|
|
|
Is Shrink too slow?
|
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
16. January 2005 @ 14:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
problem might not be hardware but software. try ghosting original hd onto 60gig to see if burn time stays about same or not
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
16. January 2005 @ 22:09 |
Link to this message
|
You ask for help and then don't want to follow some of it. My earlier suggestions were to clean up your system and try to ensure you weren't using any corrupted files. Using the AnyDVD with Shrink will in some cases help. Also, there are different ways of setting Shrink. Utilizing the Analysis and Quality functions takes more time (better video). For a big movie like Troy you need the quality settings.
My method for doing Troy with Shrink:
Have AnyDVD running in the background (latest version).
Put movie in DVD ROM.
Place recordable media in burner.
Open Shrink.
Select Open Disc.
After program does initial analysis check segments under Full Disc Backup / DVD Structure.
Large movie, so it's a good idea not to record Extras.
Click and highlight extras.
Move to right under Compression Settings,
In drop down window under video select Still Image with the Extras highlighted (this inserts a still image instead of the files)
That leaves Menus and the Main Movie to be recorded.
Under Audio, select the sound tracks to keep.
Enter Backup
In window select Burn settings and set to 4X (fast burns aren't the best)
Under Quality settings check both options.
Under DVD Region Free leave Region Free selected.
Under Target Device - Select Backup Target; in the drop down window select your burner drive under Burn with Nero.
Click OK and proceed to record.
The above works as quickly as possible with good results. Remember without the quality settings it is faster. Quality settings are for the bigger movies, the smaller ones do okay without it. Learning the difference comes with practice and analysing file size as opposed to quality. Pay attention to the compression levels. Usually about 15 to 20% and above is a good time to use the quality settings.
With the above method you get a movie only with a functional menu. Under Re-author the menu won't function.
For PCs of questionable resources (slow and older CPUs and low RAM) it is best to Rip with DVD Decrypter, Create a Hard Disk Folder for the Movie, and then burn separately. That keeps the RAM expenditure at any one time at it's lowest. Be sure to turn off any programs running in the background with small PCs.
http://www.sisoftware.net
The Sandra analysis program can run a benchmark test for the hard drive. The lite version is free. I have the Pro, so I'm not sure Lite has the option for comparison or not. If Lite has the same functionality as Pro for this segment, you can compare your test results to others. The benchmark test is something you can present to tech support as evidence of a problem.
Did you say anything about defragging the hard drive? That and routine cleanup with spyware and adware tools (Ad-Aware SE, Spybot, SpySweeper and the like) allow a system to run at its best. I use all three of the apps listed.
Changing the drives around leads you back to a conclusion it sounds you already drew; big slow hard drive. On a whimsical note; I'll give options I'd like, a bit expensive. A Raid 0 with twin 10,000 RPM Western Digital Raptors, RAID card, and in a SATA configuration is tops for speed. Then a single Raptor is preferable to a big slow drive. On a serious note, if it is the HD, would a similar one lead to the same conditions you are unhappy with. All hardware is not created equal and some PCs with the same processors will not run at the same speeds as far as programs go.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
16. January 2005 @ 23:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sure we could try to find a better test for the HD, but it might not be an actual problem or defect in the HD. The HD shipped with your system may simply be a slow one. It happened to my friend and we changed it. And you are right. You will never prove to them that it's defective unless it's on fire or something. Then they will ship you an identical replacement. I know it's an Asus motherboard, but I was wondering who packaged your system? I just hope it's not an Emachines or a Dell! (<backspace> Just kidding.. sort of). But most things can be fixed on these by swapping out the junk they put in with better stuff. For surefire tests, yes, I will see if there is a better test. You got 28MB/s in sandra which looked fine, yet you got an improvement on the other drive you just tried. So it may be the case that your drive may have a strength on that test but hidden weaknesses on other tests... read/write are different. So is file transfer etc.. I will look into this more and get back to you. But the improvement just in swapping the drive shows that one drive is clearly faster than the other. Do you know the brands/sizes of the new 60gb and old? Also are there dates of manufacture on the drives? In Sandra, under System Sumary it will show the drive manufacturers. When you power on your system (cold from off) does it show (on black DOS like screen), anything about ULTRA DMA 5 next to your drives? In BIOS is your PIO mode 4? Just curious. Ultra dma 4 or 5 would be fine. 5 should be the norm for a new system.
