|
|
|
Backs up and plays fine but...
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. July 2005 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
quod erat demonstrandum
Although I'm not certain of what case it was that you've rested, it is nonetheless gracious of you to concede and agree.
Cheers!
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 06:19
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Moderator
|
15. July 2005 @ 01:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
........and Bruce999, pls edit out your email address from one of your last replies
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 *** |
|
Bruce999
Member
|
15. July 2005 @ 18:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles:
I decided to try to help you out, since you still seem to be a bit confused over the meaning of ?no compression,? and the way in which DVDShrink operates when it is merely used as a ripper (i.e., when no compression is used).
I found the following very helpful exchange, where someone else was asking the same question (based on one of those d^%$ rumors he read).
Here is the exchange:
=====
?Will do.
I have one question actually: have you ever found DVD Shrink "No Compression" to degrade or modify a video stream (color content, sharpness, etc etc)?
(Posted by DDLooping, the software being discussed was DVDShrink version 3.2, about a year ago.)
=====
The same questioner then wrote, in his next post:
"I was only asking because one DVD Shrink user reported the "No Compression" output to softens the tones.
I have personally never found this to be the case, and neither did others who did "bit-by-bit comparisons" (or whatever it's called).
dvdshrink also stated numerous times "No Compression" does not alter the video stream in anyway.
I'm just trying to get a wider view and understand what the issue could be.
(Posted by DDLooping on a forum devoted to DVD ripping)
=====
The response he received:
?I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite [SIC] often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either."
=====
Now, I tend to agree with this response. Obviously, you are quite emotional in your disagreement. Either that, or I guess it is quite possible that your exclamation mark key on the keyboard had a bit of a ?sticky? problem (?)
The file sizes (from DVDShrink with no compression) make it quite obvious that no compression is taking place, since the sum total ends up precisely the same as the original DVD (according to all of my testing so far, which now numbers 9 carefully examined DVDs), and this also coincides exactly with the sum total of files if one uses DVDDecrypter, and also two other ripping programs I just tried today.
Oh, I almost forgot to give credit to the second post above, which was posted by one of the senior members (not that this should matter) of a forum.
He is another senior member (not that that should matter) of this forum, and he goes by the nickname: Sophocles.
The exchange took place on this forum, let me know if you need some help finding it. If you still need help understanding this issue, let me know. In the meantime, my testing continues.
Thanks,
Bruce
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 18:44
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 18:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bruce999
No Bruce it's you that's confused and way out of your league, I mean way out of your league. And as for your statement that you aren't trying to be disagreeable, baloney, especially when you continue to debate in areas in which you are the novice. ddlooping was a colleague, a peer, often even a friend, but never a superior.
Dvd Shrink doesn't just rip and leave the original DVD untouched because even without compressing it still processes the film (the film goes through the Shrink thingy and gets changed), meaning the overall file size is just about the same but something has still been altered!!! ALTERED!! GET IT!!!! Compression alone is not the only thing that can alter the quality of a video transfer.
Do you even understand the basic structure of a DVD? I, P, and B frames, VBR, and CBR and how they affect the outcome of compression?
Compression can be used in loose discussions when the topic is zip,tar, and rar files but when discussing video compression they are far more complex and a different subject altogether.
You should have provided links, those were fond days. I loved beta testing DVD Shrink. I was part of a sub group of testers and probably more trouble than they bargained for. If you continue your search of the past you will find a post where I made a clear reference to the effects of DVD Shrink on a movie with no compression.
If you search a little further into the past you'll find a link where I describe the benefits of backing up a movie with Shrink because it reduces the mosquito effect. Sometimes a little less sharpness is better because it filters video noise such as the mosquito effect.
If you want to continue this discussion come to
www.zentarium.com
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 19:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Let's just back up on this thread and review your posts.
Everything below was posted by you on this thread.
