CloneDVD and PSNR



To the smart folks,

Nero claims that Recode does a better job at transcoding by about 822 PSNR (37843 vs 37021). Do you know if PSNR is a linear or log function? I compared CloneDVD with the latest Recode and see NO difference between the two at normal magnification. True, Recode is faster.

At what PSNR delta level will one be able to see a difference in visual quality?


Don’t trust a marketing sheet. In the test of PC-Magazine 1/2005 CloneDVD was “Winner” against all “Shrink” tools. Picture Quality was identical with Nero Recode.
Speed was slightly slower than Recode’s “Fast” mode (CloneDVD 10:52, Recode 9:58), but more than 3 times faster than Recode’s “high quality” mode (37:42). Don’t forget the 1-2 minutes, that Recode needs to “scan”, so CloneDVD is in fact faster.


@ Ollie,

They must have magnified the picture and analyse individual frame to do the comparison, cause I CANNOT see ANY performance gain with Recode! I’m not sure if the average person could see the marginal changes among “shrink tools” at regular magification and speed. Per the ad, the improvement from Recode’s fast to high quality mode is only several PSNRs. I kinda suspect that PSNR is a linear comparison and the actual difference in video quality is not visible under normal viewing condition.

With my system, Shrink 3.2 is a little faster than CloneDVD when copying the main movie with AC 3/6 and NO compression. When transcoding, CloneDVD has the edge.

If I don’t need to compress, then I use CloneDVD. I prefer to use Shrink when compressing. Yes, it’s slower than CloneDVD. But with Shrink, I can remove the non-movie materials at the beginning and end of the main video title. These few minutes of unwanted materials will DEFINITELY improve the picture quality of the “shrink” DVD.


I assume it is not visible at all. I won’t accuse them of a lie, (cough, cough) but this is a marketing paper. What do you expect?
I can do the same:
“CloneDVD is the fastest program with the best picture quality”.
Some would probably disagree, but this is no lie, if I can set the test conditions myself. I hope you got my point.
In the test of PC magazine January 2005 CloneDVD has beaten Nero Recode and 7 other tools, including Instant Copy 8, InterVideo DVD Copy 2, PowerDVD Copy and Roxio Easy DVD Copy.
And in this test, I did not set the test conditions. :wink:


I’m going to the local library to check out the article tomorrow. I really don’t put a lot of faith behind those tests. The important thing is which program works best with MY 600 MHz PIII SYSTEM!!!

So here’s my unoffical SHOOTOUT. I’m going to backup Matrix Revolutions with CloneDVD 4.5.51, latest Recode 2.x/AnyDVD, and Shrink 3.2 using my 600 MHz PIII with 384 MB RAM and a clean W2K Pro partition.

1st ROUND…copy the main movie title with AC 3/6 sound to a DVD-5 at 81% video quality.

-Creating DVD files…39 min 52 sec
-CPU load…100%

Nero Recode (no detailed analysis, high priority)
-Creating DVD files…29 min 21 sec (analysing 2:15, encoding 27:06)
-CPU load…100%

Shrink 3.2 (no detailed analysis)
-Creating DVD files…49 min 33 sec (analysing 2:14, encoding 47:19)
-CPU load…100%

It appears that Recode is QUICKEST for my system. Since I cannot “see” any quality differences among the three “shrink” proggies, I must rely on the processing time and ease of use. CloneDVD is VERY EASY to use!!! But Recode has a huge lead in processing time. Shrink is way behind the pack. I would expect better performance from Shrink 3.2 since Recode 2.x is just a tweaked version of Shink.

2nd ROUND…copy the main movie title with AC 3/6 sound to a DVD-5 at 100% video quality (no transcoding). To accomplish this, I copy chapter 1 to chapter 27.

-Creating DVD files…14 min 19 sec

Nero Recode
-Creating DVD files…12 min 53 sec (analysing 2:15, encoding 10:38)

Shrink 3.2
-Creating DVD files…12 min 59 sec (analysing 2:14, encoding 10:45)

We actually see the true heritage of Recode in these tests. With the transcoder disabled, the processing time for Shrink and Recode is almost identical! The MAJOR improvement in Recode happens when the transcoder is ACTIVE. CloneDVD is about 1 min 20 sec slower.

I expect to see similar results with a faster PC, although the gaps between 1st and 3rd place will be much smaller. Also note that these tests were performed with a clean install of W2K Pro SP1 with DirectX 9C.

All three proggies provide identical video quality at regular speed and magnification. Recode is the clear winner when shrinking the original material to fit a DVD-5 disc. It also ties for 1st when backing up uncompressed material. Newbies can’t go wrong with CloneDVD. Tweakers may want to check out Recode.

Oh yeah…el cheapos should DEFINITELY check out Shrink 3.2. It should work with most if not all older CSS protected DVDs. You only need to run AnyDVD in the background if you’re backing up DVDs with the latest encryption protocol.

I welcome any suggestions and/or comments.



At this time, my primary DVD backup program is still CloneDVD. It’s not the quickest, but it has the BEST and MOST responsive support.

Two thumbs up for Ollie!


@ furballi

What motherboard are you using?


Asus mfr for HP. 133 FSB. Don’t remember the model number cause it’s been so long.


I’m not sure if you are into ungrading? A Pent 600 is rather getting old. Have you ever heard of a company called PowerLeap? Most people dont want to upgrade because of the money it will cost to upgrade the motherboard, processor and memory.

I have read where you stated that you have the PIII 600 with 384megs of mem, and it keeps making me remember a system I had for awhile and it was maxed out and could not be upgraded any further with a PIII 700 with 384 megs, it was a Abit motherboard.

I found this website PowerLeap where they have designed a convertor that can take the motherboard higher, I bought the 1.2 and OC’ed it to 1.5, going from a 700 to 1.5 is a really nice improvement

I used that one with my old Plexwriter 8/4/32 for burnign CD’s and when I have a LAN party at the house, It runs really good, and worth the upgrade because it was just collecting dust with only a PIII 700 in it, I am really a Gamer and I need the power


Yes, the 600 MHz is a DOG. I design and build PC for fun. Just don’t see the need for a fast computer, yet. I’m not a gamer, so FPS and hyper-speed aren’t important variables. The proggies running in the background are ZA Pro 4.5.594 and an email AV scanner. Don’t need real-time AV protection. The only hint of a slow PC is when I transcode a DVD movie.

I would say that my DVD fab time is about average. Since my CPU load was @ 100% during all three “compression” tests, one can only conclude that Recode uses a very fast and efficient transcoding engine. On poorly coded software, the program may slow to a crawl if the CPU load hits 100%.

Note that Recode will use more RAM than CloneDVD. Still, my peak memory load remains under 200 MB. Perhaps you could checkout the latest Recode 2 and post your review. This program requires DirectX 9a or higher to operate. I haven’t seen any issue with Recode, yet.

CloneDVD is still KING because of the fabulous support by Ollie.


@ ollie,

Went to the library to check out PC-Magazine 1/2005. Still nothing about the various shrink programs. Are you sure about the month? Can you give me the page number?



German PC-Magazin, Pages 94 and following.


Ahhh…nothing in the US. Thanks!