i wasn't promoting any one click methods, I was making a simple statement in reference to the previous post stating that he wasn't the only one who doesn't use rebuilder. I've used it, but really I don't think theres any difference but if you say there is I'm sure I must be wrong. Heaven come down on me if I'm of a different opinion than you. I just want to know what made you all of a sudden think you have become some authoritative forum cop? I wouldn't jump into a thread being sarcastic towards another senior member for a minor faux pas (even if it was only your opinion) and I am definitely not going take it seriously coming from you.
Back on topic, the results of using Rebuilder to the naked eye are incredible.Try the freeware first and the cost of the pay version justifys itself. tjlmbklr I'd be looking at the laptop if thats all you switched to.What kind of specs does your laptop have? Chris
res2cue a good movie to see it on is Wild hogs. Just look at the trees in a one click compared to rebuilder. The leaves on the tree are a blurry green where as in rebuilder your seeing the actual leaves.Transformers is another one that really brings out the details.It may be a long process but worth it in the end.Sophocles and a few others are the ones that got me going with rebuilder if a movie is a ho hum I use a lot of different programs that are quick, but if it's agood movie I use Rebuilder that increases the viewing pleasure.Sophocles nice to see you again.One thing I've found is imop Image Burn gives me the best results for burning. Chris
I just looked at the back up copy, in my opinion I see leaves, and I know I used fab and clone on this one. I'll do it again using rebuilder to see if I can see any difference.
I'll gladley give my laptop specs. Considering my laptop blows my 5 year old PC out of the water, I don't think it isn't even necessary. I've made dozens of burns with the PC too. The burner itself is a Samsung vs. my PC has an LG. What else do you want to know? 2GB RAM 1.8 GHz dual AMD. Now I know there are a few die hards that are thinking my computers are slow compared to theres. Well in my opinion it just takes longer; I can wait. After all my old PC, well won't even go there as to how slow it is!
tjlmbklr We use what we have. A dual core AMD at 1.8 GHz should encode at a respectable speed. I began using my old P4 3.06 GHz Northwood and it used to take about 3 hours to encode. It was never a problem since I used batch encoding and ran it while I slept. I could easily knock off two movies at night and wake to burn them the next morning. Your dual core laptop should easily encode faster than my old Northwoos, and I don't see why you can't batch encode 3 movies at night while you sleep.
Wasn't knocking your Laptop if you took it that way it's not the way I meant it. I was referring to your statement that you switched from a Desk top to a laptop and your problems started. Also rereading you said you switched Verbs are they in the new packaging?MIA. I also like reading through this thread for my own knowledge and want to see what the out come is 99% of the problem I've encountered have already been addressed in the forums, which made diagnosing a whole heck of a lot easier. Chris
Sometimes a knowledge of PC specs can be important in assessing encoding issues. A common cause of slow and failed encodes can be as simple as having ones HD set to PIO instead of DMA.
No worries about the laptop inquiry. I am currently working on Spiderman 3 right now. I will run through the whole process with a fine tooth comb. I'll post what the outcome is.
I have only done Spiderman 3 since this post started. As far as I know it looks fine. I did one with and one without book-typing. The movie I noticed the huge quality drop was such poor quality to begin with that the encoding process managed to make it stand out more. Or at least this is suspected by me based off the info I received from Sophocles. If anyone wants to know the movie, it was The Reaping. I'll try a few more in time and keep you all posted. TJ