|
DVD Rebuilder with CCE Basic Vs. DVD Shrink
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. June 2004 @ 12:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Troopa, you might want to add some more HD space, working with one movie in rebuilder/CCE alone can take up to 10-15g's, doesn't leave a whole lot when you only have 20.
 GO VOLS ! |
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Troopa
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. June 2004 @ 18:01 |
Link to this message
|
Ah, you must have looked at my web page to know my HD space. ;)
I use DVD Shrink so the most I need is 9GB for each DVD. I usually have 15GB available so it's good.
I agree with you though - I'd like to have a bigger HD. And a faster processor, more RAM, etc. :D
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. June 2004 @ 18:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
heh heh, I'm psychic. I was refering to your interest in rebuilder/CCE quote, "it sure sounds like CCE is much better for fitting everything onto a single DVD-R, according to what I've read here",this method will require much more HD space than shrink, thus my reply. I am well aware of what shrink uses.......
GO VOLS !
|
|
Troopa
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
23. June 2004 @ 21:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh I see now. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
23. June 2004 @ 22:41 |
Link to this message
|
For reference I have a set of pictures from burned DVDs comparing Rebuilder and shrink as well as Pinnacle instat copy and Xcopy and DVDcopy2.
The DVDcopy2 is suspect because others have had better results with it.
I was satisfied that the CCE and Shrink burns were as good as I could get. While Shrink and Xcopy looked good for the 48% compresion it was clear that CCE was sharper as well as Pinnacle. I have heard DVDcopy2 is similar in quality but it is the last program I have tested and I'm not yet satified with the results.
http://home.kc.rr.com/dfulghum/photo.htm
Donald
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
24. June 2004 @ 07:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interesting screen shots and very surprising actually. Did you process EXACTLY the same set of files with each app ?. Some differing screen shots would also be appreciated (if possible)
I'm not surprised by CCE & Pinnacle, but Intervideo seemed to really struggle there.
Looking for my old AD This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. June 2004 @ 07:11
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. June 2004 @ 08:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
The DVDcopy2 was a concern so I am reading through the forums about some of the possible problems and how to fix them.
They all used braveheart full disc 177 minutes long.
48%compresion
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
6402, how did dvdcopy2 turn out with decrypter?
GO VOLS !
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just based on how Shrink compresses I'm not surprised at Shrink's results. Its big downfall, as I see it, is that it leaves every 3rd frame untouched. As a result, the best frames are as good as you can get (since they're straight from the original) but as a result the worst frames are worse than most other apps. Probably the worst thing about this approach is that when the frames get bad you get an ongoing contrast between the best frames and the worst ones so they really stick out when you're watching. I've never used anything to compress my own copies besides CCE, but every time I've watched someone else's copies from Shrink I've been able to tell that it was compressed.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's very interesting vurbal, I was not aware that was how shrink worked, so for a comparison test you could use the untouched frame and fudge the results instead of showing the compressed frame.
GO VOLS !
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
To be fair, I don't think the results of such tests are normally fudged like that. It's not general knowledge that Shrink works this way, and if you don't know you have a 1 in 3 chance of picking uncompressed frames to compare.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Still, I'm glad you told me, it's an interesting tidbit and someone who is proffessional in these matters concievably could know and could..... know what I mean verne? lol
GO VOLS !
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. June 2004 @ 09:53
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. June 2004 @ 09:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh it certainly could happen, and if I hadn't run Shrink's output through an AviSynth filter that compares frames against one another I wouldn't know the difference either. I think the more important point that it brings up is that I've never seen a comparison that I would call scientific.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
True how true lol, not to mention that in a lot of these so called comparison tests, people have an agenda, like maybe product promotion? In the end it all comes down to this, I think everyone ( or at least most everybody) in our little test agrees that rebuilder/CCE is at the top, and now with remake to re-author in, I for one will be going that route as long as there are no time constraints. I will be delving more into a little more fine tuning, as so far I have been using the one click method, but I feel I have become comfortable enough with the program that it is time to do so. Half the fun is getting there.
GO VOLS !
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree. It's work, but you learn what you're doing in the process. Pretty much all of what I know comes from spending literally hundreds (or mayby thousands) of hours reading, re-reading, experimenting, and re-reading again. After a while it just starts making sense. If you're lucky you can even explain it to somebody else, although there are a lot of MPEG related facts that I understand, but couldn't explain very well.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. June 2004 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
How true regarding the ability to manipulate the outcome of a picture quality test. For instance one could show the same scene in .jpg format but the .jpg's can be compressed at different rates to effect minor differences in their apparent picture quality.
" 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 24. June 2004 @ 10:21
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. June 2004 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes pictures can be faked. But thats no reason to stop working toward a common goal. I trust your words when you write them knowing full well you could just be blowing smoke. But I don't believe that's the kind of person you are.
The pictures I posted aren't gospel. They are just my work results and I am proud to have got them this far. They are a direct result of your help and pushing.
This has helped me and it adds to our overall knowledge.
I thank you guys for the guidance recieved here. If your not sure at any point in time I will say now I am with you and gratefull for your input.
