Experiencing Difficulty Using DVD RB and CCE? If So, Then Ask Your Questions Here.

.

 

DigitalSk

It's been my major backup method for about 10 months and after hundreds of movies I still look forward to updates and improvements. Before I started using RB/CCE I used to do movie only backups and although that's still true for many films (who wants the extras of "The Village" when the main movie sucked)I now try to keep it all because of RB/CCE can do it with great quality.

 

So I can actually keep everything VS Shrink (where I have to cut stuff out ) And Still get a better quality than Shrink ?

 

Almost! You should still get rid of worthless lnaguage audio tracks. If you want trailers then download them in mpeg 4, watch them, and then delete them. But keep the parts that want to enjoy still sharp and clear? Yes!

 

... What would be the best way to take the unwanted stuff out ?

 

The one that works! experiment a bit.

 

First jdobbs,I must say that you are very helpfull.
Second, I would like to know about the speed indicator in DVD Rebuilder.
Is is a benchmark?
What is a good number?
I have a half-decent system(homemade) and would like to know how it matches-up.
Looking forward to your insight.
dbag

 

@dbag

The numbers change dramatically between computers. A fast processor is the most important key -- but contributors include memory speed, hard drive speed, and hard drive cache size.

I use my video processing computer as a baseline. It is a home-built computer with an AMD 3200+ processor using 512MB of DDR 3200 memory, my hard drive is a Maxtor 250MB, 7200rpm drive with an 8MB cache. I have one partition set aside for video encodes.

On my system using CCE SP 2.50 I get about 2.5x encoding speed, using CCE 2.70 (SP and Basic) I get about 2.25x encoding speed.

There are lots of variables. The speed of the encode is measured in frames, not input size. So a 3 hour movie will take much longer to encode than a 1.5 hour movie that is the same physical size. Similarly a 29.97fps (frames per second) encode takes 20% longer than a 23.976fps of the same length. So take any figures given by anyone with a grain of salt. The speed of two systems can truly only be compared if encoding the same movie with the same settings.

Another factor is filters. If you add a complex filter (like a temporal smoother for example) you might double or triple the amount of time needed to encode). I personally never use filters unless I find the output to be poor -- which is very rare with CCE. Usually if I'm not satisfied with the output I go back and find that the original wasn't very good either. When that happens I might add undot().deen() as a filters.

Generally my system takes about 40 minutes to one hour per pass using CCE. PREPARE takes 5 minutes, and REBUILD takes 20... so a complete two pass encode takes 105 minutes up to 145 minutes. But as I said, it is variable. If I have a two hour movie and another hour of Extras -- it will take longer.

CCE is very clearly the fastest encoder. But on my system QuEnc in standard mode is almost as fast. Those with Intel processors don't seem to do as well with QuEnc -- not sure why. HC is comparably slower, but its quality is pretty close to CCE. I did a backup of "Oceans Twelve" last night using the "Best" quality mode and HC took 224 minutes.

Hope that helps.

 

I did one copy with Shrink & Nero
The 2nd copy with Rebuilder, CCE Basic & Nero

I can't see a differance in the quality..which I'm disapointed & it took 304 mins to do the copy with rebuilder

DigitalSk,

Talking about the time RB/CCE takes, it's true that it does take longer than most other apps. However I have found that when using Shrink if you use all the quality settings it isn't much faster than RB/CCE on a movie with a large amount of files, maybe 30-45 minutes faster. In order for Shrink to even begin to compare in quality with RB/CCE these settings must be used on large amts. of compression.

The end results still don't match RB/CCE IMHO and you're not saving all that much timewise. Also, as jdobbs stated, what you're viewing it on is going to make a huge difference in being able to tell the dramatic improvement RB/CCE has in the final analysis. A 60" screen is going to show more faults than a 27" screen.

I was one of the beta testers with the latest version of shrink, and I did LOTR-ROTK, at least 20 times using shrink,IC8, DvdCopy 2, and RB/CCE. I viewed my results on a Mitsubishi 57" HDTV using a split screen side by side comparison up to 300% magnification. Trust me on this, RB/CCE blew the competition away with Intervideo's DvdCopy 2 coming in second. It is now DvdCopy 3 and it is still extremely fast(under an hour)and much improved(Copy 2 sometimes experienced pixelation problems, that has been corrected), if you're looking at a program that's faster and comes close to RB/CCE then DvdCopy 3 is the one. Unfortunately it isn't free or cheap(79.00).

I suggest to do what the rest of us do, Run RB/CCE at night when you go to bed, even use batch mode and do several movies at once. Use Shrink or whatever for smaller amts. of compression and use RB/CCE for the big boys like 35-40% and over. Shrink works well for editing, just write to your HDD and then use those files in RB/CCE. I prefer DvdReMake Pro over shrink for editing, but again, unfortunately it isn't free either.(40.00) :>)

 

Why not get off some bucks and have DVDCopy3 and RB/CCE? That way one has the better transcoder, as well as encoder. If one has a decent PC, they've probably already spent much more on hardware. If an easy editing program is needed, DVDReMake Pro is reasonable.

