The disc I experienced the most problems on useing dvd shrink set on no compression was The Notebook. The background on some scenes were jittery (for lack of a better word) and not constant with the foreground. I have no way to actually prove this to anyone without them being here and seeing it for themselves. I isolated the jittery background (on certain scenes) to the folder that dvd shrink set at no compression had ripped to my hdd prior to any editing or encoding. I ripped the same disc with dvdd and looked at the same scenes on my pc prior to any editing or encoding and the same scenes were perfect. If need be I'll surrender but I will no longer use dvd shrink set at no compression as a ripper. I know but can't prove the problems it can cause. Mort
>>>>You don't need to use the same DVD, Shrink does it to virtually all DVD's.<<<< Actually, I do. You see, the only way to quantify and duplicate his results are if I have the same files. >>> I say virtually because one day I might find a DVD that isn't affected shrink using no compression. Hence the 100% fact statement.<<<< Hmmm. We seem to have a direct disagreement on the definition of the word "fact." >>>The one thing that I've learned over the years on line is that in a debate everyone is right in their own minds. Only the facts obtained through empirical study and an acceptance of the resulting evidence can alter the conviction of another.<<<< We agree entirely. Except, you left out the part regarding peer review and duplicatable results. Hence, the reason for my request for the original files. Take care, -Bruce
The point I am trying to make is not whether or not dvdd and dvd shrink set at no compression ripped folders are the same size but rather that dvd shrink set at no compression used as a ripper processes the files and can noticeably alter some of them. As I stated earlier, I have no way of proving this but have witnessed it first hand. I see no further need for debate as we are both obviously set in our opinions. I can assure you I will never again use shrink as a ripper and wish you the best with whatever methods you prefer. Have a good day. Mort
Bruce999 Actually you don't! Let's stay on the same page if we can! What's in contention here is not the trait of a specific movie, but how DVD Shrink treats any and all movies. We don't have a disagreement on the meaning of the word fact we have a disagreement on the facts themselves. If DVD Shrink affects 100% of all movies passed through it, then that is a fact that it affects all movies. Period!!!!!!!!!!!! Get it!!!! Probably not! Then try it. If you'd spend more time proving DVD Shrinks affect on DVD's wrong rather then trying to prove that it's right based on the force of your unsupported convictions alone, then this debate would be over. Rip a DVD using Decrypter and then pass that file through DVD Shrink with no Compression and then compare each file in each folder. If you see any file that are in anyway altered then ask yourself, how? And what does that mean?
You wrote: >>>>We don't have a disagreement on the meaning of the word fact we have a disagreement on the facts themselves.<<<< Then, later: >>>>If DVD Shrink affects 100% of all movies passed through it, then that is a fact that it affects all movies. Period!!!!!!!!!!!! Get it!!!! <<<< quod erat demonstrandum I rest my case. -Bruce
Although I'm not certain of what case it was that you've rested, it is nonetheless gracious of you to concede and agree. Cheers!
Sophocles: I decided to try to help you out, since you still seem to be a bit confused over the meaning of “no compression,” and the way in which DVDShrink operates when it is merely used as a ripper (i.e., when no compression is used). I found the following very helpful exchange, where someone else was asking the same question (based on one of those d^%$ rumors he read). Here is the exchange: ===== “Will do. I have one question actually: have you ever found DVD Shrink "No Compression" to degrade or modify a video stream (color content, sharpness, etc etc)? (Posted by DDLooping, the software being discussed was DVDShrink version 3.2, about a year ago.) ===== The same questioner then wrote, in his next post: "I was only asking because one DVD Shrink user reported the "No Compression" output to softens the tones. I have personally never found this to be the case, and neither did others who did "bit-by-bit comparisons" (or whatever it's called). dvdshrink also stated numerous times "No Compression" does not alter the video stream in anyway. I'm just trying to get a wider view and understand what the issue could be. (Posted by DDLooping on a forum devoted to DVD ripping) ===== The response he received: “I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite [SIC] often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either." ===== Now, I tend to agree with this response. Obviously, you are quite emotional in your disagreement. Either that, or I guess it is quite possible that your exclamation mark key on the keyboard had a bit of a “sticky” problem (?) The file sizes (from DVDShrink with no compression) make it quite obvious that no compression is taking place, since the sum total ends up precisely the same as the original DVD (according to all of my testing so far, which now numbers 9 carefully examined DVDs), and this also coincides exactly with the sum total of files if one uses DVDDecrypter, and also two other ripping programs I just tried today. Oh, I almost forgot to give credit to the second post above, which was posted by one of the senior members (not that this should matter) of a forum. He is another senior member (not that that should matter) of this forum, and he goes by the nickname: Sophocles. The exchange took place on this forum, let me know if you need some help finding it. If you still need help understanding this issue, let me know. In the meantime, my testing continues. Thanks, Bruce