When I argue with you I mean no loss of respect. It is the way I gather information sometimes and I enjoy it as long as it is friendly.
I you have a concern about something I say address it directly. I no stranger to being wrong.
See ya in a few hours.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. June 2004 @ 13:12
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. June 2004 @ 14:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
64026402
I was just responding to a comment made by bigorange on this thread and I'm not implying that you've done anything wrong.
go to this post and you will see the comment I was responding to.
24 June 2004 14:07
" 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/. |
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
24. June 2004 @ 20:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I understand,
Still, I don't wish bad blood between us.
I can get impatient with software sometimes and will state things at the spur of the moment that are inappropriate.
For now I will try to focus on other threads that are related to my needs. It is unlikely my limited knowledge would be usefull in the Rebuilder Guide Input thread. Mostly I need help with use and setup.
See you in the funny papers.
Donald
|
|
shoeila
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. June 2004 @ 07:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hello
This is my first post but I've been reading up on all your disussions and boy have they been interesting. Real dedicated place, love that!
This will be kinda general topic, hope you don't mind?
I would like to comment on the screensamples and comparison from 64026402. As far as my own experience with these transcoders goes I have made the same observations. I will leave out CCE Basic since this program aborts for no logical reason. And I understand it's the best tool anyways. Also, I haven't tried Xcopy yet.
I used The Pianist (pal ver.) and Alien 3 as a reference movies. Alien 3 (pal, spcecial edition)is a tough one since the source material shows signs of veritcal lines! This will become very apparant if the transcoders isn't top notch.
The results and ranking:
Nr. 1: Instantcopy (v. 8.0.3) because of the clarity of the picture + just a few discrete pixels in one particular scene of The Pianist. If you look at the dark scene where Szpielman moves trough the street at night, you notice no difference from the original. Vertical lines are visible in Alien 3 in a larger extent than the original, but it's on a marginal level.
Nr. 2: DVD2One (v. 1.4.0) suffers from a loss of details due to a less focused picture. Noticed no special pixelations. Vertical lines in Alien 3 is visible but no more than in Instantcopy. I didn't like the loss of clarity, so nr. 2 it is.
Nr. 3: On DVDCopy 2 (61.20.2003.01) you can "clearly" see a cloudy layer covering the fine details of the streets road and walls in The Pianist. Macro pixels are noticeble in the night scene. If you freeze the picture just before the woman enters the building you will see it (fast moving camera)
Nr. 4: DVDShrink (v. 3.1) loses details + pixelisation is an real issue in both movies, last place.
So I guess I have to file a membership application for the Instantcopy club.
And btw this comparison where made on a Philip Pixel Plus TV with a Harman Kardon DVD 30 player and 200$ monster signal cable. There isn't much that don't become visible on that setup I tell you!! My point is the purity of the picture displayed on the set is very high and close (95%) to what you can pull out from the source media, in this case the DVD disc. So my subjective results should be trustworthy.
Hope this helps in the long going transcoder struggle :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. June 2004 @ 07:41
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. June 2004 @ 09:35 |
Link to this message
|
" 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 25. June 2004 @ 09:36
|
|
shoeila
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. June 2004 @ 09:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have to ask my friend over as a second judge, since my results seems to be in disagreement with quite a few of the reviews on the net.
I will do further testing before I comment on this again, so I won't follow up with any more posts :)
Sophocles: Could you give me your home cinema specs, tv + dvd-player + cables?
BTW 90% of those reviews are flawed, some complain about lack of copyability, since they don't know of decrypter/anydvd etc + others complain about technical irrelevant issues (which I see as their own fault, not the software). The only good ones are on the forums + dvd.box.sk ...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. June 2004 @ 10:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. June 2004 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
If your're trying to refute the reviews I just posted you will note that I didn't do any of them. Ask the reviewers for their specs.
36"Toshiba 36ZP38B Widescreen, soon to be replaced with a larger screen although I'm considering a high end HD LCD projector as well. I wouldn't pay the price for cables such as monster cable that result in no visual gain.
I was a high-end AV consultant for 17 years and when people used to buy monster cable patch cords, speaker wire, and RCA connectors we all used to chuckle to ourselves but none of us ever bought them.
I'm also a qualified Recording engineer, studied at OIART, and none of the studios I've been in wire with monster cable. Why would they when its so inexpensive to buy 8 gauge speaker wire. Any good quality patch cords or composite, or component video patches works just fine. They're not long enough to reallt affect the signal.
Go find a fresh thread or start your own, if you word it just right you can filter your following and get to hear what you want to hear.
" 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
|
25. June 2004 @ 11:19 |
Link to this message
|
bigorange if you follow the same link you'll find a response to her by me. Im beginning to wonder if the problem are with those using PAL.
" 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/. |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
shoeila
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
25. June 2004 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
I tried to keep my opinion objective. Hope I didn't err on that. All I did was posting my results + commenting on the validity of the reviews.
Regarding PAL, the results could be related to the pixel technology processing. Maybe..
Btw I get an overflow error (think that was the message, checking it later) with CCE Basic. Any ideas on how to solve this problem?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. June 2004 @ 11:42
|
