|
Recode vs Shrink vs DVD Rebuilder
|
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. November 2007 @ 22:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by garmoon:
@pacman
The product I'm getting from Recode is quick. I would hardly call it sloppy. It looks good on my HD 40". I am satisfied and so far any discs done with Recode has been copyable. I use what I use because I like it, not something else because you like it! I could use anything I wanted to use, pay or free; but I use Recode. Shrink and clonedvd very seldom. Like the infomercials say. I can put two dvds in my benqs and with AnyDVD in the back ground, and SET Recode up in about the time it take s to open the disc, 2 minutes, I push the burn button and FORGET It! It can take 12 minutes at no compression or 45min at 60%. Doesn't matter, I don't even have to be awake or at home.
With so many options user preference has a lot to do with a person's selection of software. If you like a program and it makes you happy, then by all means use it.
Recode requires an external program to bypass copy protection. When opening a disc it works the same as DVD Shrink using quick analysis. Both have the deep analysis feature. Once Shrink opens up, the files are in front of the user in Full Disc, whick is the only option with Recode in full DVD mode. I realize there's the quick movie only mode, but Shrink has Reauthor that can handle that. Noticable is the Disable feature in Recode. That's simply the Still Image feature in Shrink's Compression settings. Is it looking like Recode is still something of a Shrink clone? There's the same language selections to uncheck. Next in Recode is like using Backup in Shrink. So far I've seen nothing better or significantly different. We have to realize it's pretty much the same program by the same author. Once in Nero's burn settings the Shrink user would be right at home. For Quality Settings Nero has Advanced Analysis (deep analysis) and High Quality Mode (Adaptive Error Compensation). Only in Nero there's no adjusting the settings for Quality Mode without going into the Nero setup file. Shrink has those settings up front. Set the burn speed and enter Burn. That's pretty much what is done with Shrink. That pretty much covers all that Nero Recode does in comparison to Shrink. One doesn't seem to be any faster than the other, in the transcoding Recode may be faster. Someone can time doing the same files with both Recode and Shrink and report back.
Shrink has features not included in Recode. It has it's editing section, not just the Disable (Still Image) feature. Though not a full editing program like DVDReMake, Reauthor can do quite a bit. The decryption software is weak in Shrink, but it has some. It does a lot of movies and only the newer movies with the heavier copy protections stop it. Then decryptions programs come into use the same as Recode needs all the time. Using RipIt4Me a person can tell which movies to jump to Shrink with or go through processing before using in the transcoder.
It has to be preference, because I see little or no difference between Shrink 3.2 and Recode. Recode may have a prettier interface, but that's in the eye of the beholder as well. Both can burn with Nero, Recode is captive. Shrink has other options as well.
Remove user preference and the fact that Shrink is free, can anyone give a legitimate reason for using one over the other? LOL But free counts for a lot when the rest of the factors stack up even or possibly a bit in favor of the freeware.
I mentioned rebuilder which can put both Shrink and Recode to shame. Transcoders such as these two remove frames and compress to shrink the video to fit. Encoders go through the entire video and reallocate bitrate as necessary while shrinking the video, which transcoders can't. Under high compression that means a noticably better picture and far fewer compression induced errors. Transcoders are faster, but they lack the quality of an encoder. On low to moderate compression videos the difference may be negligible. Also screen size can play a factor. The larger the screen the more an error is likely to be seen. I view my movies on a 60" screen. I've got a friend who has a projection TV who has had to go back and redo a bunch of backups using Rebuilder for use in his home theatre. Recode, Shrink, and the other transcoders left the picture lacking, except at very low compression.
As you so aptly put, "I use what I use because I like it, not something else because you like it!". Many people have their preferences and they may not always be the same. To each his own. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. November 2007 @ 22:49
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 08:03 |
Link to this message
|
You say Shrink is free and it is but without Nero burning rom which is uusually not free more steps are required to burn the disc, with Imgburn or decrypter. I used shrink for a long time after DVDXCopy Xpress crapped out. But now prefer recode. I realize that recoders are infinitely better but I have other things in life to do.
