PDA

View Full Version : Nero Recode 0.90 beta


DVDRFreak
26th July 2003, 09:14
Just downloaded the latest Nero version 6.

There is a transcoder in it wich allows transcoding of a disc to Harddisc or directly to CD.

It is possible to deselect audio or even complete titles.

Running a test right now to see what the quality/speed is.

Result

Encoding time: 00:45:45
Original 6.35 GB

Copy 4.36 GB

I did a full disk width a compression level of 74% for main movie and about 52% for extras (standard values that Nero recode comes widt when analysing is finished)

There is a bug that the AUDIO_TS folder is removed and the VIDEO_TS folder is in upper/lower case (e.g. VideoTS). The result is that my software player did not recognize the disk after renaming to uppercase all was fine and I could play.

Navigation:
Fast forward / Backward works fine, no hangups in powerDVD like I had with InstantCopy.

Quality:
I still should do some more testing to comparee them to DVDshrink/CCE for example.
My first impression is not bad there is some pixelation and there are some macro blocks but i did not notice yet the anoying flashing effect. Still need to see what the result is when I burn it and try to play it on my TV.
This is a first impression I want to see what happens when I only rip the movie. Or what it will do if I take a action packed movie widt a lot of high speed motion in it.

VTS sectors:
Are OK. Nero corrected them.

Layer-Breaks:
They are not removed.

Average Bitrate comparison (Bitrate viewer):
Original:
Birtate: 4871
Q level: 8.28

Copy:
Bitrate: 3754
Q level: 7.44

SniperKilla
26th July 2003, 17:56
yep i tested just now also, heres some screenshots for people that havent tested yet... i tested on the perfect storm, which is 8gb in size..

http://members.verizon.net/~vze4dt3c/nero/nero-options.JPG

http://members.verizon.net/~vze4dt3c/nero/nero-finished.JPG

and heres the property page for the resulting files..

http://members.verizon.net/~vze4dt3c/nero/nero-size.JPG

hit 4.36 right on the nose...

and heres a screen cap of the movie running in nvdvd

http://members.verizon.net/~vze4dt3c/nero/FTP05.jpg

all in all, nice results, for a first release...

you can remove whatever features you want, i like that, and you can replace them with a image of your choosing, so you can have like a FEATURE REMOVED image....

not bad at all tho

Doom9
26th July 2003, 20:01
hmm.. is it just me or does this look a lot like dvd shrink? The selection menu
DVD
- Menus
- Main movie
- Extras
is just the same, and then we have the well-known sizebar. Makes one wonder, doesn't it? (btw, I'm not meaning to say ahead stole any code, I think they're above that, but maybe someone licensed the engine and made some improvements.

Richk50
26th July 2003, 22:36
"hmm.. is it just me or does this look a lot like dvd shrink?"

Exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't it be great if DVDShrink made some money out of all his hard work.

DVDRFreak
26th July 2003, 23:59
Same feeling over here.

Only the result is better i.m.o.
The sizing is exactly 4.36 GB and the quality is quit impressive.

Did run another test on a music video (6.5 GB compression level 67%).
Used the profiles to build a custom profile that keeps everything and sizes the DVD equally. I love the idea of profiles so I can build different ones for music/movie/episode DVD's this is realy great.

The video contains a multi angle clip that is very hard on transcoders (flashing backgrounds/macro blocks that make it unwatchable when I used DVDshrink 2.3/CloneDVD). The result from this proggie is very impressive (read almost the same result as the CCE re-encode I did). The only difference is that there are a few macro blocks but the are hardly noticable when playing the video.

The only thing that is missing is the reauthor function so I can do movie only. I can strip the menus and everything else but this will result in a DVD showing the picture I selected for stripped contents where the menu's used to be.

This proggie is impressive for a first release. I think that with a little work it could become a winner.

valnar
27th July 2003, 01:14
Does anyone know if the transcoding is even all the way through (ala DVD2One or DVD95Copy), or does it dig deeper into the structure like IC?

I've been waiting for an IC killer (quality-wise). Nothing else matters, not even speed.

-Robert

quantum
27th July 2003, 02:47
How are you supposed to remove a title? I see sniperkilla's screenshot shows extras at zero percent. I can't get my size below %47.

Hopefully this app is headed in the right direction, and can compete with the quality of IC7. I look forward to saying buh-bye to IC7 forever, not that I use it much anyway.

SniperKilla
27th July 2003, 03:32
i clicked on the extras folder, and clicked disable on the right, and it disabled all extras and the slider went to 0%

you can do the same for individual extras if you want to keeps some

quantum
27th July 2003, 04:09
Yes I did that. The extras don't go to zero. It seems to deselect the audio in the extras but otherwise the percent bar stays the same and it's not being subtracted from the overall compilation. I've tried two different disks with a bunch of different extras and it's the same thing.

dragongodz
27th July 2003, 05:35
well i dont like to spread rumours but i did hear that dvdshrink was flown over to have a meeting with the guys at ahead and they offered him a job.

so if any of you guys that are in contact with him would like to get him to confirm or deny that it may shed some light on it.

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 10:33
You can disable the extra's or just one title by pressing the disable button when you have selected the title or a complete tree. Tested it on a few DVD's now and it works perfectly.

You can also disable menu's in the same way if you make a custom profile (or modify the default profile) in such a way that you allow the menu's to be transcoded.

This profile option works great I made two for testing:
One that keeps everything and compresses everythin equally (for music DVD).
One that keeps all titles and just one sound track/subtitle and compresses the extra's more than the main movie (for movies)

The only thing that is missing (or I did not find it yet) is to be able to make a profile that just transcodes the main movie only.

t1955feb
27th July 2003, 11:41
Are your dvd's working on a standalone player, mine not....

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 12:08
Originally posted by t1955feb
Are your dvd's working on a standalone player, mine not....

They work if you transcode to harddisk first and then burn with the standard DVD video option in nero.

Nero re-code has a bug that it names the VIDEO_TS folder like Video_TS and forgets to create an empty AUDIO_TS folder.

I hope this will be solved in a next (final) version.

roach76
27th July 2003, 13:20
The 'AUDIO_TS' folder is not required for DVD Video movies. "The Matrix (PAL)" has no 'AUDIO_TS' folder.

dragongodz
27th July 2003, 14:20
well i have been informed that dvdshrink(the person) is working for ahead now indeed and did work on the recode module. so it is not surprising that it looks like dvdshrink(the program).

mrbass
27th July 2003, 14:30
Originally posted by dragongodz
well i have been informed that dvdshrink(the person) is working for ahead now indeed and did work on the recode module. so it is not surprising that it looks like dvdshrink(the program).

yep I believe it....now it all makes sense. I wonder if Nero 6 will come bundled with the new lite-on 4X DVD+R burners..hmmm.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 15:04
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
You can disable the extra's or just one title by pressing the disable button when you have selected the title or a complete tree. Tested it on a few DVD's now and it works perfectly.

Strange, but it doesn't seem to show that you've pressed the 'Disable' button once you've pressed it. Oh well, there's always version 2...

MackemX
27th July 2003, 15:37
is this feature in the so called fully featured demo?

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 15:50
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
Strange, but it doesn't seem to show that you've pressed the 'Disable' button once you've pressed it. Oh well, there's always version 2...

It does show that you pressed it. The slider goes to 0% and the disable button becomes an enable button.

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 15:51
Originally posted by MackemX
is this feature in the so called fully featured demo?

Yes its is. You must install nero vision package, this includes nero recode.

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 15:53
Originally posted by roach76
The 'AUDIO_TS' folder is not required for DVD Video movies. "The Matrix (PAL)" has no 'AUDIO_TS' folder.

It is requiered according to the original DVD specifications. Some standalone players will not play the DVD (mostly older ones) if the AUDIO_TS folder is not on the DVD.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 15:57
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
It does show that you pressed it. The slider goes to 0% and the disable button becomes an enable button.

Ah no. I've just done my first transcode, and it doens't appear to have remove the chosen video streams, which might explain why I'm not getting what you're getting....

To be sure, you select which stream (or branch, let's say all the extras) and simply press 'Disable'? The button then turns into an 'Enable' button and the slider goes to 0%?

If that's the case, then the disable button isn't working for me.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 16:02
S'ppose I should point out I am working off an ISO image on my hard drive thru Daemon. Did an 'Import DVD'.


(BTW, what's happened to www.daemon-tools.com lately. It's gone off-air).

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 16:19
How I did it:

Used DVD Decrypter 3.1.6.0 in ISO mode to build an ISO image (all protections removed).
Used Daemon tools 3.33 to mount the image.

Then I start Nero recode and select the profile I want to use.
Hit the import button.

Now I can deselect the branches/titles I want by just pressing the disable button. The branch/title compression slider(for example extra) is set to 0% and the button becomes an enable button. All other branches are updated automaticly so the disc will be fully used.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 16:29
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
How I did it:

Used DVD Decrypter 3.1.6.0 in ISO mode to build an ISO image (all protections removed).
Used Daemon tools 3.33 to mount the image.

Then I start Nero recode and select the profile I want to use.
Hit the import button.


Sounds 100% identical to me. Hmmm.... (though running Daemon 3.23). Would it be too much to ask to send 3.33 to me thru email? Address is in my profile?

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 16:45
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
Sounds 100% identical to me. Hmmm.... (though running Daemon 3.23). Would it be too much to ask to send 3.33 to me thru email? Address is in my profile?


It is freeware so you can download it for free at:
http://www.daemon-tools.cc/

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 16:53
I just watch my transcoded music DVD I mentioned earlier and I'am impressed with the quality. My CCE version had some navigation problems and I was looking for a tool that could do it all by itself with comparable quality.

Instantcopy I did try but this resulted also in strange lockups on my PC (PowerDVD fastforward) and also on my standalone DVD player.
DVDshrink caused the mult angle part to become macroblocked beyond recognition.

But this little proggie did it. Quality is pretty amazing (read damm good). The CCE quality is better for sure (no macro blocks) but it is to much a hasle to get all menu items to work properly. specially with a music DVD with tons of extra's and VTS's.

The complete DVD works without any problem. The few macroblocks that I see on my PC I did not notice at all while watching on my 32" widescreen (when I freez the picture I can find them but while playing I do not see them, go figure).

I just uninstalled all other transcoders and think I will stick with this one for my Music DVD's.

luphy
27th July 2003, 17:34
Wow, so the author of Shrink is working for Nero now?
I am assuming he/she won't be working on DVDShrink any longer?

Another question: can the Nero DVD encode/transcode engine
be used with older versions of Nero? Is it a feature that
can be used under the Extras like Nero's AAC/MP3Pro/MP3 encoders?
I wonder if you can buy just this DVD encode as an add-on?

Seems this Nero transcoder has a very flexible compression feature?
Can you select at 1% increments? Too bad layer breaks are not
removed. Oh, and does Nero have a built-in decrypter or you have
to use a third-party decrypter?
I think I'll wait until they implement the reauthor option (hopefully)
as I don't like to make backups with menus or extras and sometimes
like to cut off parts of the beginnings and endings to decrease the
amount of compression needed.

