DVD95COPY Versus DVD2ONE

This is not a post to choose favourites, but rather an objective comparison of both pieces of software, which compete in allowing a user to process a complete DVD into a single DVD-R

Afterdawn has been kept up to date with the latest versions of both these products and I have had a chance to test them. Current versions are DVD95COPY 1.3 and DVD2ONE 1.1.1.

Both products offer the opportunity to process the files from a dual layered DVD onto a commercially available DVD-R (4.36GB)

Although originally DVD2ONE was only able to process one title, it is now able to process the entire disc (menus and all) and fit it on a 4.36GB DVD-R. It does this extremely quickly and with very positive results. All titles are given equal compression and you are unable to remove tracks/subs. In addition you are able to specify the size of the final disc to anything you want.

DVD95COPY is able to process the entire DVD as well, although recent developments now allow you to select which extras you want and how much you want them compressed in percentage terms. This can be very useful if all you wanted was say the movie and a quality menu, but none of the deleted scenes, or music videos. Also, if you want all of the extras, but want to reduce the compression of the main movie, it allows this also, by increasing the compression of the extras only. It is very slow in processing, however, taking far longer than DVD2ONE.

DVD95COPY also allows you to select which audio tracks you want to leave out, which currently DVD2ONE does not allow you to do on its full disc option. This can further improve the quality of the resulting DVD-R.

Conclusion? well as I said, I don't want to pick a favourite, in fact I use both products. When I just want the movie, I would not use DVD95COPY, as DVD2ONE beats it hands down in terms of speed for just compressing the main movie only. If I have need for menus, but no extras, I would certainly have to choose DVD95COPY, as I can select which parts I want. Also if I wanted a whole disc and wanted to remove some audio tracks taking up space, DVD95COPY would be probably better at that.

If I wanted to process an entire DVD and wanted everything compressed the same amount, or I was doing an episodal disc, perhaps DVD2ONE would be better as it is considerably faster.

I hope others post their experiences here and if new versions come out, perhaps their attributes can be posted to this thread also to keep it up to date.

Happy processing

Paul._X_X_X_X_X_[small]Now ask yourself, does that make me less dangerous...or more dangerous?[/small]

 

Hi Paul - We're going to be seeing a lot re. transcoding software in the upcoming weeks/months. I have neither of thee programs mentioned, so I can't do a comparison, but may I share my thoughts?

I have not used the retail versions of either of these programs, but I can see that we are slowly but surely arriving to the point I have always wanted!

Of ALL the capabilities that current backup software offers, the most important feature (for me) is transcoding. Re-encoding. One dual-layer disc to 1 single blank. Everything else, to me, is secondary.

I am not a 'purist'. Since I don't have a 16:9 hi-res Hi-Def-ready monitor, I am not concerned with extracting the last byte of digital resolution from the original dual-layer disc. Within certain areas of the Green Room dvdxcopy forum, if you dare mention the word 'transcoding', they will skin you alive.

I am delighted to learn that now, equal compression is applied evenly over the entire disc. Wonderful! No nasty surprises as you switch from main movie to the extras.

In the absolute worst case -- that is -- if 2 FULL layers of video info are cut in half (50% reduction in size), I suspect that the resulting disc will still satisfy most people. Would not such a disc be superior to vhs, super-vhs, svcd, or even possibly, Laser-disc? Played on normal, regular tv sets, would *most* people be able to discern a difference between such a copy and the original? I doubt it.

Most people (me) don't receive the same value for each retail disc purchased, as people who have hi-res 16:9 sets receive. I cannot see the extra resolution I paid for, so frankly, I just don't need it.

For myself, about the only thing I would really like to see, is the ability to remove all subs (which, in and of themselves take up very little space), and in particular, the ability to remove all unnecessary foreign-language tracks (which DO eat up a lot of bit-space). Nobody needs English AND French AND Spanish AND German AND .....

(I know that subs are crucial for some folks). Fine. Let them be kept. They are tiny in size. But if your native-language soundtrack is available, then you don't need the others.

Failing that.......then a simple 1-disc to 1-disc backup IN TOTAL would be fine. Everything top to bottom. All menus, extras, languages, subs, and options.

Something else concerns me, but is rarely addressed when people talk of transcoding software. Image size. (Screen resolution).