Edit: BTW What are you trying to do, get me assassinated in the Rebuilder forum.????? LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. November 2007 @ 08:05
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 08:09 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Shrink has features not included in Recode. It has it's editing section,
Not sure what you mean by this, as Recode has an editing section you just use the compile a DVD choice. Yes both programs are pretty much the same, since they are by the same author. Shrink is a little more up front with its setting, especially the AEC, where in Recode you got to go change them in the registry. Shrink is free and Recode is not, but if you have Nero then Recode is a nice choice, with accent on the choice. It is personal preference and what is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer Recode, it is a bit faster and not as resource intensive as Shrink. Both though are overshadowed in the editing capabilities by CloneDVD, which will allow you to retain menus but get rid of junk. I do not think Clone has the quality of Recode or Shrink but it does allow for good editing. This is my opinion and preference, just as everyone has their own.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 11:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by garmoon:
Edit: BTW What are you trying to do, get me assassinated in the Rebuilder forum.????? LOL
ROTFLMAO I see you noticed the setup. :)
I don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but a modified exe was written for Shrink 3.2 that supports ImgBurn. With the modified Shrink and ImgBurn set up, it's an automatic process similar to Recode. There's no extra button pushing. Recode's interface looks like it might be easier for a beginner, but there's so many manuals for Shrink that shouldn't be much of an issue. If a person has Nero, there's no reason not to use recode. If the Nero owner only has the OEM, then Shrink is a good option. If a person doesn't own Nero at all and doesn't want to purchase it, then Shrink + ImgBurn is a good option. A lot just depends on what a person has and what they want. As you pointed out, preference plays a large role.
Arniebear
Editing in Full Disc in Shrink is similar to using the Disable feature in Recode. In Reauthor in Shrink you have the ability to actually cut sections from the video, which is different. Editing in Full Disc in Shrink and using Disable in Recode allow both to edit and maintain a usable menu. Reauthor causes menus to not function, but the point in Reauthor is to cut compression to a minimum, often enough that compression may not be needed. I went over the various option situations above, no need to repeat. We usually end up making a decision along the lines of preference for one reason or another.
CloneDVD 2... another crowd favorite. Have you tried RB, especially with Batch mode?
|
Senior Member
|
6. November 2007 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
IMO recode2 is faster than shrink(with the same picture quality) therefore thats why i use it rather than shrink, although i rarely use both since i started using DVD-RB pro.
"When I look at the smiles on all the childrens faces, I just know theyre about to jab me with something."- Homer Simpson |
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 15:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes I have used RB for a couple of years now and the quality is fantastic.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 15:42 |
Link to this message
|
@pacman
Yeah I knew I could use ImgBurn with Shrink in auto with a new download, but since I seldom use shrink I figured I'd leave well enough alone. There was that time that Recode was not working with AnyDVD, that had me using shrink a lot tho. You remember and elby pointed out how we should be using CloneDVD at the time. He couldn't understand why I was adamant about using Recode.
|
|
ZCS626
Member
|
6. November 2007 @ 16:32 |
Link to this message
|
what is the process to rip a movie with DVD Fab, and then burn with imgburn to a DL disc? i tried it before and said i didnt need a DL disc to burn it too, although i know it did. any help?
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 21:38 |
Link to this message
|
Rip with fab in file mode and use Build mode in ImgBurn. You can use the calculator or check the box to let ImgBurn set the layer break. I thought I went over the process before. Or it may have been with someone using the same car pic for a sig.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2007 @ 21:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
@pacman
Maybe I'll go into the rebuilder forum and type in: "Pacman told me that recoders give better results than encoders! Now I'm really confused and need help; and I thought he knew a lot about this" LMAO :p
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 00:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I've posted on RB too many times already. My alibi is already in place. LOL
|
|
zipptide
Junior Member
|
7. November 2007 @ 03:01 |
Link to this message
|
Well IMHO it just matters what u feel like doing , some people like to set it and forget , and others like to edit and tweak and poke and prod it down to get the lest possible compression.
I myself use shrink most of the time cus it works and i dont have to do anything accept put a blank on the old tea coaster >:P
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 08:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZCS626:
what is the process to rip a movie with DVD Fab, and then burn with imgburn to a DL disc? i tried it before and said i didnt need a DL disc to burn it too, although i know it did. any help?
Quote:
Rip with fab in file mode and use Build mode in ImgBurn. You can use the calculator or check the box to let ImgBurn set the layer break
You can do it the way that Pacman777 has suggested, or even an easier way would be to just rip the movie with DVDFab Decrypter in "ISO mode" and then burn with ImgBurn.
Cheers
My Guides--------->http://webpages.charter.net/bacitup/
Newbies------------>http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/183136
Software ------->http://webpages.charter.net/bacitup/software.htm |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
bbmayo
I don't know about easier. That's a matter of familiarity with the software. I like toying with the calculator. LOL Also, ripping in ISO precludes any further processing of the files before burning. If something needs editing or there's a minor structural flaw that FixVTS could take care of, it can't be done in ISO. I have a habit of leaving the video in file mode until the last possible step for those reasons. Besides, DVDFab rips in File mode and creates an ISO, ImgBurn in Build takes File and creates ISO for burning. The conversion is being done either way, I prefer the latter for stated reasons.
