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

Why would I use any compression?

Discussion in 'DVD Shrink forum' started by dbennion, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. dbennion

    dbennion Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Why do you guys do this? Any compression at all will degrade the picture. Eventually you will invest in a large screen HDTV (if you haven't already) and many of you will regret you didn't make a literal 1:1 copy to two DVD blanks.

    A couple of years back it might have made financial sense; blanks were $2 or more, but nowadays top quality blanks cost $0.50 or less and still falling.

    The sole disadvantage is having to get up once during the movie to change disks. This would seem to be to be a small price to pay to keep pristine visuals.

    That's just me, but I simply don't get it.
     
  2. wolfniggr

    wolfniggr Regular member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
  3. hursty

    hursty Active member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    yes but,if we were all using our ORIGINALS,we would have no need to use dvd backups.
    and i am lazy...lol
     
  4. DogBomb

    DogBomb Regular member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    dbennion, I have made the same argument here about why I feel DVDXCopy is better than DVD Shrink. But whereas I exclusively used DVDXcopy up until 3 months ago, I now am finding reasons to use DVD Shrink over DVDXCopy which makes a perfect 1:1 copy albeit split over 2 DVDs.

    Originally, it made no sense to me too. The reason I have a big-screen HDTV, progressive scan DVD player with D/A 12bit/108Mhz processor is to enjoy the higher quality of DVD over VHS. If I compress a movie, it's like listening to MP3s on a costly, high-end stereo. That being said, I don't mind getting up once during a movie to change discs or waiting 10 seconds for DVDXCopy to flash their notice.

    Now, for the reasons why I'm backing up some DVDs using Shrink now. I really did wish I used Shrink about 18 months ago when discs cost me $2 a pop. Using 2 discs to back up movies like The Hot Chick made no sense, especially since I owned alot of them already. Do I really care to see Rob Schneider's face in DVD quality? No. So movies like White Chicks go on one DVD now, whereas fast-moving action films like I, Robot where you wan to enjoy the special effects get put on 2 DVDs.

    And then there are those movies which are 5GB total. With DVDXCopy, you have to still split the movie. With Shrink, you can reduce the quality by something so negligible that you could not tell at all and keep everything on one DVD. In audio terms, a 320kps MP# vs. a WAV file to me. And even DVD movies that are 7GB in size. The main movies are usually less than 5GB and some are even less than 4.3GB which means you don't even have to compress anything if you leave out the extras. But the drawback is, you lose all the menus. If Shrink could keep the menu structure (which take up so little space on the DVD too), it would be perfect. I like the menus, but most people will never use the menus to skip to specific scenes, and most people will never care about behind-the-scenes footage of the making of The Hot Chick. So another reason to use Shrink.

    Really, it's preference. I found out recently from ScubaPete that DVDXCopy copies aren't protected despite the claim that you cannot make copies of DVDXCopy copies. So this nugget of info might lead me to choose DVDXCopy over Shrink in some cases where I just want to keep the menus.

    Like I said, to each his own. If someone just wants a cheap replacement over VHS movie tapes and could care less about bonus scenes or near high-def quality of 1970s movies put on DVD, then DVD Shrink is great. But if you have a 60-inch HDTV screen, you probably don't want to watch a 2 hour sci-fi movie with lots of special effects like Spider-Man from a DVD Shrink DVD compressed to 50% of it's original size. Let the flaming begin. ;)
     
  5. dbennion

    dbennion Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    DogBomb I agree with you. I first look at the movie with DVDXcopy, and if it fits on one blank, great. If it doesn't then I have a decision to make. If the movie alone is in the < 5 Meg range, I'll usually compress it because the loss of quality should be small. I use DVDXpress myself, because it is a no-brainer and the 'extras' don't interest me. If the movie is a little larger than that, maybe < 5.3 megs or so, I still might compress it if Rob Schneider is in it. But NOT if Scarlett Johannson is in it if you get my drift. All others I want all the detail so I invest the $0.50 and copy to two blanks. And I split even 5 Meg range movies if I think the visuals will be important to me.

    By the way I routinely make copies of copies (made with DVDXcopy) using Nero diskcopy.
     

Share This Page