Shrink - different sizes in Re-author menu and final backup?

Right, I re-author something with DVDShrink. Total size in re-author screen is, say, 4444MB (greenie greenie bar). I backup it to an ISO or a folder in my HD. Final size is, say… 4493MB. Not good - doesn’t fit a regular disc, have to start all over again.

What gives ? Can I avoid this discrepancy between the size in re-author screen and the actual final size of the backup ? Am I missing something ?

Thanks :slight_smile:

NEVER seen this happen before. You sure there wasn’t already a small glitch of red when you dropped the titles in the re-author pane?

It’s happens to me every once in a while, have no idea what causes it. I just shrink the files again (just the menus and extras) to a new directory. I usually don’t mind b/c the processing takes very little time as the files are on the hard disk (much faster) and there isn’t that much compression going on during the second shrink. Never takes more than 15 mins.

Adict

This happens to all transcoders from time to time. They only do one pass, so the “guesstimate” of how much compression they can get does, in some rare cases, end up off by a tiny bit.

Chetwood - nope, it was 4444MB. Greener than the Green Goblin in Greenville and all painted in green. Tried removing further small titles which aren’t needed, but a size inconsistency of a few MB keeps happening.

Gurm - I’m actually not using compression/transcoding on this one. Just removing the stuff I don’t need and keeping a couple of titles intact as they are. Hence :confused:

Reckon this might be a weird bug or something ? Using v3.2.0.15 .

That is where Deep Analysis comes in. While it helps Shrink to find where to compress and by how much. It also make disc size estimation more accurate. I have seen other similar posts but, I never had a oversize in all the time I have used Shrink.

It COULD be an obscure math bug or something that only pops up on some systems? I’m grasping at straws here. Lots of people have never seen this problem, but lots of us have. It’s not the NORM, by any means.

In any case, that shouldn’t apply to uncompressed data - or so I assume.

But wait, it gets better.

So after some more fiddling to get rid of minor needless bits (but always keeping everything uncompressed) I got a few MB smaller, enough to result in a beautiful final image (MDS) backup just 1MB under the 4700xxxxxx size :clap:

I open that same backup image in DVDShrink… drums… now DVDShrink reports a disc with 4481MB in Full Disc mode, i.e. 16MB larger than it actually is. If I were to perform a backup with Shrink from this backup, I’d have to compress something or delete something from it again :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue:

Maybe I’m stupid, maybe I’m just missing something still, but at this point I can only assume there’s something about file systems… clusters… file formats… and maybe a potential weird calculation bug as suggested… going on here.

I guess it’s rather a problem of windows explorer which displays the file size on another basis or something. So 4464 MB is shown as 4,46 GB and not 4,36 GB. I always use Total Commander so I don’t run into this problems. And oh yes, I completely forgot about to mention, I always use Deep Analysis so my rips always come out properly sized.

HOWEVER, when you say you rip uncompressed than nothing of what we are saying here applies cause on uncompressed rips shrink CAN’T miscalculate. BTW, anyone is the ISO of a DVD always the same size as it’s contents? Maybe there’s some overhead that makes a difference and/or the fact that you’re ripping to a multipart iso on a FAT32 partition has some effect?

Just to correct my own bogus post above, 4481MB is, naturally, 4699xxxxxx bytes ( :stuck_out_tongue: ). I was thinking about Shrink’s “green” bar which uses a size of 4464MB, circa 18MB below the size of an ordinary single layer disc in pre-backup calculations - but which then proceeds to display differently in the final backup, seemingly Shrink not taking into account whatever extra size the actual files need as per the DVD file system and/or extra title headers or whatever, or simply mis-calculating them due to a possible bug.

Doesn’t the DVD Shrink guy post here then ? :wink: