Yes DVD Shrink is a fine piece of work. I once referred to it as the best freeware application ever made. A bit of exaggeration perhaps but not by much. I wish that Dr. Shrink would have somehow separated the ripper from the transcoder but he didn't and even under no compression the movie is still processed through it.
It appears as though the ripper ability and a few others are fortunate byproducts of how the program functions; not fully intended functions. If you notice, ripping with DVD Shrink isn't a big thing in any of the manuals developed for the app. In fact I originally found out about it from a forum thread and not a manual. For those who like to use software "outside the box" there's also AnyDVD for ripping. All one needs to do is decrypt with the AnyDVD and any app that can record to the HDD without compression can finish the rip process. Doing it that way, DVD Decrypter, Shrink and many other apps can remain efficient rippers as long as AnyDVD or a like app retains support and is kept updated for decryption.
Bruce999 [bold]quod erat demonstrandum[/bold] "that which was to be demonstrated" I sort of wondered about that addition. Sort of vague or cryptic, exactly what did you demonstrate that could be laid to rest? "that which was to be demonstrated" I fear I and others may have missed. Your assertion that the end byte count remained the same in your observations I can follow. As far as no effect on video output, I believe I'll make my conclusions from the work done by the author of the app with the AEC development.
This seems like a lot of hoopla over a minor preference. My preference is to ripp with DVDshrink via Anydvd and use CCE to compress if needed. I have not been able to find any evidence to support the claims of DVDshrink modifying ripped files. When using no compresion the picture always looks the same as the original. I would find it difficult to support my opinion in this matter with bit by bit comparisons so I will leave it as just my opinion. If you are afraid of shrink doing bad things to your movie don't use it. I for one think it does not.
As for using 2 DVDs for backup. I have yet to see a movie large enough that CCE did not make a visibly perfect viewing experience. I am picky on the picture but I won't make 2 discs just because. If I were to come up to a movie to large for my purposes I could afford a DL disc for backup.
I have noticed that when ripping with DVDshrink no compression there is very little processor use like with a straight copy. Any encoding or transcoding requires processor power like with CCE even with little compresion. This would tend to support the view that Shrink does not actually trancode with no compression.
@bruce 999 don't mean to interupt but I've noticed the quality issues you say you have never noticed in three years I've been doing back_ups 4 about 6 mo's now the vast majority will admit they've in one cicumstance or another seen them but the vast majority don't care I don't in most circumstances. some of the pickier pple such as mort are actually acting on our behalf to keep crap progs in check. In your "science experiment" at the beginning af this mockery of your intelligence I don't think the #'s add up but seeing as I'm not going to actually do the math since this is a test that absolutly has no semblance of actually proving any thing. I could quite possibly be wrong imagine that a human that is wrong hmmmm. have any mirrors any ways the point is the final quality do you have a test that could actually test two disc as for quality viewing actual picture quality after you figure how to test the pictures be sure that you test them on every make&model of t.v. in existence then conduct the same test taking in to account 4 every make and model of burner in existence played on every t.v. then take into account every burning app used on every burner played on every t.v. after you could test different age groups because I have a grand mother who could not tell you the difference between a dvd burned with nero, and the t.v. being turned off in fact when you can litterally take others eye balls out of their sockets and insert them into yours and then run that image file through all the different kinds of processors known as "brains" then I will continue this conversation w/ you infact I can't hardly wait!! just jittery w/ anticipation. off now you have alot of work to be done
