Dvd Rebuilder technical

This is mainly for CREAKY. But all replies welcome.
I would think that ALL dvd compression softwares use a paticular universal line of code? Bare with me. Very green/New to software/computer programming. What does Rebuilder do that shrink cant? I would think that the dvd format is only sooo flexible before it becomes incompatible with even standalones. Obviously computers merely need be taught how to perform tasks. Dvd players only support so many formats.

 

I believe it's transcoder vs. encoder. See the glossary.

 

Well... Trial #1 Success!!! Whats odd is, another person posted that it took Dvd-RB 45 minutes for his Quad, My Dual Core only took 53 min. Slow Slow Slow settings, CCE encoder, I would say that the effect versus dvd shrink is MARGINAL at best! But this was the first trial. Whats more interesting is, My processor never reached more than 72% Usage, And averaged, (IMO) 50-60%. HOWEVER, They way the transfering (Harddisks) were configured, it may have slowed things down a little. It looked like my processor may have been waiting on the drive. SHOULDA used my TB drive. its 300% faster. What encoder would you recommend based on video quality. DISREGARDING SPEED. I WANT it to take its time 2-3 hours and do a good job. CCE did a GOOD job with the movie. But... some of the extras were robbed more than i'd like. I only told it to take 25% from the extras.

 

If you don't mind, could you post some more detailed info on this post. I too am running a dual core, slightly OC, and while the time you posted is comparable to mine (probably avg. around 60 to 70 min) my processor usage stays near 100% while encoding. Although I use HC Encoder on two pass quality, I would be interested in any options you use that could speed me up.

 

Sleeping Beauty 50th anniversary edition. Shrink shows me that it would require 58% compression on movie. But...Using Rebuilder, telling it to Steal 25% of the extras space, Gave the main title 70% of original. Well... Thats why it went so fast. I know shrink goes fast at that Level of compression anyway. As far as I know, I had every setting to SLOW. Plus I was playing splashspot.com My Cpu is the 5200 amd athlon. Ferguj1, If your running a lesser model, that COULD have something to do with the usage. Or background processes. mine averages 50-60 processes at any given time. The only time ive ever seen my processor max was with Dr. Divx 1.06, And that was telling it to HURRY UP. LOL. I run a KINDA JBOD configuration. a 500gb WD ide to usb drive(STORAGE)THE ONE I USED FOR SOURCE FILES, And a 500gb WD sata (OS)resulting files, and my precious baby LOL. 1TB fals WD. INSANE FAST! it averages 70,000kbs transfer rates. the 500gb sata is about the same (Slightly slower), And the ide to usb 500gb drive averages 20 - 24000 kbs. What i would like to try now is have the source files on the FALS 1TB drive. The read rate would be MUCH faster. Probably get that 100% cpu usage. So... Are QUENC or HC mode any good?

 

havnt tried HC yet. Thats Next! I used the CCE on sleeping beauty. Not too impressed, but... it'll do. It robbed quite a bit of quality from the extras!

 

Well... I'll try to cover everything here. It would appear that encode times rely on both CPU as well as THE ENCODER ITSELF. Because, CCE took 53 min (65% cpu average) on one job where HC took 70 and 90 minutes (100% cpu usage) on its jobs. Please note they were comparable jobs. I think what i need to do (For confirmation) is run a VERY LONG movie through it. I.E Titanic, braveheart, L.O.T.R., ETC. Probably end up being an episodic disc. Those are always long... and compare both encoders, AS WELL AS QuEnc. Now im ITCHING for a quad core!!! NO... An OCTO setup with a server board!!
Ok, Now im getting obsessed
Something interesting as well. I told it to steal 10% of the extras quality and it looks like it took more like 50%. I compared the output sizes of the original with SHRINK. Any thoughts on that?
Perhaps what the 10% means is not out put size but actual viewing quality. Because it didnt look TOO bad. Coulda been a little better but im not complaining. They are just extras after all. Hmmm... I just looked at the source files of the extras and they were lacking in quality as well. However HC encoder introduced some pixelation into the mix.

 

Whoops! I forgot. The 90 minute encode job would have been when my antivirus was running a scan. Scanning all 3 harddrives takes close to that time too.

 

Holy bugars batman! WOW WOW. 131 min encode time. Now thats more like it ehh? I ran "Teenage mutant ninja turtles II" The disk had both wide screen and full screen on it. Curious, can i remove a title without effecting (errors in the menu) the menus? I suppose i'll try the other encoders now. By the way, the video quality seemed very awesome. I wont know til i put it in 50" plasma

Once again my antivirus was running at the same time. Gonna have to reset it for the next test.

 

mmm... it would appear that the fab can remove titles without effecting the menus. AWESOME! I dont see the need in keeping both versions when widescreen is/becoming the standard.
Heres a question on/off topic. I would love to leave my computer for 1day or two keeping it busy. I would love to setup processes to run and leave it. BUT... different programs. I dont want them running via several instances. (imagine the fragmentation!) Is there software that can manage processes in such a fashion? What i mean is... i would tell it Dr. divx, DVD RB, Both under batch mode but NOT running simultaneously. Basically schedule the tasks to run at a given time, Or when the cpu appears to have finished a process, it would basically, "CLICK GO" on the other program. Do i have to design this myself? Or is there something already out, via freeware or other means?

 

Wow! Not used to my processor running 100%. Obviously the HC encoder utilizes both cores equally. Gonna take some getting used to. I LIKE IT. I like knowing its busting its butt.
Wow, the mobile option With dvd takes A LONG time! Atleast with the experimental x264 compression. Had to stop it when i woke up. Have to run that alone some time. The cce encoder, when it was working , ran at 60-70%. See... I bought the pro edition last night. It really does deserve dontation I'm aware of ways of CHEATING, but it just didnt feel right with this one! Now for some reason my cce encoder gets an error. I forget what it said. No biggie. HC seems to be the most praised.

 

Found myself a little disapointed with the last backup. So I ran shrink. The settings i gave shrink should have gave given the main title (movie) very decent 70% quality. But it looked even worse than HC encoded. I think ive grown more critical!
OK. I tested all 3 (original, shrank, Rebuilded) on my moms 50" plasma. They were all comparable quality. Shrink definetely left pixelation though. I think im starting to critique the orginal dvds now. I wonder if her setup simply cant view dvds to their peak! Gonna have to try running her dvd player through the HDMI. I think its apparent though that the big dogs (paramount, lionsgate, etc) are starting to skimp on quality though. Ironman was awesome though!
Most of the movie looks reasonable, its simply when there are HIGH motion scenes.

 

If you're not happy with the backup, you can make changes. Using bitrate distribution you can give more bitrate to areas that you feel would benefit. You can also try different matrices depending on the amount of compression needed. There are also different settings if you are using The HC encoder.

 

other than speeding up script .ini, does the *lossless parameter for HC help the resulting video quality any?
Thanks for the tidbit dialysis1. Thats more for getting the quality just right. Im betting its more overkill than anything. Unless your working with a 4hr movie. Correct me if im wrong.

 

Those settings can be applied to any movie where the user feels more bitrate is needed. Under certain circumstances you can even have some segments remain untouched so that no reencoding takes place. This will also speed up the processing time.