I now believe IC8 is (much) better than DVDShrink

[monomer]

For the last 9 months I have serverly limited the use of my transcoders (Shrink, IC7/8, Dvd2One) in favor of CCE (via either DVD2DVD-R or DVD2SVCD)... just about everything over 4.8Gbs gets CCEed. I figure anything smaller should look darn good transcoded by any method... I usually use DVD2One because of the speed, ease and simplicity. However I have been reading the forum for quite awhile and noted that a few months ago IC7 seemed to be favored by large number of posters... but that seems to have changed and I would venture to say that Shrink now seems to have the majority of supporters. It really didn't mean much to me one way or the other since I ask so little of these transcoders... well that is until a few days ago. My wife has this Yoga DVD (called Yoga Conditioning For Weight Loss) and it 'weighs in' (pun intended) at a hefty 6.89Gb It has 4 angles, 8 menus, subpictures, two sound tracks and 33extras. I couldn't even figured out where to start. I just don't know enough about DVD structure to attempt CCEing the video and still have everything else function properly... sooooo... out comes the transcoders. I figured DVDShrink is the best of the lot, so I 'squashed' the whole thing down to 4.36Gb and burned (yes, using 'deep analysis'). The result was horrible on my 114" wide screen. Pixellation, 'floating' sand and leaves, background people's faces and expressions were unrecognizable... and these flaws were also easily visible on our 27" Trinitron as well. This bothered me so much I decided to compress this selection again but this time I would use IC8. The result came out to 4.09Gb (the small size no longer surprises me anymore) and when viewed on the 'big screen' it also contained some pixellation and 'floating' leaves and some strange facial features BUT it was markedly better than the Shrink version. If fact the visual flaws could only barely be seen on the 27" Sony. There is no contest between the two, the IC8 version is much better. So my conclusion is all this talk about which transcoder is better is just quibbling when you're doing a 'little' compressing (~80%) but when you're really squeezing one down (<60%) IC8 is the obvious better choice... I'm not trying to pick a fight here but I know what I saw and I suggest anyone who has doubts, take a really big movie (ie. lots of Gbs and long running time equals low bitrates) and try this yourself... and then please post back with your observations and an honest opinion.

[tf]

One factor to take into account is the original dvd as well. I have had dvds compress to 50% and still look awesome, some dvds simply compresses better.

As for quality, I find IC8 to be somewhat less pixelized, but it has a tendency to become "smoothed" or a bit blurry. Since it's all a matter of taste, there will probably never be a clear winner in this case.

Recently, I've spent some time on Recode 2, and with that, most movies don't need a lot of compression, so results are usually quite good.

-tf

[MackemX]

I agree with you on most parts ;)

if the equipment used can display a better image than another then the differences will be more apparent. Along with the viewers own perception of quality then this is one of the main reasons why you get so much disagreement regarding comparision :(

people must accept that the same DVD they are viewing, may look completely different on a different setup, even to them and even more so through someone else's eyes ;)

there are other factors of course and everyone will have their own cut off levels as to which tool to use I guess

it's nice to see less of this transcoder 'rocks' or 'sucks' on this forum and more informative opinions

thanks for your post monomer as others may find it helpful ;)

Hapy New Year

[oddwunn]

There is no contest between the two, the IC8 version is much better. So my conclusion is all this talk about which transcoder is better is just quibbling when you're doing a 'little' compressing (~80%) but when you're really squeezing one down (<60%) IC8 is the obvious better choice...

The term "better" is a subjective choice, based on opinion, and not in fact. If you can provide scientific measurement of differences between one process and another, then you can safely make the claim that one is more accurate than another, but which is better is still subjective at best.

For example, I personally prefer CCE encodes, even though they are subject to slight mosquito noise, over any of the transcoders, which are more prone to macro blocking and motion distortion. None of the processes is perfect, and it is simply a matter as to which one serves an individual's needs the best.

Take stereo speakers for example. Let's assume that pair A is flat from 20 to 20k cycles with a 2 db dip at 2k, while pair B is just as flat, but instead of a 2 db dip at 2k, it has a 2 db peak at the same frequency. Both speakers are equally accurate, but will sound very different from each other, and it is simply a matter of preference as to which sounds "better" to the individual.