@l8nights - don't waste your breath - that guy (name beginning with 'B', ending with '9') has decided to try to belittle the experience of long-term members and even beta-testers of DVD Shrink, so there's no point. Those same guys have told him what they think, yet he continued to berate their knowledge - for that follishness there are many words in the dictionary, none of which i will squander here . i myself have no such indepth experience, am just grateful that knowledgeable ppl such as those who have commented previously have done all the hard work for ppl such as you and me. For someone to come along with such a pointless set of paragraphs (i won't call them opinions) and continually challenge ppl who actually worked with this stuff as it was being developed is petty to say the very least. So i would steer clear my friend
Donald, No problem at all having your own preferences. Some people say they've seen the differences using Shrink at no compression and you say you haven't. As I pointed out, it is usually a slight difference with Shrink's encoding. I don't do a lot of work with Shrink anymore, so I can't give you any field data. However Dr. Shrink did do the "Quality Settings" with AEC to compensate for the video output. I guess the question boils down to[bold] "Is Shrink merely acting as copy software or are the files being processed (transcoded) through the encoding engine (algorithm), even though it isn't being shrunk?"[/bold] If you see nothing, then there's absolutely no reason to change. I don't think anyone is really trying to influence anyone toward change. The discussion was more on technical points and Sophocles kept close tabs on the Shrink 3.2 development and B***9 didn't, or at least doesn't appear to have from his statements. I've always used DVD Decrypter because it is a dedicated app for ripping, not one where the compression and burn settings have to be altered to record to the HDD. But then, each to his own choices as you say. I always liked that disclaimer type statement they had on the Shrink site, [bold]use DVD Decrypter if Shrink doesn't decrypt the files properly.[/bold] I figured I'd just take Shrink's word for it and use the best up front; especially since I no longer transcode using Shrink and the decryption software hasn't been updated in over a year. Though Decrypter has been orphaned, it's not yet started having problems with newer encryption, at least none I've run across yet. Plus, with AnyDVD I can continue to use it if encryption problems arise. I know, Shrink uses AnyDVD as well. But, I still opt for DVD Decrypter because it is a dedicated ripper. Why open a transcoder app to do the job of a simple rip (especially when the transcoder output can be a bit suspect)? As I stated before, I remember the many Shrink acolytes yelling there's absolutely nothing wrong with Shrink, only to have Dr Shrink add the "Quality Settings" to the improved app. BTW, don't get me wrong, I agree with Soph, Shrink is the best freeware app of its type. I still keep it on my PC for some of the utilities. I just don't see it as the best choice for a ripper since DVD Decrypter is also the best freeware app of its type. Sort of funny, a whole lotta posting for such a trivial pursuit.
64026402 In my debate I repeated to the other side over and over again that this is not about compression, I repeat no compression. It's about whether or not some files are altered by DVD shrink when processed with no compression and since it's compression that challenges your CPU the point that you didn't see any CPU stressing becomes moot. DVD Shrink when used as a ripper is still more than just a ripper because it makes non compressed changes to the end result. I did a comparison last year where I ripped with DVD Decrypter, SmartRipper, and DVD Shrink and then compared all three folders (its posted somewhere here on AD). The folders ripped by Decrypter and SmartRipper were identical, but the one ripped with Shrink had variations in the size of some folders. Vurbal did an analysis of a section of a movie and discovered that there was a difference in the number of frame counts by 1.
Boy I'm almost sorry I opened this can of worms but at least am glad to see that I'm not the only one that has noticed some altered files when useing shrink set at no compression as a ripper where as with dvdd there were none. I agree that dvd shrink is a great free proggy and I do still use it ocassionally for certain functions but as for ripping I use dvdd exclusively with any dvd running in the background. Mort
A little bit of interesting information. Those of you who know me know that I've been experiencing difficulty trying to backup the movie "Diary Of A Mad Black Woman." I tried backing it up in this order with RB/CCE, great picture but no sound on my standalone, I tried it with RB/CCE again but this time making sure not to remove any soundtracks and again no sound. I even tried playing the RB/CCE encoded file from my hard disk using WinDVD 7.0 Platinum and there was no sound. So I figured its off to DVDCopy3 but wouldn't you know it I got the same problem no sound, so I tried it with DVD Shrink and it also had no sound. Something in the structure of the DVD causes the audio streams/links to be broken, they're still there but not accessible through the menu. It soon became apparent that all that might be left to me is to make a full non compressed copy across two discs. and then it occurred to me I still have a copy of DVD2one, I just hadn't used for over year. I dropped on my hard disk, updated it to 1.5X and then transcoded the movie. After the movie was done I decided to run it through Mark's Tray Player but it wouldn't even open the movie so I tried WinDVD and it wouldn't open it either. A yanked a few hairs out and then thought perhaps I could run it under DVD Shrink choosing no compression, DVD Shrink can make a non compliant DVD compliant by just doing that.I loaded the file into DVD Shrink and I noticed something a little odd. The movie's folder size came in at 4.34 gigs but [bold]DVD Shrink was showing it as 99.4%[/bold], which means according to Shrink some compression would still be needed, but I knew that was wrong. I removed two subtitles and now it was at 100%. After running it through DVD Shrink under no compression I opened it in Mark's Tray Player with no problems and the sound was there. I then opened it with WinDVD and it too played with sound. I burned and it played in all 4 of my standalone. Now the point of me posting this here was not to show another way to get around a back up problem, it was to demonstrate that DVD Shrink does in fact change a DVD's content when it's passed through it using no compression. Sometimes that not a bad thing as I've just demonstrated here, but make no mistake if you use DVD Shrink as a ripper something will be altered. For those who might argue otherwise then answer me this. Why did DVD Shrink misread the physical size of the folder? When run through Shrink using no compression why do at least two of the files in the folder read different sizes than those in the originally ripped folder? And lastly, if using no compression doesn't alter the contents of a movie then why did running it through DVD Shrink make a previously unplayable movie now playable in anything? I've used Shrink on a number of occasions to make unplayable home movies compliant, without using any compression at all. The same thing that made DVD Shrink a valuable tool here, is also the reason I don't use it to rip. When I rip a movie I want it to arrive to my hard disk in pristine condition, not altered in anyway before I even get started backing it up. But if you find yourself in a bind trying to back up a stubborn movie and you're running out of alternatives, then Shrink just might be the right tool to tidy up that unplayable movie.
Sophocles, If you are talking about reallocation of files or remapping of audio streams or the like then yes DVDshrink can make changes to the struture. As for encoding or video quality modifications when using no compression, I have seen no indication of such.
I use Shrink to rip because of the flexability it has that DVDdecrypter does not. The quick analysis is usefull and the quick editing with a viewer is nice in a ripping program. I also like ripping multiple movies sequentially. Batch mode. As for causing video problems, like sophocles I have more often used it to fix problems other progams create. Its's a tool. Nothing more. I use DVDdecrypter for burning sometimes and testing DVD setup and media problems and for the occasional bad sector nightmare DVDs. A must have in any collection.
6402 I used to use Shrink for the same tasks that you use it for but now that RB allows for essentially the same editing features or better ones I no longer need it for that. Also During my tests last summer I noted a decidedly different appearance in movies that had gone through Shrink under no compression. Then Double-D really got me going when he began to make mosquito effect comparisons between DVD Shrink and RB/CCE. While it was true that RB/CCE displayed the mosquito effect a little more than Shrink did in some scenes requiring a higher bitrate, RB was unquestionably sharper than Shrink. Further examination revealed that DVD Shrink had less visual mosquito effect because of its lack of sharpness. If RB were played back on a TV with the sharpness control turned down there would be decidedly less visual mosquito effect. I also know that Dr. Shrink had discussions during beta testing regarding just this point and he even admitted to this being a Shrink characteristic. Some people prefer a subtle air brush effect to their video, but I prefer detail. He also stated that it would make high compression DVD's appear more attractive, it acts like a filter.I wish I could provide you with the links to those threads but this was a year ago and I'm too lazy to go look for them. The problem with DVD Shrink as a ripper is that you can't separate it from the transcoder by using no compression. It might not be compressing the DVD but whatever else it does it's doing it to the video. I believe as do many that it's still filtering the Video and causing a visually less sharp image. I do think like you in that DVD Shrink is a valuable tool, and just like the example of the movie I discussed above, sometimes it might be the only choice.
