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

Shrink/Recode v. DVD Rebuilder

Discussion in 'DVD Shrink forum' started by hamillp, Feb 18, 2007.

  1. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I have been using shrink and now recode for quite some time without any problems and just wanted to see if people thought rebuilder was actually worth the additional time. I have not actually completed a movie with rebuilder yet because after 6 hours it was still not done. that seems like an awful long time. Is the final product significantly better than what you get with Shrink/Recode?
     
  2. laddyboy

    laddyboy Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
  3. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Laddyboy:

    Thanks.
     
  4. elizerroj

    elizerroj Regular member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    i'm with shrink/Recode2, unless you have a very big sceen TV, you'll see no difference. Recode2 amd shrink are the best transcoders i term of quality output.
     
  5. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yeah, I don't have a big screen tv and it just seems like rebuilder takes forever to do the job. so unless there is a huge difference in quality i think i will just stick with shrink/recode.
     
  6. alkohol

    alkohol Regular member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    NOTE: ABQTMM = Assign Best Quality to Main Movie

    Well, soon or later you're going to get one (45" - 55" big screen HDTV), so the choice is yours. I owned a 55" Sony widescreen HDTV and as much as I love Nero Recode's enhancements quality; "AA + HQSR + ABQTMM" or Recode's AEC changer by Solomon to "Max Smooth," I can honestly say that all of my backups done by DVD-RB Pro + CCE SP are better than both DVD Shrink and Nero Recode. Matter of fact, it looks amazing and beautiful.

    Again, it is totally up to you to make the call.
     
  7. 2colors

    2colors Guest

  8. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    hamillp
    2colors addressed your time issues best. It's more your system resources than the software. What model are you using and what are it's resources, i.e. cpu, RAM, hard drive. Depending on the movie and the number of passes I run, it can range from 1 to 2 hours, not a lot longer than Shrink with Quality Settings in use. If you ever do a backup with RB/CCE SP at 3 passes in comparison to a Shrink backup for a high compression job, even on a 32" set, I think you'll see some difference. Pay particular attention to the background quality. The Hanks Encoder does well, just a bit slower (not 6 hours slow).
     
  9. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I have a Dell 933 Mhz; 512mb Ram; 80GB harddrive;

    1-2 hours does not seem bad at all. I could certainly live with that but 6-8 hours just seems crazy.
     
  10. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    That's not a very fast processor or much RAM. I have a dual core AMD processor running at 2.8GHz with 2GB of C2 performance RAM. Encoding is a CPU intensive process and the more processor you have the better. Even your Shrink output would be faster with a more powerful system. We work with what we have, but let's not complain when using base entry systems. Most newer transcoding and encoding software wasn't intended for a system like yours. There's a lot between minimum requirements and what works good.
     
  11. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Would that be a P3 and what is the operating system, XP or whatever?
     
  12. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yes, I believe it is a P3. I am running XP Pro. Unfortunately I cannot add any more memory. Eventually, I will have to buy a new one but I am going to put that off as long as I can.
     
  13. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    XP requires more memory than the 98 that most of those systems came with. I'm not putting it down, in it's time it was a good processor. I have personal acquaintances still using them. But even if you could add more RAM (which I believe is possible, you might have to change cards), the money would be better spent toward a newer system. CD burning was a big thing with that technology, DVD burners and movie backups came later.

    Good luck. The problem isn't really the software. Hope you can get that new system sometime in the not too distant future. You'll probably enjoy the improved performance for more than just doing DVD backups.
     
  14. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Yeah, I am sure I would. It performs reasonably well although I will not be able to rip movies as fast as many others. But for most things it is fine.

    As for the ram, the user's manual indicates that the maximum that it should take is 512mb. Do you think that is wrong?? I would definitely consider adding more ram if I thought I could.
     
  15. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Download the free version of SiSoft Sandra and check the board with that. It usually tells how much RAM a system can use. I recently upgraded a PC, not a Dell, and it could use more than 512. It had 2 256MB sticks with 3 slots. I added an additional 512MB stick to it. A lot depends on chipsets, but it had the same size P3 processor. As I said before, I'd save any money on upgrades for a newer system.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2007
  16. hamillp

    hamillp Regular member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2003
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    PacMan777

    You are everywhere. Thanks for your help. Used your tool and I cannot add memory. Probably would not be worth it, as you suggest, anyways. I can, however, try DVD-RB on my work computer. It is a P4 2.66Ghz, with 1.25 GB of ram. It may not be the best but it should be able to do it in a shorter period than the other computer.
     
  17. PacMan777

    PacMan777 Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Times vary, but with a P4 @ 3.4GHz doing a 3 pass encode with CCE SP I get times between 2.5 to 3 hours. A 2 pass encode would be faster, and some say as good. I prefer the extra pass as insurance. The CCE Basic (retail) only does 2 passes and that's what most people use (CCE Basic trial times out, won't work). The Hank's encoder is freeware and does a good job, but is slower than CCE. With a dual core AMD at 2.8GHz the time improves to about 1 1/2 to 2 hours. A fast processor and hard drive(s) along with a lot of RAM helps.
     

Share This Page