So you have a somewhat slowish HD, and the Sandra mem speeds we tested are 1/3rd of mine.. That combination is enough to really increase your dvd backup time.. But still, this isn't enough to explain going from 2+ hours down to 45mins, then back to 2+ hours. I believe you have some slow components, but I still remember that you switched your drives and cables around, and the time changed drastically only to return back to slow a little later. That was the most significant thing and maybe should be looked at again. That's why I wondered if something was loose or bad with the cables. But you probably already tried just about everything. At this point, if you can't find why it changed you might have to accept it, as you said. Just make sure all cables are set the way they were when it was working better.. Just to be sure, while we are comparing, In Shrink you're not doing deep analysis, and you don't have the quality (sharp etc) settings ticked on right? Other wise I can't make a good comparison. Since you got a low memory score, could you also run the sandra Cache & Memory Benchmark and let me know what system the graph looks like it's close to? It should compare to a typical 3ghz system if that's what you have. I'm just looking for more clues here.
Also did you try swapping IDE cables? I don't see any thing else obvious. If I think of a better test than sandra, I will post it.
To answer your question about a better way to back up, as for using Shrink, that guide was partly built around using dvd decrypter. That way free burning software could be used. The guide mentions setting to iso mode then feeding this to decrypter. This isn't neccissary since you have Nero. You can actually tick back "use Nero" and use Nero if you like. That's how most are doing it. In fact you can download Shrink 3.2 as is and if Nero is installed, it will simply ask you for a blank and then burn through Nero. However it won't improve your backup times. I tested it here and it didn't. I made mine use decryptor.. and no difference. It could affect your system though. You'd have to test that.
So it's a matter of how you want to use it. As for Quality settings I asked if you had them on, because I noticed that you said you did at one point. More than one person mentioned this and my suggestion is that you make sure they are BOTH unchecked except for rare occasions. Not only because you getting slow backups already, but because 99% of the time the differences are either not visible, or are very negligible for a *majority* of movies. Shrink did wonderful backups before they ever added this extra. They included it because in rarer cases it helps *a little* and this requires experimentation to notice. And probably some DVD's can be found where it helps more.... But Ever since they did that, people seem to think unchecking those boxes means low qaulity DVD copies. They think fast and poor qaulity. This simply is not true. If your friend tested you with 2 DVD's, 1 normal, the other hi quality settings on, you probably could not tell him which was which to save your life. I have stared at detailed movies on a 65 inch screen for way too long and found I could rarely see a difference. Of course the best way, is to try a few back and forth and compare. Just make sure you are doing an honest comparison like I did, and that your eyes don't play tricks, ;-)
Some don't mind waiting and that's personal preference, but I'd only try it if I suspected the compression was too high in combination with a super detailed movie, where the backup looked different. The times I did notice a difference were on a small handful of very large movies, like 8 or 9GB. Also this wasn't for all large movies. Only a few of these large movies. And I mean, I really had to stare long and hard to find the difference in the picture. My vision tests great too. If an improvment can be made using sharp or hi quality settings, it will try to fix some of it by allowing successive frames to be compressed less at the cost of lowering the input frame rate and throwing out while duplicating other frames. The output is still 30fps of course, but what's there has been changed. Basically modifying the motion from the original. This can cause some jerkyness (or slurring), not typically visible. Another big misconception is that if the movie is large (7+GB) then it will always lose a lot of quality during compression. This is not true either. It depends on the detail levels in the original picture in combination with the size. It also depends on how much the movie company studio decided to waste on the DVD and what compression levels they chose too Many big movies compress great, a few don't. It works exactly the same as jpg photos. Some can be made amazingly small and look the same, a few can't be. Only in this case, the movie will still get squeezed so there is little to correct those certain movies. Only help it some. So unless you have these certain movies, and are sure you can really see a bad backup, my suggestion is to leave it off for most of your titles.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. January 2005 @ 00:17