I'll concede that for beginners using DVDFab to rip in ISO and using Write in ImgBurn may be easier than using the Build interface (as long as there are no issues with the ripped files). But that only applies to those not familiar with Build in ImgBurn.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. November 2007 @ 12:26
|
Senior Member
|
7. November 2007 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
hi :)
putting aside the decrypting ability (which in shrink and decrypter are defunked) i've used shrink and decrypter forever with no question. still do...but a short time ago i needed to take several parts off of 2 dvd's and a couple of films on HD to compile a special ;) movie for a client...it could be done with shrink in a long drawn out process.
thought i'll try recode...1 dvd in drive 1..2nd dvd in drive 2...blank in drive 3. extracted the needed parts from dvd's and films on HD..in no time at all walla! nice new movie, and all done with one program
so as to the ? which is best i think recode has the edge over shrink.
before anybody says use other up to date prog's. i'm a dinosaur and am happy with what i've got and it works for me LOL
 gif by ireland
we cant help if you wont help yourself |
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 14:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
i'm a dinosaur and am happy with what i've got and it works for me LOL
We wouldn't dare suggest you change, if you're happy with what you're doing. ;) The Add feature in Recode is faster, but people have been doing compilations with Shrink for a long time. Recode has an edge for what you're doing with compilations, but Shrink has an edge for overall editing. Though very similar, there are features unique to each. Like many say and is apparent from your own words, a lot depends on preference.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 15:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
@gurnard
You are a dinosaur. I checked your profile and you got me by exactly 4 years. We share the same birthday. 1.9.42 and 1.9.46 which also happens to be the years of our birth.
|
Member
|
7. November 2007 @ 16:29 |
Link to this message
|
I have to agree with Arnie, I like the quickness of Nero recode and the final output seems to be fine. With so much crap on Today's Dvd's, I'm surprised I don't see more people talking about pgcedit and vobblanker. I use these almost after every rip.
Strat
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 20:31 |
Link to this message
|
FixVTS, VobBlanker, pgcedit and the like were handy when the structural protections first appeared and still are occasionally. Either the studios have backed off or the updated decryption software is doing a better job of processing the files. It's been a while since I needed to follow up a rip with further processing for DVD compliance.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2007 @ 22:04 |
Link to this message
|
I had some time while finishing off some pizza and beer. So I figured I'd put the time to good use. ;) I did a time comparison between Recode and Shrink 3.2. I used Walking Tall Lone Justice for 2 reasons, simple copy protection and moderate size, 6.36GB. I didn't use any of the deep analysis or quality settings in either program so as not to give either an advantage. Both were using only English. AnyDVD was running in the background for both. I saved the output for both to the hard drive. The interface is similar, so there's no appreciable time gained between the 2 here. We'll only count the encode times according to each program's counter. As most of you may have guessed, Recode won. The time for Shrink was 14 minutes, 57 seconds. The blazing time for Recode was a mind boggling 14 minutes and 55 seconds. That's 2 whole seconds saved by using the Recode transcoder software. In other words the times are so close that it's negligible. I'm not going to run it again, but that close, Shrink might win the second time. LOL
Which leads me to believe there's no appreciable time gain in using the Recode transcoder.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. November 2007 @ 01:18 |
Link to this message
|
I tried a similar test. I used Spiderman 3, movie only, 1 audio stream, no sub-pictures. I set all the programs to a target size of 4464Mb. Each finished file was placed in a separate target folder.
4822Mb @ 91.8% Compression = 4464 Mb final size. AnyDVD running for Shrink and Recode.
DVD Shrink 9:52
DVDFab Platinum 9:53
Nero(8)Recode 10:01
You can draw your own conclusions. I'd like to see more folks try this and see what they get.
PC used was my C2D 6850 cpu overclocked to 3.8 Ghz, EVGA680i mobo, 2 Gb PC8500 Corsair RAM, 2 150GB WD Raptor HDDs, Asus SATA DVD ROM and Lite-On SATA burner, WinXP Pro.
Windows Task Manager never showed the CPU over 10%, The bottleneck here is the DVD ROM I suppose. I'm looking for a faster one!
I guess I should have tested CloneDVD too but I've already stayed up past my bed time.
