|
The Shrink Challenge!!! Is v3.2 Really Better than the Other Transcoders? Let?s Compare.
|
|
Senior Member
|
30. July 2004 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
Shrink v3.2 was released on July 25, 2004. Shrink devotees immediately claimed v3.2 as the defacto standard ? touting it to be the ultimate in terms of quality, ease-of-use, and price (it?s free). Others aren?t quite so sure about these unparalleled claims of quality and ease-of-use. They claim they must still rely upon other transcoders. Lets find out just where Shrink falls down. We?d like for you to put v3.2 to the test against your favorite transcoder and to let us know what you find.
Some of the popular transcoders we would like to see compared are the latest versions of Nero Recode2, ?Pinnacle InstantCopy (IC8), ?DVD2One (v1.5), ?InterVideo DVDCopy2, ?321 Studios DVD XCopy Platinum, ?Elaborate Bytes CloneDVD2. (This list is not all-inclusive.)
A. Links to tests and other objective studies are most welcome.
1. Shrink v3.2 Interlace Test:
Part 1: ... http://people.freenet.de/mb1svcd/
Part 2: ... http://people.freenet.de/mb1svcd/compare1.htm
B. Handy Tools:
On-screen image magnifier: http://magnifier.sourceforge.net/
Online free image hosting: http://photobucket.com/register.php
C. Good DVD's to test (suggestions welcome):
1. Lord of the Rings II or III.
2. Matrix Series
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. August 2004 @ 04:06
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. July 2004 @ 14:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
I?ve tried DVD Shrink and it works ok, in fact I was given the privilege of beta testing it, but I?m not so sure that it is really better than the other 1 click transcoders Doc's listed. The new quality features results in a very slow backup and if I?m going to have to wait then I?d better be paid for it with some excellent results. We?ll have to wait and see what others have to say about it.
_
" 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 30. July 2004 @ 16:23
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. July 2004 @ 08:23 |
Link to this message
|
I have backed up (again) my ALIENS DVD. To my eyes the results, when compared to IC8 are very similar. Infact I could not tell the difference. Shrink took approx 20% longer, in time, to process.
Considering IC8 costs & DVD Shrink 3.2 is free, I know which product I would recommend to a newcomer.
Looking for my old AD |
Senior Member
|
31. July 2004 @ 08:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
brian100...
What settings did you use on the Shrink backup?
EDIT: Also, do you remember how much compression was required in Shrink?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. July 2004 @ 09:24
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
31. July 2004 @ 08:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Doc
I used the "full on" quality settings. IE "Compress video with high quality adaptive error compensation -> Sharp (default).
I used IC8 using "hidden settings editor 30% video analysis - High quality reduction method"
I am very impressed with the new Shrink.
Looking for my old AD
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
31. July 2004 @ 09:36 |
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/. |
Senior Member
|
31. July 2004 @ 10:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
@brian100... ...I was wondering if you could supply some more info on Aliens? What compression was required, and were there any action scenes that you looked at. Also, did you try any magnification to simulate a larger viewing screen, or look at anything in freeze-frame mode? This info would be helpful.
I agree that Shrink 3.2 is impressive, and it handles a standard movie just fine. It's also a great training wheel program, and I've already had the chance to recommended it to newcomers. But at what point does another program become more desirable, if at all? Are you ready to uninstall your IC8 as some claim they are doing?
.
.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso) |
|
64026402
Senior Member
|
31. July 2004 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
For me IC8 isn't stable enough on my Dual machines for regular use anyway. If DVDshrink is improved enough in video I will likely use it for secondary backups if needed.
I will make test runs for comparison though.
I will post what I get.
Donald
|
|
brian100
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. August 2004 @ 00:05 |
Link to this message
|
doc : Aliens :-
Quote:
What compression was required
58%
Quote:
and were there any action scenes that you looked at
Compared the last 20 minutes of the movie. (Full of explosions & flashing lighting)
Quote:
Also, did you try any magnification to simulate a larger viewing screen, or look at anything in freeze-frame mode?
Didnt use magnification tool, relied on viewing on my 44" TV. I ran 2 movies simultaneously on set, freeze framing to compare.
Quote:
..But at what point does another program become more desirable, if at all? Are you ready to uninstall your IC8 as some claim they are doing?
I feel that the new shrink would be far more desirable than IC8 if I were shown both products "new & unseen", side by side, for the first time. Shrinks front end look & it's simplicity of use, coupled with the existing editing/re-authoring features would make it a clear winner for the me. This tool is, also, just far to useful to ignore, as an experienced user. The new feature to blank out whole titles with a "single still image" is very useful feature indeed.
