|
|
|
DVD95COPY Versus DVD2ONE
|
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
24. March 2003 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is not a post to choose favourites, but rather an objective comparison of both pieces of software, which compete in allowing a user to process a complete DVD into a single DVD-R
Afterdawn has been kept up to date with the latest versions of both these products and I have had a chance to test them. Current versions are DVD95COPY 1.3 and DVD2ONE 1.1.1.
Both products offer the opportunity to process the files from a dual layered DVD onto a commercially available DVD-R (4.36GB)
Although originally DVD2ONE was only able to process one title, it is now able to process the entire disc (menus and all) and fit it on a 4.36GB DVD-R. It does this extremely quickly and with very positive results. All titles are given equal compression and you are unable to remove tracks/subs. In addition you are able to specify the size of the final disc to anything you want.
DVD95COPY is able to process the entire DVD as well, although recent developments now allow you to select which extras you want and how much you want them compressed in percentage terms. This can be very useful if all you wanted was say the movie and a quality menu, but none of the deleted scenes, or music videos. Also, if you want all of the extras, but want to reduce the compression of the main movie, it allows this also, by increasing the compression of the extras only. It is very slow in processing, however, taking far longer than DVD2ONE.
DVD95COPY also allows you to select which audio tracks you want to leave out, which currently DVD2ONE does not allow you to do on its full disc option. This can further improve the quality of the resulting DVD-R.
Conclusion? well as I said, I don't want to pick a favourite, in fact I use both products. When I just want the movie, I would not use DVD95COPY, as DVD2ONE beats it hands down in terms of speed for just compressing the main movie only. If I have need for menus, but no extras, I would certainly have to choose DVD95COPY, as I can select which parts I want. Also if I wanted a whole disc and wanted to remove some audio tracks taking up space, DVD95COPY would be probably better at that.
If I wanted to process an entire DVD and wanted everything compressed the same amount, or I was doing an episodal disc, perhaps DVD2ONE would be better as it is considerably faster.
I hope others post their experiences here and if new versions come out, perhaps their attributes can be posted to this thread also to keep it up to date.
Happy processing :)
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
24. March 2003 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi Paul - We're going to be seeing a lot re. transcoding software in the upcoming weeks/months. I have neither of thee programs mentioned, so I can't do a comparison, but may I share my thoughts?
I have not used the retail versions of either of these programs, but I can see that we are slowly but surely arriving to the point I have always wanted!
Of ALL the capabilities that current backup software offers, the most important feature (for me) is transcoding. Re-encoding. One dual-layer disc to 1 single blank. Everything else, to me, is secondary.
I am not a 'purist'. Since I don't have a 16:9 hi-res Hi-Def-ready monitor, I am not concerned with extracting the last byte of digital resolution from the original dual-layer disc. Within certain areas of the Green Room dvdxcopy forum, if you dare mention the word 'transcoding', they will skin you alive.
I am delighted to learn that now, equal compression is applied evenly over the entire disc. Wonderful! No nasty surprises as you switch from main movie to the extras.
In the absolute worst case -- that is -- if 2 FULL layers of video info are cut in half (50% reduction in size), I suspect that the resulting disc will still satisfy most people. Would not such a disc be superior to vhs, super-vhs, svcd, or even possibly, Laser-disc? Played on normal, regular tv sets, would *most* people be able to discern a difference between such a copy and the original? I doubt it.
Most people (me) don't receive the same value for each retail disc purchased, as people who have hi-res 16:9 sets receive. I cannot see the extra resolution I paid for, so frankly, I just don't need it.
For myself, about the only thing I would really like to see, is the ability to remove all subs (which, in and of themselves take up very little space), and in particular, the ability to remove all unnecessary foreign-language tracks (which DO eat up a lot of bit-space). Nobody needs English AND French AND Spanish AND German AND .....
(I know that subs are crucial for some folks). Fine. Let them be kept. They are tiny in size. But if your native-language soundtrack is available, then you don't need the others.
Failing that.......then a simple 1-disc to 1-disc backup IN TOTAL would be fine. Everything top to bottom. All menus, extras, languages, subs, and options.
Something else concerns me, but is rarely addressed when people talk of transcoding software. Image size. (Screen resolution).
We will assume for the moment that the resulting backups will be played back on 'normal' tv sets.
WHY bother trying to retain full DVD resolution???? You won't need it! You won't see it! Full resolution for NTSC video is 704x480 pixels. IF you cut that in half (352x480 pixels), you get what is called (I *believe*) "Half-D1" resolution. This is also, incidently, a perfectly "legal" dvd-player resolution, and will play back fine on ALL set-tops.
