Perfect DVD9 to DVD5 Copys ???

[badash]

Hey Everyone...

Dvd.box.sk is making a series of tests/reviews to find the best tool for backing-up DVD9's. So far they reached the best results with Intervideo DVDCopy v1.2. They managed to make a copy of Matrix (PAL) with almost no loss in quility, quite impressive :eek: I havent tried this tool yet, but im going to give it a try. What do you guys think about this tool?? someone tried the 1.2 version??

Read the Intervideo DVDCopy 1.2 Quality Test (http://dvd.box.sk/articles7.php)

//Badash

[kukyfrope]

there is no way!
the comparison is 100% identical... yet it fits on DVDR? i'm in shock and would like to try this program for myself. for most movies, DVDShrink has been great and i rarely notice compression. i swore by Instant Copy but since switched to DVDShrink for its faster transcoding speed and custom in/out points.

[Paced]

I just tried this program myself (Intervideo DVD Copy - trial version), but for some reason, it deletes all of the files it creates after it finishes transcoding - not a good start! :) By the looks of it, it only accepts a DVD burner as the "Target", that's probably why it deleted the files immediately after transcoding (I originally set the "Target" to a folder on the HDD). Also, it doesn't look like the program is able to keep more than one subtitle or audio channel.

Update: Apparently many others have had this occur to them (files instantly being deleted off the hard drive after the process is complete - both the trial version and the full version), even when the "Target" is set to a DVD burner.

[manifest]

It looks like the original and dvdcopy image are the exact same.

[t1955feb]

Using this copy tool for al long time now and its great i think even better than Instant copy, when you want to save the transcoded files on HD make them read only....

[t1955feb]

After transcoding your dvd to HD intervideo dvd copy is going to parse the files (takes about 4 minutes)in those 4 minutes you select all files and make them read only. when dvdcopy is done the files are not gone:)

[Paced]

Originally posted by t1955feb
After transcoding your dvd to HD intervideo dvd copy is going to parse the files (takes about 4 minutes)in those 4 minutes you select all files and make them read only. when dvdcopy is done the files are not gone:)

Ahh, hehe, thanks alot for the tip :) Works like a charm now :D Thanks again.

[moumiaq]

I tried the program with AC/DC STIFF UPPER LIP and the result wasn't bad but you can see pixels so IC8 for me again.

[ExSport]

Hello
There are some strange things in the test.
http://dvd.box.sk/dvdr/img/art6/
When you compare for example sklad_dvdc.jpg and sklad_orig.jpg(Intervideo DVD COPY v1.2 test), files are exact same.
I don't think difference in view, but in binary compare.
Result=====>orginal and transcoded file are only renamed to another name.
In all tests(directory art1-art6) sizes of original and final files are different in kb(kilobytes), except sizes of Intervideo DVDCopy. There is only a small difference in bytes or exact same file(difference in head of file=different time...)!!!???!!!
It's suspicious. Maybe fake test!!!!

[Paced]

Originally posted by ExSport
Hello
There are some strange things in the test.
http://dvd.box.sk/dvdr/img/art6/
When you compare for example sklad_dvdc.jpg and sklad_orig.jpg(Intervideo DVD COPY v1.2 test), files are exact same.
I don't think difference in view, but in binary compare.
Result=====>orginal and transcoded file are only renamed to another name.
In all tests(directory art1-art6) sizes of original and final files are different in kb(kilobytes), except sizes of Intervideo DVDCopy. There is only a small difference in bytes or exact same file(difference in head of file=different time...)!!!???!!!
It's suspicious. Maybe fake test!!!!

You're very right, I've got the exact same DVD as they used for the test, and I certainly did not get that (perfect) result when I tried it. :)

[Lagoon]

Tried it on Dreamcatcher R2, result was worse than dvdshrink with deep analysis.

[t1955feb]

What's the use of a fake test, hours of work to make a test for fake???????

