When I released this thread on the forum, I knew that I would get a variety of answers, which is what I was looking for. I had some preconceived notions, but didn't want to mention them up front. Mostly, what you all have said confirmed them:
1) CloneDVD is significantly faster than Shrink at compressing.
2) Shrink can do some editing in Reauthor mode that CloneDVD cannot.
One think I'm still wondering, that I didn't see in your replies (and maybe I missed it; I'm reading this pretty late...sorry), is how CloneDVD does at higher rates of compression? Maybe now that +R DL disks are starting to drop in price a tiny bit, this won't be such an issue for me much longer, but for now it is. I have, on occasion, used Shrink to compress movies to 60% of original. I have some episodic TV shows where they put eight 30-minute eps on the disk, so I had to use a lot of compression. The results are okay, certainly watchable, but I was wondering, do those of you who do a fair amount of compressing--like I said, around 60%--find that CloneDVD produces a highly-compressed disk w/less artifacting and flaws than Shrink?
It also sounds like "different tools for similar jobs". As an analogy, I'm an avid do-it-yourselfer around the house. I have a lot of tools, basically because I enjoy having choices and each tool has its strengths. For example, I have 3 circular saws. One is a big honkin' worm-drive saw that could chew thru a railroad tie, and yet could still cut trim if I wanted to. At the other end is a small trim saw, which definitely could not cut a railroad tie, but does a swell job on trim.
I guess it's the same here--Shrink does certain things very well, esp those things which CloneDVD can't do (yet). But CloneDVD does what it does quite well, and faster. It looks to me like a simple case of having more tools. Goody! :bigsmile: