Unfortunately, the language escapes me! Perhaps you could translate?
The pictures show a close run thing between CCE and IC, plus a similar equivalence between DVD2One and DVD95. Presumably this stems from the similar techniques used by both pairs of programs. It might also be expected given that the first two re-encode and the second two compress.
Interesting, though. Thanks.
If you want an opinion as to which is better I have none.
With all due respect to mr bass who I know to be a serious contributor to the scene I honestly beleive any differences you may see between the shots are so small they are invincible when the movie is playing. And personally I watch movies playing 25 fps - not frame by frame. I would also like to point out that all shots are taken from the same movie - testing one movie only is not enough to make any testing worth anything. What may look best in one movie may look opposite in another movie. Not to mention that screenshots is not really a very good way to determine quality because the quality of the screenshots depends on the application used when taken them and how it interprets the picture when it took the screenshot. Not to mention the effect from the jpg engine that compresses the picture. Its quite possible to have 2 screenshots where a looks better than b - but when playing the movie in a liveenvironment b might just as well look better than a. Not to mention you only see a few shots from a very long movie - but a movie is not a static thing - its contantly in motion - you could imagine taking 10 screenshots in some other parts of the movie and the result between the engines could be completely different. One engine could be better in one spot where another engine could be better at another spot in the movie.
Like allways I prefer dvd2one for 2 simple reasons - speed, simplicity and reliability - oh that was 3 reasons Nothing beats the speed of dvd2one and you still get acceptable quality - atleast I have NEVER had a bad result with dvd2one. Sure I can do better using my old methods with cce - but thats beside the point as it requires so much more in work and time that for me the difference in quality is not worth the extra time spent. I have allways felt that If I need the best possible quality - then I just watch the original dvd. Simplicity - I like software that does not need a bunch of fancy bs - keep it simple and it will allways work.
Reliability - dvd2one has NEVER failed on me yet - not once. My bulletproof route - rip full backup with smartripper, and let dvd2one do its magic.
So what do I think of a test that requires me to watch 3 different screenshots several times before I can determine which I like better - well nothing really - when watching the movie I simply dont have time to play the same frame 3 times over in order to try and find an error in some pixel some place. If the quality is acceptable when I watch the movie - then Im happy. I might add that not once has anyone that has watched movies at my place been able to tell they were not watching the original.
To sum it all up - I dont think this kind of testing says anything really and people can choose whatever they want.
Besides - what was the point in your post to begin with if I may be just a litle blunt ? This is a forum to talk about dvd2one - a place to get help with dvd2one if you need - nothing else really. Allthough it was interesting enough to see the test I dont see any relevance for posts regarding ic7 or dvdcopy95 or comparison between them in this particular forum as that has nothing specific to do with dvd2one. This post would fit better in one the more general forums imho
update/edit: Overlook the last part of my message as I see the post was actually moved to the general forum while I was writing this
Here is a comparison (German) between DVD2One 1.1.3, DVD Shrink, DVD X Copy Xpress and Pinnacle Instant Copy.
The Conclusion is that DVD2One is among the best due to very good video quality and usability. But the testers were not really happy with it because the Output ALWAYS was too large to fit on a DVD-R if they used the 4472 MByte setting.
Sorry, forgot the link:
Thanks for the info.
Their results showing DVD2One’s output being ‘always’ too large puzzles me. In my own experience, apart from ‘unusual’ discs, usually ones having lots of little VOBs, the output has been unerringly accurate.
In fact, of the many DVDs I have processed, I think there have only ever been two discs that exceeded the upper limit of a DVD. (And I always leave DVD2One’s maximum setting at 4472!)
Just shows you can’t always believe what you read, eh?
Remember that 1KB == 1024 bytes
1MB == 1024KB
and 1GB == 1024MB
thus 4472MB == 4.367GB!
I’m sorry. Your point is…?
those 2 links are from the original thread HERE
it contains a little more info on the 2 comparisions
basically it all depends on the viewers eye for quality and the setup that he has to view it on
A lot of DVD2One users will compare it’s quality to that of IC and even CCE. This is their fair opinion but when viewed on a setup capable of showing the difference and having the difference pointed out (if they don’t see it for themselves) they will on most occasions change their opinions
some people just plainly ain’t fussed about quality and some are and this is how you get differences of opinion as some regard certain images as acceptable whereas others don’t
even these snapshot comparisions can have differences of opinion cos even monitors can hide the ‘true’ differences
I have viewed these same pics on 4 monitors & a TV out and my TFT using DVI showed the greatest difference, yet a friends 17" monitor hardly showed any
I just wish the people with monitors or TV’s that hold back on the differences didn’t get upset when others, such as myself, disagree when they say the likes of DVD2One etc is comparable to the quality of IC & CCE cos it ain’t in the vast majority of cases
as for that Tom’s Hardware comparision, the 1st one with the Universal Logo ain’t even the same frames so how on earth can that be a fair comparision
I noticed a few more dubious parts but I’ll leave it at that
does IC re-encode audio ??
No, it doesn’t.