If the quality is as good as some of you are indicating, and if
they add reauthoring options and the ability to make full backups
over 2 DVD discs and remove layer breaks, this Nero 6 could very
easily corner the market for the general population!

DVDRFreak
27th July 2003, 17:38
It is part of the nero vision package. Maybe it can be installed besides older versions of nero if it does not use Nero 6 specific calls to the burning engine.

But I think it is asking for problems to try this because it is adviced (I read somewhere) that you uninstall all older version before installing the 6 version.

Nero recode is in a seperate folder in the nero folder. It is an exe wifth two DLL's.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 18:18
Maybe it's too early to start making requests (though since Nero is a commercial product, I'm not going to get told off this time), but real men love constructive criticism anyway, so here goes...

(In no particular order):

- add auto de-select of all subtitles on menus to the profiles (bizarrely enough, several discs have subtitle streams for the menus, but no subtitles themselves - yet somehow they take up space - check LOTR)

- bug fix: priorities seem not to take effect (I'm running XP Pro)

- Add 'Idle' to the list of priorites

- the ability to trim the start & ends of streams (some main movies have 60 secs. of studio logos that I could do without; equally the ends of some movies can also have silly production logos)

- I'm intrigued as to how the compression percentages are worked out. Ignoring extras, on LOTR the menus are at 33% with the main movie at 66%. Can I not squash the menus even further...?

- Disable menu buttons that refer to de-selected video streams. (Alright, I can do this with MenuEdit, but it would be nice to have it done automatically in one package, besides which MenuEdit isn't exactly written too well)

- Still Mode came in useful in DVDShrink. Why not keep it in?

- Bug fix: 'Keep additional copy on hard drive' should be greyed out when the destination is the hard drive.

- Bug FIx: Compile Time doesn't stop when the pause button is pressed

- Different levels of compression for different parts of a stream (so that start & end credits can be coded either in still mode, or extremely low quality/high compression ratio - when some end credits can last 10-15 minutes, this is important)

- Lastly (and none too important, I guess) transcode the audio. Some movies which are mainly talkies, can have DD5.1 encoded @ 448kbps, which could easily go down to 224kbps without any audible loss, thus saving further space. I do notice there appears to be something in the pipeline for this kind of thing in the profiles section

- One very radical suggestion (and I'm not saying this is easy), is to have some kind of OCR on the credits, so that they could be transformed into subtitles and played back over black video, yet take up not even a mere 1Mb - How's that for the ultimate space-saver? Have you cake & eat it!

(Alright, the last one isn't exactly going to be easy, and would probably require more research than it's worth, but at least the idea is out in the open, and you never know, someone might take it up).



Apologies if Mr. Shrink goes to work on Monday morning after releasing this on Friday, and finds all these requests for new features, but that's how popular his stuff is because he's so good at it. This is all positive criticism.

Erik_Osterholm
27th July 2003, 19:37
Originally posted by luphy
If the quality is as good as some of you are indicating, and if
they add reauthoring options and the ability to make full backups
over 2 DVD discs and remove layer breaks, this Nero 6 could very
easily corner the market for the general population! [/B]

What exactly are layer breaks? Pauses where layers change on the disc? Why is this even transferred when you make the ISO image?

mpucoder
27th July 2003, 19:58
@fat - of course you can complain/comment/request/beg about commercial products all you want. I'm not sure anyone from Nero reads this, but...

@erik - layer breaks are one of those misnomers (an inaccurate name) that has grown out of IfoEdit identifying clock discontinuities as possible layer breaks, as an aid to splitting a DVD.
A clock discontinuity is when the system clock reference (SCR), a running value used for synchronization, has been interrupted. Most usually it has been set back to zero because the 2 pieces of video were encoded seperately. The last "phantom" chapter of many movies is an example of this. It also occurs during a layer break sometimes, which is where it got its name. Playback is not seamless over a discontinuity in a lot of players, causing a pause. If the SCR has been replaced with a new continously inceasing value, the marks can be removed.

The true layer break code, six or more sectors of all zero bytes, is removed by the DVD reader, and never seen by PC software.

Erik_Osterholm
27th July 2003, 20:09
@mpucoder:
Thanks so much for the explanation! I'm trying to learn more about the DVD structure and what things mean, and that one really confused me. This all has quite the learning curve.

On another note, Nero Recode is really a spiffy piece of software. I wonder if DVDShrink is going to include some of the more advanced features, or if part of the contract with Ahead will preclude this. Having the ability to remove only certain streams while keeping the overall structure of the DVD and compressing all in one tool is very nice. Actually I'll probably pick up a license for Nero 6, but it kinda looked like even the download+upgrade license key was going to be a fair amount of money.

sdionne
27th July 2003, 21:16
did someone compare the quality vs InstantCopy and DVDXCopy ?

I tried DVDShrink, but the results are desappointing.. lot of macro block. and If Recode use DVDShrink... I dought the result will be better.

I'm trying to rip an anime.. and whin DVDShrink,CloneDVD lot of macro block. with Instant copy it's fine. DVDXcopy the quality is acceptable. CCE.. amazing :)

daddy_fizz
27th July 2003, 22:22
thanks for all the info, dl'ing this right now and am going to check it out, sounds sweet :D

~Fizz

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 23:50
[i]I tried DVDShrink, but the results are desappointing.. lot of macro block. and If Recode use DVDShrink... [/B]


Ah, but wot version? Anything below V2.0 had a different (ie; worse) compression algorithm.

Fat Bast'rd
27th July 2003, 23:54
P4 3.0C@3.5Ghz

Go easy on the over-clocking Paps. Is there really any point at this level???

quantum
28th July 2003, 00:27
To be sure, you select which stream (or branch, let's say all the extras) and simply press 'Disable'? The button then turns into an 'Enable' button and the slider goes to 0%?

If that's the case, then the disable button isn't working for me.Not working for me either, as indicated earlier in the thread. My first peek at the video quality and I think it falls somewhere in the range of the other transcoders and not up to the quality of IC7, so I'm not too worried about using it yet. The user interface looks promising, so if they could ever get it up to at least IC7 quality, it would be a winner for me.

sync
28th July 2003, 00:41
did someone compare the quality vs InstantCopy and DVDXCopy
I don't think DVDXCopy does any recoding at all.

Anyone have any thoughts on why disabling works for some people and not others? I can't get it to work.

With Nero Recode I got occasional clicking sounds in the audio.

snidely
28th July 2003, 01:24
Used DVD Decrypter 3.1.6.0 in ISO mode to build an ISO image (all protections removed).
Used Daemon tools 3.33 to mount the image.

So that's the only way to import a ripped DVD? Is there any way to rip the DVD in files mode and then import into Recode? I tried switching to "DVD Data Files" and then adding all the files from the ripped folder, but that didn't work. What did I miss?

insertdisk
28th July 2003, 02:53
For everyone who is having trouble with the disable button, make sure you have removed the check from the box which says "fit to disc" - then you should have total control of the slider.

snidely
28th July 2003, 04:22
For everyone who is having trouble with the disable button, make sure you have removed the check from the box which says "fit to disc" - then you should have total control of the slider.

Did that - no luck. The "Disable" button never changes to "Enable", though I do have control of the slider. BTW, I am using Win XP SP1.

hammer42
28th July 2003, 05:59
In order for the disable button to work you must click the more button, then configure, and then select a still to use for disabled video. There is a default one you can select, which results in the extras being decreased to something around 3 megs a minute, but if you make say a black jpeg you can get it down to about 700k a minute.

Hammer

quantum
28th July 2003, 06:44
Ahaaaa. So that's the little detail that was left out. I see that disabling does not really remove the title, but like dvdshrink, just reduces it. A disk I just experimented with had 1.8 gigs of extras. Hitting disable still left 270 megs in the title set.

DVDRFreak
28th July 2003, 09:36
Originally posted by snidely
So that's the only way to import a ripped DVD? Is there any way to rip the DVD in files mode and then import into Recode? I tried switching to "DVD Data Files" and then adding all the files from the ripped folder, but that didn't work. What did I miss?

You can import from Harddisk. Press the import button and select harddisk as import source from the dropdown list.
Then choose the folder where the files are located.

snidely
28th July 2003, 10:05
Ahh, so there are the missing pieces! Thanks Hammer and DVDRFreak!

KYUSS
28th July 2003, 11:56
Sorry for this noob post but how do i get this to work?

i tried clicking on the .exe in the recode folder and it said "your current license doesn't allow you to open this"

is that because i upgraded from 5.5?

thanks in adavance

KYUSS

DVDRFreak
28th July 2003, 13:52
Originally posted by KYUSS
Sorry for this noob post but how do i get this to work?

i tried clicking on the .exe in the recode folder and it said "your current license doesn't allow you to open this"

is that because i upgraded from 5.5?

thanks in adavance

KYUSS

Did you uninstall Nero 5.5 or upgrade.
I have read somewhere that you should uninstall all nero software (version 5.5 and lower) before installing the new version.

Fat Bast'rd
28th July 2003, 14:15
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Did you uninstall Nero 5.5 or upgrade.
I have read somewhere that you should uninstall all nero software (version 5.5 and lower) before installing the new version.

I only installed the 2nd package to get Recode. That seems to sit happily with old Nero.

Fat Bast'rd
28th July 2003, 15:13
Originally posted by quantum
A disk I just experimented with had 1.8 gigs of extras. Hitting disable still left 270 megs in the title set.

In your case, it might be okay if you just try deleting the associated VOB files. This sometimes work, and might liberate the final 270Mb.
(You often need to edit VIDEO_TS.IFO to reduce the number of VTS titles in a couple of places - VMGM_MAT and VMG_VTS_ATRT).

If this still doens't work, try replacing the VOB's with mini blank ones.

sync
28th July 2003, 15:24
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
I only installed the 2nd package to get Recode. That seems to sit happily with old Nero.
That worked fine for me also.

luphy
28th July 2003, 21:36
I saw this on the afterdawn board. Anyone know anything about this?
I can't see any reference to this on the Nero website.


"However, we do know that the Vision Express is improved on the version we reviewed earlier. Based on our feedback the updated version will include an option to use external video encoders, such as CCE or TMPGEnc"

So a quick question to those already using the Nero Recode:
You were able to install the Nero Recode component and still use
it with Nero 5.5 without having to upgrade to Nero 6?

Fat Bast'rd
28th July 2003, 22:07
Originally posted by luphy
So a quick question to those already using the Nero Recode:
You were able to install the Nero Recode component and still use
it with Nero 5.5 without having to upgrade to Nero 6?

"I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago..."

