|
DVD2One vs. DVDShrink
|
|
Moderator
3 product reviews
|
25. October 2004 @ 10:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree w/ Pete ... as in I use DVD2One 1.5.1 and also DVD Shrink 3.2 ... in all the years of using DVD2One Ive not encountered suck pixelating freezing problems in video ... so I would also very much suspect it would be a media issue.
If you want to know for definite buy some Taiyo Yuden media [even tho they are a little pricey , it's because they are a damn good disc]
Hope you resolve your problem ... Herbs
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. October 2004 @ 10:22
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
26. October 2004 @ 20:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Listen up, the Herbsman isn't just blowing smoke. LOL I just couldn't resist that one. ;)
|
|
zoef
Newbie
|
29. October 2004 @ 03:18 |
Link to this message
|
Most of the discussions I read here boil down to the same two questions "what is the best ripper" and "what is the best transcoder".
Best Ripper
This is actually a very easy one. I've been ripping for more than 1,5 years now, and in most of the cases (98%), DVDShrink does the job. If not, I use DVD Decrypter & AnyDVD. The combo of those three has never let me down to far.
Best Transcoder
First of all, somewhere in this thread there is mention of the dvd.box.sk test, which is actually completely fake. I tried to do some tests myself, and I was wondering how the author could actually get the exact same frame for every movie he encoded, because I couldn't - and I don't think this is technically possible. Despite numerous reminders about the used methodology, I never got an answer back (if anyone knows how to do this same test, please let me know!). On top of this, my practical experience showed other results.
To know how these tools work, one should know a little bit about the MPEG hierarchy:
Video sequence (frame size, aspect ratio, bitrate, matrix VBV)
|-----Group OF Pictures (GOP)
|------Picture (I, P or B-Frame) and motion vector
|------- Slice horizontal strips in the height of a macro block
|--------Macro block (16x16 pixel), motion info, adress within slices, quantization factor
|--------Block (8x8 pixel), the main DCT block (discrete cosine transformation) of the actual picture
A "normal" transcoder (TMPGEnc, CCE, MainConcept) first decodes all the pictures, then re-encodes them again to reduce bitrate.
The idea behind the quick shrinking the DVD is that the most consuming time of encoding is to calculate motion estimation vectors.
This is actually not a new idea, because it is used for example in broadcasting or wireless video delivery to reduce the bitrate in realtime. Such transoder is called Compressed Domain Transcoder (DCT-Domain Transcoder)
Tools like DVDShrink, DVD2One et al unpack the mpeg up to macro block (see hierarchy above), then recompress the macro blocks and simply reuse the original motion estimation vectors and quantisation matrix. They calculate the shrinkage on the fly to know how many and how often macroblocks need to be recompressed to fit to desired size.
The result will be a mix of pictures with original unchanged macroblocks and the new ones recompressed. They also don't really seem to judge the actual picture so they happily reduce even the macroblocks that are part of already low bitrate picture. The result is that suddenly the picture may get blocky in dark scenes where a normal transcoder will not touch them or the picture will get soft in parts where a normal full transcoder will do much better job. Some of these tools use some form of "blurring" the image on top of this, but artifacts remain.
InstantCopy (Pinnacle) goes much further, it requantisizes the DCT, it judges the quality of each macroblock and also adjusts the motion vectors if the image changes. It takes longer (and the result is less predictable in size) but it is better than the above applications.
The bottom line:
There is no magic transcoder. The quality goes down with the increased speed.
If you watch your DVD's on an old normal size TV tube, then the fast transcoders can do a reasonable job for you, but watching it on HDTV, projector or a better larger TV reveal the tradeof in quality. From the bunch only the InstantCopy delivers somehow more serious quality but it takes twice as long.
For any larger shrinking the best advice is to use a real transcoder such as TMPGEnc, CCE or Mainconcept. The quality will be much better.
My practical advice:
I personally use DVDShrink with Deep Analysis on everything which is reduced between 90-100%. If reduction goes below 90%, I use Pinnacle 8. What you actually see when pushing Pinnacle 8 to the limit is a 'noisier' image, instead of a more 'blockified' one. On a normal TV screen, the quality starts degrading seriously with Pinnacle 8 once you go below 60%
DM.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. October 2004 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
zoef
The DVDbox test is old and forgotten and of no use in a discussion on quality.