The same goes for encoders and transcoders. Until someone provides scientifically measured data as to the accuracy of reproduction, then no one process can reliably determined to be any "better" than another. And there are other factors at play here:

1. Quality and type of source material. Some processes will handle certain types of sources differently than other processes (please note I avoided the term "better" :) ), and thus will produce different results.

2. MPEG2 is a highly compressed format to start with, so to declare one process "better" at perfectly reproducing a highly flawed original seems kind of pointless, don't you think? Once HD DVDs start being released, things will get better, but as things stand now, even the best looking DVD is no match for properly mastered HD material.

3. Monomer, in this particular case, your sampling size was a whopping "one". The higher the number of samples, the more you will find that each process has its own strengths and weaknesses, and after you compare, let's say, 100 DVDs, you just might change your mind about which one is "best", and then again, the tests might reaffirm your belief that IC8 is better than the rest. A test sampling of one is simply not enough to draw any conclusions, or at least not for me.

Based on your report, I think we can all safely conclude that you preferred the look of Yoga Conditioning For Weight Loss using IC8 over DVDShrink beta 5, but that is about all that can be safely declared.

Thanks for a great and somewhat useful report, though! It's always good for people to share their experiences good or bad with products in order for the rest of us to gain insight into the product's potential level of competence.

[Pfc Joker]

"Based on your report, I think we can all safely conclude that you preferred the look of Yoga Conditioning For Weight Loss using IC8 over DVDShrink beta 5, but that is about all that can be safely declared."
:D Good point, yoga is better with IC8. I too have been spending more time with Recode 2 and been very satisfied, but I don't have a 114" screen to compare stuff at just a 35" Sony.:devil:

[DVD Maniac]

I must be missing something here, or else my requirements are just very different from what most people are after from their backup tools. I just don't understand why products like Instant Copy, DVD2One are still being seriously considered as competing products to the likes of Shrink, Recode and to a lesser extent DVD95.

I was very into using IC7 when it was the only kid on the block in terms of good quality transcoding. There were two main flaws in the product -

1. The output size lottery
2. Its flawed method of Title removal

Then products like DVD95, Shrink and Recode came along and I switched because they all addressed the output sizing problem and to an some extent Title removal.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but IC8 still does not have a reliable output size feature, nor does it remove titles correctly. In my opinion this makes IC8 a fundamentally flawed product. I am very happy with the quality outputs from Shrink and Recode2 (now with the 2 pass process its very impressive) and I would not even consider a switch nack to Pinnacle's products until they have a product that does the "basics" properly.

Added to this, I have consistently found Pinnacle's customer/technical support to be little short of incompetant and would need a hell of a lot of persuading to spend a single penny with them ever again.

Happy New Year All!

:)

[jdobbs]

Hmm... So
1. a lower quality picture is better if it uses all the disc?
2. if you use a yoga tape the quality doesn't count?

Yes "better" is subjective -- but all you need to do is take any high action or long movie (3 hours) and try it with each of these products and InstantCopy stands out. It isn't "close" or "subjective" -- it's obviously clearer. Not "kinda" or "somewhat" or "look really close at the edges" clearer --> but "damn, that's really noticable" clearer.

Either way it doesn't matter to me -- I use CCE, because it is as much better than InstantCopy as InstantCopy is to the quick encoder crowd.

There are those that think that "Boones Farm" is a fine wine. It's their opinion and they're entitled to it -- but it doesn't make it any more true.

[Kedirekin]

This is starting to sound a bit like a 'what's best' thread. It almost makes me *not* want to add my observations.

However, this thread did prompt me to download the latest IC trial and try it again.

I initially tried IC way back in February or early March of last year, and I wasn't particularly impressed - but then I wasn't particularly impressed with DVDShrink 2.3 either. It wasn't until I tried 3b5, with deep analysis, that I became impressed. But I digress.

I've only had a chance to try a couple of movies side-by-side so far, but I do have to admit IC produces better video quality, even though it undersizes (in my couple of tests) by 150 MB or more.