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
17. January 2005 @ 01:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
sean5775
Seems you and BlueLaser are communicating outside the thread on the topic. His analysis of your Sandra results are proof of that. Giving only partial information and not having all the information in a thread is a problem. In fact it ends up wasting a lot of peoples time. We give the time freely, but it shouldn't be in a wasted effort. I supplied links to useful analysis tools and some information I've learned and picked up that aren't even in the software guides. I could see seeking help outside a thread, if you hadn't asked for assistance in a thread already. The rules are there for a reason. I hope you and BlueLaser solve your problem. The way you've decided to handle it is against the rules and make it difficult for others. Apparently you trust BlueLaser above the rest of us. Hope the two of you get the problem resolved to your satisfaction.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 09:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Brobear,
We our communicating outside the thread?? And my analysis of his sandra results are proof? I don't how you are reaching these far reaching conclusions, but we are doing nothing more than answering each other in a thread that Sean5775 started.. The one that I and others found. This is *HIS* thread, his problem and his questions. I read your post where you suggest that he tries the sandra benchmark. The fact that I already suggested he download it 2 or 3 days ago, I think prooves that you haven't bothered to read the thread before attempting to answer questions. Isn't that a waste of peoples time? It sure is. What's even more bizzare is that you critisize me and the original poster for looking over sandra results, but at the same time you advised him to use sandra yourself. So had he come back and offered results of sandra and ask you a question, you would have not answered him? Yet when we talk about it, we are talking outside the thread.
When I give an explanation I try to make it thorough enough to help, hence the verbosity you basically made fun of in my posts. You come into the middle of a thread, and you just begin insulting people. After all, you've already had to half heartedly apologize to me once by saying you were just kidding for making fun of my paragraphs with your "abridged" version. I think if there is any problem here, it's that you didn't read everything carefully. By reading your first post it showed you had no clue as to what the actual problem really was. Then in your 2nd posting, you also demonstrated the same thing since some of it had been mentioned. The only useful thing you provided was notes on how to set compression ratios... But again, that was not the main issue of the thread here.
Also your insulting, "We give time freely" comment is over the top. "We" as if it includes you and some other special people for example. The "We" here, started off in this thread as several patient helping individuals. And I believe Sean is what of those "We"'s. The links and information you supplied show that you are very informed and knowledgeable person regarding dvd backup, but there is this condesending attitude that comes with it. It's like because you know you are good at it, you appear like you think you are one of the only ones that are in the know, and all this stuff is top secret. Then there is the hideous cartoon in your signature. It's an angry bear walking right towards someone. Is there a connection here?
I joined AfterDawn months ago but felt like some people were too strict, so I never offered any help. Now I just started, and low and behold there is some person out of the blue hounding, insulting and accusing me of things. I don't know what you mean by talking "outside" the thread, but I did one thing, and one thing only. I read the "Is dvdshrink too slow?" thread and answered it. If you bother to read my posts you will see they remain in one thread only. If there is something else going on here, then there was no way for me personally to be aware of it. And if that is true, I can only sugggest that the forum be properly updated avoid confusion like this in the future. But at this point the forum shows nothing. The only way to know this is to read the whole forum. If someone else broke the rules fine. But DO NOT lump me in with them. And as for the rules, let me tell you something. Rules are there for a reason, but when rules have holes in them that don't lend them selfs to avoiding confusion, and it ends up with the AfterDawn police coming after people, there is a problem. That is the real problem here. I was under the impression the forum was here to help people solve problems. That is what I was trying to do.
