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

:: DVD rebuilder & return of the king... dissapointing results...

Discussion in 'DVD / BD-Rebuilder forum' started by babelfish, Aug 19, 2004.

  1. ddlooping

    ddlooping Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
  2. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    It's not specific to the PAL version, although at first glance it doesn't appear to be as bad on my NTSC copy. Assuming the same maximum bitrate (which I haven't verified), that makes sense considering that the PAL version has ~2081894 pixels more per second (NTSC = 720 x 480 x 23.976 / PAL = 720 x 576 x 25). Believe it or not I'm almost done with a DRM guide, so I should be able to look at this more closely later on.
     
  3. ddlooping

    ddlooping Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    That's a very interesting point, vurbal.
    At a given bitrate, PAL would have to deal with more pixels than NTSC.
    Hence, less data per pixel. Hence a lesser quality!?

    Edit: I believe macroblocks are 8x8 pixels.
    So that would make for a difference of more than 32500 macroblocks per second.
    _X_X_X_X_X_[small][​IMG]

    For DVD Shrink and related softwares guides and information, please visit http://www.dvdshrink.info[/small]
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2004
  4. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    As long as you're dealing with film based sources I believe that's correct. I do know that with interlaced sources they're supposed to come out even, because interlaced NTSC has more fields than PAL, which compensates for the lower resolution. But since film sources aren't actually encoded at 29.97fps, just telecined to read that way, there should be more bits per pixel, and therefore higher quality for the same encoder bitrate.

    Just out of curiosity, does the PAL version have a lot of audio streams? I'm still stumped at why they used such a low max bitrate, but if there were enough audio streams it would make sense bcause the highest bitrate available is 10,080kbps minus the total bitrate of all audio streams.
     
  5. ddlooping

    ddlooping Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Only one AC3 5.1 EX audio stream.
     
  6. ddlooping

    ddlooping Active member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2004
  7. 64026402

    64026402 Active member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    The reason why I wanted you to do the 3 files from the previous post is because it mirrored the results I got in which the additional quality_prec in rebuilder came out with almost no sign of the artifact.

    I figured we could get on the same page since they were your clips. The difference was apparent to the most casual observer.

    Anyway, I'm satisfied that you did those clips correctly which bring my part in this to a close.

    With 50% compression CCE does a very good job with the exception of a minor artifact from the original not properly represented but better than the same clip from shrink sharp.

    With both on smooth setting cce still remains sharp but has less artifact than Shrink smooth.

    Neither is likely to get better than the original so I think this is a good stopping point.

    This was thankfully verified by your own clips so there can be little argument.

    From here it is just your preference.
     
  8. matt67

    matt67 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    So, can anyone tell me HOW to IMPROVE the quality of LOTR burn? Even with all the suggestions, I still get quite a bit of pixels during battle scenes. Perhaps I should start a new post?
     
  9. Sophocles

    Sophocles Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5,898
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    118
  10. matt67

    matt67 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    For those lucky enough to stick to the title of this thread I found what I was looking for. To truly preserve the quality of such a long movie (LOTR0, I opted to use the "re-author" function within DVD Shrink and put it on two disks.

    I'm sure the previous method posted would also work, but the key to using some of these programs is the word "free." Afterall, they're just backups.
     
  11. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    matt67 ... Very interesting approach. It takes the shrink out of Shrink.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2004
  12. 64026402

    64026402 Active member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    DVDdoubler maybe.

    They are just backups so I prefer use 1 disc. It isn't free but it's half the price of 2.

    Matt67
    If you were getting pixelation from one of the higher quality backup methods I would be looking at media or burner problems.
     
  13. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I have my backup split across 2 discs, which is my normal method for very long movies. After seeing the encoding artifacts in the original I can't say I'd do it any differently if I had to do it again. OTOH when I get the extended edition I'm sure I'll compress each disc to fit on 1 blank.
     

Share This Page