Elby CloneDVD 2 released !

---

Last edited by BoSkin; 19-03-2004 at 09:15.

thank you...gona try it right afther when i am back from work

Excellent, thanks BoSkin!

If i remember correctly, the installation will upgrade version 1.3.11.2 and also remove the SneakPreview, right?

ET

No, the Sneak Preview is there, too.

So you have your 3 CDVDs gathered in 1 place @ the same time.

Hi armin,

what are these i/p/b- frames ? TIA !

---

Last edited by BoSkin; 19-03-2004 at 18:00.

Someone pls. make a comparison " CloneDVD 2 vs. DVD Shrink 3".

@BoSkin

These are the different frame types of the MPEG2 Group of Pictures (GOPs) CloneDVD is transcoding.

There are _i_ntra frames, forward _p_redictive frames and _b_idirectional predicted frames. They have different properties, intra frames are capable of encoding a full frame without any additional information, so they are the largest. Predictive frames use the information of a previous frame to decode the current one. Bidirectional predictive frames use previous and future frames to decode the current one (referencing future frames is possible because the encoded order of the frames may differ from the final presentation order).

The graph shows their sizes from 0 to 150KB, the guides are placed at 50KB and 100KB.

Most GOPs I have seen have a structure of IBBPBBPBBPBB describing 12 frames of video data. The combination may vary, for example T2 uses much smaller GOPs describing 7 frames: IPBBPBB

Wish you a happy cloning!!

---

Last edited by armin; 24-03-2004 at 10:10.

I have a little question about this New version
I make a DVD movie backup in SneakPreview 1.9.2.4
Total time is 38m27s
DVD movie is Black Hawk Down
I also make the same backup in CloneDVD2 2.0.4.1
Total time is 42m24s
It seems the new version a little slowly@@
Why?Can someone tell me ?Thanks!

My PC Hardware
MB: AK76F-400N(SiS 748 chipset)
CPU: Athlon XP3200+
RAM:Kingston DDR400 512MB
DVD Burner:LiteON LDW-401S
DVD+R:That`s 4X DVD+R

Now all someone needs to do is put on their thinking caps with respect to the pricing. $50 is a bit over the top considering the bundles and capabilities of CloneDVD competitors.

IMO $29 is solid price point that will move a ton of copies.

I can think of at least 4 different popular transcoders that are $40-50 and do not/ did not support burning with the app.

Use dvd x copy platinum myself, clone dvd doesnt have a ripper I dont think.

ClonDVD 2 Sneak Preview 1.9.2.4 took about 50 minutes to back up a DVD, but the release version 2.0.4.1 seems to do it in half the time! It appears the "deep analysis" mode of each frame that was in 1.9.2.4 is missing, as it is working JUST like CloneDVD version 1.3!

Has anyone else experienced this also?

Shame that there is still no option to customize compression for titles....

marlowe,

Does that include your BURN time?

The release version is backing up the files to my hard drive in only 21 minutes, where the sneak preview took approximately twice that time. You could see it analyzing for about 21 minutes (like DVDShrink) and THEN backing up.

it takes my computer nearly 20 minutes to rip a dual layer DVD, so it appears that CloneDVD 2.0.4.1 is not analyzing frames in detail AT ALL! It's working like CloneDVD 1.3.

I looked at the resulting VOBs, and at a ratio of 82% they were grainly and crappy looking like CloneDVD 1.3.

Back to DVDShrink if I want "deep analysis" for better quality?

it's very rude to flame others people work... especially if you cannot understand the quality difference between the 2 versions...

quirky9,

Who is your message directed at? If me, perhaps you misundersood my questions?

I'm pointing out that unlike the sneak preview, the frame analysis seems to be missing in the released CloneDVD2! The frame analysis is what gives the increased quality, and the sneak preview took an equal time to do that as it did to write the files to my hard drive (just like DVDShrink). However, that part seems to be missing from the released CloneDVD2. Instead, it seems to simply look at the existing bitrate for each particular frame and apply the same compression amount to each frame to arrive at the transcoded bitrate. It doesn't seem to take the more agressive approach of analyzing each frame to optimize for the transcoded size. In other words it seems to rely on the studios original variable bitrate encoding. I'm making this assumption based on the video bitrate window during the transcoding process. It seems like the transcode peaks closely mirror the original peaks, only smaller. I did find some titles where there was NO compression applied, and others where more was applied than others. It seems like CloneDVD is applying the same compression to extras as the main movie. I'd much rather apply more compression (as much as 50%) to the extras and max out the main movie, like you can with DVD Shrink...

If you have some insight on the "quality difference between the 2 versions," perhaps you can share it here?

---

Last edited by FordMan; 19-03-2004 at 23:42.

I haven't used this program before. Does it have an option to remove the layer break?

>>> I haven't used this program before. Does it have an option to remove the layer break?<<<

It automatically removes it.

works great just made a back-up of dickie roberts it took only 22mins.21sec. to read and burn Great job guys Picture quality is top notch

Yes,including ripping and burning
I tried to make the smae in another PC
Using Pioneer A07,That`s 8X DVD-R
Total tme is 30M 18s
This PC is:
MB: ASUS P4T-E
CPU: Pentium 4 2.6GHz FSB400
RAM: Samsung RDRAM 256MB*4

marlowe,

Thanks for the confirmation. My machine is similar to yours, but 2.66 Ghz (non-HT), FSB533, 768MB 333MHz DDRAM.

I'm stumped where the analysis mode that was in 1.8.2.4 went. It took me approximately 25 minutes to analyze a DVD, and then 25 minutes to write it to hard disc, and then another 15 minutes to burn it at 4X. Now the total time to "analyze" and write to hard disc is only 21 minutes (for a 7500MB DVD)!

I cannot believe CloneDVD is doing a proper job of analyzing the DVD since it seems to be doing it "on the fly." If it's not analyzed FULLY before transcoding, then how can it choose the best compression for each frame while trying to fit it to 4.37GB DVD? I had my doubts when Olli claimed that the new version would be much better quality (inferred better than DVDShrink also), with no increase in transcoding time. I was relieved when I saw that 1.8.2.4 did indeed analyze the whole DVD first and take a similar time as DVDShrink, but that seems to be missing from the release version of CloneDVD2...

Hi FordMan,

we never implemented a deep analysis in any of the CloneDVD versions.

@armin


i used to encode my movies with cce...which took a lot of time (read: several hours). With clonedvd comming close...i use it for most movies now.
But can you give me a small explenation what the difference is between Encoding(avi>mpeg2) and Transcoding (mpeg2>mpeg2).

I ask this because 1~2 years ago ecoding was the way to do it, now transcoding seems to be able to do it also. But i never read something on forums i visit about the difference between the methods.

does it work similar like xvcd/kvcd versus vcd? If i am correct they played with gop structures to improve quality at the same size.
(and some adjusted quantization structure....can't remember exactly anymore)

just curious



ps: i needed 40 minutes to transcode a 100minute movie including the burn at 2 speed.

Hello armin,

When I used the first sneak preview (1.8.2.4), I backed up one DVD and it "scanned" the DVD for 25 minutes and then allowed me to transcode it from DVD to hard drive, which took another 25 minutes. I thought it was doing a "deep analysis" like dvdshrink. I never used the trial for any other DVDs, so I didn't repeat the experience. When I used the final, it whipped right through a 7500 MB DVD in 21 minutes to write from DVD to hard drive. So, is this normal for the 2.0.4.1 version? If so, then perhaps I experienced an anomaly with a hard to read DVD with 1.8.2.4?

If not a deep/full analysis of all frames, then what is the mechanism that CloneDVD 2 utilizes to achieve greater quality than the 1.3 version?

Overall, it seems like a good product, and the title removal is second to none, and the new layer break removal, etc. is great. However, on the one DVD I tried today, DVDShrink 3.17 gave superior results, especially evident when zooming in with PowerDVD or on my DVD player connected to my TV. Olli seemed confident that this would exceed the quality of many of the trancoders on the market, so it seemed logical that some type of frame-by-frame analysis would be necessary, like in Instant Copy or DVD Shrink.

Is it somehow being analyzed more fully on the fly than in the 1.3 version to achieve geater quality, or does it just follow the original DVD's bit rate profile, which is what I seemed to observe by looking at the transcoding progress window...

I was trying to explain what seemed like different behavior from the 1.8.2.4 version, and your answer has at least told me that it should not have taken 50 minutes to scan and write the dvd to hard drive....

Quote:

I never used the trial for any other DVDs, so I didn't repeat the experience. When I used the final, it whipped right through a 7500 MB DVD in 21 minutes to write from DVD to hard drive. So, is this normal for the 2.0.4.1 version? If so, then perhaps I experienced an anomaly with a hard to read DVD with 1.8.2.4

The time the scanning process is taking depends on the VOB structure of the DVD you are trying to transcode. In very exceptional cases (for example my T2 Extras) there are thousands of different VOBs on the DVD, here the scanner takes up to 5 minutes and more. Probably this explains your experience.

Well, that's OK. The majority of this time is being consumed by the 2x writing.