Here are the results of this test:
Filename****** DVDShrink sizes****** DVDDecrypter sizes:
VideoTS.BUP**** 10,240 bytes********* 10,240 bytes
VideoTS.IFO*****10,240 bytes********* 10,240 bytes
VTS_01_0.BUP*** 112,640 bytes******** 112,640 bytes
VTS_01_0.IFO*** 112,640 bytes******** 112,640 bytes
VTS.01.0.VOB****524,675,072 bytes**** 524,675,072 bytes
VTS.01.1.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.2.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.3.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 610,037,760 bytes
VTS.01.4.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.5.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.6.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.7.VOB****89,131,008 bytes***** 552,833,024 bytes
VTS_02_0.BUP******14,336 bytes********* 14,336 bytes
VTS_02_0.IFO** 14,336 bytes********* 14,336 bytes
VTS_02_0.VOB** *did not exist******* 0 bytes
VTS_02_1.VOB** 19,363,840 bytes***** 19,363,840 bytes
Sum of all: 7,075,883,008 bytes** 7,075,883,008 bytes
Do you see the flaws?
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 19:31
|
|
Bruce999
Member
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:36 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles, if you do not mind, I think I shall remain here. The threads around here seem to back up each and every test I can conceive, including my next ones (now that we know the file sizes are in fact identical, I am going to test the chroma, next).
In fact, your past posts continue to affirm what my tests are showing.
====
Ddlooping writes:
"I was only asking because one DVD Shrink user reported the "No Compression" output to softens the tones."
====
?I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either.?
Posted by Sophocles, 13 July, 2004, in the DVDShrink Forum at AfterDawn.com
________________________________________
DDLooping answers:
?Thanks again, Sophocles, if "No Compression" did actually modify the video stream that would have skewed my comparison tests.?
========================================
Then, two posts down, posted by Vurbal:
?@ddlooping: I read some similar claims many months ago, and I eventually decided to test this for myself. I made a movie only backup with no compression and used AviSynth's SSIM plugin to compare it against the original. SSIM directly compares the luma and chroma planes from one video stream against a second one, and it couldn't find any differences between Shrink's copy and the original. Just to be sure, I made another copy of the movie with IFOEdit and compared that against the Shrink version. Once again - no differences.?
==============
Bruce
============
P.S.
?I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either.?
Just to confirm, this post was actually yours, and not some other party who registered under your name? I am interested in reality, as it surrounds this issue. Thanks.
============
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Another post by you on this thread.
Million Dollar Baby
Filename***** DVDDecrypter results***** DVDShrink results
VideoTS.BUP**** 10,240 bytes****10,240 bytes
VideoTS.IFO**** 10,240 bytes****10,240 bytes
VTS_01_0.BUP****96,256 bytes****96,256 bytes
VTS_01_0.IFO****96,256 bytes****96,256 bytes
VTS.01.0.VOB****132,300,800 bytes****132,300,800 bytes
VTS.01.1.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.2.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.3.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.4.VOB****839,274,496 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.5.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.6.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes
VTS.01.7.VOB****909,197,312 bytes****674,732,032 bytes
Sum of the above** 7,249,684,480 bytes****7,249,684,480 bytes
The sum might be the same but all of the marbles aren't in the same pocket! LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
now that we know the file sizes are in fact identical,
What are you talking about?, the file sizes were not at all identical in both of your file posts. Look again! Like I said there are anomalies in 100% of DVD Shrinks files ripped with no compression.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 19:44
|
|
Bruce999
Member
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Of couse, I meant the sum of the file sizes.
I apologize profusely for my omission of that unimportant phrase (since we both know that the reason for the differences in individual file sizes is only due to the programmer's decision on where to choose to "end" one segment and begin the next segment of a video stream.
But, I knew you knew that (grin).
Try to have a better day,
-Bruce
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 19:49
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 19:58 |
Link to this message
|
The point has never been about file sizes, it's about whether or not DVD Shrink affects the video when used under no compression.
differences in individual file sizes is only due to the programmer's decision on where to choose to "end" one segment
In a no compression transfer that shouldn't be a factor, one set of files should mirror the other. Each should be identical in size and number.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Bruce999
Member
|
15. July 2005 @ 20:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
>>>In a no compression transfer that shouldn't be a factor, one set of files should mirror the other. Each should be identical in size and number.<<<
Wrong.
-Bruce
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 20:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bruce999
Wrong
Sorry but right!
If you've got proof to refute that, then I'm all ears.!!!
