|
Quality vs Space--Dvd shrink or divx
|
|
|
myfinger
Newbie
|
18. June 2004 @ 01:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
hi, i'm fairly new at dvd ripping, i was wonder which can produce the better quality video using the least space. Does anyone know wut compression algorithm dvd shrink uses? is it as good as divx/xvid? Because when i have a movie thats' 1400 mb in divx format it's almost as good the real dvd itself. So do you get better quality than divx with dvd shrink even though you are taking alot more space (the entire dvd-R)? I really dont care about whether i could play the dvd in a player or not, i care more about quality and saving space, cuz the way i figured i could put three 1400 mb divx movies on a single dvd if the quality is comparable do dvd shrink's one movie....am i right?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
18. June 2004 @ 03:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Video Quality for a movie in DVD format at 1400 megs is usually not good even if it will fit in that space. Most movies won't compress that far through normal means.
Divx is probably your best bet for archiving small movie images but as you have guessed it will only play on your computer.
As cheap as DVDs are now you would be better off going the one movie per dvd route and get better quality.
As good as Divx is, I can still tell it is compressed.
With a full DVD used to backup I can't tell the difference. CCE basic with DVDrebuilder is the leading quality in backups right now although I am happy with DVDshrink and Nero Recode.
Donald
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2004 @ 03:06
|
|
myfinger
Newbie
|
18. June 2004 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
i found a site that i quote
"compressed domain transcoders have reached quite some popularity. These transcoders are based on algorithms designed to recompress an MPEG-2 stream in real-time for TV broadcast. These programs can transcode an entire DVD movie in only a few minutes, because they do not have to decode and re-encode the entire video stream, but only part of it. I will not go into a detailed explanation of the mechanisms used as they are quite involved but basically what you get is a size (and hence quality) reduction per time unit that cannot be rivaled by regular MPEG-2 encoders (though the latter category can yield better quality). DVD2One was the first program to be based on these principles, now DVD Shrink is the first free program to offer this functionality."
so from what i can tell, dvd shrink's compression algorithm is not as good as that of divx/xvid, i.e if i can compress the same movie into same size using both DVD Shrink and xvid, i would get alot better quality with xvid, (since i dont care if i could play dvd on other places other than my computer)
|
|
myfinger
Newbie
|
18. June 2004 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
But then again, encoding a movie into divx is a pain in the butt...:-/ i have never done it personally, and was reading different guides on how to do it...yet it's so confusing, anyone can suggest a good guide? i know it takes like few hours...sigh...
|
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
18. June 2004 @ 17:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm not sure of the point of your previous post but if you want quality then just backup the DVD 1 at a time. If you just want to squish them into a small space then divx is OK but not perfect.
Donald
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
18. June 2004 @ 18:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
so from what i can tell, dvd shrink's compression algorithm is not as good as that of divx/xvid DiVx (mpeg4) is a very impressive form of compression. If you're comparing file size to file size then mpeg 4 does return more for the space it uses than does DVD (mpeg2). I used to be right into it until DVD burners hit the market.
The problem is that to get mpeg 4 to DVD quality you'll have to have a fairly large file size and you'll have to burn it onto two or more CD-R discs. You are still losing all the extras such as menus, chapters, and standalone compatibility unless you've acquired 1 for that purpose. If you are going to get any kind of quality you're going to be copying from a DVD and no copy will beat the original.
Because DVD media has such a large recording capacity that the quality versus space argument is purely an academic point and largely irrelevant. DVDs have the space to use and DiVx has to make do with hard disks and CD-Rs and copying from DVDs. In short DVDs are better.
" 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/. |
Member
|
18. June 2004 @ 18:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
you'll have to burn it onto two or more CD-R discs.
Quote:
DiVx has to make do with hard disks and CD-Rs
Not necessarily - he could indeed store 2-3 movies xvid to a dvd-r with *very near to* dvd quality, he doesn't have to use cd-r media. I can think of instances where one might want to do this, but at the end of the day it is a judgement call on the user's part. I only do 1 to 1 backups myself, as inexpensive as dvd media has become, it's easily justifiable to me.
[Edit: fixed my messed up quote tags]
Afterdawn channel on IRC: irc.stormchat.org #ad_buddies
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2004 @ 18:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
18. June 2004 @ 19:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
True as far as data storage goes, he could even back it to a DVD/RW disc but in the end for it to be even close to DVD quality it's going to be large, well over a gig. Remember DiVx copies are stripped down to begin with. It's been a couple of years since I've exited that particular method of storage but I remember even my best results were of consderably less quality than my current successes backing to DVD. I use DVDrebuilder and CCE basic and even LOR III backed on a single disc was perfect to the eye. That's almost 8 gigs and 3 hours and 20 minutes of movie with all the flexibility of DVD and DiVx just can give me all of that.
" 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 18. June 2004 @ 19:33
|
|
andyfrank
Member
|
19. June 2004 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
get autoGK..all auto just rip dvd to hdd and do a few tick marks and settings and leave it over night
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
19. June 2004 @ 19:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Played with AutoGK some but especially with its many parts when it was just Gordian Knot. I enjoyed playing with and using it back then the way I now enjoy using DVDrebuilder/CCE basic, but it is no longer an option. Except for extreme storage needs and movies for video games like Diablo, the result just wouldn't compare to DVD backups even compressed, for quality, effective storage, and function.
" 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
|
|
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
20. June 2004 @ 19:13 |
Link to this message
|
If you're planning to further compress the movie specifically to watch it on your computer, I'd say Divx is definitely a better choice than something like DVD Shrink for a couple of reasons. First, the quality you'll lose to get to the size you want will be probably be easily noticed, if not downright annoying, with any compressor that doesn't encode. The second has to do with the difference between computer pixels and pixels intended to be converted to television scanlines.
The pixels on a DVD aren't square like the ones on your computer's monitor. If you consider that there are the equivalent of 720 pixels (or actually more like 704 or less probably) on each of the 480 (or 576 for PAL) scanlines of your TV, but a 4:3 aspect ratio for the picture. Simple math tells you that 4:3 with square pixels would give you a resolution of 640x480, so the pixels on a DVD are taller than they are wide. They'd no doubt be shorter than they are if it was possible, but since they have to be at least 1 scanline tall it's not. A properly done Divx encode will have the resolution changed for accurate display on your monitor, and if you have a specific resolution you plan to use for playback, you can set the resolution accordingly and avoid having the software resize to fullscreen for you. You can do the same thing with CCE Basic by setting the aspect ratio to SAR (simple aspect ratio) which means the pixels are square, but you won't get the same quality at that filesize.
|