I mostly agree with you since I use Shrink for some rips and DVD Decrypter for the others (I use it more often than shrink). All transcoders don't work exactly the same and I seem to recall that shrink focuses largely on compressing B frames and it reduces the bit rate to 7500 kbs for action scenes. I like your encoder choices although I use CCE for all my backups and on a very rare occassion DVD Shrink. Yes I've done numerous comparisons and CCE is for me an overall better choice. Thanks for the read.:)
" 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 30. October 2004 @ 10:25
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. October 2004 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
zoef,
As has been said, the DVDbox test is valueless. When doing tests with DVD Shrink the use of video clips were used to help determine quality. Of special note were clips involving smoke, fire and fog - these seemed to more readily depict artifacts and the absence of same when Deep Analysis and Quality Enhancements were used.
Nice post in all :)
Pete
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
30. October 2004 @ 20:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
There appears to be a fly in the soup. DVDCopy2 from InterVideo happens to be one of the fastest and best transcoder apps on the market. Some people do appear to have pixelation problems with the program, but I am not one of the people who have suffered the problem so far. RB with CCE, until recently, couldn't transcode movies with angles unless the angles were edited. Star Wars, Return of the Jedi is a good example to use; a high GB disk needing lots of compression. DVDCopy2 not only did the transcoding quickly, but the quality rivals that of RB/CCE. That includes being viewed on my 60 inch screen TV.
Don't get me wrong; overall, I use RB/CCE for most of my large projects. But, it is nice having the DVDCopy2. Due to contrast and imperfections being more visible, I don't use the Copy2 for older movies.
|
|
skyer
Newbie
|
11. December 2004 @ 23:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
good one, testing.......
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
12. December 2004 @ 01:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you're testing, I hope you're testing DVD Copy 3 instead of DVD Copy 2. The 3 is superior and those claiming pixelation with the Copy 2 say they aren't getting it with the DVD Copy 3. And by all means test RB/CCE. They're both excellent apps.
I still find DVD2One better for attaching DVD files. Since it's a DVD2One vs Shrink thread, figured they deserved mention.
Or were you doing another kind of testing?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. December 2004 @ 01:41
|
Member
1 product review
|
13. December 2004 @ 03:03 |
Link to this message
|
Well i thought id add my 2 cents and say DVD Shrink rocks i just backd up my LOTR 2 and 3, compression was @ like 63% i think and was thinkin that they would turn out gayness and there is hardly any pixelation through out both of them
|
Senior Member
|
14. December 2004 @ 07:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
To be honest i find them both bloody good programes and get good use out of them both.I tend to use one2one a little more so i favour this programe.Thats mainly because i have tested it to its limits which i have not done with shrink yet.Still i'm sure when i get to this stage with shrink i will be equally as happy with shrink.
i9 9900K CPU,ASUS MAXIMUS XI HERO Mobo, Fractal R6 Case,
Corsair H115I ,Corsair RM Series 850W psu,
RTX 3080 Ti ,Corsair DDR4 Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB 1TB Intel SSD 660p Series,1TB M.2 ,36TB Seagate HD,19TB Ext, LG BH16NS40 BD-RW,Creative Sound Blaster Zx 116dB Sound Card, Acer Predator XB321HK 32inch 4K Monitor, 2TB PS4
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. December 2004 @ 18:10 |
Link to this message
|
Tell ya what John, iffin you're going to test programs and you liked DVD Shrink, try Nero's recode2 a really underestimated little proggy. Works just like Shrink (yea, I wonder why ? Duuuhh, same guy could be the answer, Ya think ?) but I find it smoother and since it lets you keep the menus, it really has the edge -
I also have to through my vote toward CopyToDVD3. It is the fastest little proggy around. I use it with about everything when speed is a factor (or when I just feel like it (Heh, heh)
And thems my 2 cents
|
|
askyew
Member
|
16. December 2004 @ 00:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey pete have you tried recode 3 yet? For some reason it seems to be faster than 2 but with the same quality. I quit using Shrink sometime ago after using recode it really is a nice prog.
P4 2.8c @ 3.2
Abit IC7-G
2x80 gb seagates barracudas
ATI AIW 9600 soft mod by w1zzard
2 x 256 pc 3200 Kingston valueram(hynix chips)
|
Senior Member
|
16. December 2004 @ 00:25 |
Link to this message
|
Think if my memory serves me right Pete i have had a little play with the Nero.Good peace of kit but you would expect no less from Nero.I'm a big fan of Nero and have used it for years and it has never let me down.To be honest though i have not even got around to trying half the funtions in Nero 6 properly yet.These days i seem to like to dabble with a little of everything.
i9 9900K CPU,ASUS MAXIMUS XI HERO Mobo, Fractal R6 Case,
Corsair H115I ,Corsair RM Series 850W psu,
RTX 3080 Ti ,Corsair DDR4 Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB 1TB Intel SSD 660p Series,1TB M.2 ,36TB Seagate HD,19TB Ext, LG BH16NS40 BD-RW,Creative Sound Blaster Zx 116dB Sound Card, Acer Predator XB321HK 32inch 4K Monitor, 2TB PS4
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. December 2004 @ 14:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry there Mate,
I've been writing recode2 for so long I forget, is there a "3" there.