I don't consider this to be an 'Oh Wow!' kind of diferrence. It's noticeable - there tends to be less blocking in the difficult scenes - but it's only noticeable, not attention grabbing. Also, to my eyes IC introduces more mosquito noise than Shrink. So, like CCE, you get less macroblocking at the cost of more mosquito noise. Again, the difference in mosquito noise is not attention grabbing, just noticeable.

Other than that, I consider IC only suitable for doing either full backups with no fine tuning, or movie only backups. If I wanted to adjust the relative quality on extras or do a pseudo-split to two DVDs, I wouldn't use IC - the custom compression UI just doesn't appeal to me.

That's my observations so far. Feel free to comment - violently if you so desire.

[jdobbs]

The differences between these things are only obvious when under stress. If I did two 90 minute movies it's debatable which is better -- because an encoder would really have to suck to do a noticably bad job. Even ReMPEG2 looks good on short movies. But put a movie that is a challange in (say, "Gladiator") and it is much more noticable. The greater the action sequence and length of the movie -- the more the difference is seen.

Again -- just my opinion.

[oddwunn]

Even ReMPEG2 looks good on short movies.

Wow, someone here remembers ReMPEG2? :D

Yup, those were the days. Doing manual bitrate calculations, editing out the Warner Brothers logos, trying to figure out how to stop it from crashing on Heist, waiting several hours for a transcode...Now that brings back memories!

[samtroy]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
Also, to my eyes IC introduces more mosquito noise than Shrink. So, like CCE, you get less macroblocking at the cost of more mosquito noise.

This is exactly the reason why I never used IC7 and never understood the hype about it. I'm glad somebody mentions it. I mean, there's maybe a little less macroblocks in some action scenes but there's also suddenly annoying mosquito noise for the *full* lenght of the movie.

Right now, Recode 2 is the way to go 4 me. But that's just my opinion...

Happy New Year to all!
S.

[DVD Maniac]

Hmm... So
1. a lower quality picture is better if it uses all the disc?
2. if you use a yoga tape the quality doesn't count?

Hi jdobbs.

I am not doubring your views on IC8 and "obvious" quality improvements over the other products in question. I take your point that if IC8 can achieve a better output quaility with an undersized result then its clearly a winner. However, reading the various posts on the forum I concluded it still has oversizing problems as well which is clearly a significant flaw and puts the product on my wait and see list. Ferrari of transcoders it may be - but I am not going to pay for one if I have to spend time second guessing the output size. I have not tried the IC8 trial for reasons stated in my previous post so don't have direct experience - maybe I'll give it a try. If they put a 2nd pass process which sorts this out in one of the next upgrades then I MIGHT splash out.

With regards the title stripping feature, this is less of an issue for me as I know the tricks with Ifoedit/Menuedit etc to achieve a properly compliant structure. However, its really not much to ask to have this properly integrated into the main transcoder - Recode2 does it (not in an ideal way - but it works!).

I suspect these debates will become obsolete sometime this year, if DVD9 burners and reasonably priced media arrive.......

[jdobbs]

@DVD Maniac,

Actually when I use it, I use IC7 -- IC8 seems to crap out on me a lot and has created more than one coaster. Others don't seem to notice it, so it may be something specific to me... I frankly am still chained to CCE for most of my important backups. Once you get used to the quality of CCE, you get disappointed every time you backslide.

I don't mind your doubting my views -- in fact I like it when someone points out things I may not have considered, that's what makes this forum so useful. If I had all the answers I'd run for God.

You're right about the DVD-9 burners but it won't end there. There is no end to all this. When we were burning to CDs the DVD-5s were around the corner, by the time DVD-9 burners become mainstream we'll all be looking at ways to copy HD DVDs onto DVD-9s and breaking some new encryption --> while the full-size HD burners are right around the corner.

I love it.