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 22:55
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
15. July 2005 @ 22:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
Strange that it is being said that DVD Shrink doesn't affect the way a video turns out. I don't use DVD Shrink extensively as a ripper. About the only time I use it is when I'm having a minor problem with file structure. (I find DVD Decrypter more efficient as a ripper.) Several of us use the trick of running a file through Shrink if Nero or one of the burning apps indicates a structural defect that might affect the recording. And it doesn't affect the file? Wrong at least on that aspect. Check out the Shrink forums with a search if you don't believe it. Personally, I've only done this once or twice out of hundreds of backups from my library. I do remember it was from a fault induced by structural and/or ARccOS encryption (new encryption from the past year or so).
So, with Shrink, we have a program that can alter the file structure to do minor corrections for the recording process. Add to that the fact that Shrink does alter internal file size, thus content. Consider the fact that some people edit DVDs, thus further tampering with files. Nice of Shrink to have all those editing capabilities. There you would possibly have an output altered due to content being shifted from one file to another. Not a big problem, but definitely something that can occurr.
Now... getting down to that favorite subject, Shrink and no compression and the effects Shrink has on video quality. To answer this question one merely needs to look at the controls of the latest version of Shrink 3.2. The "Quality Settings" are a new feature for the last version, 3.2. This was developed due to the older versions of Shrink affecting the video output. If it wasn't needed, the author wouldn't have included it. The last version, 3.2 went through extensive beta testing before the public ever saw the finished product.
I remember Sophocles was involved in one of the original discussions about the topic of Shrink's "soft" video appearance in the older versions. That discussion was prior to the finalized 3.2. Seems the Shrink acolytes could see no wrong in the app and defended it vehemently. The situation turned out that the author agreed with the critics and installed the aforementioned "Quality Settings". There's something to be said for constructive criticism.
"Compress video with high quality adaptive error compensation:" is an option under "Quality Settings" along with the deep analysis feature. Under AEC the selections are, Maximum Smoothness, Smooth, Sharp (default), and Maximum Sharpness. That's 4 settings with various results with Sharp as the default. Default settings without the "Quality Settings" in use produce a video the same as earlier versions of the software. So, at No Compression, the default Sharp should be what the video is being processed as. (Remember, at default was where the softness of video output was first noticed.) Though no transcoding is being done, the video is still being processed through the software. Many have noticed minor differences, especially on large screen monitors. Some not paying attention may even attribute the softness to a contrast setting. Sometimes it even needed minor magnification to be apparent, but the differences have been noted. So, the author noted there was a situation with varying video quality and he addressed it with the "Quality Settings" in order for the users to tailor the output to their own preferences. Quite a bit for a program that doesn't alter video output. You guys go on with the discussion, but I believe the author of Shrink solved the discussion some time ago. Obviously he wouldn't have added the "Quality Settings" if he didn't think DVD Shrink has an effect on video output that might need some correcting; or at least let us say alterations.
I find it amazing that users don't pay more attention to the video quality of their backup output in relation to that of the original. Even the author of Shrink noted the differences that sometimes occurr; including the sometimes not readily apparent "soft" picture. If the author of the app didn't know what he was doing, why in the world are so many people using it and attesting to it being the best freeware of its type. I think they go a bit too far when they say the best ever. But lets not go there lest we fire up the acolytes. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 23:02
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 23:07 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I remember Sophocles was involved in one of the original discussions about the topic of Shrink's "soft" video appearance
He should know, he was there!
Regarding the quality settings I seem to recall that Dr. Shrink added a compress "B" frames more setting that seemed to work well at first but later proved to produce artifacts in action scenes (requiring higher bitrates).
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
15. July 2005 @ 23:19 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
He should know, he was there!
Flattered that you noticed my presence. LOL I was one of the fortunate few that was allowed to observe the development of the improved Shrink through the beta testing process. Though not an actual beta tester, I was well aware of what was going on and allowed to use the beta versions before completion. And yes... I did get involved in some of the earliest discussions on the "soft" aspect of Shrink video output. I remember some of the steadfast Shrinkees yelling blasphemy (or was that heresy) at first. Luckily the author of Shrink came forward and addressed the issue before any burnings at the stake occurred.