[Paced]

I've done a few more tests, and the results are surprising to say the least. The programs I put it up against were Elby CloneDVD 1.3.11.2, DVD2One 1.4.1, DVDShrink 3.1, and InstantCopy 8.05 (unfortunately I couldn't test it with Recode 2 - haven't purchased it yet). I used my copy of The Matrix (PAL), removed all extras, yet kept all of the audio channels, subtitles, and menus (and of course the main movie). Note: With DVD2One I only did main-movie mode, which unfortunately didn't include a menu.

- That aside, InterVideo DVD Copy kept the most detail, and had no pixelation whatsoever (even at 400% zoom) in high action/motion scenes. It would be difficult to tell which one is the original DVD if it were put to the test.

- InstantCopy (high quality mode) came in a close second, with slight blurring, causing loss of detail; but again, no pixelation was found in 'intensive' scenes.

- DVDShrink (with Deep Analysis) seemed to have caused even more blurring, which again caused loss of some detail. In high motion scenes, pixelation was noticeable when zooming - I doubt it would be noticeable on standard televisions.

- CloneDVD and DVD2One (variable) both surprised me, they pretty much kept up with DVDShrink in all high motion scenes. However, pixelation was more noticeable than DVDShrink's output (but not by much). DVD2One did however, cause more pixelation than the rest of the transcoders.

Conclusion? I found InterVideo DVD Copy (my opinion) the 'best' at handling movie-only (with menu) DVD9 - DVD5 conversions. Try it yourself and see what you think :)

With that said, I decided to backup my Back to the Future (part 1 - 7.52gb) with everything included - menus, audio channels (minus the DTS sound), subtitles, extras, etc. I used the same programs once again, but this time, found InstantCopy was the clear winner, with surprisingly little (or even no) pixelation in high motion scenes. Yet, there was some detail lost due to blurring. All of the other programs gave out 'unwatchable' copies :) But, I must say, DVDShrink's output was quite good, considering the amount of compression required to fit it all on to one DVD (possibly because with the other programs, you can't manually set the compression figures for certain titles).

In conclusion (again), I have found that InterVideo DVD Copy is the most efficient (my opinion :D) with movie-only back-ups. And, InstantCopy is the one to go with for complete back-ups.

Well, that's my two cents :)

[moumiaq]

Why don't you try other movies ??? This reminds me somehow the 'infamous' drivers that nvidia claimed to increase performance.

[ron spencer]

Not sure the relevance of these tests....were they all done at 400x to see the pixelation? If so...then who cares (pardon my bluntness). I do not watch TV at 400x magnification. To be honest, my test is my neighbours 42 inch Pioneer plasma (or is it 46??? I forgoet). I did my own tests with LOTR and Matrix with DVD2One, DVDShrink, and Recode.....at 1x magnification I see no difference. At around 5x I see issues with DVD2One and of course Recode and DVDShirnk are neck and neck.

[badash]

Hey Im back...

Got back from work and tried just a quick test.. I have 25th Hour (PAL) and did make a complete backup of that, nothing removed.

From Intervideos Homepage (http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/InterVideoDVDCopyPlatinum_Profile.jsp):
Dual Layer DVDs to Single DVD -- Compress a 9.4 GB dual layer DVD to 4.7GB with no loss of content or quality.

Well that was what I tried and the conclusion is very easy, keep on dreaming !!! Anyway the result was very good compared to 25th Hour is more than 2 hours, the DVD have 3 DD5.1 & 2 Commentary audio-tracks and also allot of extras included on the disc, which I didnt remove. I can see pixelation on the main movie and extra material. But im conviced, if I strip unwanted material and sound without removing the menu, then DVDCopy can make a pretty impressive result and even pretty fast. I will have to test that these next days....

