|
Does Anyone Compress In Stages? (Pre-Compress)
|
|
|
seagrave
Member
|
18. March 2010 @ 12:17 |
Link to this message
|
I once tried to compress a super-bit disk to fit a 4.7gig single layer disk and the final version had numerous artifacts. And why not... it was compressed to about 55% of the original. Yet it's also clear that a single layer DVD can easily hold 2 hours of quality. The problem, I suspect, was that I did all the compression in one step.
I always wondered if I should have compressed in Shrink a mpeg in two or three steps... say from 7 gigs to 6, then down to 4.7gigs (or whatever).
I never got around to doing such an experiment until now and it's a 3 step process still running.
Has anyone tried it?
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
Senior Member
|
18. March 2010 @ 13:13 |
Link to this message
|
For anything that requires much compression at all, I use DVD Rebuilder. It is far superior to the results of DVD Shrink. With rebuilder the entire picture is analyzed as a whole and then completely rebuilt to obtain the best results. Compressing in stages would be a detriment in this case. IMHO
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. March 2010 @ 21:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by seagrave:
Has anyone tried it?
Yes, You have to get LoR extended versions to fit on one disk. So you wind up with 3 not 6 disks. The resolution is not as good but plenty good enough for a 36". I also kept a the 6 disk set for if I ever get a good screen.
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
19. March 2010 @ 03:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
No need to use Rebuilder if you use Shrink's Deep Analysis. The quality will be acceptable to most people albeit lower than the results from Rebuilder.
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
Senior Member
|
19. March 2010 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Chetwood:
No need to use Rebuilder if you use Shrink's Deep Analysis. The quality will be acceptable to most people albeit lower than the results from Rebuilder.
You may be right, if you only compress a 5GB file to fit on a standard dvd you won't see a difference. If you do a file bigger than that such as LoR discussed previously then there is NO comparison and even a blind person could tell the difference between the two.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. March 2010 @ 06:07
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
19. March 2010 @ 09:11 |
Link to this message
|
At 55% i would certainly opt for Dvd Rebuilder.
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
20. March 2010 @ 02:35 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
If you do a file bigger than that such as LoR discussed previously then there is NO comparison and even a blind person could tell the difference between the two.
I've encoded 2,5 h movies with Shrink with no one complaining seeing the results on a 50" screen. So my suggestion to seagrave: give it a try before wasting time.
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2010 @ 04:02 |
Link to this message
|
I have friends who either can't tell or don't care about the difference in quality between HDTV and standard TV; .flac and .mp3; filet mignon and chopped liver; fine wine and spiked kool-aid, etc.
I like DVD Shrink and it is still a tool in my toolkit, however from doing this for years since the day shrink was created up till now, I've learned MY standards are maybe higher than most and I don't use Shrink if main movie gets below about 80% compression. Even with applied quality settings...
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2010 @ 10:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
I have friends who either can't tell or don't care about the difference in quality between HDTV and standard TV; .flac and .mp3; filet mignon and chopped liver; fine wine and spiked kool-aid, etc.
I like DVD Shrink and it is still a tool in my toolkit, however from doing this for years since the day shrink was created up till now, I've learned MY standards are maybe higher than most and I don't use Shrink if main movie gets below about 80% compression. Even with applied quality settings...
I agree with you mate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
20. March 2010 @ 14:33 |
Link to this message
|
This is where the difference between Transcoding and Encoding come in to play. Even with the applied quality settings and Deep Analysis function in play, Dvd Shrink is still just compressing the file to fit on an SL disc. Where as Dvd Rebuilder is re-encoding it to keep top quality and fit on an SL disc.
Which ever way you choose to do it Chetwood is entirely up to you; but i don't see the advice given here which will render better overall quality results as being (as you stated) Originally posted by Chetwood:
wasting time.
|
Moderator
|
20. March 2010 @ 14:41 |
Link to this message
|
I gave up on DVD Shrink a long time ago, i just find it easier to use DVD Rebuilder for virtually eyerything. If there's virtually no compression then i still use Shrink, but such movies are in the minority these days. I certainly wouldn't class CPU time spent running (the infinitely superior) DVD Rebuilder as wasting time either. Don't get me wrong, Shrink is good, i used it for the longest time, but on my Q6600 Rebuilder only takes a measly 45mins in main movie mode and 1hour on a full disc episodic, virtually no time at all so no wasted time here :).