The advantages of this can't be ignored. Over in the Green Room, folks complain that they can see (on their Hi-Res tv monitors) the degradation as 'blockiness' or 'graininess'. I think the reason for this is because present day transcoding software insists on keeping the same full 704x480 res. as the original. It means that too few bits are being spread too thinly over the full image!
If you go to Half-D1 instead, the blockiness disappears because the available bits don't have to try to retain the razor sharp images that you won't be able to see on your regular tv sets anyway. You won't, for example, be able to see the individual flakes of dandruff on the actors' heads, or the pores in their skin during dramatic closeups. WHO CARES? At half resolution, ALL blockiness disappears, no???
I will be making these concerns (and others) known to 321 whenever they get around to Platinum. I've already asked Robert not to wait around too long for his own version of transcoding software to arrive. In the meantime, transcoding software has made *wonderful* advances. We're getting very very close to the ideal.
Thanks for the ramble.......
-- Klingy --
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
25. March 2003 @ 00:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
People forget that DVD-R is a different media, only offering 4.36GB. If a disc is dual layered and offering full capacity you will have to sacrifice something.
Either : Split over two discs
Or : Lose some extras
Or : Lose some quality
For me, single disc solutions are BETTER, as I can sacrifice extras to improve quality and I agree that compression is not actually as degrading to the picture as some people would make out.
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
Wizkid
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. March 2003 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVD95 copy can't beat the new version of DVD2one 1.1.1 !!!
Used it and love it !!
AfterDawn Addict
-guys with literally thousands of messages
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
25. March 2003 @ 08:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Somehow I have noticed that although it treats the whole disc the same, wherease DVD95COPY allows you to compress the extras further, which presumably would *improve* the quality of the main film, that actually DVD2ONE has *better* main film titles, if you see what I mean.
I am going to do more tests, but this does not make sense!
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
slave
Junior Member
|
25. March 2003 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use dvdxcopy and the ease of backup is all that i want.Is dvd2one as easy to use as dvdxcopy and if so i want one .I've got smart ripper but made a mess in time I'll get it but the soulution for now would be dvd2one
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
25. March 2003 @ 12:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVDxCOPY is the simplest solution available, also the most expensive. If you follow the guide in the articles section , or my miniguide in the DVD2ONE forum, you will be able to get results quite quick, though. It is pretty easy.
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
A_Klingon
Moderator
|
25. March 2003 @ 15:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I agree that compression is not actually as degrading to the picture as some people would make out.
That's exactly right, and it's what I have been trying to say (in a roundabout way).
I've posted the following chart before, but I want to do it here again to illustrate what 4.36 gig's-worth of space can accomplish -- This is from the back cover of a Verbatim DVD+RW:
<Recording Time --- Avg. (Mpeg-2)Compression>
060 Mins - 9.7 Mbits/s
120 Mins - 5.1 Mbits/s
180 Mins - 3.4 Mbits/s
240 Mins - 2.5 Mbits/s
Apparently, Verbatim must have felt that their inclusion of a 240-minute option would provide good enough video quality to be included in their chart. By contrast, standard vcd bitrate is only 1.1 Mbits/s @ 352x240 res. PLUS, with dvd, those bits go a LOT further by being used as VBR mpeg-2, and not the older CBR mpeg-1.
The chart figures above are a guide for people with standalone DVD recorders, but it illustrates what can be done. I hope no one thought that these recorders, by default, always recorded flat out with 704x480 res at 9.7 Mbits/s !!!
On regular, high quality, normal, everyday television sets, any of the above bitrates will give you an excellent picture. Especially if some smart programmer (software developers please take note) reduces the image size to 352x480. (Roughly Half-D1). Regular tv's cannot reproduce 704x480, so I think it is dumb-ish to try. (That will eliminate pixellation, blockiness & graininess).
-- Klingy --
|
Moderator
3 product reviews
|
28. March 2003 @ 15:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVD2One pi$$e$ all over DVDxCOPY
Nuff said !: )-~
herbsman
|
|
JoeWest
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. April 2003 @ 21:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi All,
There is a couple of things you are forgetting:
1) Constand bit rate vs Variable bit rate - I am not sure if dvd2one uses VBR, but this might be the way it performs it's magic.
2) subtitles - Dont always strip them all, some times they can be forced on to show say english when a foriegn language is being spoken
3) DVD that are say TV series that have more than one main movie.