What else bothers me is that if you look at my posts, it's easy to see that I spent much extra time trying to help someone on AfterDawn. Instead of being appreciated by AfterDawn, I get bullied by you, supposedly a senior member. What ever that means. As for your assessment of Sean trusting me above "the rest of us".. I think you have a major misconception. He wants his system fixed and has been answering everyone very nicely. At least from what I see in this thread. Even if he did trust what I said more than someone else, I also don't see something terribly wrong with that. Unless you have some sort of ego complex where you must be praised all the time and it bothers you. I sure as h*ll don't care if he "trusts" someone more than me. So why should you?
And your other comment - "Hope the two of you get the problem resolved to your satisfaction.".. Has someone stopped you from writing here? No one has, because your comments are mixed in with the others. He usually answers a certain time of day, but you didn't give it enough time. If the problem is that he is not answering you somewhere else, I don't think you shouldn't worry about it. If it were me, I'd think the time would be best spent answering other questions and threads, if you truly want to help people. Finally, I didn't come here to make enemies, but if that's the way you want it, so be it. I refuse to be bullied into conforming to something that is utter nonsense, and I think anyone on AfterDawn would feel the same. I try to be nice and follow rules, but only when they resemble some shred of common sense. If you want to resolve in a decent way, I'm all ears but otherwise, please don't bother me anymore.
|
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 10:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow...way off topic?
|
|
johns3304
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. January 2005 @ 11:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
"Wow...way off topic?".. YEAH, but if you read it, the brobear is stirring things uP
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
17. January 2005 @ 16:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
BlueLaser, your right
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 19:20 |
Link to this message
|
WOW... Maybe this thread is getting off topic a little bit, but just a little bit. I have been an admin at a very popular forum for a couple years now, and if we closed or removed every topic that has gone a little off topic then there would be nothing left. It seems from my experience that just about everything goes slightly off topic. This thread in my opinion is pretty much still on the same topic. I had detailed problems with what I originally thought was a DVD Shrink problem, which I later learned could be my system that has problems. Either way the problem is still the same. The cause is just different then originally thought. Not really off topic. Or should I have started a new thread when I learned that my system was the problem? I don't think so.
Brobear... Almost everything you said, and I wont get into details, shows that you did not read the entire thread. And all of the communication has been posted in this thread. Nothing outside the thread has ever been said.
Bluelaser- I do trust what you said, mainly because you have been helping out since the beginning and your posts are not just information and general ideas, they are very detailed and helpful. And that I very much appreciate, especially since I don't see many other posts from you on the site.
Anyways theres alot of information in this thread so I am going to recap where I sit right now.
I today have exchanged my hard drive which I lucked out and the tech at the store seemed to believe me, he quickly tested it and said it wasn't working right. The model I had is discontinued so I had to pick something within a certain price range. I ended up with a Western Digital Caviar SE 120GB 7200RPM Hard Drive. I only wish I remember what kind of drive I had before I know this one is bigger and I believe it spins faster as well.
Now I tested with Troy using all the same settings in shrink as I previously had, I had to download it again, because I prefered to start off the new drive with only the basic software. Anyways this has reduced the time for Troy from near 3 hours down to 2 hours and 5 minutes, which is better but not the 45 minutes I did do. Now this backup was with the quality settings on, which I always have done, now just for comparisson I did it again with the settings turned off. The total time was 1 hour and 52 minutes. Thats a difference of only 13 minutes.
The only other thing that I had changed since my time was good was the IDE cables, I checked the connections, and even tried the old cables again with no differences noticed.
Now somewhere it was mentioned about the kind of computer I had. Well I built this one myself, with the help of a friend, it was't bought as it is now. I used a combination of parts I had from an older computer and new parts, with intensions of changing most of the used parts with new, which with the exception of the CPU and motherboard is all within 6 months old.
I see you recommend I try a test with Sandra, I havent downloaded it again yet, but will be running that test later tonight.