The only thing that real newbies may find annoying is the time it takes to process a highly compressed movie. Some would require a quick 1/2 hour fix, and would simply by-pass the new quality settings.
As for removing IC8 from my system...well I think I will leave that for another day. I will continue to use CCE basic/RB on all compressed movies.
Looking for my old AD
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. August 2004 @ 05:11 |
Link to this message
|
brian
I will continue to use CCE basic/RB on all compressed movies.
I did a back up of MI-2 at 61.3% with all the quality settings including maximum sharpness. In the explosion scenes at the end of the movie clearly showed macro blocking and the time was as long as DVD-RB/CCE. I did it again with a lower sharpness setting and the macro blocking was still there but its perimeter lines were somewhat blurred out.
If you've got a good monitor try it on your PC and blow it up a couple of times until it begins to show the blocks because they're there. The lines might be blurred a little but you'll see them. I did the test on my 22 inch Viewsonic P225f at a resoluion of 1600 by 1200 with 85Hz refresh rate, which exceeds the NTSC DVD standard of 720 by 480 and the high definition standard of 1080 by 720.
" 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
|
1. August 2004 @ 15:36 |
Link to this message
|
My comparison of DVDshrink 3.2 against IC8 and shrink 3.17 show a good improvement over old shrink and what seems to be as good as IC8 and without some of the artifacts I was getting with IC8.
I just did Braveheart again because I had several comparison discs already done.
There is still a lot I have to do but I believe the improvement will be usefull to a lot of people.
Rebuilder/CCE has me spoiled for quality so I'll not be using Shrink for my compressed movie backups but I will burn more test discs.
This is what I have:
http://home.kc.rr.com/dfulghum/photo.htm
Donald
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. August 2004 @ 16:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree 64026402, DVD Shrink has made tremendous improvements over the 3.1.7 model.
I contend that DVD Shrink, on its worst day was still a phenomenal piece of shareware. After it's last improvement, it stands far and away as one of the finest pieces of sharewares ever. The thought that pple are comparing DVD Shrink 3.2 to any for $$$$ programs only shows what a truly fantastic program DVD Shrink really is considering that it is a shareware proggy.
Pete
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. August 2004 @ 16:38
|
Senior Member
|
1. August 2004 @ 16:48 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I contend that DVD Shrink, on its worst day was still a phenomenal piece of shareware.
Hi ScubaPete. Thanks for joining the thread. Your statement definitely sounds like the voice of experience. How about comparing some of the other programs with the new Shrink?
.
.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso) This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. August 2004 @ 04:57
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. August 2004 @ 16:56 |
Link to this message
|
Pete and 64026402
stands far and away as one of the finest pieces of sharewares ever.
There are those who use only parts of DVD Shrink, I'm one and I think so is 64026402. It's really a great tool! It doesn't have to be the best transcoder it's quite good on a so much wider spectrum, a multipurpose, flexible tool. In the end however the final process will be DVD-RB/CCE Basic, I have no use for its transcoder.
" 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/. |
|
skyderman
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
1. August 2004 @ 17:31 |
Link to this message
|
I have an old movie favorite that was made in the early 60's that me and my family enjoys very much. The movie is 2:54 minutes long and is 7.6 gigs in size. I have tried copying it with the following software: DVDXPlatinum, DVDExpress, Nero 6.0 Ultra, and have tried a numberous amount of trial versions, and most recently have tried copying it with Intervideo's DVD Copy 2. To make a long story short, when compressed there are several noticeable anomolies in the movie, especially closeups of peoples faces. My wife thinks it looks OK, but drives me bananas. I have strived to find a software that would compress the movie without leaving these amololies, which are not in the orginal, but figured there was just too much compression and I would have to live with it. I then found that Intervideo's software was the first one that didn't leave these anolomies. Viola! The great part of this software was that it is noticeably better, and goes through the compression faze very fast, but waaayyyy over compresses and there is no control over the compresseion process. This large movie, which I did three times was compressed to 3.95 gigs each time. More than 50 percent, but still looked better than the rest. Then Shrink comes out with 3.2. I have compressed this movie three times as I did with Intervideo. There is NOT one anomolie in the movie. It truely looks as good (believe it or not)to the orginal. It actually looks better than Intervideo's in my humble opinion. It was overall clearer with better color, and with the option of being able to control sharpness, smoothness, and the compression, right down to a nat's &*$#@. This software is really truly the best for me so far in my personal opinion. If there was one thing that was a negitive, it took me 1:11 minutes to process that large of a movie. But with all of the other pluses, the clear winner for a one click program goes to Shrink 3.2.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. August 2004 @ 17:59 |
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 1. August 2004 @ 18:29
|
|
ScubaPete
AfterDawn Addict
|
1. August 2004 @ 18:28 |
Link to this message
|
A final note on DVD Shrink 3.2
It doesn't have to be the best encoder, and I for one don't think it is, not for a single minute. BUT - When pple attempt to compare this totally FREE proggy with a pay for proggy - It seems crazy. Compare DVD Shrink with any other shareware, I dare you - there's nothing to compare it with - my point exactly.
