1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Recode vs Shrink vs DVD Rebuilder

Discussion in 'DVD Shrink forum' started by PacMan777, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    With so many options user preference has a lot to do with a person's selection of software. If you like a program and it makes you happy, then by all means use it.

    Recode requires an external program to bypass copy protection. When opening a disc it works the same as DVD Shrink using quick analysis. Both have the deep analysis feature. Once Shrink opens up, the files are in front of the user in Full Disc, whick is the only option with Recode in full DVD mode. I realize there's the quick movie only mode, but Shrink has Reauthor that can handle that. Noticable is the Disable feature in Recode. That's simply the Still Image feature in Shrink's Compression settings. Is it looking like Recode is still something of a Shrink clone? There's the same language selections to uncheck. Next in Recode is like using Backup in Shrink. So far I've seen nothing better or significantly different. We have to realize it's pretty much the same program by the same author. Once in Nero's burn settings the Shrink user would be right at home. For Quality Settings Nero has Advanced Analysis (deep analysis) and High Quality Mode (Adaptive Error Compensation). Only in Nero there's no adjusting the settings for Quality Mode without going into the Nero setup file. Shrink has those settings up front. Set the burn speed and enter Burn. That's pretty much what is done with Shrink. That pretty much covers all that Nero Recode does in comparison to Shrink. One doesn't seem to be any faster than the other, in the transcoding Recode may be faster. Someone can time doing the same files with both Recode and Shrink and report back.

    Shrink has features not included in Recode. It has it's editing section, not just the Disable (Still Image) feature. Though not a full editing program like DVDReMake, Reauthor can do quite a bit. The decryption software is weak in Shrink, but it has some. It does a lot of movies and only the newer movies with the heavier copy protections stop it. Then decryptions programs come into use the same as Recode needs all the time. Using RipIt4Me a person can tell which movies to jump to Shrink with or go through processing before using in the transcoder.

    It has to be preference, because I see little or no difference between Shrink 3.2 and Recode. Recode may have a prettier interface, but that's in the eye of the beholder as well. Both can burn with Nero, Recode is captive. Shrink has other options as well.

    Remove user preference and the fact that Shrink is free, can anyone give a legitimate reason for using one over the other? LOL But free counts for a lot when the rest of the factors stack up even or possibly a bit in favor of the freeware.

    I mentioned rebuilder which can put both Shrink and Recode to shame. Transcoders such as these two remove frames and compress to shrink the video to fit. Encoders go through the entire video and reallocate bitrate as necessary while shrinking the video, which transcoders can't. Under high compression that means a noticably better picture and far fewer compression induced errors. Transcoders are faster, but they lack the quality of an encoder. On low to moderate compression videos the difference may be negligible. Also screen size can play a factor. The larger the screen the more an error is likely to be seen. I view my movies on a 60" screen. I've got a friend who has a projection TV who has had to go back and redo a bunch of backups using Rebuilder for use in his home theatre. Recode, Shrink, and the other transcoders left the picture lacking, except at very low compression.

    As you so aptly put, "I use what I use because I like it, not something else because you like it!". Many people have their preferences and they may not always be the same. To each his own. ;)
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2007
  2. garmoon

    garmoon Regular member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    You say Shrink is free and it is but without Nero burning rom which is uusually not free more steps are required to burn the disc, with Imgburn or decrypter. I used shrink for a long time after DVDXCopy Xpress crapped out. But now prefer recode. I realize that recoders are infinitely better but I have other things in life to do.

    Edit: BTW What are you trying to do, get me assassinated in the Rebuilder forum.????? LOL
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2007
  3. arniebear

    arniebear Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Not sure what you mean by this, as Recode has an editing section you just use the compile a DVD choice. Yes both programs are pretty much the same, since they are by the same author. Shrink is a little more up front with its setting, especially the AEC, where in Recode you got to go change them in the registry. Shrink is free and Recode is not, but if you have Nero then Recode is a nice choice, with accent on the choice. It is personal preference and what is in the eye of the beholder. I prefer Recode, it is a bit faster and not as resource intensive as Shrink. Both though are overshadowed in the editing capabilities by CloneDVD, which will allow you to retain menus but get rid of junk. I do not think Clone has the quality of Recode or Shrink but it does allow for good editing. This is my opinion and preference, just as everyone has their own.
     
  4. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    ROTFLMAO I see you noticed the setup. :)

    I don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but a modified exe was written for Shrink 3.2 that supports ImgBurn. With the modified Shrink and ImgBurn set up, it's an automatic process similar to Recode. There's no extra button pushing. Recode's interface looks like it might be easier for a beginner, but there's so many manuals for Shrink that shouldn't be much of an issue. If a person has Nero, there's no reason not to use recode. If the Nero owner only has the OEM, then Shrink is a good option. If a person doesn't own Nero at all and doesn't want to purchase it, then Shrink + ImgBurn is a good option. A lot just depends on what a person has and what they want. As you pointed out, preference plays a large role.

    Arniebear
    Editing in Full Disc in Shrink is similar to using the Disable feature in Recode. In Reauthor in Shrink you have the ability to actually cut sections from the video, which is different. Editing in Full Disc in Shrink and using Disable in Recode allow both to edit and maintain a usable menu. Reauthor causes menus to not function, but the point in Reauthor is to cut compression to a minimum, often enough that compression may not be needed. I went over the various option situations above, no need to repeat. We usually end up making a decision along the lines of preference for one reason or another.

    CloneDVD 2... another crowd favorite. Have you tried RB, especially with Batch mode?
     
