|
dvd2one, constant or variable, which is it.
|
|
|
SGDVD
Suspended permanently
|
12. January 2004 @ 01:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
right, can we please get this issue resolved once and for all.
when i compressed the rock on an older version of dvd2one (variable rate) it was pixelated a lot. but then with the newer version using constant rate it was better.
the dvd2one website says constant rate is better for longer movies, but in previous posts on afterdawn members state that variable rate is better.
which is it constant or variable for longer movies?
and if constant rate is better then why are members posting bullshit advice about dvd2one saying variable is better for longer movies?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
omegga
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. January 2004 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
You must expiriment with the software. For some movies constant is better for others vaiable is better. you just have to play with the software untill you know what works best with what.
OmeggaPrime
Yes optimusprime and Omega One combined, all decepticons beware!
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
13. January 2004 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Personally, and it's only my experience.
If the movie is less than, say 1h 30 min and the file size is less than 6GB I would use variable. If the file is larger than 6GB and over 1h 30 mins i would go constant.
It's impossible to simply say "constant" or "variable".
If you are worried why dont you process the movie "constant" & "variable" without burning?. Check the image on your monitor of both results and just burn the best one.
|
|
omegga
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
14. January 2004 @ 21:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now thats a good for instance. That has also been my expirience. Also good idea burn the best one.
OmeggaPrime
Yes optimusprime and Omega One combined, all decepticons beware!
|
|
Bodene
Member
|
18. January 2004 @ 16:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use constant for the shorter flicks.
On the longer flicks, (over 1:45) I use variable.
Some scenes need less bandwidth (won't be hurt by a lot of compression), so a variable rate will allow the software to snag some of THAT bandwidth to use on a more complex/high action scene (looks better with less compression). This creates a more evened out appearance with the least amount of video degradation.
There is no problem so big, that a brick placed against the proper skull cannot fix =)
|
|
SGDVD
Suspended permanently
|
18. January 2004 @ 23:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
are we all talking about movie only mode or full disc ?
cheers.
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. January 2004 @ 00:13 |
Link to this message
|
My findings are for "movie only". For full disk I wouldnt even use DVD2One.
|
|
omegga
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. January 2004 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
The only time I use DVD2One for full disk is for series dvd's like Freinds where I like all the outakes. For movie only I use constant. Series I use variable.
OmeggaPrime
Yes optimusprime and Omega One combined, all decepticons beware!
|
|
SGDVD
Suspended permanently
|
21. January 2004 @ 10:07 |
Link to this message
|
Why does constant take so long as it is replicating the original file just at a slightly lower bitrate?
variable should take the longest really as the whole file is changing bitrate up and down.
a 2hr movie only file (keeping just the dd5.1 track)for me will take approx:
constant - 90min
variable - 45min
any ideas why?
cheers.
|
|
Bodene
Member
|
21. January 2004 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
I really can't tell u. With my set up, I can process/shrink a dual layer movie-only with DVD2One in about 15-18 minutes using either method. I don't see alot of time difference.
On a full movie dvd, which btw....I've done with DVD2One 2 or 3 times....it worked flawlessly and the flick looked great. I would suggest only doing this on shorter flicks tho...like less than 1:45.
On both LOTR's, which are 3 hour movies, I did movie-only backups. I used variable, and they turned out great. They did take a little longer to process than the average dvd tho.....like 22 min instead 15-18.
There is no problem so big, that a brick placed against the proper skull cannot fix =)
|
|
SGDVD
Suspended permanently
|
21. January 2004 @ 15:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
you must have an up to date pc then.
over 2ghz
with over 512 ddr etc....
mine is much older
PIII, 196 sdram, etc...
|
|
omegga
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. January 2004 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Unfortunately yes you need a pc that is over 2.0 ghz and has ample hd space mine has 80. Also 512 ddr ram is also a plus. If not it will just not be as sharp and take a long time to reencode.
OmeggaPrime
Yes optimusprime and Omega One combined, all decepticons beware!
|
|
Bodene
Member
|
22. January 2004 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mine is over 2gh and I have 640mb ram at the moment. In most cases, doing compression work with sub 1.5gh processor or with less than 512mb ram is *maple syrup on a cold day* sloooooow.
There is no problem so big, that a brick placed against the proper skull cannot fix =)
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. January 2004 @ 19:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use a 1.3g athlon & have 760m ram installed. My system "flies" relatively. No compression takes over 25 minutes, most are 20 minutes or less. I do run 2 hard drives, which helps the process, in my opinion, an awful lot.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
joetex72
Newbie
|
22. January 2004 @ 21:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