I am impressed with the results that changing the hard drive has done, I still think something else is holding it up. I am going to try a backup of a DVD that does not require compression and see how that turns out. It was taking 45 minutes just a couple days ago from the time I put the DVD in to the time it asks for a blank. I am hoping that it can run through this alot faster now, but only time will tell.
|
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear always has ideas so i'm always interested in what he has to say. consider me "informed"
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 22:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I ran the cache and memory benchmark test and it pretty much follows the line for my CPU when I select it for comparison with the exception of the 512 KB blocks which show somewhere around 10,000 MB/s but my test only showed 1200 for the 512K blocks. All else was exactly as it should be. I doubt this is a major concern... or is it?
I also ran this test on my other PC which has a P4 1.99 GHZ processor and it followed the line almost exactly including the 512 KB blocks.
I am considering swaping the CPU in the machines and see if it makes any changes. I can backup with my older computer slightly faster then I can with this one. I may do this later and see if that solves anything.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 23:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks Sean and ddp. By the way, I NEVER was knocking Brobear's ability. Just that he is obviously on the wrong track or something. Bad day? Even though I didn't like him turning this into a personal debate, I can at least say he had some useful ideas if applied to the right issues, validating dvdripdvd's comment. Taking the unneeded critisism once was ok, but twice I felt I needed to say something, but still left the option for resolving.
Anyway - Sean5775, the westeren digital is exactly what I have and I like it. I do know there is faster, like SATA etc, but it's not where your problem is. The WD did remove one of your bottlenecks, and if you can get back the setting that gave you the original high speed you might find that you do even better than 45mins. My guess is 35 for turnaround on a backup. The 13 minute cpu hit with quality on is not bad, and this shows good cpu power for at least that. The load on the bus stays the same, but the cpu takes the hit for extra analasis (well mostly). So you are still bottlenecked elsewhere, and not neccissarily due to perminanty slow hardware since it worked before. Something is still moved/changed (hardware/software). Only one warning. If you are able to get the system back to how it was when it was fast, and your qaulity settings are on, you might not notice that you fixed it. Here's how that can happen. It's only 13 minutes more, but in this case the quality settings could become the bottleneck. When it processes more, the overall data flow is less, and if it's slower than the other bottleneck you will be tied to that time and miss it if you fixed it like you did before. You always run as fast as the slowest bottleneck if it's very pronounced. (well they are additive too, lol) If you are absolutely sure that you backed up in 45 with quality settings on and there was no mistaking that, then you can ignore that. And I think your system should be capable of that, but with the curve balls thrown in, it's something to watch for as you make changes.
I guess you re-installed XP since you mentioned needing to download Shrink and Sandra again. So we can exclude the possibility of goofed up settings. But can't exclude the possibility of something automatically being set wrong. Still that is less likely. You exchanged cables, so we can now rule them out. I know the memory scores are not too great, but I doubt they are what changed the time. I do wonder if the mem scores dipped when this other X factor went back to causing slow backups, OR if it's independent and the mem scores are a constant. Could you have in any way changed BIOS settings having to do with cpu/memory/bus and so on? Could you also list which Asus motherboard you are using? I already know what cpu. It looks like you have PC2100 (266mhz ram) which doesn't seem to transfer at it's normal rating across the bus. If your system supports dual channel memory you can boost memory speed by about 30% by putting 2 sticks of ram in, instead of 1 larger one. But at 266, I don't think yours functions that way.. not sure. Plus you already tried the 1GB (Hopefully the other ram was as fast as the 1st memory). If you made any special BIOS tweaks, it is possible to alter how that memory responds. Yes, I'd like the see the other sanrda benchmark please. I hope to get a better idea of how your memory is responding since your friends 1.3 just beat your system. Also, please post the result of the non-compressed DVD, the size of the contents (GB), unless it's a previous backup in which case it will be 4.3GB. I'll be thinking the figures over because I think I see a pattern (I hope). As for my few posts in the past, I just started trying out posting again and I usually only take on certain threads as I get time. I was a bit slow to want to post for some reason.. don't know why. lol. That's cool that you are an admin, which forum?
