I am impressed

Test: DVD Shrink 3.1.7 vs. Elby Clone DVD 2

I cloned the discs like it is… all subpictures, all audio…(there are
no extras on this disc!)
I only let analyse shrink and clone the dvd and didn’t made any changes.

Both programs where telling 54.8% quality

Clone DVD needed 46 min. to read and 15min to burn (4x)

Shrink needed 1 hour and 15 min. (with deep analyses)
(burned with clone 15min)

There was no difference between the two discs exactly the
same quality, but Clone DVD2 was half an hour faster.

Of course you can see a difference to the original DVD
because of the heavy compression!

I would recommend not to go under 60% (quality), if you are under leave away some not needed material (audios, extras)

(I guess the maximum Shrink allows you is 50% then you have
to leave some extras, with clone DVD you could still do a full
Copy if Shrink already doesn’t allow you to do but the quality
is of course not like the original)

Elby Clone DVD 2 could be the new number one,
it’s faster than shrink with same quality and it has it’s own
burning engine.

Only advantage of Shrink is that it is Freeware.

greetz
Frisk

Originally posted by frisk
[B]Test: DVD Shrink 3.1.7 vs. Elby Clone DVD 2

Clone DVD needed 46 min. to read and 15min to burn (4x)

Shrink needed 1 hour and 15 min. (with deep analyses)
(burned with clone 15min)

There was no difference between the two discs exactly the
same quality, but Clone DVD2 was half an hour faster.

Elby Clone DVD 2 could be the new number one,
it’s faster than shrink with same quality and it has it’s own
burning engine.

[/B]

Hi Frisk,

armin confirmed that CloneDVD does not have a “deep analysis” mode, so that’s why DVD Shrink takes longer. On my test of a particular DVD, CloneDVD took only 21 minutes to read and write directly from DVD-ROM to hard drive, and DVD Shrink took approximately that time to analyze + an equal amount of time to write to hard drive, for a total of 42 minutes. Using the “digital zoom” of PowerDVD and after burning, the zoom on my DVD player, I concluded that DVD Shrink was less pixelated. I agree that at normal viewing, the quality was indistiguishable, but on the zoom view, DVD Shrink looked better for low bitrate transcodes. If you look at the transcoding windows while CloneDVD transcodes, it appears it gets its speed by following the original DVD’s bitrate profile. It would seem logical that the same profile would be optimal for a lower bitrate, but DVD Shrink takes the agressive approach of re-analyzing each and every frame to determine the optimal bitrate for a particular frame at reduced bitrate.

Ford Man

I did a new Test yesterday

Star Wars - Episode 2 (RC2)

Full Clone (all subtitles, audios and extras) using:
DVD2one 1.4
Elby Clone DVD 2
DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 (1x without, 1x with Deep Analyse)
DVDShrink 3.0 Beta 5

Total size =6325MB / Quality ~60% (small diff. between Shrink and Clone DVD because they handle the extras diffrent)

DVD2one total time for writting to HD = 40min.
Elby Clone total time for writting to HD = 40min.
DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 without Deep Analyse = 40min.
DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 with Deep Analyse= 1 hour 18 min.
DVDShrink 3.0 Beta 5 without Deep Analyse = 39min

Then I examined the results using Power DVD Digital Zoom
4x and 9x

With 4times zoom you can see no difference between all
transcoded versions

With 9times zoom you can see differences.

Shrink using DA brings slightly better quality in parts of the
movie but in other parts it’s worser than DVD2one or Clone
DVD2.

Not viewing whole the movies but only the parts where all transcoders show bad quality
with 9x Digital zoom I come to the following conclusion.

The winner is DVD2one closly followed by Elby Clone DVD2,
only on third position DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 using Deep Analyses,
and finally the other two Shrink versions both with same quality
and both only slightly bader than using Shrink with Deep Analyses!

So everybody can use what Programm ever he/she prefers
they all give you the same quality copies/clones.

All I would recommend is not to go under the 60% quality barrier
else quality might be poor in part of the movies and visible if you
watch your movie on the TV.

Hope this is helpful for somebody

Frisk

Thanks for reporting Frisk…
It would be nice to have some screenshots…
For example… zoom 9X at bad quality scene observed… with CloneDVD2, DVDshrink 3.1.7 D.A. …:bigsmile:

How can I add pictures?

Originally posted by frisk
[B]I did a new Test yesterday

Total size =6325MB / Quality ~60% (small diff. between Shrink and Clone DVD because they handle the extras diffrent)

Then I examined the results using Power DVD Digital Zoom
4x and 9x

With 4times zoom you can see no difference between all
transcoded versions

With 9times zoom you can see differences.

Shrink using DA brings slightly better quality in parts of the
movie but in other parts it’s worser than DVD2one or Clone
DVD2.

Not viewing whole the movies but only the parts where all transcoders show bad quality
with 9x Digital zoom I come to the following conclusion.

The winner is DVD2one closly followed by Elby Clone DVD2,
only on third position DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 using Deep Analyses,
and finally the other two Shrink versions both with same quality
and both only slightly bader than using Shrink with Deep Analyses!

So everybody can use what Programm ever he/she prefers
they all give you the same quality copies/clones.

All I would recommend is not to go under the 60% quality barrier
else quality might be poor in part of the movies and visible if you
watch your movie on the TV.

Hope this is helpful for somebody

Frisk [/B]

Good analysis Frisk,

On the movie I compared with DVDShrink 3.1.7.6 and CloneDVD 2.0.4.1, I compensated for the lack of full title removal in DVD Shrink by adding the projected extra(s) size to the output size (i.e., oversized the DVD), then used titlesetblanker to remove them from the final output, arriving at 4.37GB, the max for my DVD+R blanks. There’s a good possibility that the lower quality (in some areas) that you saw with DVD Shrink is due to the extras being kept as “still pictures,” which usually STILL take up several hundred megabytes, which could be better used toward video quality.

So, in my analysis of DVDShrink and CloneDVD2 on the particular DVD (The Hot Chick), DVD Shrink was better than CloneDVD in ALL areas I looked at 9X (I too didn’t view the entire movie, but 5 minute clips at a time, skipping randomly through the movie).

Granted, CloneDVD2’s title removal and speed are second to none, and at normal viewing (27" TV anyway) the results are indistinguishable. I recall one DVD I made with high compression (50%) looked fine on my 27" TV, but really BAD on my friend’s Mitsubishi HDTV projector (onto a 7 foot wide area on a wall). That’s basically equivalent to “zooming in.”

Regarding your recommendation to NOT go under 60% ratio, that is not the important figure. The BIT RATE is the important figure. If you have a movie that is “maxed out” throughout the movie at 10 megabits per second, then 50% looks EXCELLENT, even 40% looks great! At 40%, you still have 4 megabits per second, which many original DVDs are encoded at! Two examples of this case: “Schindler’s List” and “The Ten Commandments.” Both were released as two discs (or a flipper in the case of Schindler’s List), and each side/disc is DVD-9 dual layer, and the bit rate is really high…

When I backup a DVD, I briefly look at the “average” bit rate of the movie and extras, and then decide (if using DVD Shrink) how much compression to apply to each. For instance I had one DVD where the movie was originally at 5 megabits per second, but the extras were up around 8 megabits per second! Since I would always rather apply more compression to extras (make them watchable at just acceptable quality), I chose to set the movie ratio to 90% and the extras to something like 45%. As a result, the transcoded movie was around 4.5 Mb/s and the extras around 3.6 Mb/s, acceptable quality for BOTH, resulting in the “best of both worlds.” When using DVDShrink, I ALWAYS choose to leave my menus uncompressed. In my opinion, this is one area where CloneDVD is really lacking. On “The Hot Chick,” CloneDVD 2.0.4.1 chose to apply NO compression to the music video in the extras, even though it had a pretty high bit rate to begin with. I made this conclusion by looking at the transcoding profile compared to the original bitrate while viewing a snapshot of the current frames being encoded. For the menu, movie and the remainder of the extras, CloneDVD 2.0.4.1 seemd to apply the same ratio to all. It seems that CloneDVD2 simply follows the original bit rate profile, trusting that it was best for the original, so it should be for the transcoded version…

I must say I’m really surprised to hear you think DVD2One came out best. According to comments on http://www.dvdrhelp.com most think that DVDShrink or CloneDVD2 are better… For sure DVD2One doesn’t have enough options.

So, to each his own, as you stated. If CloneDVD ever allows individual compression, perhaps I could abandon DVDShrink for good, but for now DVDShrink combined with titlesetblanker is much more versatile.

Ford Man