DVD-to-DVD-R transcoders, in terms of quality

Discussion in 'Copy DVD to DVDR' started by cd-rw.org, Nov 15, 2003.

Page 1 of 2
  1. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I very quickly went through a number of DVD transcoders (aka shrinkkers) and made some very subjective conclusions.

    Mostly I used Lord Of The Rings - Two Towers DVD, and a Philips 952 standalone player for the quality review. This comparison definitely is NOT scientificly valid, but I'd like to start the discussion as I know that there are some video gurus hanging around this forum.

    1) DVD Shrink v3b5

    DVD Shrink is free, and most tweakable. With the "deep analyze" function, it seemed to provide the best picture quality. Tendency for macro blockyness. Handled the dark fight scenes at the end of LOTR TT very well. Flexibility, such as the ability strip credits from the end, give this one an edge.

    2) CloneDVD

    Best user interface and best execution of DVD shrinkker seen so far. Easy to use & fast compressor. Initially I thought that this one had the best quality. The compressor doesn't introduce macro blocks. But when I took a closer look at the dark fight scenes of LOTR TT, I noticed that the rainy scenes looked somewath messy - but not blocky. For short movies, this is a top choice for snappy compression. With giants like LOTR TT, I go for Shrink.

    The rest:
    -----------

    DVD2One: Has a fast compression engine and is very easy to use. Tends to introduce macro blocks more than the best ones.

    Intervideo WinDVDCopy: The GUI has some glitches, for example in audio stream selection (insuffucient information about the stream). Claims to have some sort of intelligent bitrate variator algorithm, but introduces a shitload of macroblocks. Also supports Divx, but the bitrate options were "funny". Support SVCD, but the bitrate is ridiculous, and no settings to change it. Seems to create a nice VCD quality though.

    Pinnacle Instant Copy: This is no actually a transocder/shrinker, since it applies a fast MPEG-2 recompression. There are some reports that it has a good image quality, especially when a lot of compression needs to be done. I tried this a dozen times and it crashed every time I tried it.

    Opinions?
     
    cd-rw.org, Nov 15, 2003
    #1
  2. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    143
    I wouldn't consider Pinnacle at all, since if you opt for good quality, why to settle down with "fast recompression" and not use decent, excellent quality MPEG-2 encoder instead, such as CCE Basic (~$40).

    DVDXCopy XPRESS has probably the easiest GUI, so it is a good choice for newbies who don't want to really know what's going on, but simply want the results quickly (and as it is, apart from Shrink, the only one to include DVD ripper as well, it makes it even easier).

    DVD2One's compression is IMO on par with Shrink's, but it is always very subjective opimion when analyzing with plain eyes.
     
    dRD, Nov 15, 2003
    #2
  3. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Why settle with fast recompression? The question pretty much answers to itself. Because of speed & simplicity.

    The understand that the processing times of Pinnacle are about 2-3x longer than with transcoders, but still it's a lot faster than CCE. And not to mention the simple usage (if it would work) - I don't think there is a "single-click" solution for CCE available?
     
    cd-rw.org, Nov 16, 2003
    #3
  4. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    143
    I personally think that once the compression takes more than 30-45mins, it is taking long enough to justify putting your computer to work overnight and encode the movie using CCE or even TMPGEnc. And yes, you're right, there's no real "one-click" tool available for CCE yet, which is a shame -- but then again, people who prefer to use CCE, normally want to tweak the encoding settings, GOP values, etc anyway :)

    Its sitll my opinion, that Pinaacle kinda falls in between, filling a gap that no one really needs.
     
    dRD, Nov 16, 2003
    #4
  5. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I beg to disagree.

    I think a modern (= 2000+mhz) computer working on a movie over night is clearly an overkill. A fast recompression could potentially achieve "dvd quality" results in a significantly shorter time. I value time.

    And the ones with modern PC:s are the lucky ones. Try compressing a movie with a 650mhz PC, and think again if the speed matters or not.