I am posting now, I see your comment on doing the test.. It's' important that the cache test does well on larger blocks because you are transfering tons of data. But I need to look at this closer. Will post back shortly when I can.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2005 @ 14:00
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 23:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok I tested the non compressed DVD earlier and I forgot to post the results. It is the same DVD that took 45 minutes from the time I put it in to the time it asked for a blank. For all testing purposes I skip the burning which I have no problems with. It took 37 minutes. And this is running them through shrink which at one time used to do the DVD's that didnt require compression in under 10 minutes, 8 minutes seems to sound right. So this is way off what it had done at one time. I can't say for certain, but I am almost possitive I could do it burn and all at 4X (14 mins usually) for under 25 minutes. The size of the test DVD is 3.9 GB
My motherboard is an ASUS P4G-LA I believe it has 2 memory channels but im not sure. But then again I am still shopping for motherboards, this one just doesnt do what I need it to do, with features it has anyways. I still don't understand all this socket stuff though.
When I got the new HD yesterday, I basically started off by installing XP again and starting over by downloading all required programs, its hard to not build up a bunch of useless stuff on a computer over time, so this probably was the best route to take.
Possibly tommorrow I am going to try and swap out the CPU and see if the results are any better. Since my other PC has a 1.99 GHz P4 which is better then I thought it had, but thats what the SANDRA test said is in there. I had thought it was a P3 but aparantly I was wrong.
I also tried removing the DVD ROM drive and running just the DVD burner and that did not improve anything. I might have already posted that one, I did it several days ago.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
17. January 2005 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh yes I forgot to say I havent done anything with the BIOS. That is one thing I am not at all familiar with. Someone told me once I should 'flash the Bios' I looked into it, but never did actually do it, because whatever step one was, finding the version of something, I couldnt even find that.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
1200? Something seems wrong here, but I'm not confirming it yet.. 1200 is like 12% of what you should get. But the steep cutoff usually happens right after 512kb. It also depends on the cache size etc. You have 1MB cache, so I'm not sure that's right for it to be 1200. I'd figure it would do better..... But here's mine. These will be higher because of different hardware etc. But look at the smooth rate mine desends for an idea. At 512kB blocks I get 18,130 and thats 53% of the 2kB blocks at 33988MB/s. Again, I'm not forgetting that your problem may be solved by something else that got changed, and this is more a test to look your system over.. Looking back on your 1600+ score for memory bandwidth, it does seem to fall into the PC2100 catagory. I was just a little surprised it was 1/3rd of mine when I have 400mhz and you have 266 is not 1/3rd.... But the 800mhz fsb, plus dual channel gives performance. Still looking here and at other ideas elsewhere. As for flashing the BIOS, hold off on that. Your system worked with the BIOS you now have.. It might be a good idea later, but we don't want to make a mistake at this point. What motherboard do you have, and which version of the BIOS are you running? You can see the BIOS version during boot if you are quick... But it's also in sandra, only I forget where now. The motherboard type is also there. Will post back if I find it.