//Badash

[ron spencer]

Maybe so....just too many steps. I just checked this program out. It looks cool on the web page...but it only copies full disks, which is a bit silly; can't just do a movie only with 1 audio track. You would need to strip via dvdshrink or other prg. the stuff you do not want...just an extra step or two but just wastes time I think. I find the bonus stuff and menus a bit silly at times and a waste of space (although some are cool). So I really only care abut movie only. I think Deep/Advanced Analysis with the famous shrink programs are more than good enough.

[Paced]

Originally posted by ron spencer
Not sure the relevance of these tests....were they all done at 400x to see the pixelation? If so...then who cares (pardon my bluntness). I do not watch TV at 400x magnification. To be honest, my test is my neighbours 42 inch Pioneer plasma (or is it 46??? I forgoet). I did my own tests with LOTR and Matrix with DVD2One, DVDShrink, and Recode.....at 1x magnification I see no difference. At around 5x I see issues with DVD2One and of course Recode and DVDShirnk are neck and neck.

They were not all done at 400x magnification (I only used 400x magnification to test out how close InterVideo DVD Copy's output was to the original - detail wise), I wouldn't have bothered typing out my 'results' if they were :) You could definitely see signs of pixelation when DVDShrink, CloneDVD and DVD2One were used (not bagging these programs or anything - I still prefer DVDShrink when using a standard television - but the pixelation it creates is very noticeable on a HDTV). The pixelation was noticeable especially in some parts of the infamous 'lobby' scene (Matrix), even at normal resolution with no magnification whatsoever.

My Back to the Future tests (complete backup) proved to be the same (for me anyway), but this time, InstantCopy was the more effective, with its only real contender being DVDShrink (because with both, you can allocate more compression to extras compared to the main movie). After they (DVDShrink / InstantCopy) were finished transcoding, I loaded the .vobs, and bitrates for the main movie were very similar (~3284). However, even so, InstantCopy proved to be the clear winner (very little pixelation, and a little detail loss) when simply scrolling through the movie at normal resolution - the other programs were probably on par with standard SVCD quality, but with alot more blocks.

But hey, my results only reflect the way I do my DVD backups (I tend to want to backup everything - every audio channel, subtitle, menu, extra - so it works just like the original DVD), so obviously it's going to be different for many others on this board who usually care for the main movie and audio/subtitle languages they understand only :)

[djan]

It would be good if we make some tests about some DVD backup programs. We can each time take a big dual DVD movie and test it with all the programs : Intervideo, Pinacle IC, DVDShrink and to not forget ReJig (movie only). Personally, backing up "Hurrican" with DVDShrink and ReJig, all the two in movie only, I found ReJig much much better.

[djan]

Originally posted by ExSport
Hello
There are some strange things in the test.
http://dvd.box.sk/dvdr/img/art6/
When you compare for example sklad_dvdc.jpg and sklad_orig.jpg(Intervideo DVD COPY v1.2 test), files are exact same.
I don't think difference in view, but in binary compare.
Result=====>orginal and transcoded file are only renamed to another name.
In all tests(directory art1-art6) sizes of original and final files are different in kb(kilobytes), except sizes of Intervideo DVDCopy. There is only a small difference in bytes or exact same file(difference in head of file=different time...)!!!???!!!
It's suspicious. Maybe fake test!!!!
Hi,

I compared myself 3 sets of files :

hala_orig.jpg and hala_dvdc.jpg are completely differents.
sklad_orig.jpg and sklad_dvdc.jpg are the same (no difference).
telefon_orig.jpg and telefon_dvdc.jpg are completely differents.

So I think it's not fake and for the one that has no difference, it means maybe DVDCopy had not to reencode it.

[ExSport]

to djan
I agree. Only one is exactly same,second two has part different and part the same. When you take picture from original and final VOB, it is a very little chance that the files will be exactly same(doubly when it is in jpeg compression).
Hala_orig.jpg has different time in head(there is info from Adobe photoshop-difference in time 10sec),then the same part,some different,again the same and then different. But when you compress to jpeg,it is normal that when you recompress 2 pictures from 2 different VOBS-exact same picture====>final compressed jpeg will be little different===>my opinion.
So, then I think that this test is very very suspicious.
Only my opinion.
:cool:

[mrbass]

dvdshrink 1.03 (way old version) will be 100% exactly the same as the original in some frames as the original dvd. Just like this intervideo dvd95 copy. Don't believe me? It's true. I'm not impressed.

