[ Closed ] Should we switch to CloneCD format?

I vote yes for several reasons, sub code preservation (anomalies, flags). Wider range of type support (CD-Xtra, etc). Scrambled image support.

Voted yes, but the question can be misleading.  It doesnt mean to switch to the tool clonecd and just dump everything with that tool.  It just means if we should use the .ccd/.img/.sub format for cd dumps instead of current .bin/.cue

Of course, I'd rather have a new format made where you can have split tracks + subs + cuelike thingy, but who will make that...

We would still dump discs the way we do now, but also have .ccd (clonecd cue) file and .sub file.

The only issue is generating the .ccd file from TOC/subs, as well as dumping the subs with tool mentioned in the sub sticky topic.

It is simple enough to merge the split tracks into a single image for own use using cdmage or even just on command line with copy /b file1.bin+file2.bin outfile.img ...

:EDIT:

The format of clonecd is not exactly unknown or limited to one tool anymore. Most tools can read to/from and convert to/from as well as burn the format these days. It has been reverse engineered many times and all the fields are known. It is closer to the TOC format than cue is.

Yes, flags are not preserved, anomalies in the sub code (securom+possibly other), subtitles (for ex karaoke discs) are not being preserved. In addition it is not possible to store cd-xtra/multi-session in bin/cue format.

This has been known for a long time now, but the idea hasn't been pushed much.

The bright side is, entire discs do NOT need to be redumped, only the sub code, and a .ccd file generated for that dump.

I'm very much for the switch. Actually, I'm very much for a switch to any kind of (documented) format, no matter if it is usable by current burning programs or not, if it helps to preserve the discs more accurately.

Granted I'm no expert on the subject, but sub-channel and scrambled support seems to me to be the only direction to go. Whether the data is relevant or necessary is one thing, but it is a part of the discs and IMO ought to be preserved. I've always thought cue-files seemed like a kind of a hack-job anyway.

As stated, I'm no expert, so I have a few dumb questions.

Nexy commented that there are limitations to the ccd format too. I'm not really read-up on the format. Could someone fill me in on what the actual limitations are?

And what about DVDs, BDs, GDs and such? Gigadiscs, as far as I understand it, is CD based and as such would have both subs and scrambled data. DVDs and such I have no idea as to how they're structured. Would the ccd format be used only for CDs or would GDs, DVDs, BDs etc. also use it?

Look, .bin images are no different than .img ones, they are still 2352 ISO images. Alcohol ones with subs are 2448 ISO images. The formats are standard and defined. It's not very hard to figure out the .ccd cue sheet format at all, even I did it with some hours of research and testing. MDS is a lot more difficult to do but can also be done with just some dumping experiments and some knowledge, and looking up open source projects for disc emulation.

Truong is not the only person in the world who knows about things, and acting like he is god or something is just silly. Obviously other people know about it too, you just have to dig for the knowledge.

I've already constructed many clonecd images from seperate parts, it's not difficult at all. The .img file is no different than any other .bin file, the .sub file is the same format which subdump creates. Like I said there is no need to redump entire discs into clonecd format when it's easy enough to construct them with the files we already have with the addition of .sub file, it comes out exactly the same for data only discs. Discs with audio come out different because we take into account write offset when dumping the tracks, in which case our constructed images would be BETTER than what clonecd or alcohol can produce. That's the entire reason we DON'T use those tools for that purpose. Although I DO use CloneCD for specific tasks like safedisc and laserlok, but that is not part of this discussion and is discussed already in other threads.

PSX needs subs too IMO for libcrypt, as well as segacd and whatever else is on CD format. There is no distinction between.

DVD/GDROM/BR is an entirely different matter, I don't feel qualified to discuss anything related to them.

Also a single .img file, at least. Also, probably, an .scr (scrambled .img) file.

But it still won't be an ideal format, since it missing lead-in and lead-out areas. For me, the only real "perfect" format is a single 2448 bytes/sector file, which starts with lead-in sectors, then 1st pregap, then the scrambled user area and lead-out (all the sections with the interleaved subs). It's the only way to store the dump as close to the real CD contents, as possible, also there won't be any cue needed. But you need to write a special tool to dump the discs this way, using the swapping on Plextor drives.

The explanation of my vote is rather simple and short : I'm agree with all Jackal's arguments, so I choose NO for switching all dumpings in CloneCD Format.

But, CloneCD could be an option for dumping some systems like PC-Engine because of those tricky formats and mastering errors.

EDIT : +1 on F1ReB4LL's post!

The one I've described isn't a custom format at all, but a raw dump, in a single file, just as it's written on a CD, contains data, TOC and subs, all as is, all in their right places, no need in cues/ccds/whatever. Converters to ccd/bin-cue/iso-mp3/whatever can be made, of course, when needed.

Are we just waiting for an upgraded version of this: http://www.cdtool.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/downloads.htm?

Has all the pieces... but no offset correction - but that can be done with another shifting tool right?

Rambling below:

It looks like this is becoming a tug of war between intent and execution.  Are we going for preserving the authors typos and paper type, or are we just retyping the words he wrote to meet modern digital conventions?  Why preserve mastering errors?  However, I would hate to see data thrown out that may eventually be of use. 

Read everything, refine and correct later!  Given enough time, there will be some tool to shift/skew/add/subtract/merge/fix if we just go for a format that captures as much as possible.