Which Transcoding Tools Produce The Best Picture Quality.

Discussion in 'Copy DVD to DVDR' started by Sophocles, Jun 5, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 28 of 70
  1. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Mr2Tone...

    The number of software choices can be confusing, as many offer something a little different than the next. Adding to this confusion is a kind of "shorthand" talk, such as someone saying they burned with Shrink. Often this means that they actually burned with Nero, and they used Shrink's option to launch Nero "in the background" when it was time to burn. Decrypter does have a burner, but it has limitations.

    However, as Sophocles points out, the transcoder is what determines the quality.
     
    Doc409, Jul 26, 2004
    #541
  2. Ton80

    Ton80 Guest

    I was an IC user until DVDShrink 3.2 came out and I always used DVDDecrypter for the rip and burn phases because IC7 has an unreliable burn engine. I made several coasters until i switched to burning with DVDDecrypter. Since then not 1 coaster. It has nothing to do with picture qualityas the burn engine has no effect on quality.
     
    Ton80, Jul 26, 2004
    #542
  3. brobear

    brobear Guest

    I often wonder why people consistently rip with Decrypter for use with Shrink. Shrink rips for itself and the use of Decrypter just takes additional time. Some guides say to use Decrypter when Shrink is unable to properly rip a video. I have yet to run into the video Shrink couldn't rip. If it happens, it is rare. I use DVD Decrypter quite often, just not to rip for DVD Shrink.

    @dd
    What's the broad's name?
     
    brobear, Jul 26, 2004
    #543
  4. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Hi brobear...
    I might be able to lend some insight into this, or at least why I rip with Decrypter (and Smartripper). I frequently buy used DVD's from the video concession inside my favorite grocery store. Decrypter will tell me if there are any read errors, but Shrink will not. Also, I have found that Smartripper is probably the best of all the rippers when it comes to reading used discs, and so I use it more than Decrypter. When a read error is found, there is enough data to indicate the location of the problem on the DVD. At that point its a matter of cleaning or polishing the DVD. Once I have a good file, I then go to Shrink, DVD2One, or Remake Pro.

    I have also come across a few DVD's that Shrink wouldn't process properly, but after I used Decrypter, I was able to put the files through Shrink. This happened just recently, and if I can remember which DVD, I'll let you know.


    _X_X_X_X_X_[small][​IMG][/small]
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2004
    Doc409, Jul 26, 2004
    #544
  5. ronjon

    ronjon Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    ronjon, Jul 27, 2004
    #545
  6. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Thanks for the article ronjon. I half-expected to read more hype about 3.2. I appreciate the author's objectivity, and believe he would find a more objective group here at AD. As it is, I think his posting group would like to have him tried for heresy.

    For all those who don't get a chance to read the article, one part discusses the I, P, and B frames. It seems Shrink 3.2 gets the "shrink" it needs from the B frames. I believe that in the past this was done by dropping every third frame?
     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #546
  7. Sophocles

    Sophocles Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5,985
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    128
    Doc409


    Yes I read the article and I wished it had included part 2. The B frames are compressed more for movies at about 20% but on higher compression the P frames seem to take a serious hit too.
     
    Sophocles, Jul 27, 2004
    #547
  8. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Honestly I have a hard time taking this review too seriously because of this passage:
    He assumed it wouldn't make a difference so he didn't use it. The way I see it, assuming is the exact opposite of testing. It's an interesting test, but not particularly useful on its own. In fact since there aren't a lot of tests run with interlaced material, the chances of getting enough other evidence to either back up or refute his findings (or more importantly his assumptions) are pretty remote.
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #548
  9. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I, too, would also like to see Part 2. It's clear to me that any reasonable discussion about 3.2 is going to require this type of objective data.

    The best tool I have at this point is the WinDVD 6 bigorange recommended. I have an action scene I've been checking. When I pause, it is not immediate, so I don't seem to get the frame I want. But when it does stop, sometimes I get a sharp frame, and other times the frame is a blurred mess. The blurred mess must be the B frame?

     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #549
  10. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    verbal...
    My post crossed yours in cyberspace. While it may be difficult to take the author seriously, I think that "objective" data is a step in the right direction.