  5. 300bowler

    300bowler Regular member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    IMO recode2 is faster than shrink(with the same picture quality) therefore thats why i use it rather than shrink, although i rarely use both since i started using DVD-RB pro.

     
  6. arniebear

    arniebear Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Messages:
    8,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Yes I have used RB for a couple of years now and the quality is fantastic.
     
  7. garmoon

    garmoon Regular member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    @pacman

    Yeah I knew I could use ImgBurn with Shrink in auto with a new download, but since I seldom use shrink I figured I'd leave well enough alone. There was that time that Recode was not working with AnyDVD, that had me using shrink a lot tho. You remember and elby pointed out how we should be using CloneDVD at the time. He couldn't understand why I was adamant about using Recode.
     
  8. ZCS626

    ZCS626 Regular member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    what is the process to rip a movie with DVD Fab, and then burn with imgburn to a DL disc? i tried it before and said i didnt need a DL disc to burn it too, although i know it did. any help?
     
  9. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Rip with fab in file mode and use Build mode in ImgBurn. You can use the calculator or check the box to let ImgBurn set the layer break. I thought I went over the process before. Or it may have been with someone using the same car pic for a sig.
     
  10. garmoon

    garmoon Regular member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    @pacman

    Maybe I'll go into the rebuilder forum and type in: "Pacman told me that recoders give better results than encoders! Now I'm really confused and need help; and I thought he knew a lot about this" LMAO :p
     
  11. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I've posted on RB too many times already. My alibi is already in place. LOL
     
  12. zipptide

    zipptide Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Well IMHO it just matters what u feel like doing , some people like to set it and forget , and others like to edit and tweak and poke and prod it down to get the lest possible compression.

    I myself use shrink most of the time cus it works and i dont have to do anything accept put a blank on the old tea coaster >:p
     
  13. bbmayo

    bbmayo Active member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    96
    You can do it the way that Pacman777 has suggested, or even an easier way would be to just rip the movie with DVDFab Decrypter in "ISO mode" and then burn with ImgBurn.

    Cheers
     
  14. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    bbmayo
    I don't know about easier. That's a matter of familiarity with the software. I like toying with the calculator. LOL Also, ripping in ISO precludes any further processing of the files before burning. If something needs editing or there's a minor structural flaw that FixVTS could take care of, it can't be done in ISO. I have a habit of leaving the video in file mode until the last possible step for those reasons. Besides, DVDFab rips in File mode and creates an ISO, ImgBurn in Build takes File and creates ISO for burning. The conversion is being done either way, I prefer the latter for stated reasons.

    I'll concede that for beginners using DVDFab to rip in ISO and using Write in ImgBurn may be easier than using the Build interface (as long as there are no issues with the ripped files). But that only applies to those not familiar with Build in ImgBurn.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2007
  15. gurnard

    gurnard Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    hi :)
    putting aside the decrypting ability (which in shrink and decrypter are defunked) i've used shrink and decrypter forever with no question. still do...but a short time ago i needed to take several parts off of 2 dvd's and a couple of films on HD to compile a special ;) movie for a client...it could be done with shrink in a long drawn out process.
    thought i'll try recode...1 dvd in drive 1..2nd dvd in drive 2...blank in drive 3. extracted the needed parts from dvd's and films on HD..in no time at all walla! nice new movie, and all done with one program
    so as to the ? which is best i think recode has the edge over shrink.
    before anybody says use other up to date prog's. i'm a dinosaur and am happy with what i've got and it works for me LOL
     
  16. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    We wouldn't dare suggest you change, if you're happy with what you're doing. ;) The Add feature in Recode is faster, but people have been doing compilations with Shrink for a long time. Recode has an edge for what you're doing with compilations, but Shrink has an edge for overall editing. Though very similar, there are features unique to each. Like many say and is apparent from your own words, a lot depends on preference.
     
  17. garmoon

    garmoon Regular member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    @gurnard

    You are a dinosaur. I checked your profile and you got me by exactly 4 years. We share the same birthday. 1.9.42 and 1.9.46 which also happens to be the years of our birth.
     
  18. fatstrat

    fatstrat Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I have to agree with Arnie, I like the quickness of Nero recode and the final output seems to be fine. With so much crap on Today's Dvd's, I'm surprised I don't see more people talking about pgcedit and vobblanker. I use these almost after every rip.

    Strat
     
  19. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    FixVTS, VobBlanker, pgcedit and the like were handy when the structural protections first appeared and still are occasionally. Either the studios have backed off or the updated decryption software is doing a better job of processing the files. It's been a while since I needed to follow up a rip with further processing for DVD compliance.
     
  20. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    I had some time while finishing off some pizza and beer. So I figured I'd put the time to good use. ;) I did a time comparison between Recode and Shrink 3.2. I used Walking Tall Lone Justice for 2 reasons, simple copy protection and moderate size, 6.36GB. I didn't use any of the deep analysis or quality settings in either program so as not to give either an advantage. Both were using only English. AnyDVD was running in the background for both. I saved the output for both to the hard drive. The interface is similar, so there's no appreciable time gained between the 2 here. We'll only count the encode times according to each program's counter. As most of you may have guessed, Recode won. The time for Shrink was 14 minutes, 57 seconds. The blazing time for Recode was a mind boggling 14 minutes and 55 seconds. That's 2 whole seconds saved by using the Recode transcoder software. In other words the times are so close that it's negligible. I'm not going to run it again, but that close, Shrink might win the second time. LOL

    Which leads me to believe there's no appreciable time gain in using the Recode transcoder.

     

Share This Page