Quote:
I seem to recall that Dr. Shrink added a compress "B" frames more setting that seemed to work well at first but later proved to produce artifacts in action scenes (requiring higher bitrates).
and I believe you may be correct. Though Dr Shrink originally had no intent to address that problem, he ended up investing quite a bit of work in the final AEC setup. The first thoughts were for doing just a cleaned up version of the prior work. Then as work progressed he ended up doing the major mods and giving the public a real treat. I believe he's still up to delivering good works over at Ahead with Nero. Can't blame the guy for wanting to be paid for some of his excellent work. The Shrink was and still is superior to many of the retail offerings.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. July 2005 @ 23:27
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
15. July 2005 @ 23:40 |
Link to this message
|
Yes DVD Shrink is a fine piece of work. I once referred to it as the best freeware application ever made. A bit of exaggeration perhaps but not by much.
I wish that Dr. Shrink would have somehow separated the ripper from the transcoder but he didn't and even under no compression the movie is still processed through it.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
15. July 2005 @ 23:59 |
Link to this message
|
It appears as though the ripper ability and a few others are fortunate byproducts of how the program functions; not fully intended functions. If you notice, ripping with DVD Shrink isn't a big thing in any of the manuals developed for the app. In fact I originally found out about it from a forum thread and not a manual. For those who like to use software "outside the box" there's also AnyDVD for ripping. All one needs to do is decrypt with the AnyDVD and any app that can record to the HDD without compression can finish the rip process. Doing it that way, DVD Decrypter, Shrink and many other apps can remain efficient rippers as long as AnyDVD or a like app retains support and is kept updated for decryption.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
16. July 2005 @ 00:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Bruce999
quod erat demonstrandum
"that which was to be demonstrated"
I sort of wondered about that addition. Sort of vague or cryptic, exactly what did you demonstrate that could be laid to rest? "that which was to be demonstrated" I fear I and others may have missed. Your assertion that the end byte count remained the same in your observations I can follow. As far as no effect on video output, I believe I'll make my conclusions from the work done by the author of the app with the AEC development.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. July 2005 @ 00:17
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
17. July 2005 @ 05:26 |
Link to this message
|
This seems like a lot of hoopla over a minor preference.
My preference is to ripp with DVDshrink via AnyDVD and use CCE to compress if needed.
I have not been able to find any evidence to support the claims of DVDshrink modifying ripped files.
When using no compresion the picture always looks the same as the original.
I would find it difficult to support my opinion in this matter with bit by bit comparisons so I will leave it as just my opinion.
If you are afraid of shrink doing bad things to your movie don't use it.
I for one think it does not.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
17. July 2005 @ 05:32 |
Link to this message
|
As for using 2 DVDs for backup. I have yet to see a movie large enough that CCE did not make a visibly perfect viewing experience.
I am picky on the picture but I won't make 2 discs just because.
If I were to come up to a movie to large for my purposes I could afford a DL disc for backup.
Donald
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
17. July 2005 @ 05:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have noticed that when ripping with DVDshrink no compression there is very little processor use like with a straight copy. Any encoding or transcoding requires processor power like with CCE even with little compresion.
This would tend to support the view that Shrink does not actually trancode with no compression.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. July 2005 @ 07:31
|
|
l8nights
Suspended permanently
|
17. July 2005 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
@bruce 999 don't mean to interupt but I've noticed the quality issues you say you have never noticed in three years I've been doing back_ups 4 about 6 mo's now the vast majority will admit they've in one cicumstance or another seen them but the vast majority don't care I don't in most circumstances. some of the pickier pple such as mort are actually acting on our behalf to keep crap progs in check. In your "science experiment" at the beginning af this mockery of your intelligence I don't think the #'s add up but seeing as I'm not going to actually do the math since this is a test that absolutly has no semblance of actually proving any thing. I could quite possibly be wrong imagine that a human that is wrong hmmmm. have any mirrors any ways the point is the final quality do you have a test that could actually test two disc as for quality viewing actual picture quality after you figure how to test the pictures be sure that you test them on every make&model of t.v. in existence then conduct the same test taking in to account 4 every make and model of burner in existence played on every t.v. then take into account every burning app used on every burner played on every t.v.
