Comparison of the methods. All three methods build on the same Reed-Solomon error correction. They calculate error correction information for ISO images which is used to recover unreadable sectors if the disc becomes damaged afterwards.
The methods differ in the way the error correction information is stored:
Comparison of error correction storage.
The following table summarizes the differences between error correction files (RS01, RS03) and augmented images (RS02, RS03):
| Error correction files | Image augmented with error correction data |
| any possible redundancy can be chosen | redundancy is limited by free space on medium (= medium capacity - size of data image) |
| already effective at 15% redundancy since error correction files are required to be free of damage | requires more redundancy (recommended: 20-30%) to compensate defects in the error correction data |
| medium can be completely filled with data | usable medium capacity is reduced by amount of error correction data |
| can be created for already existing media | only applicable before writing the new medium since the image must be augmented with error correction information in advance |
| separately storing the error correction file from user data strengthens data protection | common storage of user data and error correction data may reduce error correction capacity |
| Mapping between error correction files and media must be kept. Error correction files must be protected against damage. | Easy one-medium solution; error correction information needs not to be cataloged or explicitly protected. |
| no compatibilty issues with play-back units | media with augmented images may not play correctly on all units |