We will assume for the moment that the resulting backups will be played back on 'normal' tv sets.

WHY bother trying to retain full DVD resolution???? You won't need it! You won't see it! Full resolution for NTSC video is 704x480 pixels. IF you cut that in half (352x480 pixels), you get what is called (I *believe*) "Half-D1" resolution. This is also, incidently, a perfectly "legal" dvd-player resolution, and will play back fine on ALL set-tops.

The advantages of this can't be ignored. Over in the Green Room, folks complain that they can see (on their Hi-Res tv monitors) the degradation as 'blockiness' or 'graininess'. I think the reason for this is because present day transcoding software insists on keeping the same full 704x480 res. as the original. It means that too few bits are being spread too thinly over the full image!

If you go to Half-D1 instead, the blockiness disappears because the available bits don't have to try to retain the razor sharp images that you won't be able to see on your regular tv sets anyway. You won't, for example, be able to see the individual flakes of dandruff on the actors' heads, or the pores in their skin during dramatic closeups. WHO CARES? At half resolution, ALL blockiness disappears, no???

I will be making these concerns (and others) known to 321 whenever they get around to Platinum. I've already asked Robert not to wait around too long for his own version of transcoding software to arrive. In the meantime, transcoding software has made *wonderful* advances. We're getting very very close to the ideal.

Thanks for the ramble.......

-- Klingy --

 

People forget that DVD-R is a different media, only offering 4.36GB. If a disc is dual layered and offering full capacity you will have to sacrifice something.

Either : Split over two discs

Or : Lose some extras

Or : Lose some quality

For me, single disc solutions are BETTER, as I can sacrifice extras to improve quality and I agree that compression is not actually as degrading to the picture as some people would make out.

Paul.

 

Somehow I have noticed that although it treats the whole disc the same, wherease DVD95COPY allows you to compress the extras further, which presumably would *improve* the quality of the main film, that actually DVD2ONE has *better* main film titles, if you see what I mean.

I am going to do more tests, but this does not make sense!

Paul.

 

DVDxCOPY is the simplest solution available, also the most expensive. If you follow the guide in the articles section , or my miniguide in the DVD2ONE forum, you will be able to get results quite quick, though. It is pretty easy.

Paul.

 

That's exactly right, and it's what I have been trying to say (in a roundabout way).

I've posted the following chart before, but I want to do it here again to illustrate what 4.36 gig's-worth of space can accomplish -- This is from the back cover of a Verbatim DVD+RW:

[bold]<Recording Time --- Avg. (Mpeg-2)Compression>

060 Mins - 9.7 Mbits/s
120 Mins - 5.1 Mbits/s
180 Mins - 3.4 Mbits/s
240 Mins - 2.5 Mbits/s[/bold]

Apparently, Verbatim must have felt that their inclusion of a 240-minute option would provide good enough video quality to be included in their chart. By contrast, standard vcd bitrate is only 1.1 Mbits/s @ 352x240 res. PLUS, with dvd, those bits go a LOT further by being used as VBR mpeg-2, and not the older CBR mpeg-1.

The chart figures above are a guide for people with standalone DVD recorders, but it illustrates what can be done. I hope no one thought that these recorders, by default, always recorded flat out with 704x480 res at 9.7 Mbits/s !!!

On regular, high quality, normal, everyday television sets, any of the above bitrates will give you an excellent picture. Especially if some smart programmer (software developers please take note) reduces the image size to 352x480. (Roughly Half-D1). Regular tv's cannot reproduce 704x480, so I think it is dumb-ish to try. (That will eliminate pixellation, blockiness & graininess).

-- Klingy --

 

DVD2One pi$$e$ all over DVDxCOPY

Nuff said !: )-~

herbsman

 

Joe, you are able to do episodal DVDs with both DVD2ONE and DVD95COPY, where all episodes are treated the same, ie compresses equally (we have touched on this on other specific threads). Interesting point about the subs, I will check into that, as if it is true, seeing as they don't take up that mich space, it might me worth while

AFAIK DVD2ONE does not change anything in the video stream, it simply compresses the file.

Paul.

 

Guys, I appreciate your input, but keep your emails out of the open forum. Go to PM for that.

Paul.

 

hahahah another one converted

: )