after you could test different age groups because I have a grand mother who could not tell you the difference between a dvd burned with Nero, and the t.v. being turned off
in fact when you can litterally take others eye balls out of their sockets and insert them into yours and then run that image file through all the different kinds of processors known as "brains"
then I will continue this conversation w/ you infact I can't hardly wait!! just jittery w/ anticipation. off now you have alot of work to be done
|
Moderator
|
17. July 2005 @ 07:03 |
Link to this message
|
@l8nights - don't waste your breath - that guy (name beginning with 'B', ending with '9') has decided to try to belittle the experience of long-term members and even beta-testers of DVD Shrink, so there's no point. Those same guys have told him what they think, yet he continued to berate their knowledge - for that follishness there are many words in the dictionary, none of which i will squander here :).
i myself have no such indepth experience, am just grateful that knowledgeable ppl such as those who have commented previously have done all the hard work for ppl such as you and me. For someone to come along with such a pointless set of paragraphs (i won't call them opinions) and continually challenge ppl who actually worked with this stuff as it was being developed is petty to say the very least. So i would steer clear my friend
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 ***
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
17. July 2005 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Donald,
No problem at all having your own preferences. Some people say they've seen the differences using Shrink at no compression and you say you haven't. As I pointed out, it is usually a slight difference with Shrink's encoding. I don't do a lot of work with Shrink anymore, so I can't give you any field data. However Dr. Shrink did do the "Quality Settings" with AEC to compensate for the video output. I guess the question boils down to "Is Shrink merely acting as copy software or are the files being processed (transcoded) through the encoding engine (algorithm), even though it isn't being shrunk?" If you see nothing, then there's absolutely no reason to change. I don't think anyone is really trying to influence anyone toward change. The discussion was more on technical points and Sophocles kept close tabs on the Shrink 3.2 development and B***9 didn't, or at least doesn't appear to have from his statements.
I've always used DVD Decrypter because it is a dedicated app for ripping, not one where the compression and burn settings have to be altered to record to the HDD. But then, each to his own choices as you say.
I always liked that disclaimer type statement they had on the Shrink site, use DVD Decrypter if Shrink doesn't decrypt the files properly. I figured I'd just take Shrink's word for it and use the best up front; especially since I no longer transcode using Shrink and the decryption software hasn't been updated in over a year. Though Decrypter has been orphaned, it's not yet started having problems with newer encryption, at least none I've run across yet. Plus, with AnyDVD I can continue to use it if encryption problems arise. I know, Shrink uses AnyDVD as well. But, I still opt for DVD Decrypter because it is a dedicated ripper. Why open a transcoder app to do the job of a simple rip (especially when the transcoder output can be a bit suspect)? As I stated before, I remember the many Shrink acolytes yelling there's absolutely nothing wrong with Shrink, only to have Dr Shrink add the "Quality Settings" to the improved app.
BTW, don't get me wrong, I agree with Soph, Shrink is the best freeware app of its type. I still keep it on my PC for some of the utilities. I just don't see it as the best choice for a ripper since DVD Decrypter is also the best freeware app of its type. Sort of funny, a whole lotta posting for such a trivial pursuit.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. July 2005 @ 13:23
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. July 2005 @ 13:34 |
Link to this message
|
64026402
Quote:
I have noticed that when ripping with DVDshrink no compression there is very little processor use like with a straight copy. Any encoding or transcoding requires processor power like with CCE even with little compression.
In my debate I repeated to the other side over and over again that this is not about compression, I repeat no compression. It's about whether or not some files are altered by DVD shrink when processed with no compression and since it's compression that challenges your CPU the point that you didn't see any CPU stressing becomes moot.
DVD Shrink when used as a ripper is still more than just a ripper because it makes non compressed changes to the end result. I did a comparison last year where I ripped with DVD Decrypter, SmartRipper, and DVD Shrink and then compared all three folders (its posted somewhere here on AD). The folders ripped by Decrypter and SmartRipper were identical, but the one ripped with Shrink had variations in the size of some folders. Vurbal did an analysis of a section of a movie and discovered that there was a difference in the number of frame counts by 1.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. July 2005 @ 13:35
|
|