Cheers,
Frank
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. November 2007 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
I use Recode not because of any time constraints-I use advanced analysis and slow encoding- but for it's ease of use with Anydvd. Since I don't multitask when process is going or sit and watch the pc, Recode could take 10min longer and I would still choose it.
|
|
PacMan777
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. November 2007 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
Good test Frank. I didn't know you'd done it til I came back to post some more info. We must be thinking alike. I used Spidey 3 for my last comparison. I've got an old AMD dual core which can't compare to your C2D. I keep putting off building one of those for a personal PC.
Spidey 3 weighs in at 7.67GB according to Windows. That's a hefty file size needing plenty of compression to go on DVD5. After unchecking the Spanish options the file size for Full DVD read 6069MB at 54.4% compression. Still a lot of compression needing the quality settings from both programs. Here is where Recode is faster. Recode did the job in 00:38:26 and Shrink did it in 00:48:37, ( roughly 10 minutes difference with my tired old PC, times vary according to system and resources). Analysis was about the same at 17-18 minutes. The difference was with the transcoding using quality settings. For high compression using the quality settings Recode has a slight edge, but not as great as some have been stating.
That leaves us with the programs about the same at moderate compression with Recode having a slight advantage in time at high compression.
I think we can pretty much lay the great speed improvement to rest. As fasfrank mentioned, other comparisons are welcome. Remember, times will vary with the same DVDs depending on the CPU and system resources.
Originally posted by garmoon:
I use Recode not because of any time constraints-I use advanced analysis and slow encoding- but for it's ease of use with Anydvd...
Shrink is easy to use with AnyDVD, that's what fasfrank and I both used for the comparisons. A slight edge goes to Recode for the process you prefer. However, I don't see that alone as being significant enough to make a difference in selecting one program over the other. Once again it looks more like preference than any great differences.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. November 2007 @ 08:58
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
8. November 2007 @ 16:01 |
Link to this message
|
Here's the evoultion of my DVD burning experience. I started back on my own with no help but from what I read-magazines. I bought 321studios DVDXCOPYGold and used the Xpress option since the XCopyGold was unreliable on my pc and didn't want to have 2 discs for one movie.I used that until it couldn't do the new encryption discs.That's when I found the AD site and got the Shrink guides and free software. When I started I was using EZ Creator4 for CDs and ultimately bought Nero 6. I didn't like the way Creator did DVDs but I still have Creator7 and Nero 66018 installed both together and not conflicting. I used Shrink and DVD Decrypter for a long time until I got AnyDVD. I must thank all the old timers who wrote all the guides and gave information-I was lurking here for a year. Sooner or later I realized I had Recode with Nero and began trying it out and finally gravitated to Recode from Shrink. Then Mr pacman got me trying out Ripit4me when AnyDVD stopped playing with Recode. And used that with Shrink until RIAA got to them. By that time AnyDVD had been fixed and was back to Recode and had added CloneDVD2 for serial discs. I have and tried DVDFab but didn't like the steps that had to be done-don't get me wrong, it's free and works! So now it's almost always AnyDVD and Recode. All the DLs are done with AnyDVD and ImgBurn and Verbatim discs-not one coaster with that combo. Nero 6 didn't do DLs very well.And DVD Decrypter farted ever so often. That's where I stand now. I have no desire to move to HD discs, but do need to get a newer DVD player that can connect with HDMI or component to my HD set. I'd bet interested in how everyone's evolutions took place. I got my first DVD writer TDK 4X Xmas 2003. Came to AD 7Oct04. My first backup disc was "Titanic" and was done 12-27-03 with DVDXcopyXpress. It still plays and was done on a Memorex disc that codes as a RICOHJPN R01 +R; have burnt maybe less than 5 -Rs. And today XcopyXpress will work with AnyDVD, amazing.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Moderator
|
8. November 2007 @ 17:21 |
Link to this message
|
Haven't read (properly) all posts yet, just thought i'd chime in with my latest experience with DVD Rebuilder Pro with CCE SP2 (i know this thread is about Recode vs Shrink but there are discussions in here about video compression ratios so what the hell)... last week i did the new Battlestar Galactica Season 3 in Rebuilder, the average of each disc (full disc mode) is 45% or thereabouts and (especially considering the low bitrate of the discs, and a lot of dark scenes), the results are outstanding.
I love Shrink and just never got around to trying Recode, but nothing comes close to Rebuilder, especially at 45% 
Am a bit behind with the latest DVD releases but have been busy doing AVI conversions for a change, as much as i like the quality of Rebuilder i'm far more interested in storyline over video quality any day of the week..
../me goes back to watching Series 1 of the awesome Californication in AVI format
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 8. November 2007 @ 17:26
|