[jzaman]

monomer:

As someone who is aware of your visual acuity, I am checking out Pirates of the Caribbean Disk 1 via Recode2, Dvd95Copy 2.2, DVD2One 1.4, and InstantCopy 8 Build 270. It is a 7gb movie so it qualifies for higher compression processing. Will post back or pm you if that is more appropriate. Only have a 30" Samsung HDTV as my largest screen but I'll put on my binoculars.

[monomer]

Just got back from a 2-day vacation and was surprised my posting got so many responses... and for the most part all were very interesting. Please keep in mind the only reason I didn't 'CCE' this particular selection was I couldn't figure out how to do it properly...

and jdobbs at some time must have obviously experienced what I did 'cause he's got it right... the difference is not 'by a nose' or a 'photo finish' and so a 'measuring stick' is really not necessary... its just so obvious when you actually see it.

oddwunn, you are right to say that since this 'Yoga' DVD is my only experience, the observations I made may only be valid for that one particular movie... but... I believe I will none-the-less extend the logic and say that all <60% movie compressions will yield approximately the same results 'cause I can't figure out why it wouldn't. Yes, not very scientific, but I works for me.

jzaman... I'm glad you're stepping up to the plate and taking on the 'challenge'... I'm very interested in your personal observations... I should think HDTV resolution at 30" should definitely be more that adequate for observing PQ differences. (Also tell me what you think of the movie Pirates of the Caribbean... we had a large gathering over here the other night and viewed it on the 'big screen', and after that the 'reviews' were all over the place on this one.)

[jdobbs]

@oddwunn
Yup, those were the days. Doing manual bitrate calculations, editing out the Warner Brothers logos, trying to figure out how to stop it from crashing on Heist, waiting several hours for a transcode...Now that brings back memories!
It's hard to believe how we'd put $1000 worth of work into making a backup of a $15.00 movie back then isn't it. It's the challange that makes it interesting... Remember how hard it was to get voice sync using almost any encoder back then?

[oddwunn]

@jdobbs,

Yes, it sure was amazing how much time we would devote to this "hobby"! :D

I remember how proud I was the first time I was able to properly encode a movie using TMPGEnc, just to find out that the audio and video were out of sync by about 15 seconds because I had used IfoEdit to do the remuxing.

It was all about the thrill of the chase back then, not to mention the education. I mean, how many people these days really know how to use CCE or IfoEdit, for examples? Now pepole are spoiled by the nice, easy to use, slick front ends for many of the programs, while we had to sludge through things and actually learn how to do the entire processes manually if we wanted to get the job done.

Oh, and let's not sell our efforts short - the average price of a DVD was $25 - $30 back then! :eek:

[layer3maniac]

Originally posted by monomer
oddwunn, you are right to say that since this 'Yoga' DVD is my only experience, the observations I made may only be valid for that one particular movie... but... I believe I will none-the-less extend the logic and say that all <60% movie compressions will yield approximately the same results 'cause I can't figure out why it wouldn't. I can. It is my experience that films with higher average bitrates transcode MUCH better than those with nominal average bitrates. Look at it this way - 60% of 100 is 60 while 60% of 50 is 30.

[rpboy]

Originally posted by tf
One factor to take into account is the original dvd as well. I have had dvds compress to 50% and still look awesome, some dvds simply compresses better.

That's definitely something that needs to be considered.

As an example, I used DVD Shrink on the Looney Tunes Collection DVDs, compressing them to around 55% and the resulting DVD was full of pixellation. It looks terrible. Not quite VCD bad, but its not what I want to see when watching a DVD.

Last night, I used DVD Shrink on The Order, and again, it was down to 55% compression to shrink the entire disc. Quality looks great. Even during fade ins/outs, I see no blockiness. In any scene where there are quick movements, I see no pixellation.

Why the difference?

Well, for one, The Order had a ridiculous amount of space on the disc for the video. It was close to 7.2 GB as I recall for the movie, one DD 5.1 sound track, and two DD 2.0 sound tracks. And then something like 1.4 GB for the bonus features. It was also a newer movie with a much cleaner image.