    Transcoders have issues with long movies. Splitting to two DVDs (or using a DVD-9 flipper) is an option, but not a parctical one. Fast recompression can tackle this problem._X_X_X_X_X_[small]http://CD-RW.ORG
    Serving The Burners
    Burning The Servers[/small]
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2003
    cd-rw.org, Nov 17, 2003
    #5
  6. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Claiming that fast recompression can achieve "dvd quality" is bit like stating that you would be happy enough with 256kbps l3enc -encoded MP3s, since the bitrate makes up the bad quality of the compression itself.

    Same here. It takes me exactly 45minutes to rip a DVD, transcode it and burn the disc at 4x. Then again, for movies that I prefer to have a good quality backup of, I normally look at the disc itself -- if by stripping out unwanted menus, etc it can fit on one disc, I do that. If not, I either split the disc or encode it with proper encoder.

    But for most movies I simply wish to have a practical backup of, while keeping the original in safe place (specially true with my kid's movies :).
     
    dRD, Nov 18, 2003
    #6
  7. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    This discussion is going off the track. DVD-to-DVD-R transcoders: opinions on quality, anyone?
     
    cd-rw.org, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I have to take some comments back on the InterVideo. I tested it again (I must have had both audio tracks included the last time or something) and the quality was decent. Yes macro blocks occur here and there, but none of these are quite perfect with the LOTR-TT. Still this program has some oddities and it's quite not there with Shirnk or Clone.

    Bit off topic, but for high quality recompression, this is worth checkign out:
    http://www.dvd2dvd-r.de/
    http://kickme.to/dvd2dvdr_X_X_X_X_X_[small]http://CD-RW.ORG
    Serving The Burners
    Burning The Servers[/small]
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2003
    cd-rw.org, Nov 29, 2003
    #8
  9. pcshateme

    pcshateme Guest

    i used dvd 2 one for all 35 of my... cough cough... backups, and there is no "macro blockyness" DVD2One is best because, its fast (45 min on my 1.3 ghz) provides unnoticeabley perfect video, and even though i know alot about dvd backups, i like the ease of a "one click" program.- to test the quality- what did you do, take a microscope, to the tv? im prettey observent, and overobsessive, and i never noticed any quality loss on my... backup.. cough... cough.. copies
     
    pcshateme, Dec 2, 2003
    #9
  10. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I used a Sony 29" Trinitron 4:3 television - extremely sharp picture in this model, beats most wide screens. And a Philips 952 DVD player, RGB connected.

    First of all, I used long & difficult movies. LOTR-TT and Gladiator. In such cases the transocers compression efficiency and it's ability identify which scenes need most bits plays a major part. When compressing typical 2 hour films, where the applied compression is only 10-15%, the case is quite different.

    My current undestanding is that Shrink and InterVideo are efficient compressors. On the other hand they seems to smooth the picture a little, so CloneDVD or may produce better results in shorter&less demanding films.

    DVD2One seemed to fail in high action / bitrate scenes. I will give it another whirl too - as I wrote, these conclusions are rather quickly made. However, many others have concurred with the opinion that DVD2One can't match Shrink v3.

    Soon we should have Nero Recode v2 to stirr the market further..
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 2, 2003
    #10
  11. pcshateme

    pcshateme Guest

    i copied tt and sparticus (a 2 disc 5 hour movie i copied to one disc) and noticed no quality loss on TT (even in high action scenes like the battle at the end) and got good (not perfect) quality on sparticus

    i should add i cut out all extras and used a 27 inch flatscreen_X_X_X_X_X_[small]check out my site "www.backupguides.vze.com" for free software and illustrated guides on copying DVDs to DVD, to CD, and other copying stuff.[/small]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2003
    pcshateme, Dec 3, 2003
    #11
  12. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    If you notice no quality loss in TT, it tells more about your ability to see, than the transcoders quality. But good for you - you can transcode at will.

    If you have trouple seeing attefacts, then have a look at the Gandalf vs. Balrog scene in the very begining of the film. Reduce speed to 1/2 if full frame rate still "hides" the problems for you.
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 6, 2003
    #12
  13. pcshateme

    pcshateme Guest

    whatever, i and no one else can tell the difference except you. sorry but i dont feel like waiting overnight for a movie to encode just so if im running it a 4x zoom and half speed i can't see the slight pixel jitters. if your that much of a freak you need a reality check. if i can watch a movie, with my family watching and no one notices anything, i dont see how theres a problem- and for your info my vision is fine.
     
    pcshateme, Dec 6, 2003
    #13
  14. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Like I said, good for you.