Erik_Osterholm
29th July 2003, 02:09
Well I tried re-encoding a couple of movies: Empire Records and Donnie Darko. Both were too long to copy directly, so I shrank them using Recode. I first burned Empire Records and tried it in my DVD player (as a test for Nero 6; I wanted to make sure it would work since some previous versions of Nero burned discs incompatible with my player). Everything worked fine except for menu selections--they simply weren't there. I could press the appropriate button combination to access anything the menus linked to (i.e. down, down, enter to get to Special Features) but there was no highlighting of the menu items.

Thinking it could be a player incompatibility, I tried it with the ISO of Donnie Darko through WinDVD and Nero Showtime. Same problem. Tried the original disc to verify that there wasn't something wonky going on and it worked correctly.

Ideas? Is this just a bug I need to report to Ahead? Is it something I can correct myself in the IFO?

Also, the first time I encoded Empire Records, the Fit-to-Disc feature didn't really work too well. Came out with a set of files that was 500 megs too large. Anyone hit this bug?

Bear263
29th July 2003, 02:13
I noticed that it doesn't select any audio for menus. I have to select them manually.

ephesus79
29th July 2003, 05:36
I noticed that it deselected audio on the menu also by default and that was a little annoying. How exactly does the profiles work? Can you create a profile where all audio is enabled by default?

I like to keep the menus so I usually use DVD Shrink to compress extras to stills, leave the movie at 100% and then run it through Instant Copy. I was experimenting with Nicholas Nickleby which had 2.2 gigs of extras which DVD Shrink can compress to 333 MB without audio. I tried Recode and used a picture of 1 black pixel for the stills and that brought the stills down to 84 megs which is a 25% improvement, which isn't bad. Going from 2.2 gigs of extras to 84 megs and still keeping a fully comliant DVD structure...that's sounds acceptable in my book.

BTW, why were people scoffing at the fact that Recode used a user selectable still for the extras? I know that people were begging DVD Shrink for that feature since it first came out and here it is. There are programs out there that do remove extras completely and keep menus but doesn't guarantee a fully compliant DVD. I don't really think that will change.

DVDRFreak
29th July 2003, 08:25
Originally posted by Bear263
I noticed that it doesn't select any audio for menus. I have to select them manually.

Make a custom profile (or deit the default one).
Deslect under the audio tab all languages.
Select the option preselect all available audio languages if none of the tracks meet the selection criteria.

This did for me the trick. It works the same way for subtitle tracks.

oCe
29th July 2003, 12:51
I have the same problem with Recode; tried several DVD's. Everything seems ok, quality is on par with Instantcopy imho. Plays fine on my pc, with PowerDVD 5. But, in my standalone (bot Philips 625 and Cyberhome 512) no highlighting in the menu's. Simply can not use the menu's on a standalone, which works with all other transcoding tool I've tested. Bug?

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 13:09
Originally posted by oCe
I tried several DVD's. Everything seems ok, quality is on par with Instantcopy imho. Plays fine on my pc, with PowerDVD 5. But, in my standalone no highlighting in the menu's. Simply can not use the menu's on a standalone

Well now you mention, I'm getting the same thing. Thought it was my eyes until now.

DVDRFreak
29th July 2003, 13:12
Did you remove audio/subtitle tracks from te menu's.

Recode removes (default profile) audio/subtitle tracks from menu which do not match the english language. Maybe this could be causing this problem.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 13:25
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Did you remove audio/subtitle tracks from te menu's.

Recode removes (default profile) audio/subtitle tracks from menu which do not match the english language. Maybe this could be causing this problem.


Nope. I've changed it to not keep menus in their original state, and to keep all subtitles and audio tracks by default, so no go there I'm afraid.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 14:03
I've just done one where even PowerDVD doesn't highlight the menu buttons properly.

oCe
29th July 2003, 14:15
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
I've just done one where even PowerDVD doesn't highlight the menu buttons properly.

cool! that's why they call it 0.90beta I guess, though; quite a HUGE bug imho!

oCe
29th July 2003, 14:15
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
I've just done one where even PowerDVD doesn't highlight the menu buttons properly.

oops... i should not click that fast ;) double-post... :rolleyes:

DVDRFreak
29th July 2003, 15:52
I did a DVD or 6 without any problem. Maybe my sony player is to damm good (yeah right, if it plays on a sony it plays on anything else that picky these player is about structure).

Maybe it is in the way you rip the DVD. I use DVD Decryptor (3.1.6.0) in ISO mode to harddisk and then mount with DAEMON Tools (3.33).

Can you give some examples of the titles you tried. Maybe I have one laying around where I can test on. I like to see if I also can expect problems.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 16:55
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Can you give some examples of the titles you tried. Maybe I have one laying around where I can test on. I like to see if I also can expect problems.

LOTR - Fellowship Of

Menus don't highlight in PowerDVD either. They function okay, and the mouse changes pointer when hovering over a button, but the buttons don't highlight as they should.

Of course, since there's no mouse on a standalone, you don't even have that indication eihter.


Just done another one. Tipping The Velvet (bit obscure, I know). Same thing.

quantum
29th July 2003, 17:38
I too noticed the menu highlighting problems. I also notice some menu video frames are combed. As far as video quality is concerned, my further tests showed it may be on par with IC7.

Erik_Osterholm
29th July 2003, 18:35
Just took a closer look at what Recode selects/deselects by default, and there are a whole mess of subtitle streams in the menus that it turns off. I'm guessing this is it. I manually selected them (each was .1 mb, hardly a problem unless recode can't take that into account on fit to disc) and am currently recoding. I'll post my results.

snidely
29th July 2003, 18:49
I'm very interested gathering opinions of the transcoding ability of this program, especially as different people will be presenting different challenges for the compressor. I've only tried one title so far, Die Another Day RC1, and I was quite impressed. In casual observations, it looks almost as good as my CCE encode.

Since the reauthoring feature is missing or yet to be implemented, right now I have chosen to reauthor for movie only using DVDShrink, then transcode, and then transcode with Recode, as I would like to directly compare the two engines, since the rumors are that they were both written by the same person. I'll report back later.

Erik_Osterholm
29th July 2003, 19:41
As I suspected, re-enabling the subtitles for the menus worked like a charm. So if you're missing menus when using Nero Recode, try that.

Now to do some hard-core quality tests.

DVDRFreak
29th July 2003, 21:12
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
LOTR - Fellowship Of

know). Same thing.

Ok, Got the R2 version (movie on one disc). I'm transcoding right now to see if I have the same problem.

It should have something to do width subtitles missing from the menu because that is the way that those highlights are stored on a DVD.

Will post result later.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 21:23
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Ok, Got the R2 version (movie on one disc). I'm transcoding right now to see if I have the same problem.

It should have something to do width subtitles missing from the menu because that is the way that those highlights are stored on a DVD.

Will post result later.


Ah, well you may well have hit on something there then, because I deliberately went thru and removed all subtitles from the menus ('cos LOTR's subtitles actually take up space - which if you now tell me is menu buttons, then it's beginning to make sense).

So Recorde has badly recognised the buttons as subtitles???

daddy_fizz
29th July 2003, 21:35
Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm
As I suspected, re-enabling the subtitles for the menus worked like a charm. So if you're missing menus when using Nero Recode, try that.

Now to do some hard-core quality tests.

read this post a couple above yours...

turns out (from his tests) that nero recode disables all subtitles in the menu's which is acutally the button highlighting. If you want to see button highlighting in menu's you just need to re-enable all subtitles in the menu's that recode removes by defualt.

I would assume you could still take the subtitles out of the main movie if you wanted to without any problems...

~Fizz

DVD Maniac
29th July 2003, 21:43
Tested with Die Another Day which all other apps struggle with because of the wierd angle structure. If I did not include ALL of the subtitle references in the Menu then the buttons don't work. Keep them all and they work fine which confirms that it is not identifying button structure properly. Good news is it handles the angles well, no blocking or player freeze ups.

Other observations

Quality = IC
Title Removal = Not checked out fully yet
Retention of Structure = Not checked out fully yet.

Gonna run more tests with fussy titles and my fussy player but is looking REALLY good.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 21:51
Originally posted by DVD Maniac
Other observations

Quality = IC

Since Mr. Shrink had a hand in writing Recode, the question is is where does the quality come as regards to DVD Shrink and IC?

DVD Shrink <= Recode <= IC ?

DVD Maniac
29th July 2003, 22:02
Not wishing to get in a Pissing comp with you my fine friend! Just initial visual comparisons with same movies at same compression speeds. I am sure the more technically and tool endowed forum members will debate this to excruciating depths in the coming weeks.

Besides, IC title stripping is STILL not fixed despite the best efforts of various forum members to show Pinnacle the way forward and last but not least, STILL no output to a VIDEO_TS file for final fine tuning = CRAP.

My simple requirements look to be (almost) satisfied with this one - I am eager with anticipation

luphy
29th July 2003, 22:09
Can't seem to get to Nero's online shop to find out price
of buying just the Nero Recode program without Nero 6 itself.
Anyone actually bought just the Recode program and how much
did you pay for it?

Hopefully Nero will add something like Shrink's re-authoring
and start/stop features. If the quality of Nero is almost as
good as IC, then I guess I could always use Shrink to deselect
menus and certain titles/subtitles/audios and edit the start/stop,
and then run it through Nero Recode.

Seems Nero Recode does a good job with compressing it to fit onto
one DVD - something IC seems to have a hard time with. If quality
is the same for Nero and IC, I'd go with Nero.

quantum
29th July 2003, 22:42
Die Another Day isn't a great title to test video quality as even DVD2One seemed to compress this to close to original quality at default settings.

I just finished Baraka (1992) with DVD2One (at constant setting), IC7 and Recode. DVD2One had visible cubes evenly throughout. Recode has a 1 good frame, 2 bad frames, algorithm. The good frame was close to the orignal, the 2 bad frames showed visible cubes. This is probably what causes what others refer to as a "pulsing" effect. IC7 showed the least amount of cubes. The cubes were evenly distributed.

I'd place Recode somewhere below IC7 in the group with DVD2One, DVDShrink, etc. Maybe it just uses the shrink code.

I'm in the process of running this through CCE. I'm expecting CCE to very closely match the original. Will update when done.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 23:10
Originally posted by quantum
Die Another Day isn't a great title to test video quality as even DVD2One seemed to compress this to close to original quality at default settings.

I would have said that something like LOTR was a good example to make cross comparisons with, because it is a 3 hour movie and at that length compression is bound to show at the seams - the question being, how much?

Incidentally, my judgement of LOTR having been Recoded is that it appears more blurred than the original on my monitor, but on my 32" widescreen CRT, it seems perceptually the same as the original (which is surely what counts). If you're judging off a projection system, then go use the original, Lol.

Fat Bast'rd
29th July 2003, 23:14
Yipee dah! Just re-done Tipping The Velvet leaving the menu subtitles in, and I now have menu buttons!

DVDRFreak
29th July 2003, 23:30
Did LOTR also now.

The menu behaves the same as the original and also works on my standalone.

