Dvd Shrink out of memory?

vbimport

#1

I have just gotten an erro message from Shrink that I have never encountered:

Dvd Shrink encountered an error
Out of Memory
Not enough storage is available to process this command.

Any suggestions appreciated. T.I.A.


#2

I take it you are trying to decrypt this movie with DVDShrink? There are a lot of hits on Google that show this error when trying to decrypt newer movies.

You must know that Shrink is hopelessly outdated as a decryption program and will only work with those movies that have simple CSS protection. Granted, there are a lot of movies with nothing more, but [B]any [/B]advanced protection will stop DVDShrink.

Decrypt to the hard drive with DVDFab HD Decrypter, or BDlot ISO Master. Either are free to use. Then compress with Shrink if you want. BDlot rips to an ISO, but you can open ISO’s with Shrink directly by clicking Ctrl I.

If you are working with a new release, with a very new encryption scheme, you may have to use one of the commercial programs.


#3

[QUOTE=Kerry56;2606116]I take it you are trying to decrypt this movie with DVDShrink? There are a lot of hits on Google that show this error when trying to decrypt newer movies.

You must know that Shrink is hopelessly outdated as a decryption program and will only work with those movies that have simple CSS protection. Granted, there are a lot of movies with nothing more, but [B]any [/B]advanced protection will stop DVDShrink.

Decrypt to the hard drive with DVDFab HD Decrypter, or BDlot ISO Master. Either are free to use. Then compress with Shrink if you want. BDlot rips to an ISO, but you can open ISO’s with Shrink directly by clicking Ctrl I.

If you are working with a new release, with a very new encryption scheme, you may have to use one of the commercial programs.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reply. it was a mistake by me of using a Blu-Ray to Dvd file from DVD-Fab improperly.


#4

BDlot ISO Master will not work in DVD Shrink if the DVD is protected with the “oversized” thing that makes the DVD to appear in size of a Blu-ray disc.


#5

^@ Gummigutta

If you are working with a new release, with a very new encryption scheme, you may have to use one of the commercial programs.

And [B]any[/B] use of the DVDFab module of Blu ray to DVD is “improper” in my mind. :rolleyes: Woof what a dog of an addition to DVDFab that is.


#6

Why so, I have used it several times to add to my collection, as I have both Blu-Ray and non Blu-Ray players at home in different rooms and like the availability to play a movie in both players. I own the disk so what is the problem?


#7

My use of “improper” was just a play of words off your earlier comment durkinjt. Didn’t mean to imply anything illegal or illicit.

I’ve done some direct comparisons of conversions using DVDFab Blu ray to DVD [B]vs[/B] using the HC encoder in BD Rebuilder or AVStoDVD and there really[B] isn’t[/B] any comparison in quality of output. DVDFab’s mpeg2 encoder simply sucks in these test encodes.


#8

Kerry , I’m not working with any bluray yet but it’s good to have the information on how DVDFab works with bluray to DVD. Or that would be doesn’t work as it should.
I recently tested DVDFab’s Passkey Lite with H2cdimage & they worked Ok together.
I wonder how Passkey might work with DVDShrink . Although it probably wouldn’t work with bluray. If someone knows they can reply.
I do know DVDFab has a bluray passkey but the Lite is supposed to decrypt some bluray.


#9

I suppose really we’re back to the old argument regarding transcoding versus a full re-encode.

I don’t know for sure how it affects Blu-ray to DVD but I’d imagine given the amount of data that has to be disgarded that it’s even less likely that the existing motion vectors etc would be anyway close to being already optimised for such a drastic compression.

A full re-encode is therefore likely to be more important than ever for this type of compression and this is probably why Kerry has noticed such a drastic difference between the two methods.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#10

I don’t see how they could be using a transcoder to convert blu ray to dvd. Blu ray uses three different video codecs, H264, VC-1 and Mpeg2. Less than 25% are made using mpeg2 and that percentage is dropping rapidly, as it is the least efficient codec and leaves less room for the HD audio and extras. Going to dvd also means converting the resolution from 1080p to regular dvd resolutions and I don’t see how it can be done without completely reencoding the video.

So, whatever mpeg2 encoder they are using, they haven’t got the parameters set very well. If it is an in-house encoder, purposely built to get round licensing fees, they haven’t done a good job with it so far.
I’m not sure they have the expertise necessary to build one from scratch anyway.