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. March 2010 @ 14:47
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
20. March 2010 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by creaky:
I gave up on DVD Shrink a long time ago, i just find it easier to use DVD Rebuilder for virtually eyerything. If there's virtually no compression then i'd use Shrink, but such movies are in the minority these days
Especially when you factor in batch processing. :)
Set it up, go to bed.
How are ya Creakster?
|
Moderator
|
20. March 2010 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
I'm good thanks, hope all is well with you.
Would you believe i still haven't ever tried batch processing with Rebuilder, just never got around to it.
I do batch processing in AutoGK though.
Shrink is still a great program, i'm still very fond of it after using it heavily for years, but Rebuilder's been my primary program of choice for 3 years now.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2010 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
I like to set up a batch as 7th suggested and head off to bed or other things. But I can tell you it sucks when you get back to it and realized you forgot to give each set-up a unique output name, so each video over-rode the preceding one. Now that was as Mr. Chetwood stated. "Wasting time." LOL
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
20. March 2010 @ 18:59 |
Link to this message
|
Batch processing with Rebuilder is very nice...if you don't pull a Ferg that is. LOL
Methinks you'd find it pretty handy Creaky...especially on that nice little rig of yours.
And as far as Shrink goes (since i did not mention this in my previous replies) it is still a handy tool and one i'm sentimentally fond of. I used it for so many years faithfully and it still serves some great purposes. My primary tool of choice (as others have stated) has become Dvd Rebuilder. There will always be a spot in my toolbox for Shrink though. :)
|
Senior Member
|
20. March 2010 @ 21:48 |
Link to this message
|
This might seem a bit backwards, but liking the Shrink GUI I usually use it to re-author the main movie uncompressed (leave Shrink set at DVD-9) to one folder which happens to be source folder for DVD-RB. Then RB outputs files to a folder on my home server which also just happens to be source folder for Auto_GK's conversion to .avi so I can stream to a few different boxes in my house.
i know DVD-RB will pull main movie only, but I like editing with Shrink GUI especially on disks with 2 main titles. I know DVD-RB will also output to .avi and maybe I didn't tweak its settings enough during experiments, but the quality of .avi was consistently better and easier to aqcuire with GK than RB. it may seem like I do a few extra steps, but really using shrink is the most work cuz everything else is batch processed.
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
22. March 2010 @ 03:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
however from doing this for years since the day shrink was created up till now, I've learned MY standards are maybe higher than most and I don't use Shrink if main movie gets below about 80% compression.
And in all those years you never realized that compression percentage is no measure for output quality?
Originally posted by 7thsinger:
Especially when you factor in batch processing.
Or not, since you can use MultiShrink.
Originally posted by ferguj1:
you forgot to give each set-up a unique output name, so each video over-rode the preceding one.
You're talking bout Rebuilder?
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
Senior Member
|
22. March 2010 @ 04:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Chetwood:
Originally posted by Deadrum33:
however from doing this for years since the day shrink was created up till now, I've learned MY standards are maybe higher than most and I don't use Shrink if main movie gets below about 80% compression.
And in all those years you never realized that compression percentage is no measure for output quality?
since you dont want to hear it from me, here's how I measure output quality...
Originally posted by 7thsinger:
This is where the difference between Transcoding and Encoding come in to play. Even with the applied quality settings and Deep Analysis function in play, Dvd Shrink is still just compressing the file to fit on an SL disc. Where as Dvd Rebuilder is re-encoding it to keep top quality and fit on an SL disc.
Originally posted by creaky:
I gave up on DVD Shrink a long time ago, i just find it easier to use DVD Rebuilder for virtually eyerything. If there's virtually no compression then i still use Shrink, but such movies are in the minority these days. I certainly wouldn't class CPU time spent running (the infinitely superior) DVD Rebuilder as wasting time either.......Shrink is still a great program, i'm still very fond of it after using it heavily for years, but Rebuilder's been my primary program of choice for 3 years now.
I understand you FAVOR one thing, and I looked at the website in your sig and understand why you may FAVOR it. However what you FAVOR is a bit different than what actually gives the best quality.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. March 2010 @ 05:12
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
25. March 2010 @ 02:37 |
Link to this message
|
Doesn't change the fact that output bitrate is what's important and not compression factor shown in Shrink.