Looney Tunes on the other hand has a whole lot more video on the disc and only used about 7.5 GB for it all (video and bonus features), so the video was clearly compressed more to begin with. Several of the older cartoons also feature a lot of rough animation - by that I mean there appears to be a lot of grain (inherent in older animation). Transcoders seem to have problems with this, resulting in awful mosquito noise in that area. Newer cartoons looked better, though still had some blockiness.

So remember that its not just the tool that makes a difference; the quality of the image you will be compressing (whether its already heavily compressed, if there is considerable amounts of fast action, is there grain in the picture, etc) will play a big part in the resulting quality presentation.

[jdobbs]

A lot of that has to do with the nature of the source. Cartoons, for example, aren't naturally created and include a lot of stark contrasts and sharp edges -- MPEG has a tough time with sharp contrasts, that's the reason you see blockiness around lettering so often.

[monomer]

Originally posted by layer3maniac
I can. It is my experience that films with higher average bitrates transcode MUCH better than those with nominal average bitrates. Look at it this way - 60% of 100 is 60 while 60% of 50 is 30.

I completely agree but I think you mis-understood what I meant by "...will yield approximately the same results". The results I was referring to was IC8 producing a much better output that Shrink (when 'stressed' with the original using a low average bitrate to begin with and then trying to compress this movie a great degree).
In the above posting, I was trying to suggest that if you 'stress compress' ANY movie, IC8 will always give a better result than Shrink (even though I only have one example to go by to draw this conclusion).

[Kedirekin]

For what it is worth, I just did a side-by-side comparison of Instant Copy and DVDShrink on Gladiator (R1). To be honest, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Neither one exhibited any significant macroblocking or mosquito noise that I could see - they both looked very good.

There's not much one can conclude from this, except perhaps that both transcoders handle Gladiator very well.

I encourage anyone who is interested to try this test themselves. It takes a total of about 4 hours. The only thing I disabled was the DTS track of the main movie to get the compression ratio up to ~55% (otherwise the ratio is ~42%). Be aware, in Instant Copy, you have to unselect all the DVD-ROM files and directories to get more of an apples-to-apples transcode.

[jzaman]

I am running into the same problem..after a while I begin to question all my own sensory abilities. My study of Pirates of the Caribbean with the top transcoders does find IC 8 to appear slightly "clearer" but not by a high margin. I wonder if my paltry monitor (30") versus larger brethren scews my viewing. I did pass all my versions to a small audience ( all the relatives I could entice) but it still is hard to judge. The pinnacle engine appears to work the hardest(encoders ignored) but recode 2 and dvd95copy also cranked out decent output. (size: IC=4.21, recode=4.37, dvd95=4.38). However, as the saying goes "size doesn't matter". The problem is that current transcoders deliver comparable output. I may agree that IC 8 has the most sophisticated transcoder engine but so many variables also cloud the picture. I wish I had more quantitative tools to be more definitive. I keep bouncing back to all to sharp moderators and all the folks that warn me of the subjective nature of this stuff.

[MackemX]

personally I couldn't care less about figures produced by these testing tools that I have seen and whether one is fractionally better than another

I don't watch the figures ;) and as long as it's pleasing to my eye after skipping through the DVD then that's fine for me :). If it's hard to tell a difference between a few then go with your favourite or whichever suits your requirements at the time. If you find after watching it, it's not acceptable and you made the wrong decision then just make another backup. It doesn't take that long with these one click tools anyway nor does it cost that much ;)

all this coming from someone who hasn't burnt a DVD in months and now hasn't even got a DVD burner :D

if you have the time, stress test them at 40$/50%/60%/60%/80% and you will soon see how the differences fit in with the compression rate levels. It will of course depend on the source so try getting a low bit rate source to play with also as that will show greater differences too

I presume that most doing tests will be using a good setup, along with having a half decent eye for quality anyway

it would be good to see a database with original average bitrates for the main movies, so we could see which ones are easier/harder for the tools to work with. Some main movies may be far longer in time than other movies but they have a higher bitrates due to less features and audios (as layer3maniaclayer3maniac mentioned)

we all know there are loads of factors. If you reduced the same DVD to 80% on one machine and 80% on another, does that mean the results from both machines will be EXACT copies of each other? I would say they would be the same but can someone confirm this?