#11

[QUOTE=Kerry56;2606277]I don’t see how they could be using a transcoder to convert blu ray to dvd. Blu ray uses three different video codecs, H264, VC-1 and Mpeg2. Less than 25% are made using mpeg2 and that percentage is dropping rapidly, as it is the least efficient codec and leaves less room for the HD audio and extras. Going to dvd also means converting the resolution from 1080p to regular dvd resolutions and I don’t see how it can be done without completely reencoding the video.
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re possibly looking at this from slightly different angle to me.

Apologies if you’re already aware of a lot of this but I thought you’d find it interesting.

Whether it’s transcoding or a full re-encode is in my mind not dependant on the software you’re using, the resolution, or the eventual codec, it depends on where you get the parameters from for the compression process and how they’re used.

Transcoding retains the existing motion vectors and compresses by re-quantising the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transformation) coefficients.

Quantisation is the process of lessening the accuracy of the bitstream to save data and you can set this at different levels for a corresponding variation in compression (which is basically what the ‘Q-value’ is that you sometimes see referred to, usually in connection with discussions regarding encoders).

The DCT coefficients describe an individual frame based on the macroblocks that make it up and the motion vectors determine the relative position of these macroblocks between frames.

As transcoding doesn’t recalculate the motion vectors they end up out of sync with the corresponding DCT coefficients.

This is the primary reason for the higher levels of pixelation or blocking for transcoded video compared to fully re-encoded video and is also why it’s more pronounced at higher levels of compression since the higher the compression, the more and more these values get out of sync.

Amongst other things a full re-encode generates new DCT coefficients and from these new motion vectors so these are always fully in sync which yields better quality as a result and this is especially noticeable with rapidly changing scenes.

Converting between codecs using transcoding algorithms is an example of format shifting transcoding.

What I’m not sure of is whether the methods used by DVDFab for Blu-ray to DVD fall into this category or not.

The change in resolution would require recalculation of the motion vectors but this, in theory, could be carried out in a number of ways so they could be transformed, or resampled or even completely recalculated from scratch.

If the existing values are processed or transformed in some way then it’s transcoding and that’s the reason for the lack of quality.

If they’re completely recalculated along with all the other relevant data then that’s re-encoding and the reason for the lack of quality as you say must be down to the settings.

Without knowing the exact methods used though it’s very difficult to speculate.

[B]Wombler[/B]


#12

Yes, I’m aware of how transcoders work, though mostly in mpeg2 programs like DVDShrink, CloneDVD or Rejig. But I was not aware of any conversion programs that would change codecs used in the video by simply requantising and not touch motion vectors. This would be a quick, though very dirty method. Do you know of any examples?

And I’m still not convinced on the resizing without a complete reencoding process. :slight_smile:


#13

I think we’re possibly talking about different things here. :confused:

I’m talking about re-encoding in relation to compression whereas I think you’re talking about re-encoding with regard to changing codec and that’s not really what I meant.

In fact they’re separate processes IMO but this is blurred by the fact that an all in one package such as DVDFab is doing both for a Blu-ray to DVD conversion.

I suppose in that context what I’m basically saying is that there are two ways of doing this, one is to transcode to compress then convert to DVD-Video and the other is to fully re-encode to compress then convert to DVD-Video.

The fully re-encoded version should be superior.

Again the requantisation I was referring to was in relation to the compression process and not in relation to a codec change.

As far as the motion vectors go I’m saying that they have to be either completely regenerated or processed in some way for a resolution change but I don’t see any reason why the existing motion vectors can’t be transformed if it’s just a codec change at the same resolution.

Apologies if that wasn’t entirely clear from what I said earlier.

I could have phrased that more clearly TBH. :rolleyes:

[B]Wombler[/B]


#14

Well, at least we’re waving at one another as we go flying past in this conversation. :bigsmile:


#15

[QUOTE=Kerry56;2606427]Well, at least we’re waving at one another as we go flying past in this conversation. :bigsmile:[/QUOTE]

LOL, we’re like motion vectors passing in the night, what with different time zones etc. :bigsmile::bigsmile:

TBH I really enjoy discussing this sort of stuff with you as you’ve considerable expertise in this area.

It’s not that often that we get to debate the really technical stuff but I find I very often learn something new from these conversations and it’s good to be able to feed off other people’s knowledge.

[B]Wombler[/B]