Bruce999 No Bruce it's you that's confused and way out of your league, I mean way out of your league. And as for your statement that you aren't trying to be disagreeable, baloney, especially when you continue to debate in areas in which you are the novice. ddlooping was a colleague, a peer, often even a friend, but never a superior. Dvd Shrink doesn't just rip and leave the original DVD untouched because even without compressing it still processes the film (the film goes through the Shrink thingy and gets changed), meaning the overall file size is just about the same but something has still been altered!!! ALTERED!! GET IT!!!! Compression alone is not the only thing that can alter the quality of a video transfer. Do you even understand the basic structure of a DVD? I, P, and B frames, VBR, and CBR and how they affect the outcome of compression? Compression can be used in loose discussions when the topic is zip,tar, and rar files but when discussing video compression they are far more complex and a different subject altogether. You should have provided links, those were fond days. I loved beta testing DVD Shrink. I was part of a sub group of testers and probably more trouble than they bargained for. If you continue your search of the past you will find a post where I made a clear reference to the effects of DVD Shrink on a movie with no compression. If you search a little further into the past you'll find a link where I describe the benefits of backing up a movie with Shrink because it reduces the mosquito effect. Sometimes a little less sharpness is better because it filters video noise such as the mosquito effect. If you want to continue this discussion come to www.zentarium.com
Let's just back up on this thread and review your posts. Everything below was posted by you on this thread. Here are the results of this test: Filename****** DVDShrink sizes****** DVDDecrypter sizes: VideoTS.BUP**** 10,240 bytes********* 10,240 bytes VideoTS.IFO*****10,240 bytes********* 10,240 bytes VTS_01_0.BUP*** 112,640 bytes******** 112,640 bytes VTS_01_0.IFO*** 112,640 bytes******** 112,640 bytes VTS.01.0.VOB****524,675,072 bytes**** 524,675,072 bytes VTS.01.1.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.2.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes [bold]VTS.01.3.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 610,037,760 bytes[/bold] VTS.01.4.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.5.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.6.VOB*****1,073,739,776 bytes** 1,073,739,776 bytes [bold]VTS.01.7.VOB****89,131,008 bytes***** 552,833,024 bytes[/bold] VTS_02_0.BUP******14,336 bytes********* 14,336 bytes VTS_02_0.IFO** 14,336 bytes********* 14,336 bytes VTS_02_0.VOB** *did not exist******* 0 bytes VTS_02_1.VOB** 19,363,840 bytes***** 19,363,840 bytes Sum of all: 7,075,883,008 bytes** 7,075,883,008 bytes Do you see the flaws?
Sophocles, if you do not mind, I think I shall remain here. The threads around here seem to back up each and every test I can conceive, including my next ones (now that we know the file sizes are in fact identical, I am going to test the chroma, next). In fact, your past posts continue to affirm what my tests are showing. ==== Ddlooping writes: "I was only asking because one DVD Shrink user reported the "No Compression" output to softens the tones." ==== ”I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either.” Posted by Sophocles, 13 July, 2004, in the DVDShrink Forum at AfterDawn.com ________________________________________ DDLooping answers: “Thanks again, Sophocles, if "No Compression" did actually modify the video stream that would have skewed my comparison tests.” ======================================== Then, two posts down, posted by Vurbal: “@ddlooping: I read some similar claims many months ago, and I eventually decided to test this for myself. I made a movie only backup with no compression and used AviSynth's SSIM plugin to compare it against the original. SSIM directly compares the luma and chroma planes from one video stream against a second one, and it couldn't find any differences between Shrink's copy and the original. Just to be sure, I made another copy of the movie with IFOEdit and compared that against the Shrink version. Once again - no differences.” ============== Bruce ============ P.S. ”I think that we can put that nonsense to rest. I use DVD Shrink to rip quite often because I can edit unwanted audio tracks during that process without having to think. I don't use deep analysis when I rip either.” Just to confirm, this post was actually yours, and not some other party who registered under your name? I am interested in reality, as it surrounds this issue. Thanks. ============
Another post by you on this thread. Million Dollar Baby Filename***** DVDDecrypter results***** DVDShrink results VideoTS.BUP**** 10,240 bytes****10,240 bytes VideoTS.IFO**** 10,240 bytes****10,240 bytes VTS_01_0.BUP****96,256 bytes****96,256 bytes VTS_01_0.IFO****96,256 bytes****96,256 bytes VTS.01.0.VOB****132,300,800 bytes****132,300,800 bytes VTS.01.1.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.2.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.3.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes [bold]VTS.01.4.VOB****839,274,496 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes[/bold] VTS.01.5.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes VTS.01.6.VOB****1,073,739,776 bytes****1,073,739,776 bytes [bold]VTS.01.7.VOB****909,197,312 bytes****674,732,032 bytes[/bold] Sum of the above** 7,249,684,480 bytes****7,249,684,480 bytes The sum might be the same but all of the marbles aren't in the same pocket! LOL
[bold]now that we know the file sizes are in fact identical,[/bold] What are you talking about?, the file sizes were not at all identical in both of your file posts. Look again! Like I said there are anomalies in 100% of DVD Shrinks files ripped with no compression.