     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #550
  11. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    If you want to be able to tell for sure what kind of frame it is you should use one of the variations on VirtualDub like VirtualDubMod to read the VOB files directly. Not only will it allow you to step through one frame at a time, but you can find the keyframes (I frames), which will then allow you to figure out what type of frame each subsequent frame is. All you have to remember is that the pattern is IBBPBBPBBPBB. It's possible that it repeats a little longer than that, but I've never seen a professionally authored DVD with a GOP longer than 12 frames.
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #551
  12. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Thanks. I've really gotten quite interested in this since moving up to RB-CCE, and if there are any other tools you could recommend (?), I'd appreciate it.
     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #552
  13. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I definitely agree that it's a good start, but as I've made clear in the past I'm a very critical judge of methods when it comes to these types of tests. This one is better than many I've seen, and I'll be watching to see whatever else comes out of it. I definitely agree, however, that this test shouldn't be discounted out of hand any more than it should be blindly believed. Since he said he's still testing I'll certainly be looking at his future tests before passing any real judgement. On the other hand it doesn't make a huge difference to me either way since I don't use anything besides CCE for compressing movies. I only use Shrink on menus, and only then to try to keep them under 100MB (about 2% of a blank).
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #553
  14. Sophocles

    Sophocles Senior member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    5,985
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    128
    Vurbal

    Good point? It effectively reduces portions of the test to an opinion.
    _X_X_X_X_X_[small][​IMG]

    In every dialogue and discourse, we must be able to say to those who take offence, "Of what do you complain?"

    Pensees Section III: of the Necessity of the Wager[/small]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2004
    Sophocles, Jul 27, 2004
    #554
  15. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I'd agree that the test by itself becomes more of an opinion, or more accurately is only accurate if that assumption is true, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful when grouped with other tests. It's not a good standalone test, but since he says he's doing more I reserve judgement until I see how those are done and what results he gets.
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #555
  16. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Honestly most of the tools I have are oriented towards doing manual re-encodes with CCE. My favorite additional tool is called MPEG Stream Eye (aka MPEG Stream Explorer) by Elecard. It can open an MPEG file (including VOBs) and tell you a lot of information about the bitrate. It can also show you the order that frames are decoded in which is very instructional in understanding how MPEG compression works. I got a trial version several months ago, but it appears that it's in their developer's section now. PM me with your email address and I can send it to you.
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #556
  17. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Thanks. Sent the PM. Also, if you have a tool that can increase the audio (gain?) with CCE I would sure appreciate knowing about it.
     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #557
  18. vurbal

    vurbal Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    66
    The first problem there is that DVD-RB doesn't do any processing on the audio. It just demuxes and remuxes it. The next problem is that on AC3 and DTS tracks you need to start by decompressing them into individual mono WAV files, boost the gain, and then encode them again. Besides the fact that it's difficult and time consuming, it's also expensive because a "real" encoder (at least one that handles more than 2 channels) ranges from kind of expensive to incredibly expensive.

    If you get past those obstacles there should be many programs that can do it. There's a free program called Audacity that I used to use for that on my TV captures, and with all the good things I've seen about Goldwave I'm betting it could do it as well.
     
    vurbal, Jul 27, 2004
    #558
  19. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Thanks for the explanation. 'Sounds like an amplifier and speakers would be the way to go for right now.
     
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #559
  20. Doc409

    Doc409 Active member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    About the test. I hope the author gets it cleaned up. I do find it fascinating that he jumped into a group of true believers and said that just maybe "the king has no clothes."

    Personally, I'm concerned about all the 3.2 hype being accepted as fact by folks with open arms. If you have something good to say, no one challenges it. Talk about the virtues of another transcoder, and your asked to prove it. I've been to two forums where, if you likely said you had a problem with Shrink, you'd be ostracised.

    I think I've even witnessed a move to import this Shrinkmania to AD. I hope it fails.


    _
    _X_X_X_X_X_[small][​IMG][/small]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2004
    Doc409, Jul 27, 2004
    #560
Page 28 of 70
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page