Comparing DVD Shrink to any proggy and you've raised its level -
At the end of the day, we all have our God-given right to use what we wish -
Peace all,
Pete
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. August 2004 @ 18:36 |
Link to this message
|
I think what Pete's saying is that DVD Shrink may be one of the best freeware applications in existence, period, and I agree. If you want better you're going to have to pay for it or collect the many small applications you'll need to make it happen while at the same time jumping a learning curve.
" 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/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
1. August 2004 @ 19:11 |
Link to this message
|
We have those who see DVD Shrink 3.2 for what it is. A good piece of freeware. However there are those who give the program mythical powers and claim it does things not even programs such as CCE SP and Adobe Premiere and some of the other top line programs are capable of.
I have seen Shrink included in tests with retail programs, as it is a popular software. As aptly stated, test in a shareware category and it has no peers. But realistically, it can be tested against other popular programs. Look at DVDClone as an example. There are some retail programs that the 3.2 is superior to or at least equal to. The question is, how does it stack up against the popular transcoders? The comparison is 2 fold; one to debunk the myths of superiority of 3.2 if possible; and two, to see where the program stands in comparison.
Scubapete, Sophocles and some others have intimated that 3.2 is tops as freeware, but is lacking in comparison to retail items. Shrink has been placed in comparisons with retail here on AD before. So, why not again, now that it is an improved program?
|
Senior Member
|
1. August 2004 @ 19:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
When it comes to price, Shrink wins. For some, especially newcomers, price is the only issue. For others, quality and ease-of-use are most important. So much so that they are willing to pay for these features.
The new Shrink has posed a very real question for those whose concern is quality. And that is, can money buy a better 1-click transcoder in terms of quality right now? Or, even ease of use (which includes the encoding time factor). Or, does the new Shrink narrow the gap between the retail transcoders to such a point that they aren't worth the money they cost?
The only way to get these answers is to have an open mind, and to have a fair and open exchange of information. That's what a forum should do. This thread is not meant to engage in "Shrink bashing" but to find out where Shrink fits into the scheme of things in terms of quality and ease-of-use.
.
.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso) This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. August 2004 @ 19:25
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
1. August 2004 @ 19:25 |
Link to this message
|
I use shrink to enhance DD-RB/CCE Basic. I use it to calculate audio file sizes and to analyze extras. In some case I use it to compress the extras leaving the main movie untouched and then I re encode it with the best with DVD-RB and Cinema Craft Encoder. As a Transcoder DVD Shrink increasingly compromises too much over 20%.
" 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/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
1. August 2004 @ 23:45 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles, as you are knowledgable about DVD Shrink 3.2, I have a question. From some of the people involved with Shrink development, I heard the new quality settings don't have much effect until the compression load reaches near 25%. Your analysis has the program having problems over 20%. Does this mean that the new settings aren't effective or just not effective enough for good quality?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
2. August 2004 @ 03:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
DVD Shrink compresses the B frame up to about 20% affter that Shrink begins to compress the P frames. On higher compression movies you'll have to do away with the sharpness settings and go for the soft fuzzy settings or take the risk of serious artifacts being introduced such as macro blocking.
" 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 2. August 2004 @ 12:34
|
Senior Member
|
2. August 2004 @ 04:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
brobear...Part 1 of the Shrink interlace test(referenced in the initial thread) shows a very interesting P, B, and I frame bar graph at the bottom of the page. These actually demonstrate the amount of compression involved. The author goes on in Part 2 to state that he believes there is an improper imbalance of the compression/shrinking of the P's in relationship to the B's and I's.
What I have found with random freeze frame viewing is that I get both a sharp picture (I frame) or a fairly blurred one (P and B). Because of the way our vision works, I believe we "see" the sharpest image and the spaces are then filled in with the rest. I believe this process also produces the softening effect many have mentioned.
When it comes to comparing indivual frames between transcoders, it raises the question of which Shrink/transcoder frames were used. IMO, a frame comparison should involve all 3 types. But in the end, it basically comes down to what is most visually pleasing, and this can only be done with comparing clips.
.
.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso) This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. August 2004 @ 04:55
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
4. August 2004 @ 01:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thanks for the info.
|