What I am saying is that there is a broader dimension to DVD copying than just putting the movie and soundtrack on a DVD-R
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
2. April 2003 @ 01:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Joe, you are able to do episodal DVDs with both DVD2ONE and DVD95COPY, where all episodes are treated the same, ie compresses equally (we have touched on this on other specific threads). Interesting point about the subs, I will check into that, as if it is true, seeing as they don't take up that mich space, it might me worth while :)
AFAIK DVD2ONE does not change anything in the video stream, it simply compresses the file.
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
MackemX
Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 06:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVD95Copy is far superior to DVD2One in every aspect apart from speed
with DVD95Copy you can vary the compression of each individual title
that means you can get a much better movie titleset quality than DVD2One cos that does a universal compression on the whole DVD
you can even remove Titlesets using DVD95Copy so again more space means less compression
the only good thing that DVD2One is good for are the movie only fans but then again why bother with DVD2One when DVDShrink does it for FREE and it does it direct from the DVD
and you can even crop the end credits to again save on the compression
nuff said I think :)-~
|
|
al92lt1
Junior Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 06:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have used DVD X Copy since the first release. I gets worse with each release. Whenever , on rare occasions that the burn process completes successfully, the video will freeze during playback, requiring a reboot. Usually the burn process fails at some point. When the program was first released, the support was excellent. Now the support is almost non existent.
I tried quite a few alternatives, both pay and free. I finally found an excellent FREE program that WORKS every time, DVD SHRINK, the best! If anyone wants more infi, email me at: [Email address removed by Loaded]
Big AL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. April 2003 @ 08:32
|
|
MackemX
Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
al92lt1
Junior Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 07:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I fell for the DVD Squeeze con-what a nightmare! But at least they refunded my money without a hassle. It is junk. It takes 20 steps and about 2 hours to copy a DVD.
Alan E Scher
|
|
MackemX
Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 07:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have sent you a PM al92lt1
please check it out
cheers
|
|
loaded
Moderator
|
24. April 2003 @ 08:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
Guys, I appreciate your input, but keep your emails out of the open forum. Go to PM for that.
Paul.
I'm back...
...can't you smell the fear?
|
|
slave
Junior Member
|
24. April 2003 @ 11:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Cheers Loaded
dvdxcopy seemed ideal with me new to copying
took your advice got dvd2one and dvddecripter plus a go on dvd shrink and what a difference
no more freezing and on one disc
burn dvdxcopy in hell
long live one disc films
|
Moderator
3 product reviews
|
25. April 2003 @ 05:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
hahahah another one converted
: )
|
|
stryfe01
Junior Member
|
24. May 2003 @ 12:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
i have used dvd95 and like it. havent tried dvd2one, but i guess i should give it a go as i'm hearing the latter versions are on par.
|
Moderator
3 product reviews
|
26. May 2003 @ 20:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Do check it out..I think it's definitely on a par , if not better m8 ! ;p
|
|
avrolymos
Newbie
|
6. June 2003 @ 02:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK....these 2 software programs do the job to make the dvds being writable to a single DVD-r 4.7GB disk. I think That DVD95copy is better cause you can keep the menu and entire the DVD. But who can tell me what about palying these ripped dvds on a standalone player? Are they playing in every DVD player? I m talking about compatibility! also what about playstation 2 and XBOX? it will play on this machines? They need a modchip to read a dvd5 movie made with those two transcoding programs??
|
|
omegaboy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. June 2003 @ 16:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Here's a new version that works better than those 2 programs: Pinacle studios 8. It rocks! I used it to burn the matrix 2 reload to dvd. Can edit the screening so it can be brighter than the originally downloaded file (which was very dark, I can barely see Morpheus, lol) Very cool program... oh and sorry if this doesnt match the subject of the title.... just wanna share my happy "expression".... :-)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. June 2003 @ 16:23
|
|
Diluvian
Suspended permanently
|
21. July 2003 @ 21:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Movies and Games Backups -> URL_REMOVED_BY_MODERATOR
MOVIES in DVDR and CDR: XXX,Anime,Hentai,Childrens,Hollywood,TV shows
GAMES in DVDR and CDR: PS1,PS2,XBOX,PC,Dreamcast
COSOLE SYSTEM: PS2 and XBOX with MODCHIP :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. July 2003 @ 11:55
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
I hate titles
35 product reviews
|
22. July 2003 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Today's winner...
|
|
