit the nail there. Looking closely the disc has 4.38 and the file is 4.43 so it's not going to fit.

It's all data, media files and documents so I guess I'll have to split it across two discs. Cheers for the help

OR If your burner allows, use a dual layer DVD blank.

FJ

AlBDamned · Mar 4, 2007

Father Jack said:
OR If your burner allows, use a dual layer DVD blank.

FJ

yeah I might look at that for future reference, although given the price of D/L discs it seems a waste for just such a tiny bit over. All the files are zipped anyway so I'll probs just split them evenly over two S/L ones.

WildCowboy · Mar 5, 2007

It's important to note that it's not the media manufacturers who are "getting away with" anything...they are using proper terminology. It's the computer operating systems that are erroneously using the term "gigabyte" when they are actually referring to gibibytes.

That "4.4 GB" file you see on your computer is actually 4.4 GiB, or about 4.72 GB.

Mr Skills · Mar 5, 2007

WildCowboy said:
It's important to note that it's not the media manufacturers who are "getting away with" anything...they are using proper terminology. It's the computer operating systems that are erroneously using the term "gigabyte" when they are actually referring to gibibytes.
.

Your etymology may be correct, but that is not the accepted, everyday use of the term in the real world. Computers have been around too long. It is just an excuse for computer companies to use in court.

Nermal · Mar 5, 2007

Organisation intergouvernementale de la Convention du Mètre has this to say:

1 KiB = 2^10 B = 1024 B, où B désigne loctet. Bien que ces préfixes nappartiennent pas au SI, ils doivent être utilisés en informatique afin déviter un usage incorrect des préfixes SI.

My translated copy of their guidelines says:

1 KiB = 2^10 B = 1024 B, where B denotes a byte. Although these prefixes are not part of the SI, they should be used in the field of information technology to avoid the incorrect usage of the SI prefixes.

MacBoobsPro · Mar 5, 2007

IT IS false advertising because the company selling the products know that its not 60GB, its 55GB. So they should not be allowed to use 60GB or even GBs.

It should be labelled accurately.

You wouldnt pay for a 5.0 Litre engine in a car and settle for a 4.0 Litre when you got it would you?

I think we should cause a stink. Just for the hell of it.

Mr Skills · Mar 5, 2007

MacboobsPro said:
I think we should cause a stink. Just for the hell of it.

Someone already tried.

Blue Velvet · Mar 5, 2007

WildCowboy said:
...they are actually referring to gibibytes.

After reading this thread I think they should really be called 'gibberbytes'.

iMeowbot · Mar 5, 2007

"gibibyte" etc. were only adopted by IEC in the late 1990s, long after media manufacturers started playing these games.

pilotError · Mar 5, 2007

Computers use the

1024 bytes == 1KB
1024 Kb == 1MB
1024 MB == 1GB
1024 GB == 1TB
1024 TB == 1PB

See a pattern here?

If you read any of the disk manufacturers packing they clearly state that they use 1000 MB == 1GB. Your typical OS calculates 1024MB == 1GB, so your losing about 24MB per GB of storage because of the math.

It makes a big difference when you buy a 700GB drive these days.

Why won't this 4.4GB file burn to a 4.7GB disc?

macrumors 68030

macrumors member

macrumors 68030

macrumors 68020

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68030

macrumors 65816

macrumors Pentium

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68030

Administrator/Editor

macrumors 6502a

Moderator

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502a

Moderator emeritus

macrumors G3

macrumors 68020

Our Staff