But the quality. Amazing !
Did the complete disk (50% for movie 47% for extra's). Did not strip anything ! Move almost 3 hours long.

I did not find any macro blocks yet. It is a little less sharp but even if I encode it with CCE this will happen because of the bitrate being cut in halfe.

I think that this little proggie works so great that I even consider not using CCE anymore. I can not find the difference between the CCE version of LOTR and this one.

I hope they build in a movie only option because thats what I like for my movies. Maximum quality no other stuff on the disk.

Quality imho better then Instantcopy (for this test at least) and without the fastforward/backward bugs instantcopy has.

Gonna test some more.

Update (just a thought)
I wonder if this is the DVDshrink engine. Maybe it is but then it is completly rewritten. I did this movie with DVDshrink 2.3 a while ago and there where macro blocks al over the place. Also I did a comparison with bitrateviewer between the original and the Nero Recode one. The bitrate seems not to be compressed as much in all places indicating that it is proberly recoded using some kind of variable transcoding technic. DVDshrink 2.3 uses a constant compression level (at least taht is what I did understand).

Fat Bast'rd
30th July 2003, 00:10
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
I hope they build in a movie only option because thats what I like for my movies. Maximum quality no other stuff on the disk.

Well that's easy to do. Use Shrink to re-author the movie with no compression, then use Recode on the Shrink output.

I'm doing that to get some still mode compression. Strangely enough, Tipping The Velvet has a Stills Gallery that can be compressed from 63Mb to 8Mb by doing that. Bizarre...

sync
30th July 2003, 00:10
I read about a technique for IC that may work well for Recode. You start off by using DVDFab (freeware) to strip out what you don't want. It is an easy to use app. It will create vobs that you then bring into Recode where you have it process all the files.

The advantages are that it is easy to use and allows you to strip out files that some transcoding apps won't. And supposedly, at least compared to IC, it creates files that are more compatible with some standalones.

DVDFab used to rip but the author took that out. But there is a hack available that lets you rip with it. If you use the hack then it won't take any longer to set up your vobs this way.

You can find the software and a guide at mrbass.org.

sync
30th July 2003, 00:13
Hey you Fat Bast'rd, :) I guess we're on the same wavelength. Shrink would be another route to accomplish this. DVDFab doesn't transcode.

DVD Maniac
30th July 2003, 12:03
Now completed Die Another Day tests using this app,

- Angles work perfectly (not even IC got these right)
- Unwanted Audio Streams have been removed perfectly with the dummy references in place
- Audio / Sub streams all work from the original menu without the need for a Menuedit cleanup
- Visual quality is high standard with no difference (that my eyes can detect) from an IC result
- The Default Audio stream was corrected automatically (I removed the default .ac3) - Wow! :cool:

Very impressive!

Now going to run more tests but it looks very promising. Nice to see that DVDShrink and its author have arrived at what looks like being the ultimate one click app and getting rewarded!

Note - You MUST select ALL subtitle references in the Menu selection tree otherwise your buttons will not work properly - hope this bug is being worked on!

Richk50
30th July 2003, 19:40
"Nice to see that DVDShrink and its author have arrived at what looks like being the ultimate one click app and getting rewarded!"

Someone previously stated on this forum, that DVDShrink was coming out with a new version. If he's working for Ahead, isn't it unusual for them to allow him to continue working on a freeware version of a program that they sell?

DVD Maniac
30th July 2003, 20:22
I just meant that he's been rewarded for his work on DVD Shrink. I very much doubt we will see DVD Shrink developed further as you say

mpucoder
30th July 2003, 21:16
But, it is being worked on, as the other thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58426) says.

It is not unusual that someone does contract work rather than become an employee.

mrbass
31st July 2003, 02:49
read dvdshrinks comments (http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?&threadid=21475&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) July 20th about transcoding between IC and dvdshrink. Perhaps he did after all modify it for recode...pure speculation though. He sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

DVD Maniac
31st July 2003, 09:47
It certainly seems that DVDShrink is not dead, yet.......

If the rumours are true that he is contracting for Ahead I just cannot see them agreeing to a rival product thats available at no cost and has almost identical features - makes no commercial sense to me. In all previous situations I have seen of a freelance developer being hired or contracted by the big boys, the free version of the app disappears rather rapidly! (eg Derrow and his tools)

Ah well, lets see what happens

Erik_Osterholm
31st July 2003, 10:16
Originally posted by DVD Maniac
It certainly seems that DVDShrink is not dead, yet.......

If the rumours are true that he is contracting for Ahead I just cannot see them agreeing to a rival product thats available at no cost and has
Ah well, lets see what happens

I believe that Recode is free, at least for now. It never nags me about registering or anything, and as others have said, it works fine alongside Nero 5.5. It's possible that they just wanted to have an interface change and paid him for that, without the stipulation that he not release his own version for free.

duartix
31st July 2003, 12:25
People, people, you are confusing Nero with Recode.
For many people who don't search and don't have the brain power to get to DVDShrink, Recode is just a small thing that adds some value for those who buy Nero.
Good for Shrink, good for Ahead, which can sell a few more copies of Nero for those which haven't found out (myself included) that Recode is also free, and good for those who crawl in here...:)Perhaps he did after all modify it for recode...pure speculation though. Mr. bass, from that post it didn't look like Shrink was very much enthusiastic about it. I don't believe he has gone the reencode DCT blocks way. 2 reasons why:
1 - Is Recode quality a match for IC?
(well I can't really say it's not because I haven't tried)
Is there anyone willing to compare image quality between Recode & DVDShrink?
2 - Speed! Shrink said it would be a lot slower to do that.

quantum
31st July 2003, 21:24
I just completed backing up Tears of the Sun. I used Recode, IC7, and DVDShrink 2.3.

I shrunk the main video to 70% in all 3 programs. Results:

- The DVDShrink 2.3 video and Recode video are almost frame for frame identical. I think it's the same underlying code.

- The video quality suprised me. It is close to IC7, maybe even better for this title. I looked at it very carefully. There is definite blocking in both titles, but the Recode version is not worse than the IC7 version.

- Recode doesn't retain closed captions - something I would like to see fixed

When trimming titles, creating a solid color bmp does reduce the size better than the default bmp. The more complex the image, the larger the resulting size. I found a single large white X on a black background is only slightly larger than a solid black BMP.

Recode is significantly faster than IC7.

All in all, I think Recode is a tool which may be a competitor for IC7. In the past I never considered DVDShrink a viable tool due to the inability to select sizes (other than in 5% jumps) and the lack of ability to remove titles (other than the static option, which still left hefty chunks). Recode handles both of these, although there is still room for improvement with the title removal feature.

DVD Maniac
1st August 2003, 00:29
All in all, I think Recode is a tool which may be a competitor for IC7. In the past I never considered DVDShrink a viable tool due to the inability to select sizes (other than in 5% jumps) and the lack of ability to remove titles (other than the static option, which still left hefty chunks). Recode handles both of these, although there is still room for improvement with the title removal feature.

Agree that the 5% steps in Shrink were a downside, but note that IC7 has NEVER carried out Title removal correctly and has always resulted in corrupted Structures which some players cannot handle. Only DVD95Copy has come close to offering a proper solution to Title removal, now Recode has come really close to a perfect solution, but as you say it needs some refinement.

RadicalEd
1st August 2003, 04:20
uh (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7638)

ephesus79
1st August 2003, 06:22
I was backing up Solaris the other day and when I tried to played it in PowerDVD, I got a region error. I had to go into infoedit and clear the region checking. It's a good thing I didn't burn directly to the CD. This to me is another indication that Recode is related to DVD Shrink because DVD Shrink is the only other one click app I had this problem with.

Erik_Osterholm
1st August 2003, 06:55
Well this one was an interesting one.

Recode actually doesn't handle Animatrix at ALL well.

Menus take up 301.5 MB.
Main Movie takes up 3309.4 MB.
Extras take up 4544.5 MB.

Most of the extras are in a shared group, but the total MB of the entire suite of Extras is closer to 120 MB (if you add them up manually.) Disabling all extras also disables the Main Movie, and when you shrink everything to the point where (logically) it should all fit on a DVD-R, it comes out much larger.

DVDShrink comes out much better, extras are at roughly 2 GB, and shrinking them doesn't affect the Main Movie. There's no shared group or anything (this isn't something I'd come across before..what is it exactly?)

For now I'm going to use DVD Shrink, but I thought I'd post this and see if anyone had any ideas.

DVDRFreak
1st August 2003, 09:33
Originally posted by benjust
but this was just wierd - princess bride with 80% quality.. there is no difference between the frames, i had to capture again to make sure i didn't capure from same source twice, but i didn't - there just is no difference.

http://benjust.is-a-geek.net:81/PDVD_049.jpg
http://benjust.is-a-geek.net:81/PDVD_050.jpg

This would confirm what I noticed in bitrate viewer. It looks like recode uses some kind of variable compression. So 10% does not mean that everything is compressed with a compression level of 10%. It just means that the total size needs to be redused by 10%.

DVDRFreak
1st August 2003, 09:37
Originally posted by ephesus79
I was backing up Solaris the other day and when I tried to played it in PowerDVD, I got a region error. I had to go into infoedit and clear the region checking. It's a good thing I didn't burn directly to the CD. This to me is another indication that Recode is related to DVD Shrink because DVD Shrink is the only other one click app I had this problem with.

Nero Recode does not modify any protection data. So if you ripped the movie without removinf the region check then it will also be in the backup same for the macromedia analog protection.

ephesus79
1st August 2003, 15:19
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Nero Recode does not modify any protection data. So if you ripped the movie without removinf the region check then it will also be in the backup same for the macromedia analog protection.

I didn't remove the region check if it had one, but if it did, it would be region 1 so it should have any problem playing in my region 1 dvd-rom right? Also, the original played fine without any region problems.

Fat Bast'rd
1st August 2003, 15:52
Originally posted by ephesus79
I didn't remove the region check if it had one, but if it did, it would be region 1 so it should have any problem playing in my region 1 dvd-rom right? Also, the original played fine without any region problems.

Are you sure YOU haven't done something wrong? I've never han any trouble with that kind of stuff.

snidely
1st August 2003, 16:33
I didn't remove the region check if it had one, but if it did, it would be region 1 so it should have any problem playing in my region 1 dvd-rom right? Also, the original played fine without any region problems.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. If you do not remove the region coding from your rip, the rip will act as if you are trying to play an incorrect region disc, even if the original disc has the correct region coding. (Wow that sounded confusing, didn't it? :) )

Basically, you must remove the region coding from your rip or it will not play correctly (most of the time), regardless if the region is correct or not. (Did that sound any better? :) )

ephesus79
1st August 2003, 18:19
Okay, I get it...I think. But why wouldn't Recode automatically make it region free? Who would want to keep the region setting? I remember in DVD Shrink even if you set it to be region free, I would still have to go back on a few DVD's and remove region checking in IFO Edit. Did anybody else have that problem?

mrbass
1st August 2003, 18:25
in that thread that I linked to dvdshrink said "Can't let the guys at Ahead get ahead"...hehe. Sounds like...hmmm who knows maybe that ahead developers are the ones working on the transcoding engine and dvdshrink helped/sold (pure speculation) the interface and assisted them in integrating it, etc. Definitely 2.4 will be coming out which is good news.

daddy_fizz
1st August 2003, 21:24
yes mrbass it is getting very interesting...i can't wait to see what 2.4 holds for us...

i wish we knew what dvdshrink's true relationship with ahead was...could shed a lot of light on what is going/not going to be included in version 2.4 and future versions...