    I don't know anyone (in the video/dvd scene) who couldn't see the difference. Actually people have been telling me that LOTR TT should not be squeezed to a single disc at all.

    Read around these (and other) forums, and you'll notice that there are differences.

    But don't take my word for it: http://forum.digital-digest.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=87860
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 6, 2003
    #14
  15. dRD

    dRD I hate titles Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1999
    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    143
    There are people who are very happy with the quality of VCD movies and who are happy with one-disc DivX movies. Then there are people who can't stand the current DVDs because they consider the quality to be simply too bad and wish that HD-DVD/Blu-Ray would soon come and fix the issue. Same applies for music -- some people are more than happy to listen 128kbps MP3s, but some of us simply want to have 256kbps or plain CDDA instead.

    The difference is normally caused by various things -- eyesight being one, but typically the least important one. Other factors (with videos) include the trained eye -- when you work with videos professionally/semi-professionally, you simply spot the errors, disgusting encoding issues with videos much more clearly. And the most important one, IMO, is the equipment -- people stating "but I have 32 inch TV and I don't see a thing" with obvious encoding compromises typically have a very bad quality 32" TV (there is an actual reason why widescreen 32" TVs vary in price between $300 and $2500). Bigger the TV, clearer the TV picture, the more obvious the problems with the incoming signal qualty are. Same applies with audio -- when you listen 128kbps MP3s with car stereo (car being very bad place acoustically anyway) or with "PC speakers", the difference is normally non-audible between 128kbps and 256kbps MP3s. Buy a pair of bit more expensive headphones and you'll notice a huge difference in terms of audio quality.

    But the beauty of it is the fact that current video scene offers something for everybody -- fast and "dirty" transcoding for people who demand less and CCE SP 8-pass encoding for people who wish to achieve perfect (as perfect as you can achieve from a DVD-Video, which itself is limited to 720x576/480 and 9.5Mbps MPEG-2) video quality for their backups.
     
    dRD, Dec 6, 2003
    #15
  16. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Actually car stereos, good or bad, can be a very effective way of hearing audio quality problems. This is due to the often non-linear freq. resoponse curve which can push the encoding artefacts to the audible range.
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 7, 2003
    #16
  17. pcshateme

    pcshateme Guest

    im not new to this, i can tell quality easily. my tv may not be the best in the world, but im not one of those people who likes crappy quality VCDs. to copy TT i removed all extras and only chose the AAC6ch audio and no subs.
    and i have noticed "blockyness" on some movies, but only on Full screen movies (they have a lower resolution, plus when i get an widescreen HDTV in the future i dont want short and fat people and objects) i have never noticed anything on my widescreen version of TT.
     
    pcshateme, Dec 7, 2003
    #17
  18. cd-rw.org

    cd-rw.org Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Add Nero Recode v2 to heat up the competition. Shrink-based engine produces eye-pleasing results: http://cd-rw.org/news/archive/4765.cfm

    More personal opinions wanted? How would [bold]you[/bold] rate the current transcoding solutions.
     
    cd-rw.org, Dec 7, 2003
    #18
  19. pcshateme

    pcshateme Guest

    i got nero 6 complete last night (kazza) and tried nero recode, your right it does work better, i think i might use it from no on.
     
    pcshateme, Dec 8, 2003
    #19
  20. pbailey

    pbailey Regular member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    What do u mean by better, better quality in a smaller space?

    On the subject of preferences and quality, i do the same as pcshateme, get rid of everything but the movie, and terminator 3 using dvd shrink, whilst there are differences from the original evident, my friends and i could only count then on one hand, the quality is amazingy. LOL, that said tho, my tv is only 68cm, i think thats 34 inches for the poor bastards still stuck in imperial, mwah mwah mwah.

    Bailey
     
    pbailey, Dec 8, 2003
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page