SiSoftware Sandra
Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
2kB Blocks : 33988MB/s
4kB Blocks : 34606MB/s
8kB Blocks : 27764MB/s
16kB Blocks : 24674MB/s
32kB Blocks : 24815MB/s
64kB Blocks : 24961MB/s
128kB Blocks : 25005MB/s
256kB Blocks : 23166MB/s
512kB Blocks : 18130MB/s
1MB Blocks : 2582MB/s
4MB Blocks : 2616MB/s
16MB Blocks : 2617MB/s
64MB Blocks : 2608MB/s
256MB Blocks : 2612MB/s
Data Item Size : 16-bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2005 @ 11:14
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 00:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks.. I will also look into the other stuff you just posted, most likley later in the afternoon. Not that it will neccissarily help, but just to look things over.... I just came back because I realised something. You probably know this, but before you try to swap your CPU's you have to be sure it's compatible with your motherboard. Not only formfactor (well it wouldn't fit, lol), but there are other things like the fan/heat sink have to fit etc. Most likely it will work. I don't have time to type more now, but If you think it matches up, it probably does. .. One more thing, did your speed decrease happen right about the time you put in the new cables? I know you tried the old ones back, but am just curious. Can you remember anything else you did with cables etc, right about the time it slowed down?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2005 @ 00:56
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 09:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Rather than try a different CPU, I'd like to suggest something less intrusive first, if you haven't started that already. Now that you have the WD, and you have ruled some things out like cables etc, I want to isolate the mainboard from the burner and even ide controler chip on that cable, but in a specific way. I really want to make sure we can discard this idea and be 100% sure. I did it here so you can look at my results and get an idea of what it might be like. I know my system is faster, but you can see how it should respond in a relative way. If you wouldn't mind, Put TROY in, and run Shrink.. Go to Edit->Preferences and select DVD-9 8.5 GB for the target size. Open TROY, when it asks for a folder for temporary files, make a folder called A on the HD. You can just type it in as C:\A by editing what's there. This is an extra folder that is needed in additon to what you normally use. ALSO before you backup, go to Quality Settings tab and turn off both, deep analysis and Quality Enhancments and leave them off for everything here. That way it won't throw the comparison results off and this can be flipped back on later. I want the cpu to be used in a certain way, and the qaulity settings behave very different on different cpu's which could give results that vary too much. You could also do it again later with quality on, but it's not needed and we only need the 1st numbers to notice wether it's going fast or really slow. - Let it read the whole movie and write down the time it takes. The original uncompressed movie (minus key) is now copied to A.
Next using shrink again, click the Open files icon instead of Open disc, and point it at A. Leaving the target size at 8.5 for now, select Backup. Only make the backup go to yet another folder. Your usual folder, like TEMP, DVD_VIDEO etc. So you will end up with 2 copies of the movie on the HD. Time this and also notice the typical Kb/sec and write those down. Delete the files from the output folder. Next change the target size in Edit->Preferences to be DVD-5 (4.3GB. This will force your CPU to work. Use Open files again and point it at the original files in A. Tell it to backup again and the files will again go to the output folder, but be compressed. Time how long this takes and also notice the typical Kb/sec, and write them down. One last thing, go to your A folder do properties and get the total GB of the original movie. Please post all of these.
I've done the same thing here with Phantom Menace, 8.3GB. The reading time from DVD to HD is 17mins 10sec with target size set to 8.3GB (basically making the non-compressed file set).. This time is the same as usual and less important. - But more important. When I stay on complete on HD, Copying from A folder (On HD) to destination (On HD), I get an initial 18,000kB/s that falls to about 13,700 and holds there. This is with target set to 8.5GB. My HD is really full though (only 10GB free) This took 9mins 58secs. This shows basic file movement, with less cpu overhead. I then deleted output files and set target size to back to 4.3GB and it took 12mins 45secs to compress the video from A folder to output folder. It did this at a rate of about 10,300 Kb/sec. About 2min 47 sec longer to compress on HD... But it was about 4-5 mins faster than from original DVD. This makes it seem like only 2mins and 47 secs went for compression, but in this case the HD most likely couldn't go any faster when compression was turned off, so it was a limiting factor. Without compression, it would probably fly if it were all stored on an say a 8GB ram drive ;-). I'd like to see how these do, and try to see if the system remains unusually slow, perks up, or who knows.
The most important thing here is to see how this does in comparison to your previous good time of 45mins with TROY. If it still takes a really long time, it will say something about your motherboard, or mem, or cpu. But it will also point out that whatever changed to improve then degrade performance, X, is within those components. If it's really fast, it will hint at your burner's read speed. Not 100% conclusive proof at this point, but will make interesting points. I am also checking over your recent post on non-compressed video copying and will compare to these figures too. But there will be differences since it's from disc. As for the CPU, I got another idea. Is it possible that your local shop will allow you to temporarily try a different CPU and motherboard? Preferably in another case. If it fixes the problem, he/she should allow you to swap them since it's still within the time.. Otherwise there's still other ways, but the possibilities will begin to narrow considerably if we do all this.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2005 @ 12:43
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 17:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok I havent had time to switch the CPU yet anyways and I do know that it is compatable with the motherboard as they were once in the same computer together. When I bought a new CPU I made sure it was compatable with the motherboard I already had so I know thats not an issue. But if its something I don't have to do I would rather not do it, but I am willing to at a later time if need be.
