DVDFab Vs 'The Competition'

I’m posting the following screenshots, both to ellicit comments from the people here, and to alert Fengtao about a small Fab problem.

Last weekend, I picked up a copy of Get Smart from a local flea market (good prices to be had!) and I’ve just gotten around to backing it up. Since I had somew time to blow, I decided to try a little experiment (and with a recent post from I-forget-who who was asking if he needed to decrypt again discs he had already decrypted), I started to play.

The first screenshot is DVDFab’s take on the disk prior to ripping.

I then proceeded with the rip, and used Imgburn to put it on DVD, and did another take of the copy using Fab again, with the following result:

Everything seems to be taken care of, except for the unplayable cells (there are a total of 190 in the list) which show up on both the original disc and the copy. If this is a false reading, which one is… the original or the copy? Or neither. Or both?

Since I was in one of my moods, I said to myself, let’s see how the competition fares under the same light…so I did the same original with ‘the competition’ (the one with the Red Fox icon), using CloneDVD as the copying program and file compressor, and burned it again with Imgburn, and got the following result:

So for all of those contemplating a purchase, and leaning towards the ‘Red Fox’, please note what Fab found still sitting on the (decrypted) disc done by the ‘Red Fox’.

To not skew this too much, I also did a check using the ‘Red Fox’, and its check agrees with Fab’s in all essentials. (I’m not going to post that screenshot, as, after all, this is the DVDFab Forum).

To all those with questions about the playability of the discs, they all play just fine in my PC and all 5 stand-alones here at home.

Maybe Fengtao should see this?

O’C

DVDFab [B]Vs ‘The Competition’ :confused:[/B]
why that title for the thread ? who is the Competition :confused: the problematic disc is Get Smart :bigsmile:

[QUOTE=StormJumper;2224533]DVDFab [B]Vs ‘The Competition’ :confused:[/B]
why that title for the thread ? who is the Competition :confused: the problematic disc is Get Smart :bigsmile:[/QUOTE]

Actually, Tim, Get Smart isn’t the problem… it copies and plays back just fine… what I wanted to draw attention to is the fact that Fab, before the initial rip, shows unplayable cells present on the original, and also shows them as removed.

Yet, on the copy, Fab still shows those unplayable cells as being there, and shows them as being removed, again…didn’t actually do a second rip of the copy to see if that would eliminate them…

I also showed the results of the rip done by ‘The Red Fox icon’, as I read a couple of days ago a comment by someone who was complaining about the lack of Blu-Ray support in Fab, despite its being advertised, and his parting comment was that he was going to buy the ‘Red Fox icon’ program… in case anyone else read that comment, and was thinking along the same lines, I just wanted to demonstrate that the ‘Red Fox’ seems to have its problems, too.

Plus, I think Fengtao should be aware of this problem with Fab, too… even if it’s not high on his priority list…

O’C

:slight_smile:

If this wasn’t posted in this Forum, I would have asked you to try another program, but I can’t, oh well.

No ripping software is perfect. This is why I never rip and burn. After a rip, I always check every little thing with PgcEdit.

I think maybe this is a byproduct of maintaining file readability for DVDShrink and possibly some other apps. When PathPlayer was introduced (possibly the AI Scanner in foxy also?) I don’t think this happened but Shrink choked on the rips. Changes were made in the way Fab dealt with unplayable cells and all was fine. This was almost two years ago and I may have this issue confused with something else, but there is fossil evidence of it in the release notes for DVDFab. I also rememeber (?) Fengtao addressing this in response to a question about it in the forum but I can’t find it. If all the backups play in standalones, what’s the diff? Everybody wins.

please read this thread, gets good at post 27
http://club.cdfreaks.com/f116/how-works-fvdfab-platinum-252394/index2.html#post2156223

[QUOTE=troy512;2225449]please read this thread, gets good at post 27
http://club.cdfreaks.com/f116/how-works-fvdfab-platinum-252394/index2.html#post2156223[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info…I read that thread with great interest…

As this is the DVDFb thread, in my initial post I stayed away from using too much of Brand X’s results, but it may be worth noting that said brand found (and removed) 4 unplayable cells.

The Fab listing of unplayable cells was 190 for the film before and after the Fab rip, the brand X rip took that total to 186, when analysed by Fab.

I also found it interesting that the last post of the above referenced thread (by yourself) indicates that there were bugs associated with protection removal and reporting that would be addressed in the next release of Fab (relative to the date of that post).

Maybe those bugs have returned and should be re-addressed?

P.S. As SJ said near the end of that thread, results like that, if viewed by one facing a renewal fee for Fab, just might be enough to stop it from being paid…

O’C

:slight_smile:

did you turn to page 3?

dvdfab removes all protections and inserts empty information to keep dvd playback compatibility. dvdfab [and others] may recognize the empty information as protections. even though properly removed.

[QUOTE=troy512;2225567]did you turn to page 3?

dvdfab removes all protections and inserts empty information to keep dvd playback compatibility. dvdfab [and others] may recognize the empty information as protections. even though properly removed.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, Troy512 - I’d never read that thread before all the way through.

Some threads are good enough to bear trotting out at various times so people can see what was discussed and discovered about the software we all use. That thread is one of those.

O’C

:slight_smile: