Transcoder Quality

vbimport

#1

Hi Chaps,

I’m not really sure what sub forum to post this is, but I’m guessing this as been discussed before as when I searched the forum I found lots of threads on the topic. So, I’ll post it in the newbie forum as it’s a little bit of a newbie question.

Basically, I’m wonder out of DVD Shrink, CloneDVD2 and DVDfab - which has the best transcoder quality? Does anyone have a fancy link to a page that has comparison screen shots between the three (and other transcoders)?

From reading the 1ClickDVDCopy homepage they make it sound like they have the best engine, is this true? How does Nero recode stack up against them all?

I don’t mind dishing out cash on 1ClickDVDCopy or Nero recode if they really are that much better, but I already have DVDfab, CloneDVD2 and DVD Shrink.

Any advice welcome?


#2

save your cash…dvd shrink does a fine job…has been for 4 or 5 years now…can’t go wrong :slight_smile:


#3

I use DVD-RB for anything more than 80% compression, but it’s the 81-99% bracket I’m interested in.


#4

there are virtually no differences in quality…only difference is dvd fab and such come w/ built in copy protection schemes etc…get anydvd or ripit4me and away you go…i used shrink in its beta stages it still looks and works great…i use Nero recode Now(basically Dvd Shrink)


#5

There have to be some differences in quality :iagree:


#6

unless your watching your backups on a hd projector w/ a screen of 8 ft by 6 ft…there is no difference unless there is a super human keen eye for detail…i’ve only seen a few on a hd projector and a huge screen and i could see the difference in certain backups…but those backups also came from inferior master discs…ie…encoded w/ poor quality

let’s put it this way…there is a reason why dvd shrink is the #1 dvd copy utility in the world…:)…millions can’t be wrong


#7

DVD Shrink and Nero Recode are better in that they have advanced analysis of DVDs (and AEC), which both improve transcodes further over transcoders without those features. That also does mean longer transcoding times, although Nero Recode is quite fast even with the advanced functions turned on (and Recode is basically the updated version of DVD Shrink). You can get Nero Recode for free with many burners that come with an OEM copy of Nero Suite, or you can find that disc sold online for around $5.


#8

i agree…Recode is the best and the fastest…I don’t use anything else…

i can understand redoing a backup w/ rebuilder if it’s say…over 2 1/2 hours long but anything less is just wasting time…Recode is a phenomal app


#9

I agree for all practical puposes DVD Shrink does the fine job in Encoding, Ripping And Shrinking while maintaining the quality at best.


#10

Any reason not to use DVDRebuilder on the 81-90% movies too? Personally, I’ve gone almost entirely over to Rebuilder + CCE Basic for anything in that range (or more) compression. I just let it run overnight while I sleep.

I rarely use Shrink, unless it is a trivial amount of compression, even though I seldom see that many compression artifacts with it. It is simply hard to predict when and where I’ll want to take a movie with me, and some friends have some nice screens. Might as well get the very best copies I can make while I’m taking the trouble to make them.


#11

Nothing wrong with always using DVD-RB if time is not an issue.

I was a DVD Shrink user, then Recode came along and I used both, then I became a DVD RB user for most of my DVDs. The last few months I’ve moved to generally using DVD RB (with CCE) when [I]total[/I] disc content is over about 2hr 30min or so, and with discs with a shorter length of content I now usually use Recode. With longer length of content DVD RB really helps over transcoders (especially if you use custom Matrices and RB Optimizer to adjust the compression settings to different parts of content). I generally don’t see a large difference between DVD-RB and Recode when working with a DVD with a total length of around 2hr 15min or less (for Recode, I always turn on analysis and ‘two pass’, which is the equivalent of ‘max sharp’ in DVD Shrink). I keep menus of discs, but if they take up a large amount of space (50MB+) and I run the disc through DVD-RB, I’ll set the output size slightly larger than a SL disc and then I’ll shrink the menus afterwards in DVD Shrink to fit it to a SL disc. DVD-RB can also compress menus, but I often use still frames for certain parts of menus and DVD Shrink is very easy to use in that regard (there are also other utilities available for Menu Shrinking but I find DVD Shrink to work well for that purpose). Sounds a little confusing and there’s sometimes an additional step using my process, but it works well for getting the most out of the conversions.


#12

Or millions are less susceptible to the sort of artefacts introduced with excessive transcoding. In the same way, a lot of people are happy with 128kb MP3 encoded audio or lower bitrate WMA.

Also, it is free/extremely simple to use/very fast relative to other methods of size reduction.

I personally only use transcoding at very low reduction percentages as I find the artefacts introduced at higher percentages to be noticeable, even on standard size CRT.


#13

Or millions are less susceptible to the sort of artefacts introduced with excessive transcoding. In the same way, a lot of people are happy with 128kb MP3 encoded audio or lower bitrate WMA.

or they’re just not very picky…i’m not looking for artifacting unless its obvious…unless it pops in there…which in my case is quite rare

i would rather use a tested app like shrink(recode) and take say…20 minutes than use rebuilder just for the fact i don’t wanna wait 6 hours plus…i’ve used rebuilder quite a few times for longer backups and it does a good job…but recode has been great and fast for 4 years


#14

Doom9 has a few analyses that use mathematic analysis of the results, but the fact is that the entire process is subjective. For example, transcoding will often result in outputs that are, in some ways, more mathematically similar to the original since they don’t even touch a certain percentage of the bitstream, but a significant majority of people prefer the output of a true encoder for anything over about 1:1.2 compression.

If you really want to do a robust comparison to determine your own tastes, try selecting a cross section of movies that really strain the transcoding engine- a brightly animated film (anything Disney); a fast moving action film; a moody, darkly lit atmospheric film (but not cheap horror- you want something done by a veteran cinematographer who doesn’t shadow stuff out of existence); and a film with noticeable grain (Saving Private Ryan is a good modern example). You may find that one program is better across the board (to your eyes), or you may prefer different programs for different content.

And don’t take for granted the idea that DVD-Rebuilder is prohibitively slow. My P4-2.8 w/ 1.5GB RAM can easily handle a 5 (4 actual) pass CCE encode in 5-6 hours. I’m sure an Athlon x64 or a Core 2 Duo 2GB would cut that in half. If you stay at the default of 3 passes (2 actual passes), you would get pretty good speeds even without a newer CPU.


#15

Going beyond 2 actual passes with CCE yields only very mild improvements, so unless you’re running the thing overnight and speed is truly not an issue, doing 3+ passes with CCE is not worth the time. On my P4 2.8, CCE with 2 passes is in the neighborhood of ‘realtime’ in encoding times, so a 2 hour total disc content length is somewhere in the vicinity of a 2 hour processing time.


#16

No argument about the diminishing gains. But I figure if you’re gonna let it run overnight, you might as well use up all that time doing something. And for really heavy compression, you can see a difference. I remember doing a superbit disc that showed a very noticeable improvement with 6 passes.


#17

I’ve done some comparisons with heavy compression also, the most I did was 6 passes I believe. There was a difference, although even in extreme compression I did not find much. Basically the heavy macroblocks were slightly less pronounced, although I had to compare them pretty closely. If you are going to run it overnight and don’t mind putting your computer through several hours of strenuous conditions or heavier power demands on a frequent basis then you might as well do more passes. I don’t see enough benefit myself as it means putting a lot of extra hours on the hard drive(s) and other components, but that’s up to the user to decide if they mind that or not. When I first started using DVD-RB, I often did 3-5 passes but I didn’t want the extra wear with essentially no benefit. In any event, if anyone is really interested in knowing if they can see worthwhile differences, they should test it out and see if they feel it’s warranted and go with whatever conclusion they come up with.