|
|
|
AnyDVD and Clone DVD or DVD Shrink
|
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
14. February 2006 @ 00:37 |
Link to this message
|
@Jerry746,
Quote:
I could go on about known problems with your choice of TV's but I've said enough already
I am actually very interested in what you have to say about the TVs that I own. It is not that easy to find all the info about some things. You can send me a PM in order to keep this thread on topic.
Also, regardless of what my opinion of CloneDVD2 is, there is one thing I do not like about it that would greatly improve the software, and that is that there is no option to compress bonus material more than the main movie. If you decide to leave in extra stuff, you are definately better off with Shrink or Recode especially for DVDs with 2 hours of extras. It would have been very nice to have this option in CloneDVD2.
Another thing, I never said that CloneDVD2 was complete crap, I said that the results for that movie were complete crap. That can mean many different things. Maybe it does not have as good of a motion search engine (full movie Deep/advanced analysis vs. on-the fly encoding [motion estimate]). It could also mean that it does not handle GOP structures as well for movies with low bitrate (1:5:2 vs 1:4:1) and so on...
Either scenario would make a difference in compressing a long movie to a DVD5, but not so much a short movie. However, I do not know what either does to the movie.
Here is a screenshot I took of a scene in Swingers, both compressed with Nero Recode and CloneDVD2. Nero Recode was at 68.8% and CloneDVD was at 68% (there was a 3 MB difference in size for 16 minutes of video so the bitrate was about 25kbps higher for the Nero Recode out of about 4000kbps total bitrate or 0.625%). For Nero Recode, I used Slow Recording and Advanced Analysis. The CloneDVD2 is on the left and the Nero Recode is on the right:
The screen shot is of a scene where there was some motion (the person was in the act of sitting down). I zoomed in to 317% so that the it is easier to tell the difference, but it also shows when zoomed out to less than 100%. The one compressed with CloneDVD2 is more pixelated and looks worse. However, there was a huge difference in encoding time. Nero Recode took 4x longer to encode than CloneDVD2.
When watching on a TV, if this were to occur once every few minutes, it would be difficult to tell the difference, but in movies with a lot of motion, it would result in a very bad overall picture. Another thing I should note, is that the CloneDVD jpeg was a smaller file size than the Nero Recode (37.9kb vs. 45.4kb). The original was 46.7kb. This would suggest that Clone compresses with a motion estimate and a more even distribution of bitrate. Also a possiblity of a larger GOP.
I would also like to add that I encoded it with Recode without using advanced Analysis or Slow Recording and it was almost identical to the CloneDVD2 one in quality with possibly the CloneDVD2 being better, but too hard to determine. Also, encoding time was about 30% faster than CloneDVD2 without the two options enabled.
So to summarize:
Original ~ Nero Recode + analysis (AA) + slow recording (SR)
CloneDVD2 ~ Nero Recode - AA - SR
CloneDVD2 < Recode + AA + SR
Of course this is just one test and it this summary would be a nice hypothesis for a series of tests on quality. A good test would be to take several shots from many movies in both high and low motion scenes and to also throw in DVD Shrink into the picture. I do not have the time for this, but it would be a nice project for someone to do.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. February 2006 @ 01:44 |
Link to this message
|
Hmmmm... I think JaguarGod has some valid evidence here. Again, sorry folks, I'm not dissin' CloneDVD2, but it looks like JaguarGod has nailed the debate in this case. Even if I don't use CloneDVD2, I still have faith in DVD Shrink and Nero Recode 2 and I believe they're definitely a better transcoder than CloneDVD2, in my humble opinion.
@JaguarGod
This is strictly for me only: for any movie(s) that's 50% - 65% on the Video Quality on Nero Recode 2, I used "AA + High Quality SR", anything from 65% - 75%, I only used "AA", anything above 75%, I'll just leave it as standard and the quality is good to my eyes with my 55" Widescreen SONY HDTV Hi-Scan 1080i with "progressive scan" on via my dvd player.
Recently, I've stepped into another level with DVD Rebuilder Pro + CCE SP and I can see a slightly 5% - 10% differences when comparing to both Nero Recode 2 (AA + HQSR) and DVD Shrink (DA+AEC). I may be wrong, but I think Nero Recode's (AA+HQSR) is slightly 5% better than DVD Shrink's (DA+AEC), though some may argue that they're the same. Maybe I can try some experiments like what you'd done sometime later on to actually see the real differences instead of viewing it on my TV only.
Overall, I think it's a close call in between Nero Recode (AA+HQSR) and DVD Shrink's (DA+AEC). Maybe we should dome some more experiments and compare them to see what's the results.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. February 2006 @ 03:01 |
Link to this message
|
yeah, one drive reading and Nero recoding and writing to the second drive. Works most times but with Norton Internet Security it's a challenge. I don't always remember to turn it off and turn off cable.
|
|
sytyguy
Senior Member
|
14. February 2006 @ 03:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's what I thought you meant.
Thanks,
Rich
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. February 2006 @ 03:23
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
14. February 2006 @ 07:56 |
Link to this message
|
@alkohol,
Thank you for the info. With small differences it is very hard to tell. I am pretty sure any Difference between Shrink and Recode will need something with intense action. I should have maybe done a test with Star Wars Episode III since there are some scenes with lots of motion and the movie is a higher bitrate, so there can be some dramatic differences from non-compressed to high compression. Probably compressions of different percentages will help like 70 vs 70, 70 vs 50, 50 vs 50, etc... This can give a decent comparison of the motion search and the ability to properly allocate bitrate, but requires some time to put together nicely.
I always use HQSR with Recode now (time matters not to me), because I did notice the difference with it off. It wasn't anything serious, but I remember I did Family Guy like that (HQSR off). There were some parts that had some weird flaws, almost like a flaw in the Progressive scan of a DVD player, only it was on a CRT so there was no Progressive scan. After that I turned to Shrink, but then read a guide by you that showed High Quality mode enabled and that is when I gave it a shot again with this option checked, and I was pleased. I always thought HQSR had to do with burn speed when going to a DVDR and I always went to an ISO Image, so I did not enable it before.
As for CCE, I have tried out a trial version and it does encode with excellent quality and is rather fast!! This costs $2000 though doesn't it? It would be nice to see some comparisons with that as well, but I would image that would take time as well.
@garmoon,
I remember when I used to have Norton Innteret Security, it would consume 200MB of RAM at times (back when I used to have 64MB, so my PC was always a snail). I have since switched to Sygate Personal Pro with Symantec Anti-virus. Sygate uses 8MB of RAM and SAV uses about 24MB, but depending on the version you own, it can be less, however SAV is only available through licensing so I doubt it can be purchased by normal consumers and is geared more towards business and government.
I read that Norton Internet security is a very good software and when I had it (2003 version) I did like it, just high on resources. It makes sense though, because Norton is so graphical & user friendly while SAV looks like a windows 95 app and there are some settings I will not touch. If you have the resources to handle it, then Norton should not be a big deal even if they are running. I never shut off my firewall or Anti-virus, but I do shut off my Modem if I remember...I hate getting pop ups of something trying to acces my computer while I am encoding something.
|
|
StanH1000
Senior Member
|
14. February 2006 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Try AVG Free anti-virus from Grisoft. It is updated daily, automatically, and is a very low consumer of resources. No prob with viruses getting thru. Price is right.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. February 2006 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
@ jaguarGod I've got till Jun06 before my Norton Internet Sec. runs out so I'm stuck till then, but I'll get Norton Antivirus and find a new security system. I have no financial or other pertinent info that's worth stealing on my pc. I hate NIS. NAV I love.
|
|