~Fizz

Richk50
1st August 2003, 23:15
"in that thread that I linked to dvdshrink said "Can't let the guys at Ahead get ahead"...hehe. Sounds like...hmmm who knows maybe that ahead developers are the ones working on the transcoding engine and dvdshrink helped/sold (pure speculation) the interface and assisted them in integrating it, etc. Definitely 2.4 will be coming out which is good news."

last I saw when asked if he was involved in recode, he didn't respond. I guess that's the only answer he can give.

luphy
1st August 2003, 23:45
I'm confused. Several folks are saying Nero reendcode is almost
as good as IC7. While some say Nero seems to have the exact same
engine as Shrink?

I think it's already been established that IC7 is better than
Shrink in terms of quality.....so for those who've done comparisons,
is Nero the same as Shrink or better and closer to IC7?

mrbass
2nd August 2003, 00:18
Originally posted by Richk50
last I saw when asked if he was involved in recode, he didn't respond. I guess that's the only answer he can give. [/B]

dvdshrink is really good with the no comment stance. I believe he shouldn't comment if he doesn't want to/or can't and that's his right and let us speculate all we want. Notice how many posts/threads about donating to dvdshrink. He's never commented on it once.

DVDRFreak
2nd August 2003, 09:19
Originally posted by luphy
I'm confused. Several folks are saying Nero reendcode is almost
as good as IC7. While some say Nero seems to have the exact same
engine as Shrink?

I think it's already been established that IC7 is better than
Shrink in terms of quality.....so for those who've done comparisons,
is Nero the same as Shrink or better and closer to IC7?

It is better the InstantCopy imho. Did about 20 tests now and the quality is amazing. It made me decide not to use the CCE method anymore because I just can't find any noticable difference.

Only one movie I did that was not so good is NARC.


Some details:
Movie NARC R2 PAL (movie only one sounddtrack/one subpicture, everything else stripped):

The first scene is a very high motion scene where the camera man is running after the police man.
The Nero Recode version had a lot of macroblocks in this scene (it was still watchable but also very noticable). So I did the same movie with the CCE method.

I even noticed macroblocks (just a few) in the CCE compressed version. Those blocks where not in the original. So it must be one of the hardest scenes to compress.

The other movies I have tried where imho near perfect.

Richk50
2nd August 2003, 16:10
"dvdshrink is really good with the no comment stance. I believe he shouldn't comment if he doesn't want to/or can't and that's his right and let us speculate all we want."

It seems silly this need to know. When you look at recode and it so strongly resembles DVDShrink, there has to be a connection. We know a company like Ahead is not going to just steal Shrink's work and Shrink is not going to be quiet about getting ripped off. Yet for some reason a lot of us (me) want to have our speculations verified.

quantum
3rd August 2003, 02:21
I just compared Saving Private Ryan NTSC using both Recode 0.9.5.1 and IC7 with latest patch. I attempted to reduce everything evenly and save only the 5.1 audio track in both programs resulting in a video about 52% of the original.

Of course IC7 undersized the resulting output by 100 megs. Recode was within 11 megs of capacity.

The Recode video showed slightly less compression artifacts overall than IC7. I was surprised. It's not a huge difference, but noticeable. IC7 may have had more detail than Recode. While it competes with IC7, let's not get carried away and compare it to CCE. My previous backup of this tile with CCE is clearly better.

IC7 took about around 2 hours. Recode about 45 minutes.

Good reasons to use Recode over IC7:
- Close to same video quality
- Good ability to fill 4.7 gig disk
- No proprietary file formats (pdi) that require an additional lengthy step to convert << I wonder who thought up this piece of work
- Much faster, especially when factoring in the need to unscramble the pdi file format
- Better user interface

Are there any reasons to use IC7?

I'd post some screen shots, but I don't see how to include attachments here.

quantum
3rd August 2003, 06:14
One thing I noticed when trying to backup Matrix. It refuses to reduce extras beyond a certain amount. I couldn't get the main title over about 60% while the extras remained about 55%. I wanted to bring the extras down more but couldn't. I notice DVDShrink has a lower limit of 50% so I guess there's a lower limit in Recode also.

Fat Bast'rd
3rd August 2003, 12:53
Originally posted by quantum
One thing I noticed when trying to backup Matrix. It refuses to reduce extras beyond a certain amount. I couldn't get the main title over about 60% while the extras remained about 55%. I wanted to bring the extras down more but couldn't. I notice DVDShrink has a lower limit of 50% so I guess there's a lower limit in Recode also.

Why don't you use Shrink to just reduce the extras to say level 6 (leaving everything else at No Compression). Then, use Recode as per normal.

In fact, you could maybe use Recode to do the same, by unchecking the 'Fit To Disc' box, and then juggling about with the sliders.

snidely
3rd August 2003, 15:03
Are there any reasons to use IC7?

Were there ever? :)

Why don't you use Shrink to just reduce the extras to say level 6 (leaving everything else at No Compression). Then, use Recode as per normal.

Until Recode incorporates all the features from DVDShrink, I have been using Shrink to reauthor for movie only, strip streams, etc. and then transcode using Recode. Fat Bast'rd has got the right idea. :)

Fat Bast'rd
3rd August 2003, 15:11
Fat Bast'rd has got the right idea.

"Get in ma belly! I'm really sexy, ya know".

glocker
3rd August 2003, 15:19
Noobie question here but I can't get any audio for the main movie..DD 5.1 in Road to Perdition...How do you configure selection of the audio streams? I know it's a dumb question.:confused:

jzaman
3rd August 2003, 17:04
I have been pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of RECODE. It matches, in my opinion, the quality of IC without the sizing issue. I have set the custom size at 4482 and it has maintained a 4.37gb size for the last five backups I've done. It is not a CCE or MAINCONCEPT killer but it does fit into the high end transcoder family. Whether you are a Nero hater or Nero lover it is worth a try. Also if you use ImgTools 1.0.0.6 for burning the 6.0.0.11 API works flawlessly.

mrbass
3rd August 2003, 18:56
Originally posted by jzaman
I have been pleasantly surprised by the overall quality of RECODE. It matches, in my opinion, the quality of IC without the sizing issue.

Are you guys sure about the quality of Recode? I flip through frame by frame and the third frame isn't pretty. This reminds me of dvdshrink 1.3 engine. Kinda like 1.3 compression but with 1% incremental ability.

JFerguson
3rd August 2003, 18:59
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
It is better the InstantCopy imho. Did about 20 tests now and the quality is amazing. It made me decide not to use the CCE method anymore because I just can't find any noticable difference.

Only one movie I did that was not so good is NARC.


Some details:
Movie NARC R2 PAL (movie only one sounddtrack/one subpicture, everything else stripped):

The first scene is a very high motion scene where the camera man is running after the police man.
The Nero Recode version had a lot of macroblocks in this scene (it was still watchable but also very noticable). So I did the same movie with the CCE method.

I even noticed macroblocks (just a few) in the CCE compressed version. Those blocks where not in the original. So it must be one of the hardest scenes to compress.

The other movies I have tried where imho near perfect.

This is one high-motion scene. I did it with InstantCopy and am very pleased with the results (tested on 52" TV). I couldn't see any issues other than one blip when Jason Patric jumped the brick wall in the chase.

JFerguson
3rd August 2003, 19:13
Originally posted by snidely

Until Recode incorporates all the features from DVDShrink, I have been using Shrink to reauthor for movie only, strip streams, etc. and then transcode using Recode. Fat Bast'rd has got the right idea. :)

Or use InstantCopy to reduce the extras down to 30-40% and then use Recode to compress movie.

DVDRFreak
3rd August 2003, 19:42
Originally posted by mrbass
Are you guys sure about the quality of Recode? I flip through frame by frame and the third frame isn't pretty. This reminds me of dvdshrink 1.3 engine. Kinda like 1.3 compression but with 1% incremental ability.

Which movie are you talking about. When you say the frame isn't pretty what do you mean ? Are there a lot of macro blocks ?

I did try it on about 20 different movies now and I am still amazed by the quality. Also very long movies like LOTR still look very good even at a compression level of 57%.

mrbass
3rd August 2003, 20:09
well I only did one movie Casino at 57% with Recode and at level 8 with dvdshrink 2.3 and to me it sure seems similiar recode and dvdshrink 2.3. I've just having a hard time where people are comparing the quality of recode close to IC7 which I don't quite see that's all. Guess I need to do a few more movies before forming an opinion one way or the other.

Fat Bast'rd
3rd August 2003, 20:31
I'm amazed at the %ages you're getting.

I've done LOTR, and got 67% on the main movie. I stripped out the DTS track, and removed credits in the menu etc.

DVDRFreak
3rd August 2003, 21:31
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
I'm amazed at the %ages you're getting.

I've done LOTR, and got 67% on the main movie. I stripped out the DTS track, and removed credits in the menu etc.

For testing I did the hole disc, did not strip anything thats why the %ages are so low.

daddy_fizz
3rd August 2003, 22:38
Originally posted by mrbass
Are you guys sure about the quality of Recode? I flip through frame by frame and the third frame isn't pretty. This reminds me of dvdshrink 1.3 engine. Kinda like 1.3 compression but with 1% incremental ability.

good thing when i watch a movie i dont' stop on every third frame and look at it :D

~fizz

quantum
3rd August 2003, 23:04
good thing when i watch a movie i dont' stop on every third frame and look at itI might, if there's a topless scene going on...

At first I thought Recode might have a good frame/bad frame algorithm, but now I'm not so sure. Compare it frame by frame to a IC7 transcode and you'll probably find they're similar.

Good comparison technique here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58808)

DVDRFreak
3rd August 2003, 23:12
Originally posted by mrbass
well I only did one movie Casino at 57% with Recode and at level 8 with dvdshrink 2.3 and to me it sure seems similiar recode and dvdshrink 2.3. I've just having a hard time where people are comparing the quality of recode close to IC7 which I don't quite see that's all. Guess I need to do a few more movies before forming an opinion one way or the other.

Sounds good to me. I'm currious what other people results are.

Until now I did about 20 tests with the results that for me look far better then the Instant Copy test I did run (I tried the 7.11 version a while ago on 3 of the movies I also tested now one of them was LOTR). The Instant Copy result of LOTR was not good at all lot of artifacts. Also Instantcopy causes strange fastforward/backward bugs on my standalone and on my PC. PowerDVD locks up and I have to kill it by using the taskmanager (this is not acceptable at all !). Standalone gives an error that the disc is dirty and needs cleaning.

