DVDFab picture quality

vbimport

#1

Hi!

I like the user-friendly interface of DVDFab Platinum, but when I compare the picture quality to DVD Shring or Nero Recode, DVDFab is noticably worse! Especially with higher compression rates, the other programs win clearly.

So I’m asking myself why DVDFab Platinum does not have the advanced compression optins of DVD Shrink? Especially the “Deep Analysis” and the “High Quality” options of DVD Shrink and Nero Recode make a dramatic difference in the picture quality.

Also, Nero Recode is full of nice options like displaying the video format, large preview with sound, video trimming, menu reauthoring, etc. DVDFab is lacking all those features!

Maybe you could improve the product to match the competitors?

Thx!


#2

Well, Dr. Crane, I agree with you about the preview window improvements for DVDFab, but on some of the other points I have a different opinion.:slight_smile: I have used both DVDFab and Shrink extensively and really can’t see much if any improvement with the two pass compression in Shrink. In fact at abrupt scene changes (day to night, indoors to out, when it should look best) the adaptive error compensation in DVDShrink actually looks worse to my eyes. I am watching on a fast response 17" 1440x900 LCD monitor, which is more pixels per square inch than most displays. Fab now has re-author capabilities (Merge), batch conversion to MPEG-4 and constantly updated decryption that neither of the other two offer. Recode is powerful but could never be a one software solution for making backups of DVDs, the ostensible purpose of Shrink and Fab. I guess different features will be important to different users based on needs and preferences. And I would expect that the feature list of DVDFab will continue to expand, given all that has been added since version 3 came out. I sometimes wonder if Fengtao doesn’t work 24/7. No, it’s not perfect, but on a features per dollar basis Fab is hard to beat.:slight_smile:


#3

I’m watching on a 300" screen with a beamer (1366x768) and there is definitely a quality difference (e.g. artefacts) for higher compression values (settings of 85 and below). So why not add the option for 2-pass reencoding? This way, everybody could choose the preferred method. Also, trimming the video clips should not be hard to implement and is extremely useful for saving space on the DVD!

Recode is an all in one solution if you couple it with AnyDVD, by the way. It just has some strange aspects, like not supporting to import disc images or the fact that it analyzes and reencodes even if the source material already fits on the target DVD…

Regards!


#4

No argument if you will agree that your viewing setup is enviably above what could be considered the norm!:bigsmile: You can trim clips in Fab rather coarsely using the chapter marks–sometimes useful for shortening end credits. Re: Recode–If you have to couple it with something, it is not an all in one solution:) . I use Premiere Pro occasionally but have never tried Recode. What I have always wanted (and what Fab is becoming) is DVDShrink with updated decryption. Before I bought Fab I looked at everything that was then available, read the forums, and decided this had the best chance of becoming what I wanted. It’s not there yet, but I really think it will get a lot closer if we have a little patience and support the developers. My best to Lillith.:bigsmile:


#5

IMO , I don’t think ripping has much to do about quality then the Backup and burn process…I use Fab for the ripping, and DVDRB for the quality of my backups…
But I’m not seeing what OP is seeing ,to each his own…


#6

Hi, I’m listening! :wink:

Sorry, but I calculated my screen size incorrectly - it actually is 150" - still pretty big for a home theater.

BTW: Lillith is out of town on a conference :wink:

Regards!


#7

You might want to consider trying out DVD Rebuilder if you want a better looking output. Or use DL discs.


#8

DVD Rebuilder (with CCE encoder) takes extremely long to compress the DVDs and does not produce so much better results to justify the long wait. Only for very high compression rates (quality settings of 70% or below), there’s a noticable improvement when using CCE.

The best compromise between conversion length and picture quality seems to be the two pass method used by DVD Shrink and Nero Recode. At least that’s what I found out by doing various tests with the different programs.

Regards!


#9

That’s your opinion!! Those that use DVD Rebuilder beg to differ… :disagree:
IMO there is noticable diff. when using CCE as well as HCEnc… over nero or shrink, IMO… I for one don’t mind the longer process for the quality output.And with today’s faster CPU’s, it’s getting better yet…


#10

I agree. If you want quality then DVD Rebuilder is the way to go with shrinking. DVD Shrink or Recode won’t hack it anymore. I can spot a DVD Shrinked DVD a mile away.


#11

Dear all,

DVD Rebuilder-like function is on our to-do list, but it’s not high priority. We don’t think many people need this, since the current transcoder quality is good for 60-inch or smaller TVs.

If you can afford a very big TV, I suggest you buy DL disc and use “Clone” to make perfect copies.

Best Regards,
Fengtao


#12

I’ll be interested in seeing that implimented fengtao! :clap:


#13

But we need very good reason to do that, since it’s a lot of work, we must do job for customers as more as possible. I really think DVD Rebuilder is for video gurus.


#14

“Very big TVs” today are home cinema projectors, and they are not expensive at all. So I’d suggest not to make the mistake to think that your customers don’t need or appreciate high quality…

As always: the best is just good enough…

Regards!


#15

Without adroit upscaling (and high bitrate encoding in the original) the DVD format itself is barely adequate for really large (>60" screens). In my opinion.


#16

I don’t at all mean to go off topic as i realise that this is the DVDfab forum.

I use DVDfab for my ripping using the DL settings to disable the transcoder, then I use DVD-RB with CCE Basic for my compression, I’ve never had an issue with quality. However, as fengtao pointed out, if you want perfect quality, use clone mode with DL discs. it’s not like they’re that pricey.


#17

Fengtao, I’m very exited to hear such news of DVD Rebuilder like functions. Do you think this is something we may see before the end of the year?


#18

Maybe on older CPU but modern CPU makes encoders a viable choice for even impatient users. See these comparisons done by some doom9.org members:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=970400#post970400
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=975525#post975525

As for image quality, this basic blind test showed that most people tested preferred the image quality of 2-pass CCE basic edition vs popular transcoding programs.

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=624299&postcount=1


#19

The image quality test you linked to is two years old last month and used what is now outdated and unsupported software. It would be interesting to 1) see the DVD he made and 2) re-do the test using DVDFab and some of the other current “one clicks”.


#20

As the OP stated:

Then I think such a comparison test is still perfectly valid as development for the major encoders/transcoders has not managed to improve image quality by any large amount since that test. As stated above, [B]FrasierCrane[/B] thinks the [B]current DVDFab[/B] is worse than the [I][B]‘outdated and unsupported’[/B][/I] DVDshrink :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: