I have been utilizing DVD Shrink for a about a month now and messing with various levels of compression in an effort to see at what point a level of compressin really becomes obvious in terms of poorer vido quality. I have a 57 inch widescreen , well calibrated hi-def RPTV and video quality is important to me. Its easy enough to split a movie to two discs to ensure a 1 to 1 backup but I am curious…just how much does compression impact image quality and at what percentage does it become obvious to the eye? For instance I have backed up Gladiator …movie only to one disc using DVD Shrink 2.3 and it has a fair amount of compression (dont remember exactly how much) but I can see virtually no image degradation on my RPTV when compared to the original. What are your observations based on experience? I suppose if one uses a big screen front projection system compression could be more obvious to the eye as usually the larger the screen the more compression artifacts show up. Do you typically find with a well mastered DVD transfer that at a particular level of compression things start to go down hill?
1st, most folks are getting better results with version 3.0 and auto-compression using the deep analysis. I’ve not seen ANY degradation going as far as 47% compression. This is with a JVC D-series 32" with 700 lines horizonatal and component video input.
I have 3.0 as well…For instance…The Matrix reloaded with 3.0
on automatic…if you ratio down the menus to almost still pictures the overall automatc result for the main movie then becomes 70. If one reauthors and cuts out end titles and crops the start frames you can get to 80. Probably not any visible difference so just go with the whole shebang I’d guess. I do like to keep menus wherever possible.
there’s no predetermined level of compression where u’ll start seeing differences in quality between the original and the shrunken version. it all depends on the source; if the source is difficult to transcode, u’ll notice differences at much lower levels of compression than something that’s easy to transcode.