[talman]

So it sounds like this is nearly the same as other 1-click solutions out there (recode, IC8, dvdshrink etc.)?

[ExSport]

to mrbass
I believe:)
But when you take picture(jpeg) from this two VOBs in Adobe Photoshop, I think that not allways you will get the same files.
So here are differences for example in head of jpeg-in one is another stamp of time. But not allways it's true.
Maybe I am wrong. You can try compress 1 picture from VOB to 2 exact same JPEGs in Adobe Photoshop. I think, the files will be different. Maybe not, maybe they will have different time stamp in head=different file.
Yes, I am not sure, that this is allways true, but 2 jpegs in test proove it(differences in head-time stamp,but not only there)
I believe that I am wrong and InterVideo DVD COPY is so COOL, but other tests with the same film are different-worse(from other people).
Maybe they have optimized their software for these tests:D (as NVIDIA and ATI their drivers):p
I am just kidding
:cool:
Bye

[Mug Funky]

why on earth would the same pixels fed into a JPEG compressor yield different files?

there's no random element in JPEG compression. if different compression settings were used in photoshop, then of course the files would be completely different, but at the same settings for the same pixels, the files should be bit-identical.

try it. if this isn't so, then for god's sake email adobe about it - their jpeg compressor must be broken :D

software with no random element means identical input = identical output. computers don't have minds of their own (yet :sly: )

[Kedirekin]

I agree. JPEG compression is deterministic. If you start with identical source images and save then with the same software and the same settings, the JPGs (meaning the image portion of the JPG files) will be identical.

I don't believe the corollary is true though. I think it is possible to start with two similar, but not identical, source images and have the JPGs come out identical. It's hard to tell, but that may be what ExSport is getting at. Or maybe not.

[mrbass]

sorry for not being clearer...but nothing to do with was it an honest review or not. More like was it a flawed review.

DVD Shrink 1.03
here's my webpage for dvdshrink June 06, 2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20030621112055/www.mrbass.org/dvdshrink/

DVD Shrink 2.1 uses a completely different compression algorithm which is not comparable to 2.0. It dynamically determines which picture types to modify depending on the compression required, and it does this for each and every picture in the movie. It supports "partial" reduction, where only a small number of blocks in each picture are reduced, and it attempts to distribute the resulting compression uniformly among all pictures, in such a way that the error introduced by this compression does not "propagate" or amplify as playback continues. --dvdshrink

Note: I put in the bold. IMHO video quality looks significantly better than 1.03 or 2.0.
--mrbass"

See where it says "compression uniformly among all pictures." Prior to dvdshrink 2.1 you could have say 5 frames untouched (100% of the video quality) and just a few B frames compressed and if you chose level 2 then a few B and P frames. Only choosing level 3 would there be I frames compressed. So if you were doing a screenshot comparison and you happened to compare an uncompressed I frame in dvdshrink 1.03 or 2.0 you would be like OMG this is just like the original.

[Richk50]

"From Intervideos Homepage:
Dual Layer DVDs to Single DVD -- Compress a 9.4 GB dual layer DVD to 4.7GB with no loss of content or quality.
Well that was what I tried and the conclusion is very easy, keep on dreaming !!!"

They did their test on a 6 inch TV, and the picture was perfect.

[ExSport]

You understood me bad.
Test is using ADOBE PHOTOSHOP for saving JPEG and here program save some info about file(time...) to header.Than there is same content of file but another header of jpeg=different file.
It is truth, that it depends on settings of ADOBE and his output to JPEG(when it save some additional info or not).You can see in one of these files, that there are two files-not same-a little different and here there is this info in header of file(time is by 10sec different).
Conclusion:files are same, but different when Adobe save add.info to file=time,source....
Maybe only I am sleeping and it's only my bad dream:D
Or bad day:cool:
I want to believe that Intervideo is superb soft with best quality tests, but everywhere on net users tests are very very different-pixelated and worse than InstantCopy or DVDShrink.
Sorry for english:p

[ExSport]

Another test from HAINZ-thanks to him:)
He compared InstantCopy 8.05 and Intervideo DVD COPY 1.2 and taked 20 screenshots from BAD BOYS II.
Conclusion is:
InstantCopy has linear very good quality-some of screens are better than Intervideo did,some worse.
But Intervideo had sinusoid quality,some excelent and some awful.
When InterVideo some screens don't touch=quality is better than IC8,in another screen it must use huge recompression=pixelated.... to fit it on one dvd-r.
So maybe in tests on DVD.BOX.SK the InterVideo has had a luck, that compared pictures wasn't touched, but for example 2 frames before it used huge recompression=>so entire movie is worse than constant quality(maybe a little worse than in same cases to InterVideo) of InstantCopy.
Thanks again to HAINZ
;)
examples: http://web.telecom.cz/hainz/SnimkyPSD.rar It's PSD(3 layers in one picture=>original,InterVideo & InstantCopy)
http://web.telecom.cz/hainz/SnimkyJPG.rar When you haven't PSD supported viewer

Some more testing by me.
Movie: Pirates of the Caribbean
Making movie only:
- 5.78GB without compression
- 4.29GB InterVideo v1.2 recompressed
- 4.25GB InstantCopy v8 recompressed
- 4.35GB DVDShrink 3.1.4 recompressed

InstantCopy - perfect copy
Intervideo - huge pixelation during movie compared to original or IC8:(
DVDShrink - sometimes pixelated but !!better!! than Intervideo.

Results:
100% ... ORIGINAL
92% ... InstantCopy 8
75% ... DVDShrink v3.1.4
60% ... InterVideo DVD COPY v1.2
:D :D :D

Example: Results-PNG files-8MB (http://freeride-skiing.czweb.org/dvd/test.rar)

[idigvb]

In the final review where a summary of all programs' performance is reported (Feb 9), the reviewer posts his email:
'In closing, I ask you all that if there are any comments or suggestions related to this topic, please send them to my mail: antal@napri.sk.'
Perhaps you can ask him about giving more details in his review procedure? ;)

I'm amazed at his remarks on DVDShrink though...

[djan]

Well guys,

I tested this InterVideo DVDCopy 1.2b and all I can say is that's poor quality, worse than DVDShrink. I tested it with Hurricane. Here are my tests :

Original : 90 % (Rarely sometimes pixelisations :p).
ReJig : 90 % (I don't see difference).
DVDShrink : 75 % (I don't like).
DVDCopy : 60 % (Poor).

Not yet tested IC. Soon.

So, waiting for ReJig with Full Backup feature keeping menus and extras. Hope soon.

[djan]

It's ok, I tested IC8 and all I have to say is that it's very good. I can give it 80 % keeping all the menus and extras. It's very good for a whole of 7,5 GB. I'll try it with Movie Only and I think it'll give me same result as ReJig, good quality.

[KeepWalking]

Is there a way to maitenaince all audios and subtitles, with a dvd9 to dvd5 conversion with Intervideo DVD Copy?

[nyplayer]

KeepWalking

Intervideo DVDCopy maintains all audio tracks and subtitles when you convert from DVD9 to DVD5.

[basskozz]

Is their a guide for InterVideo burning ?

Is it better to use DVD Decyrpt first then Intervideo or will AnyDVD running in the background work ?:confused:

[basskozz]

I just downloaded InterVideo ver 2 trial off their website, Is it better then 1.2 or should I stick with the old ?