Of couse, I meant the sum of the file sizes. I apologize profusely for my omission of that unimportant phrase (since we both know that the reason for the differences in individual file sizes is only due to the programmer's decision on where to choose to "end" one segment and begin the next segment of a video stream. But, I knew you knew that (grin). Try to have a better day, -Bruce
The point has never been about file sizes, it's about whether or not DVD Shrink affects the video when used under no compression. [bold]differences in individual file sizes is only due to the programmer's decision on where to choose to "end" one segment[/bold] In a no compression transfer that shouldn't be a factor, one set of files should mirror the other. Each should be identical in size and number.
>>>In a no compression transfer that shouldn't be a factor, one set of files should mirror the other. Each should be identical in size and number.<<< Wrong. -Bruce
Bruce999 [bold]Wrong[/bold] Sorry but [bold]right![/bold] If you've got proof to refute that, then I'm all ears.!!!
Strange that it is being said that DVD Shrink doesn't affect the way a video turns out. I don't use DVD Shrink extensively as a ripper. About the only time I use it is when I'm having a minor problem with file structure. (I find DVD Decrypter more efficient as a ripper.) Several of us use the trick of running a file through Shrink if Nero or one of the burning apps indicates a structural defect that might affect the recording. And it doesn't affect the file? Wrong at least on that aspect. Check out the Shrink forums with a search if you don't believe it. Personally, I've only done this once or twice out of hundreds of backups from my library. I do remember it was from a fault induced by structural and/or ARccOS encryption (new encryption from the past year or so). So, with Shrink, we have a program that can alter the file structure to do minor corrections for the recording process. Add to that the fact that Shrink does alter internal file size, thus content. Consider the fact that some people edit DVDs, thus further tampering with files. Nice of Shrink to have all those editing capabilities. There you would possibly have an output altered due to content being shifted from one file to another. Not a big problem, but definitely something that can occurr. Now... getting down to that favorite subject, Shrink and no compression and the effects Shrink has on video quality. To answer this question one merely needs to look at the controls of the latest version of Shrink 3.2. The "Quality Settings" are a new feature for the last version, 3.2. This was developed due to the older versions of Shrink affecting the video output. If it wasn't needed, the author wouldn't have included it. The last version, 3.2 went through extensive beta testing before the public ever saw the finished product. I remember Sophocles was involved in one of the original discussions about the topic of Shrink's "soft" video appearance in the older versions. That discussion was prior to the finalized 3.2. Seems the Shrink acolytes could see no wrong in the app and defended it vehemently. The situation turned out that the author agreed with the critics and installed the aforementioned "Quality Settings". There's something to be said for constructive criticism. "Compress video with high quality adaptive error compensation:" is an option under "Quality Settings" along with the deep analysis feature. Under AEC the selections are, Maximum Smoothness, Smooth, Sharp (default), and Maximum Sharpness. That's 4 settings with various results with Sharp as the default. Default settings without the "Quality Settings" in use produce a video the same as earlier versions of the software. So, at No Compression, the default Sharp should be what the video is being processed as. (Remember, at default was where the softness of video output was first noticed.) Though no transcoding is being done, the video is still being processed through the software. Many have noticed minor differences, especially on large screen monitors. Some not paying attention may even attribute the softness to a contrast setting. Sometimes it even needed minor magnification to be apparent, but the differences have been noted. So, the author noted there was a situation with varying video quality and he addressed it with the "Quality Settings" in order for the users to tailor the output to their own preferences. Quite a bit for a program that doesn't alter video output. You guys go on with the discussion, but I believe the author of Shrink solved the discussion some time ago. Obviously he wouldn't have added the "Quality Settings" if he didn't think DVD Shrink has an effect on video output that might need some correcting; or at least let us say alterations. I find it amazing that users don't pay more attention to the video quality of their backup output in relation to that of the original. Even the author of Shrink noted the differences that sometimes occurr; including the sometimes not readily apparent "soft" picture. If the author of the app didn't know what he was doing, why in the world are so many people using it and attesting to it being the best freeware of its type. I think they go a bit too far when they say the best ever. But lets not go there lest we fire up the acolytes.
He should know, he was there! Regarding the quality settings I seem to recall that Dr. Shrink added a compress "B" frames more setting that seemed to work well at first but later proved to produce artifacts in action scenes (requiring higher bitrates).
Flattered that you noticed my presence. LOL I was one of the fortunate few that was allowed to observe the development of the improved Shrink through the beta testing process. Though not an actual beta tester, I was well aware of what was going on and allowed to use the beta versions before completion. And yes... I did get involved in some of the earliest discussions on the "soft" aspect of Shrink video output. I remember some of the steadfast Shrinkees yelling blasphemy (or was that heresy) at first. Luckily the author of Shrink came forward and addressed the issue before any burnings at the stake occurred. and I believe you may be correct. Though Dr Shrink originally had no intent to address that problem, he ended up investing quite a bit of work in the final AEC setup. The first thoughts were for doing just a cleaned up version of the prior work. Then as work progressed he ended up doing the major mods and giving the public a real treat. I believe he's still up to delivering good works over at Ahead with Nero. Can't blame the guy for wanting to be paid for some of his excellent work. The Shrink was and still is superior to many of the retail offerings.