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
Senior Member
|
25. March 2010 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
I don't want to keep arguing but I will say this...Shrink=transcode=compressed=lossy
DVD-RB=encode=uncompressed=lossless.
You say bitrate, heres a quote from their WIKI
Originally posted by WIKI:
If lossy data compression is used on audio or visual data, differences from the original signal will be introduced; if the compression is substantial, or lossy data is decompressed and recompressed, this may become noticeable in the form of compression artifacts.
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
30. March 2010 @ 04:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't want to argue either. I simply pointed out that your use of 80% as a threshold is the wrong criteria to base on whether to use Shrink or Rebuilder.
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. March 2010 @ 20:47 |
Link to this message
|
I don't have DVD Shrink on my new pc. Strictly DVD-RB. If a movie has little compression, DVD-Rb will leave most of the original untouched and only re-encode a few segments. This takes very little time.
99% of all problems are between the computer and the chair.
|
Senior Member
|
30. March 2010 @ 22:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Chetwood:
I don't want to argue either. I simply pointed out that your use of 80% as a threshold is the wrong criteria to base on whether to use Shrink or Rebuilder.
I'm using the criteria that Originally posted by wiki:
Professionally encoded videos average a bitrate of 4-5 Mbit/s with a maximum of 7?8 Mbit/s in high-action scenes.
If i want my final disc to contain main movie and 5.1 audio only, and average movie length is 90 minutes I have all the data right there to find standard bitrate. What ever it is, at 80% of that I can start seeing a difference between the two programs.
|
|
Chetwood
Member
|
31. March 2010 @ 03:14 |
Link to this message
|
Which is a blank statement that makes no sense in itself since an 80% movie in Shrink can look better than a 90% movie in Shrink, i.e. your 80% threshold actually looks different from movie to movie as explained in this FAQ entry:
FAQ: Compression percentage explained
------------------------------------
Compression percentage explained
Many people are asking about the compression percentage and what results in a good quality burn. Put simply, it is not the compression percentage which matters but the bitrate which is devoted to the video encoding.
For example, if a movie was originally encoded with a "high" bit rate (say 6 Mbps - "mega bits per second") and compressed by a lot, (say to 50%), on average, this would result in a bitrate of 3 MBps.
But if the movie was originally encoded with a "low" bitrate (say 3.5 Mbps) and was compressed only by 20% (to 80%), the resulting average bitrate would be 2.8 Mbps -- worse than the 50% compression!!!
(There are more technical aspects regarding quality that involve I, P, and B frames, and variable vs fixed encoding and transcoding, but these are beyond this FAQ.)
Now, what you can detect as "bad quality" will most likely depend on the final bitrate and the size of your screen. If your are projecting onto a huge screen, the higher numbers are probably necessary (say over 3.5 and preferably 4.5+). But on a regular TV, you can probably get away with the 3 Mbps range (and even lower).
{IfoEdit} has a neat bitrate calculator in its Tools menu. First, take the total amount of space devoted to your title - DVD Shrink will tell you this in its main screen (it may be 4,464MB for a reauthored DVD). Then, simply enter in the number of audio streams and subtitle streams. If you have a DTS stream add one to the number for audio. IfoEdit will calculate the average bitrate based on this data.
{Videocalc} is an even better freeware bitrate calculator, which allows you to calcuate, very accurately, the average bitrate of your DVD. Try it out!
MultiMakeMKV: batch processing for MakeMKV (Win)
MultiShrink: batch processing for DVD Shrink
Offizieller Übersetzer von DVD Shrink deutsch
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Moderator
|
31. March 2010 @ 05:12 |
Link to this message
|
Chetwood - And on (and on) it goes. We know you are pro-DVD Shrink, that's fine, we've all explained why we used to use it, how, and why. And anyone who still uses it has done too (nothing wrong with using it, as i'd already said). But is this defence of DVD Shrink ever going to end ?, none of us are rubbishing the program, simply giving our reasons for what we use and why. We get the hint that you like to push Shrink, way more in fact than anyone pushing Rebuilder, for instance, but i think you're posting under the misnomer that you feel a (constant) need to defend Shrink. You don't - it was a great program, and still is (for a lot of people out there); i know i'd still be using often if not for Rebuilder. Notice how i only mention Rebuilder and not defend it in any of my posts ? :)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. March 2010 @ 05:13
|