I've been doing the same thing with CopyToDVD2 - it is really "3" but I forget :)
Losing me gray cells with time, I am . . . .
Happy Holidays my friend to you and the Mrs.
Cheers,
Pete
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. December 2004 @ 12:35
|
Senior Member
|
17. December 2004 @ 00:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
You to Pete if i don't talk to you before mate have a good one.
John.
i9 9900K CPU,ASUS MAXIMUS XI HERO Mobo, Fractal R6 Case,
Corsair H115I ,Corsair RM Series 850W psu,
RTX 3080 Ti ,Corsair DDR4 Vengeance RGB PRO 32GB 1TB Intel SSD 660p Series,1TB M.2 ,36TB Seagate HD,19TB Ext, LG BH16NS40 BD-RW,Creative Sound Blaster Zx 116dB Sound Card, Acer Predator XB321HK 32inch 4K Monitor, 2TB PS4
|
|
asiaminor
Newbie
|
17. December 2004 @ 10:14 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah, I know this thread is a standoff between DVDShrink and DVD2One...
I just had a thought... DivX and XviD encoding is kinda slow using VirtualDub, but DivX encoding is really fast (compared to VirtualDub) using Dr. DivX. Unless my encoding options are superfluous, perhaps things would go faster if XviD had its own "Dr."...
Or is it just me??
Back to the thread at hand... looks like it's all about preference, in which case I'll be experimenting (time permitting) with a few of these apps for a bit. Thanks for the input fellow AfterDawners! (Doesn't mean thread is over, more input = more merriment :D)
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. December 2004 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heh, heh, this thread has been all over the place talking about all kinds of problems and proggys -
A lot of it is expermenting - we play with stuff till something works for us. Not everything works for 100% of the pple -
Keep us posted iffin Ya come up with anything interesting -
Season's Greetings everyone - From my house to yours :)
Pete
|
|
askyew
Member
|
17. December 2004 @ 21:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Seasons greetings to you and yours there uncle Pete.
P4 2.8c @ 3.2
Abit IC7-G
2x80 gb seagates barracudas
ATI AIW 9600 soft mod by w1zzard
2 x 256 pc 3200 Kingston valueram(hynix chips)
|
|
wbfconst
Member
|
22. December 2004 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
I read these sites all the time, and I have to stick in my two cents worth. As Scuba Ppete says, whatever works for you. I am about to create an uproar. I think I own every burning and decripting program that is available. I now use only DVD Decrypter, & save to an external hard drive. Takes about 22 min. with my processor. Then, heaven forbid, I use Roxio Easy DVD Copy, along with Verbatum or Ridata media. I know Roxio is like a swear word on this web site. It automatically shrinks, and copies. I have only made 1 coaster, since using this combination, in the last 6 months due to faulty media. Take it for what it's worth. Holiday wishes to all on this site.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. December 2004 @ 06:54 |
Link to this message
|
I've decided to go back to chisel and stone...
pass another one.
No one denies DVD Decrypter is a great app and working off the hard drive makes sense for a lot of reasons. Among the reasons is smoother reads by the transcoding apps and fewer buffer or read errors in general, especially with less than pristine discs. It even makes things easier on PCs with limited resources.
Decent media, no problem there.
I won't even say anything bad about your choice of using Roxio as a burner app. Hopefully that's the Easy DVDCopy and not something from the Media Creator suite.
Those in the know realize the problem with Roxio was shared by a number of other recording suites. (What many of us think of when Roxio is mentioned is the recording suite shipped with many burners and PCs, the Media Creator suites.) Roxio has Drag to Disc and Nero has InCD and Pinnacle has a batch program as well in their suite. Batch writing software included in a number of recording suites interferes with DVD recording apps. They try to communicate with the drive during the burn and that's not good. Now we delete them or turn them off as necessary. Since Sonic has bought into Roxio, it may get to be even better software.