I will try the steps you suggested, it sounds like a good move. I'm really surprised it wasn't suggested earlier or that I never thought to try this to work the computer and not do it all from the disc.
I am going to do it right away and will post back with results and answer your other questions later on too.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 18:58 |
Link to this message
|
I managed to do some of the things you suggested. Not all would work, will explain that later.
Ripping to HD
Started at 4361 KB/s
increased slowly to a peak of 6860 KB/s
then slowed down slightly
Total time was 19 minutes
Open file save as DVD9 to C:\A
Started at 5900 and averaged at at or near 5450 KB/s the entire time. Total time was 22 minutes 8 seconds.
Now for the step where I open file and compress it to a DVD5 well this is interesting.... I would set it as I normally would saving to my usual folder. It would start encoding and about 5 seconds later DVD Shrink would disapear. I tried this about 20 times and get the same result each time. I have never had something like this happen. So thats probably the most important part and for some reason I can't do it. I might try it with a different DVD maybe.
I used the DVD Scarface for this test. I left my original copy of Troy at work today. But they are basically the same size. It was 6.82 GB
I will try a different DVD, I had read that someone had trouble with Scarface and had to use decrypter for it a while ago. I only bought it today so I never have backed this one up. I will try something that I know works.
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 19:40 |
Link to this message
|
I have done another DVD and got all the results.
DVD to HD 6.81 GB (almost same size as last one)
16 minutes at 4360 kb/s to a max of 6840 kb/s
HD to DVD 9
19 minutes
5500 kb/s
HD to DVD 5
22 minutes
3800-4570 kb/s
Now this is way slower then your system. You got 13,700 kb/s from HD to DVD9 and I get 5450 kb/s which is only 39 % of what you are getting. And for HD to DVD5 you get 10,300 and I get 4570 kb/s which is 44% of your rate. And my DVD was smaller even. Wow something doesn't seem to be right here. I know you should get slightly more then I do but I don't think this much.
I did rip it from DVD to HD in 16 minutes for a 6.81 GB DVD, yours was 8.3GB and this seems to be in line with your results.
I will just wait for your thoughts on this before I proceed with anything else.
One more thing... The first DVD I tested Scarface which didnt work for the last step, I used my DVD ROM which tests slower in Nero therefor the 19 minute rip time. The second DVD I used the burner to Rip, thats probably why the 3 minute difference in times between the 2 DVD's which are basically the same size.
|
|
BlueLaser
Junior Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, I'm going over the results you posted and comparing/combining them with not only the first figures, but now a 2nd system. I have a noticed a couple of fairly peculiar things, and will post back when I am done with these results. I want to double check some things. It will probably be later in the afternoon.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. January 2005 @ 22:30
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
18. January 2005 @ 22:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have tried the same tests on my other PC as well, and well its doing it all a little faster, I don't have enough space on there at the moment for a DVD 9 but processing of a DVD5 with a pretty loaded HD was at 8500kb/s I don't have a burner but I ran it through shrink on the other PC and thats how it was. This one certainly should at least be faster then the other one.
I really appreciate your looking into the results and I feel like we are finally getting close to finding the problem.
You asked earlier about what BIOS version I was running well I tried and tried to find that a few months ago when I was looking at flashing the BIOS but I just could not see it anywhere when I restarted the computer. And the only thing I really changed when the speed changed on me was the IDE cables, I switched from 40 wire to 80 wire and have tried the old ones again with the same speeds.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
19. January 2005 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
what is make & model# of motherboard??
|
|
sean5775
Member
|
19. January 2005 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
ASUS P4G-LA
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
19. January 2005 @ 11:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
you've got a hp computer???
|
|