DVDshrink 2.3 gave a lot of macoblocks in the LOTR backup. The Nero Recode version (0.90 beta) looked great. Maybe I did not look at it all the way true but the scenes I checked where great (used frame stepping also to check the quality).

So looking forward to hear what your test result will be.

Fat Bast'rd
3rd August 2003, 23:28
I did LOTR and did a few screenshot comparisons. I could barely tell the difference between the two (with it compressed @ 67% with Recode). Lines were not quite as sharp as the original, but I could only tell the difference when side-by-side - and even then, it's only slight. Not an artefact in sight!

Talking of artefacts, did you know Van Gogh painted the Mona Lisa?

quantum
4th August 2003, 00:07
Now if only we could convince the Recode author to stop stripping out the closed captions...

surreal120
4th August 2003, 00:23
A lot of people have said on here that they think the quality of Recode is as good as or better than CCE. Just curious to get some more feedback on this. My big question would be: does/can recode do more than one pass? If not, it's hard to believe it could really outdo CCE.

But who knows... Anyway, if there's an objective method of comparing the two, I would be very interested.

DVDRFreak
4th August 2003, 00:31
Originally posted by Fat Bast'rd
I did LOTR and did a few screenshot comparisons. I could barely tell the difference between the two (with it compressed @ 67% with Recode). Lines were not quite as sharp as the original, but I could only tell the difference when side-by-side - and even then, it's only slight. Not an artefact in sight!

Talking of artefacts, did you know Van Gogh painted the Mona Lisa?

off topic
"A lotta cats copy the Mona Lisa, but people stand in line to see the original." - Louis Armstrong
/on topic

Just did gangs of new york (movie only/5.1 dolby soundtrack/ 1 subtitle).

Quality, amazing (if you look of the size of this movie). There are a few jumping pixels in the last scene (only noticable on my computer on my widescreen TV I do not see them) but the rest looks great. Did not find any artifacts yet. Will do some frame comparing later.

DVDRFreak
4th August 2003, 00:59
Originally posted by surreal120
A lot of people have said on here that they think the quality of Recode is as good as or better than CCE. Just curious to get some more feedback on this. My big question would be: does/can recode do more than one pass? If not, it's hard to believe it could really outdo CCE.

But who knows... Anyway, if there's an objective method of comparing the two, I would be very interested.

You could do a comparison by making frame shots. Read a few posts back howto do this.

Recode does do a 2 pass. Pass 1 is analyse the video. Pass 2 is transcode (this will take about 30-40 minutes for a 2 hour movie).

CCE does do multi pass encode to determine where the most bitrate is needed. It will give at max a 10% quality increase if you do more then 2 passes. More then 5 passes is useless. (5 passes will take about 6-8 hours to encode a 2 hour movie). Plus the time to recreate the complete title set and make sure that all menu items work (at least 1 hour for a complex DVD).

Better then CCE it will proberly not be. Without noticable differences I am sure that this is the case.

quantum
4th August 2003, 01:08
A lot of people have said on here that they think the quality of Recode is as good as or better than CCE. Just curious to get someWhere did you see this? I haven't seen anyone say Recode is as good or better than CCE. Many have compared it to IC7. Neither are as good as CCE when compression levels are extreme. CCE is still king when the job is tough.

Fat Bast'rd
4th August 2003, 01:20
Originally posted by quantum
Where did you see this? I haven't seen anyone say Recode is as good or better than CCE. Many have compared it to IC7. Neither are as good as CCE when compression levels are extreme. CCE is still king when the job is tough.

I don't see how it can get tougher than LOTR. It is almost 3 hours long, and I can only tell the difference when comparing frames side-by-side, and even then the difference is miniscule, and undetectable to the naked eye!

surreal120
4th August 2003, 02:30
Quantum, I have seen a few people say on this thread, that Recode looks as good to them as CCE. For example, I think Fat Bastard said that about Lord of the Rings.

Like you, however, I am skeptical. Maybe I'm just "old school" but it seems like CCE's taking 4 or more hours to transcode a movie with multipass encoding should result in a better quality product than Recode's approx. 45 minutes. I know Ahead had some pretty smart developers, but I can't imagine them writing an algorithm that is SOOO much faster than the guys at Cinema Craft and having just as good results. You never know though... look at the time/quality differences between CCE and TMPG!

thop
4th August 2003, 02:35
Notice how many posts/threads about donating to dvdshrink. He's never commented on it once.Yes that is very interesting. DVDShrink is also very secretive about his real identity, i don't think anyone knows anything about him. I've heard rumours that he is from Japan, others say he is from the US, i've also seen Spain mentioned. Notice how he doesn't even use a real nickname! :)

That Ahead getting ahead quote is very interesting as well.

Anyway i'm surely looking forward to DVDShrink 2.4! I don't like Ahead software, else i'd give Recode a try, i use burnatonce for my CD/DVD burning needs.

quantum
4th August 2003, 02:55
Quantum, I have seen a few people say on this thread, that Recode looks as good to them as CCE. For example, I think Fat Bastard said that about Lord of the Rings. You think he said that? It's right there in this thread. He never said he used CCE. He compared a Recode job to the orignal.

Fat Bast'rd
4th August 2003, 03:13
Originally posted by quantum
You think he said that? It's right there in this thread. He never said he used CCE. He compared a Recode job to the orignal.


Indeed. I have never actually used CCE in my life. But from what I have read on these pages, my impression is that CCE encodes whilst Shrink and Recode transcode. Encoding means converting from one format to another, whilst transcoding means keeping the same format, but downgrading the quality by increasing the compression.

So although CCE isn't being used to convert formats when you're doing it from DVD ('cos the original and final formats are both MPEG2), it's engine is nonetheless still going thru the entire encoding process, which is why it takes so much longer than any transcoding process, since transcoding works from data that is already there by stripping out information, rather than an encoding process which would create that data from scratch.

Or at least, that's my take on the matter. Please correct only if truly knowledgable.

luphy
4th August 2003, 05:44
Btw, several folks are surmissing that Nero Recode is free.
But it is not. Sure you can run it and you get no nag screen
or expiration date. If you run Nero VisionExpress demo, you get
the expiration date.

Once you past that expiration date, Nero Recode will no longer work.
Try it - set your date ahead a month and when you try to run Recode,
it will say your demo has expired.

Only way to keep it going is to buy the serial code for Nero 6.
I don't see any option to pay for just the NeroVision or just the
Recode components.

Erik_Osterholm
4th August 2003, 05:49
That significantly decreases it's worth, in my opinion. Having to use a tool to remove CSS (decrypting to an ISO) before shrinking greatly increases the amount of time it takes to do the encode. Hopefully DVDShrink 2.4 will have all the features of Recode, but will be free (and removing RCE would be a nice touch, too).

DVDRFreak
4th August 2003, 09:40
Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm
That significantly decreases it's worth, in my opinion. Having to use a tool to remove CSS (decrypting to an ISO) before shrinking greatly increases the amount of time it takes to do the encode. Hopefully DVDShrink 2.4 will have all the features of Recode, but will be free (and removing RCE would be a nice touch, too).

I must disagree when you say greatly reduses time. When using DVDdescryptour to build an ISO with all protections removed (RCE/Macrovision/CSS/User restrictions) will just take about 10-15 minutes.

It is also better for your DVD player to first build an ISO.

harlemthug
4th August 2003, 12:48
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
I must disagree when you say greatly reduses time. When using DVDdescryptour to build an ISO with all protections removed (RCE/Macrovision/CSS/User restrictions) will just take about 10-15 minutes.

It is also better for your DVD player to first build an ISO.

does dvddecrypter also remove rce/macro/css/user restrictions if you select the FILE MODE instead of iso mode?

DVDRFreak
4th August 2003, 13:28
Originally posted by harlemthug
does dvddecrypter also remove rce/macro/css/user restrictions if you select the FILE MODE instead of iso mode?

Yes it does remove all protections also in file mode.

harlemthug
4th August 2003, 13:42
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
Yes it does remove all protections also in file mode.

thx for the info! :)

ephesus79
4th August 2003, 15:06
I have been using AnyDVD 1.4.1.1 and its been working beautifully with Recode. In fact, none of the program I use recognize the CSS encryption and it takes me the same 45 minutes as it seems to take everybody else to run a DVD through Recode. I hate that extra step of ripping to your hard drive and if I can save 15 minutes, I'll take it.

surreal120
4th August 2003, 16:07
Quantum,

Originally posted by DVDRFreak
I think that this little proggie works so great that I even consider not using CCE anymore. I can not find the difference between the CCE version of LOTR and this one.

There's also some more modest opinions, like

Originally posted by snidely
I've only tried one title so far, Die Another Day RC1, and I was quite impressed. In casual observations, it looks almost as good as my CCE encode.

Sorry for misrepresenting Fat Bastard before. And FB, thanks for the info on the difference between encoding and transcoding.

Anyway, maybe I don't understand the transcoding/encoding distinction well enough, but now I'm even less sure than before: is it possible that Recode is as good as CCE (or very VERY close)?

Fat Bast'rd
4th August 2003, 17:17
Originally posted by surreal120
Anyway, maybe I don't understand the transcoding/encoding distinction well enough, but now I'm even less sure than before: is it possible that Recode is as good as CCE (or very VERY close)?


D'oh! It's like comparing apples & oranges. Recode transcodes, and CCE encodes. Probably whats happening, is that Recode is transcoding a movie already encoded by the movie company with CCE. Hence, you're already starting off with a CCE encoded film which Recode merely has to transcode (ie; compress even further).



[The assumption being that they use CCE in Hollywood].


PS. I don't actually know I'm right. It's just what I've gathered in my couple of months of doing this stuff.

surreal120
4th August 2003, 21:44
Fat Bastard, thanks for all the info. I don't mean to sound stupid about this, but I'm still a little confused:

Suppose I rip out the MPEG-2 video stream of a DVD and get a file that's 6 GB - too big for a DVD-R. So, I re-encode the video using CCE to get something closer to 4 GB. So, information is being compressed right?

Now, let's say instead I transcode the DVD itself using Recode. Again, information is compressed or stripped out. So, it seems like two very similar processes are going - not apples and oranges.

At least, as far as I'm understanding it. Does encoding mean literally taking the video in its native, uncompressed FILM format and encoding it as MPEG-2? Once it's already MPEG-2, wouldn't encoding it further be a lot like transcoding? It sounds like there's something I'm missing - sorry for being such a pain! Thanks.

DVDRFreak
4th August 2003, 22:52
What CCE and other encoders do is take a native uncompressed AVI file and encode it to a MPGEG2 compressed file. Therefore it is neccesary that you always do frame serving (convert mpge2 to uncompressed AVI format) with a tool like avisynth so the CCE encoder can encode the uncompressed video that the frame serving program feeds it.