I agree with Bigorange, Sophocles, and the rest on this forum, you can't beat RB/CCE for the high compression encoding tasks. If one is going to do comparisons, keep it straight and use the exact same files when doing the copies. I can take something like 1clickdvdcopy with movie only and get a decent copy on some DVDs. However, with compression, the program breaks up badly in video quality. RB/CCE shines on doing high compression, full disk backups. It's well worth the time. Learn the batch processing and remember to run when away from the PC. These guys here on the forum know what they're talking about. I'm just being repetitive...

 

It's this simple! If you're in a hurry then use your favorite 1 click transcoder and never look back. If you're fussy and you want the best return for your efforts then you have to focus on the engine that's going to produce your final result. When you're discussing quality then time shouldn't be a criterion. Jdobbs has done a wonderful job of making a "reference standard" encoder usable by those of us who would otherwise find it beyond our reach. If your PC is up to it then join us and find out what we're talking about, but if time is your nemesis then don't bother and continue using the fast and dirty methods.

 

Does CCE 2.70.02 use SSE 2 and/or 3?

 

here are some silly questions tht im curious about.
when dvd rebuilder says "Reduction Level for DVD-5: 58.2%" what does it mean??? IS it like the dvd has been shrunk by 58.2% or the dvd that dvd rebuilder is rebuilding is 58.2% of it;s original quality??
I am backing up a family guy dvd and on dvd rebuilder it says Reduction Level for DVD-5: 58.2% but when i use dvd shrink it says it can back it up 2 60.5% of the quality. WHich is better in that way??? and which is the best for backing up carttoon dvds casue they both look about the same on my 32inch widescreen tv when hooked up on compoent cables.

when i sucessfully backup a dvd using dvd rebuilder i burn the dvd with nero when the bruning starts it says file reallocation failed, saying that VTS_01_0.vob isnot referenced and should not be present. But i burn the dvd anyway and it still works fine. Is this supposed 2 happen??? whats wrong??? also is copy to dvd better than nero???

 

Make sure you're using the latest version of DVD-RB, a few bugs have been addressed which would cause some files to be incomplete or missing. My guess is that Nero prompted you and you just went ahead and burned it, could've been a coaster but I guess you got lucky there. I would update Nero to the latest version to avoid any problems of any kind just for safety sake. Also when Shrink & RB/CCE go against each other it is quite clear that CCE will deliver better quality than Shrink hands down. ;-)

 

I can't really see the difference between shrink and cce but tahts only casue i have a 32 inch widescreen tv even though i have it connected on component wires. Maybe if i have a bigger tv i would see much more quality with cce. Anyway if i get a bigger tv later i backup my dvds with dvd rebuilder and cce anyway. I will try a massive movie like LOR EE to see if there is a big difference.
I have latest dvd rebuilder v(o.83)and latest nero and still a file is always there thats not supposed 2 be. I just backed up the butterfly effect and it said that the file VIDEO_TS.vob was there and wasn't supposed 2 be. but the dvd worked fine as well when i went ahead and burnt it anyway.

 

@carguy696

DVD Rebuilder makes as close to an exact duplicate of the original as possible. Sometimes you will find an original disc that has VTS files that have a length of zero, or have short unreferences segments. DVD Rebuilder recreates those in the same manner as the original. Nero complains about it -- but it is still completely compliant withe DVD specs. Burn it anyway -- there is no problem.

As for percentages. No. It doesn't necessarily mean the quality will drop at all. The percentage references size. A value of 58% means the video portion of the DVD will have to be reduced to 58% of its original size in order to fit on a DVD-5 (DVD-R or +R).

Using an encoder like CCE most DVDs can fit on a DVD-5 with little or no visible loss in quality. Using a transcoder (as is used in most of the DVD copy programs around) the liklihood of that happening is lower.

Occasionally you will find that the original DVD was encoded at a very high bitrate (sometimes just to make it require a dual layered disc to inhibit copying) -- and you will have a hard time distinguishing between a transcoded and encoded output. But when the backup program is challenged -- the difference is obvious.

DVD Rebuilder is designed to target the high quality market. People have different tastes and needs. The price you pay for the higher quality is encoding time. It's a tradeoff that is the result of the laws of physics...

 

Hello JDOBBS

I enjoy using DVD Rebuilder, along with the quality it produces, but I'm having a really annoying problem..

Often times, I like to blank out certain cells (credits, etc.) with VOBBlanker before I run it through DVD Rebuilder..

I usually blank about 4 discs to my liking, then set it up in batch mode and go to bed for the night..

But I've been having problems; some times it goes off without a hitch, but more than once I've come downstairs in the morning to error messages.. The most recent one I got, after blanking credits from CSI: Season One, was a BUFFER OVERFLOW ERROR 0004..

I'm just wondering, because I was reading somewhere else, that VOBBlanker has some incompatibilities with DVD Rebuilder, so I was just wondering if there are plans to fix this problem, or could you reccomend another program to blank various parts that IS completely compatible..

Thanks jdobbs

edit: sorry, the version I've been using when I'm encountering the CELL errors or the BUFFER OVERFLOWS is DVD-RB 0.82.1 Freeware (BETA)

 

Sorry, but I really don't have an answer for you. The problem is that I can't debug other software. If you are getting a 0004 buffer overflow it means that the the source is almost assuredly corrupt in some way.

I'd recommend either not doing the blanking... or doing it with DVD-RB's pro version.

 

By the way -- a change to version 0.86 will include a modification that will affect 0004 errors, but I'm not sure if it will play a role in your problem.

 

Click Clack and CarGuy... am I on NPR?