Then that Quote:
I think I own every burning and decripting program that is available
remark is a bit much. For your sake I hope you were kidding. If not, I want to be your friend, because you have to be rich. A person could just about send their child to college (junior college) for the price of just a few; CCE SP, Vegas, Adobe Premiere, and Procoder. Just a copy of DVDCopy3 would put a dent in my weekly beer allowance. LOL
I think I'll stick with the Nero suite, minus InCD, for my burning needs. Nero has a lot more specialized software included that fits my needs for DVD recording and authoring. Plus, it does the CD recording equally well. I do still have a soft spot for Roxio. I like it for handling CD audio files.
Who said Recode 3? I recently upgraded to the new Nero Ultra 6.6; the window that opens still says Recode 2. They do keep playing with those numbers and apps. InterVideo just upgraded their DVD recording software. Instead of it being just an update, they've done some major work. DVDCopy3 is superior to the DVDCopy2. 2 to 3, just imagine, more numbers.
I still have a copy of DVD Shrink on my PC and a copy of DVD2One. They both have some handy abilities I still find useful from time to time. They're just not my main recording apps.
Software really boils down to personal preference once one learns how to use the various apps. Some have proven to be outstanding for a lot of users and those have garnered a good bit of the market. As users demands and various needs differ, so there are a lot of various apps. So everyone enjoy what they're happy with.
Happy holidays to all and may the new year bring happiness and prosperity.
Regards,
Brobear
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. December 2004 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Howdy there wbfconst,
Though I don't personally care for Roxio in DVD video work (I still think it's super for music), I won't say anything except "Bravo" that it works for you - No one can ever argue with sucess and sucess is all that really counts no matter what you do -
All the Best to you and yours -
Hey there bear, my thinks I got the "3" from you but, as you said, there are so many number changes, who can keep track ? (I done went back and edtied it :)
Once again, iffin' I've missed anyone, The very best of Holiday Cheer to all ~ ~> :D)
Pete
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
23. December 2004 @ 13:43 |
Link to this message
|
Pete,
The 2s and 3s I've been talking about of late are the DVDCopy programs from InterVideo. Unless a typo, I'd never make a mistake like that on a program I'm so familiar with, the Nero Recode 2. No big deal though, there's always someone to correct us, isn't there.
Merry Christmas
|
Member
|
25. December 2004 @ 11:05 |
Link to this message
|
My coice for DVD burning is Nero Recode 2 (Nero 6 reloaded latest vs.).
I also use DVD Copy 3 whenever I am in a hurry as it is fast and does an escellent job.
Also use Shrink, and Instant Copy 8.
As stated above I prefer Recode 2 but just like to use some of the others to keep me on my toes.
I have Sony Vegas but never used it. Also have Rebuilder cc and not used it yet. I will someday.
Tom
HP 7975 Pentium 4W/2.0 XP Home
1 GB RAM
Maxtor 80 GB and WD 80 GB (used for movies only)
Pioneer 116 DVD ROM,and BenQ 1640 Combo
|
|
sinfully
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. December 2004 @ 19:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok im a newbie but i have been using how to copy dvd's with shrink . i can honestly say i love it my only thing i wanted to knwo if it happends to every one is that it takes about 45 to 1 hour maybe more to do the whole thing is that about normal. another thing i just made my first dual movie back up "2 movies in one" how would i make a menu for it could some one direct me to it. thanks
sin
happy new year to you all
BuRN On Peeps! ;)
im a newbie please dont yell at me ;) ..
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
zoef
Newbie
|
28. December 2004 @ 21:49 |
Link to this message
|
Hi sinfully,
this is not exactly the correct thread to ask this question, but here goes:
* Depending on your hardware, it can indeed take 45 minutes or more to "Shrink" a DVD, so this is perfectly normal. I've been doing it on a Pentium III 900 as well as on a Pentium IV 2.4, and there is a noticeable difference in speed.
* As to creating a menu, for a DVD; there are a lot of different possibilities. Maybe the easiest way is using DVDLab(Pro). It has a full-featured demo. In case your films only have the same number of audio streams and subtitle streams, this is rather easy (no need to Demux the vob's); if not, then you should Demux the vobs, create new chapter points, etc. You're gonna needs some in-depth knowledge to get it running perfectly.
That's why I use a combination of DVDLab & DVDRemake: create a menu in Lab & link it to some dummy film(s). Then use Remake to replace the dummy's with the real film or dump the menu in a DVDRemake project. Adapt your audiostream/subtitle settings in Remake & compile...
I'm afraid there is (not yet) a program which "automagically" creates a menu on top of different films with different audio/subtitle streams...
Good luck.
DM.
|