What a recoder does is process the MPEG2 compressed file directly. It increases the compression level of the frames stored in the MPEG 2 file.

geffroman
5th August 2003, 10:48
Originally posted by thop
Yes that is very interesting. DVDShrink is also very secretive about his real identity

Yes ! and about as difficult to contact as AHEAD. The lack of desire to collect donations is weird.

I suspect that DVDSHRINK was a test product for AHEAD all along. What better way to test it out during developement than to present it to the hacker community as another SMART GUY programming from his college dorm in his spare time.

If you ask me the developement and feature set of SHRINK has always been kick ass... and has always seemed very professional compared to all the others...

AHEAD makes their money selling NERO to drive makers as bundles. I think they just wanted to expand their suite of products to keep their edge in this market. Every Drive sold has a 3rd party bundle in the box and AHEAD makes a living competing in that arena.

All speculation of course... and if it's true there is nothing wrong with that...

Jeff (My real name)

DVD Maniac
5th August 2003, 11:53
I like the conspiracy theory and it certainly does explain the points you make about donations and slick interfaces / functionality.

If the rumours are true that DVDShrink is still being developed then its a less credible theory - why bother if the end game was to release Recode? If DVDShrink 2.4 DOES appear that will really get us going!!!!! :p

thop
5th August 2003, 14:26
I like the conspiracy theory as well, it all comes together quite nicely.

daddy_fizz
5th August 2003, 18:15
posted by dvdshrink HIMSELF over at digital-digest forums

My system is not HT enabled

However the next version of Shrink will hopefully use more threads, which may or may not improve performance on HT enabled machines...?

About video resize, it would be a nice feature, but it won't make it into the next version, sorry!

its coming, be ready...

~Fizz

thop
5th August 2003, 19:32
It still makes sense, because OEMs or drive manufacturers don't bundle freeware with their computers/drives, main reason being that they have no reliable partner to talk to. Highly risky business to depend on the mood of one college student (to use the typical stereotype). Those guys like contracts, and their partners wearing suits.

DVDShrink is no threat for Recode. If anything it will make Recode sale even better, because people who like DVDShrink already, but are not very tech-savy can buy Recode and the tech support that comes with it.

Richk50
5th August 2003, 20:02
"I like the conspiracy theory and it certainly does explain the points you make about donations and slick interfaces / functionality."

Actually DVDShrink is a CIA Agent and uses the program to pass messages to his field agents.

thop
5th August 2003, 20:52
Now you're just being silly Richk50 .. while we are perfectly reasonable! :)

geffroman
5th August 2003, 22:53
Well I downloaded the NERO Vision package and installed it FREE from Nero. It is not a charge item and it works stand alone whether you have NERO 6 or not. It does not need a serial number.

I still believe that SHRINK is the development product and that the things we all asked for in SHRINK like 1% increments ended up in RECODE. Nero will only put solid working features in RECODE as they have seen the IC disaster...

New versions of SHRINK (in my conspiracy theory) make sense because it is better to test future RECODE features on US rather than the buying public or their OEM drive customers...

I THINK WE HAVE BEEN DUPED INTO BEING QC FOR NERO...

But I am happy to be a guinea pig if it gets me new tools...

Jeff (My real name)

luphy
6th August 2003, 00:39
Geffroman,

Try resetting your computer's date to 1 month ahead.
Then you will get the demo expiration message.
It is not free, you need a serial number to continue running
NeroVision Express, and Nero Recode. You get no message about
the days remaining when you run Recode, but you do when you run
Express.
It is a separate serial number from the one used to register
Nero 6 Ultra.

willb2d
6th August 2003, 05:46
Sure you can run it and you get no nag screen or expiration date. If you run Nero VisionExpress demo, you get the expiration date.


Evidently, Recode also expires if you manually delete the Nero VisionExpress folder and clear up the registry. My intent in eliminating the non-Recode componants was so as to ensure that I'd never accidentally run VisionExpress and start the expiration process. But the effort was in vain, and Recode announced that the "demo period has expired."

I'm just going to wait for the next Shrink; I don't need the hassle.

geffroman
6th August 2003, 09:30
Anyone know why Recode takes 2 to 3 times longer to analyze and 30% longer to recode than does Shrink...?

Erik_Osterholm
6th August 2003, 11:22
Originally posted by DVDRFreak
I must disagree when you say greatly reduses time. When using DVDdescryptour to build an ISO with all protections removed (RCE/Macrovision/CSS/User restrictions) will just take about 10-15 minutes.

It is also better for your DVD player to first build an ISO.

That would depend entirely upon how fast one's DVDRom rips DVDs. Takes me nearly 40 minutes in some cases, which is about the same amount of time it takes to DVDShrink it. Besides, DVDRoms are designed to play movies, which are typically longer than that 10-15 minutes you quote. Obviously the less time the laser is on, the better, but it's not like they aren't designed to be on longer than that.

Anyway...
All the protections can be removed using IFOEdit. Takes about 2 seconds. Ripping to ISO takes (let's say an average of) 30 minutes for me, then Recode takes about 50. DVDShrink takes 40 minutes, then IFOEdit takes less than one minute to remove the protections. I'm up 40 minutes with this method, although I can't do some of Recode's niftier functions like keeping the DVD structure while removing streams and having a true sliding scale for recompression.

That's why I'm hoping that DVDShrink 2.4 gets more like Recode. I'm not holding my breath for it getting rid of the protections in one fell swoop, though.

DVDRFreak
6th August 2003, 12:13
Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm
That would depend entirely upon how fast one's DVDRom rips DVDs. Takes me nearly 40 minutes in some cases, which is about the same amount of time it takes to DVDShrink it. Besides, DVDRoms are designed to play movies, which are typically longer than that 10-15 minutes you quote. Obviously the less time the laser is on, the better, but it's not like they aren't designed to be on longer than that.

Anyway...
All the protections can be removed using IFOEdit. Takes about 2 seconds. Ripping to ISO takes (let's say an average of) 30 minutes for me, then Recode takes about 50. DVDShrink takes 40 minutes, then IFOEdit takes less than one minute to remove the protections. I'm up 40 minutes with this method, although I can't do some of Recode's niftier functions like keeping the DVD structure while removing streams and having a true sliding scale for recompression.

That's why I'm hoping that DVDShrink 2.4 gets more like Recode. I'm not holding my breath for it getting rid of the protections in one fell swoop, though.

40 minutes that is a very long time to rip. I use a low budget LG 12x DVD ROM player and I get maximum 15 minutes of ripping time. I never use the burner to rip because this is slow as hell (avg 2x).

The laser in a DVD rom drive has a maximum life cycle that it will function properly. The less I use it the better it is.

Usally when I want to keep extra's I recode multiple times (playing with the compression level of the extra's, to strip something or not)) and this is easier (faster) if I use an ISO or FILES on my hardrive. Plus it saves the laser of my DVD ROM.

The Belgain
6th August 2003, 13:51
Right, I just used Recode to do my first DVD9 -> DVD-R backup. The film was Saving Private Ryan R2 (not the DTS edition).

As well as being a very long film, it is notoriously very hard to compress since it is very grainy.

I wanted to keep all the extras, but this is seemingly not possible (Recode came up saying it would use about 5200 MB, and I couldn't lower the quality sliders below what they were at, so I got rid of one of the credits).

The film took about 80 minutes to transcode (from an ISO image mounted on HD), and oddly the CPU was not at 100% (total CPU time was only about 60 mins). This is on an XP2000+.

The result was far from perfect: quite blocky in parts, eg the opening landing scene.

I'll try doing it with IC, and then using CCE to compare the results.

Are there any plans for doom9 to do a test of DVD backup tools similar to the codec guide by any chance? That would be quite useful now that these are falling into the mainstream much more...


edit: DVD Decrypter took 15 mins to rip just over 8 GB. 40 mins for a rip does sound like a very long time...this is on a 12x Hitachi reader for me.

geffroman
6th August 2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Erik_Osterholm
That would depend entirely upon how fast one's DVDRom rips DVDs. Takes me nearly 40 minutes in some cases,

You must be using your DVD Burner to RIP movies if it takes you 40 minutes to rip a disc... That's got to be running at 2x top speed...

Personally I think it a small price to pay (around $40 US) to have a DVD ROM that will almost always RIP DVDs at 10 to 15 minutes... I also get the added benefit of putting less miles on my burner...

Erik_Osterholm
6th August 2003, 20:25
Originally posted by geffroman
You must be using your DVD Burner to RIP movies if it takes you 40 minutes to rip a disc... That's got to be running at 2x top speed...

Personally I think it a small price to pay (around $40 US) to have a DVD ROM that will almost always RIP DVDs at 10 to 15 minutes... I also get the added benefit of putting less miles on my burner...

I'm actually not using the burner to rip, but a cheap DVD-Rom. I'll look into finding a cheap one to substitute, but at the same time, if this one dies, I'm not terribly concerned. I'm not sure that it's worth my money at this time to replace it.

Fat Bast'rd
6th August 2003, 21:19
I bought the 270 dual Sony. By the time it dies from over-use, it'll be worth 2.70 and we'll all have moved on to a different format!

Stop worrying about it. You could be dead tomorrow!

luphy
7th August 2003, 03:22
"Stop worrying about it. You could be dead tomorrow!"

If that's true, why worry about making backups of your movies. :p


P.S. You know I was just thinking about the last software that got so much attention when it first came out - Clone. I almost feel sorry for it as it's gotten swept aside by Nero Recode - and from what folks are saying, Recode does a better job than Clone anyways.

SirCentipede
7th August 2003, 12:22
@geffroman, DVDRFreak, Erik_Osterholm

I do have the same problem as Erik_Osterholm using DVDDecrypter to rip to iso:

It takes me about 40-60 min. using an older Toschiba 8x DVD-Rom Drive.
I can't understand how a 12x DVD-Rom (like the one DVDRFreak is using) drive will rip in 15 min., because it is just 1.5 times faster than my 8x DVD-Rom. Or am i wrong !? Pls can somebody of you explain it to me, because I might consider buying a faster DVD-Rome Drive if I can save such a lot of time with it...

BTW I think Nero Recode v.0.9.5.1. is a great and fast tool with a superb user interface. IMHO it does a better transcoding job than DVDshrink 2.3, but i wouldn't go lower than 70% reduction on the main movie, because at higher reduction levels recode tends to have macroblocks in the movie (I did about 5 movies with recode). As far as i can see IC7 still gets better results at higher reduction levels (let's say 50-70 %). At about 70%-99% i don't see any significant difference between IC7 and Recode on my 16:9 Panasonic Television.

But I'm still looking forward to DVDshrink 2.4 and hope that it incoporates some of the features of Recode especially the IMHO "better" transcoding engine of Recode.

duartix
7th August 2003, 12:42
I too have some DVDs that DVDDecryptor rips contantly at 2x.
Those are the CSS protected. It takes from 30 to 50 minutes depending on size.
ON those DVDs that are not protected my burner starts ripping at about 6x to end at about 11x taking from 8 to 12 minutes depending on size.

So it's protection related.

Fat Bast'rd
7th August 2003, 12:56
Originally posted by duartix
I too have some DVDs that DVDDecryptor rips contantly at 2x.
Those are the CSS protected. It takes from 30 to 50 minutes depending on size.
ON those DVDs that are not protected my burner starts ripping at about 6x to end at about 11x taking from 8 to 12 minutes depending on size.

So it's protection related.

Nah, different region code to what your player is set at.

thop
7th August 2003, 15:18
Yes it is protection related, and protected DVDs usually only get ripped 2x, BUT most drives out there ignore the protection flag and rip every DVD at max speed no matter what.

A rule of thumb is that the the cheaper the drive is the higher the chance that it is not locked down to 2x. I've always bought the cheapest drives available (artec, btc, ...) and they never failed me.

sync
7th August 2003, 16:03
My burner rips at 1X if I boot from my regular XP partition. If I boot from a partition with a fresh XP install the rip speed goes up to 4X. I also notice a doubling in burning speed with 2.4X +RW discs(from 1.3X to 2.4X).

daddy_fizz
7th August 2003, 16:37
a lot of dvd burners have limited ripping speed. Like my a05 had a 2x rip limit and it would take about 40 minutes to rip a dvd, then i got some hacked firmware from forum.firmware-flash.com and now i can rip at up to 12x :D lots of good firmware there...

~Fizz

twinches
7th August 2003, 18:20
I think these post have gotten off topic form the starting thread name of "Nero Recode .90 beta". Maybe someone should start a different thread to discuss ripping speeds. I subscribe to this thread because I want to read about Nero Recode issues, updates etc. not about ripping speeds of different drives. It would be nice to get this thread back on track. Just my 2 cents.

SirCentipede
7th August 2003, 23:59
Maybe these threads from the decrypting forum will end the discussion:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?threadid=43758

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43748

Luckily there seems to be an answer to everything on this board.
It worked for me, 'cause now my DVD-Rom rips a movie in 9-17 min. :-)

So now let's swith back discussing recode...

Fat Bast'rd
8th August 2003, 00:41
Originally posted by SirCentipede
So now let's swith back discussing recode...

I find the sliders 'mess about' a bit. If you just click on the main movie slider, sometimes the menu or extras' slider can change.

zeronegative
8th August 2003, 10:05
I seem to have a problem disabling videos. When I pick the RecodeDefault.bmp or my own bmp (black with white lettering, 720x576) it shows fine when I play the recoded DVD on my computer. However, in my standalone, those screens become garbled with all kinds of colours and show through part of the last menu. Really strange. Has anyone experienced this as well?

Oh, I'm ripping PAL DVDs just to let you know.

SirCentipede
8th August 2003, 11:31
@zeronegative

I have the same problem with my PAL DVDs. I don't know what it is, i experimented with other resolutions as 720x576 (PAL) but it didn't work either. Maybe someone knows a solution to this problem !?

zeronegative
8th August 2003, 15:53
@SirCentipede

Have you tried it with NTSC titles? Unfortunately I have no NTSC DVD here as I'm in the middle of moving my stuff, but I wonder if it has the same effect. Weird thing is that it started going wrong after I ghosted my computer back to its old settings and reinstalled Nero 6, although the installation is pretty much the same as before.

SirCentipede
8th August 2003, 16:18
@zeronegative

no I haven't tried NTSC titles, yet, maybe I'll try on the weekend, if i can get my hands on one.
In the meantime maybe somebody from the US can comment on this problem, if he/she encountered it on NTSC titles, too.

Chibi Jasmin
8th August 2003, 17:21
Originally posted by zeronegative
I seem to have a problem disabling videos. When I pick the RecodeDefault.bmp or my own bmp (black with white lettering, 720x576) it shows fine when I play the recoded DVD on my computer. However, in my standalone, those screens become garbled with all kinds of colours and show through part of the last menu. Really strange. Has anyone experienced this as well?

Oh, I'm ripping PAL DVDs just to let you know.

I posted about a problem with the garbled "video removed" screen in the Nero Recode 0.9.5.1 thread...

zeronegative
8th August 2003, 18:16
@Chibi Jasmin

Just took a look at your post, you're encoding PAL DVDs as well when experiencing the problem. Which makes me all the more curious as to if the problem also occurs with NTSC. Maybe I'm going to rip open some boxes to find an NTSC DVD and do a recode on it disabling some videos. It's strange though.

Maybe I should deinstall Recode and install the original 0.90 to see if the problem happens there as well. I'm under the impression that my working DVD was encoded with 0.90 and the faulty ones are from the 0.95 build.

update: No difference between 0.90 and 0.95. I'm beginning to suspect that it might have something to do with Nero's MPEG2/DVD encoding abilities...

Chibi Jasmin
8th August 2003, 19:35
Originally posted by zeronegative
@Chibi Jasmin

Just took a look at your post, you're encoding PAL DVDs as well when experiencing the problem. Which makes me all the more curious as to if the problem also occurs with NTSC. Maybe I'm going to rip open some boxes to find an NTSC DVD and do a recode on it disabling some videos. It's strange though.

Maybe I should deinstall Recode and install the original 0.90 to see if the problem happens there as well. I'm under the impression that my working DVD was encoded with 0.90 and the faulty ones are from the 0.95 build.

update: No difference between 0.90 and 0.95. I'm beginning to suspect that it might have something to do with Nero's MPEG2/DVD encoding abilities...

Strange enough, the default bmp has a resolution of 720x576 as for a pal title...may I ask what standalone shows the problem?

About it being Recode's fault...don't forget that playback on the pc works...that does not mean too much, as PCs play things way out of specs, but it might also hint, that something is wrong with the standalones? I don't have the time to test with NTSC-titles at the moment...but I have some here, at least...maybe I gonna try someday...guess, you'll beat me on that one...I am too busy at the moment...

rpboy
8th August 2003, 20:32
Originally posted by zeronegative
Just took a look at your post, you're encoding PAL DVDs as well when experiencing the problem. Which makes me all the more curious as to if the problem also occurs with NTSC. Maybe I'm going to rip open some boxes to find an NTSC DVD and do a recode on it disabling some videos. It's strange though.
I have been taking titles out with Recode .90 and .95 and have not had the extent of the problem that you guys reported.

I am using NTSC titles and I create a 720x480 BMP file - usually with a graphic that says "Insert Disc 2" or something on it.

When I preview it on my PC, everything is fine. When I view it on my standalone DVD player, I get some shimmering of the picture, especially on the text. Its not garbled and can be easily read. It just shakes and shimmers.

That's the only thing I have noticed about the ripping titles on NTSC DVDs.

zeronegative
8th August 2003, 21:20
Originally posted by Chibi Jasmin
Strange enough, the default bmp has a resolution of 720x576 as for a pal title...may I ask what standalone shows the problem?

I've played it on a Medion DVD-player, which has never given me any problems before. I'm going to try a title on my Cyberhome later tonight, but the weird thing is that before I ghosted my computer to an earlier date everything worked fine. I did a rip of Vidocq and that one shows the disabled screen perfectly fine, whereas the later rips don't.

Here's some photos of what I mean, sorry for the low quality of the first picture but it's a photo from a movie projected on my wall. The second movie I couldn't project because the CyberHome doesn't take DVD+R.

1: (movie 1) Original 'disabled video' in WinDVD:
http://www.zeronegative.net/lj/1_windvd.jpg

2: (movie 1) Original 'disabled video' with CyberHome:
http://www.zeronegative.net/lj/1_cyberhome.jpg
(notice the black bars)

3: (movie 1) Original 'disabled video' with Medion:
http://www.zeronegative.net/lj/1_medion.jpg
(bitmap totally garbled)

4: (movie 2) Custom 'disabled video' in WinDVD:
http://www.zeronegative.net/lj/2_windvd.jpg

5: (movie 2) Custom 'disabled video' with Medion:
http://www.zeronegative.net/lj/2_medion.jpg
(bitmap totally garbled)

ccclapp
2nd October 2003, 00:34
What is the current thinking about Shrink v3.o b5 vs Nero Recode?

Here are my needs and impressions:
1) I rip/backup to Hardrive and also sometimes like to burn a backup. I have been doing full file rips with DVDDecrypter, and MM via Shrink and burn via Nero. However, I am now concluding there is no good reason to save menues and extras to either HD or DVD...it just takes up space and makes playback harder (have to push extra buttons on a remote or keyboard ;) ). On the other hand quality is very important to me, especially on my HD back-up.

For these reasons (unless there are good reasons I am missing for doing it another way) I now want to BU MM only to HD with zero compression using the best rip available (I just want a totally lossless MM rip). Then as needed I will compress/edit that BU to burn to DVD.

I am finding the best way to do this is to rip and re-author in Shrink for MM only for my rip to HD. Then, compress and burn to DVD my second BU in one step with nero recode/nero6.

Here are my questions/concerns:

2) I find some rips from DVDD and Shrink still contain some regions, PU's, and other little issues. I can clean these in IfoEdit, but I would really prefer not to. I am considering running AnyDVD WHILE ripping. Would this enable EXTRA clean-up, or mess things up? Another option would be to run AnyDVD as I burn from HD with Recode. (I have seen that many use AnyDVD with Recode to go silmultaniously rip and burn.). What is the feeling about this??

3) In Recode, I have a problem that I get stuck on the dummy screen of "disabled" items during playback. I sometimes cannot get a movie to play because these get in the way. Has anyone else had that problem? I do not think this is the same as the subtitle problem, because there are no click-points on the disables scenes.

Thanks for the help.

gnipooldd
2nd October 2003, 03:34
Hi all. :)

ccclapp, what version of DVD Shrink are you using?
If not v3.0 beta 5, I'd suggest you do, as it removes PUs and RCE. ;)

It can also do some neat tricks that v2.3 can't.
http://www.dvdshrink.info/re-author-v3beta5.php
http://www.dvdshrink.info/re-author-v3beta5-advanced.php
And even better (and not well known):
Applying different compressions to different parts of a title(s).
http://www.dvdshrink.info/mixed-compressions.php
This is very handy to apply "Still Pictures" to the end-credits (seamlessly), saving more space for the MM. :D

ccclapp
2nd October 2003, 05:09
Originally posted by gnipooldd
Hi all. :)

ccclapp, what version of DVD Shrink are you using?
If not v3.0 beta 5, I'd suggest you do, as it removes PUs and RCE. ;)

...yes I am using Shrink v3.0 b5. My questions were based on this. And yes, I still get some RCE and UPs issues sometimes (as I also get w DVD Decripter sometimes)

Thanks

gnipooldd
2nd October 2003, 13:34
Oh ok, I'll shut up then. ;)