PDA

View Full Version : dvdshrink v3.2 is released


bobwillis
25th July 2004, 21:02
Hi,

A new version has been released. The major improvement is much better transcoded picture quality. The quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy. Also, you can replace a title with a still image :)

http://www.dvdshrink.org - the dvdadvdr.com mirror was working the last time I tried it.

Thanks to dvdshrink, ddlooping and all beta testers.

Regards,
Bob

berndy2001
25th July 2004, 21:09
Version 3.2.0.14 - 25 July 2004
-------------------------------

Added Quality Settings tab in the backup dialog, with option
to enable AEC "adaptive error compensation" algorithms.

Updated to NeroSDK 1.05, which includes support for burning
DVD-9 dual-layer media. Added DVD-9 target size in preferences
window.

Removed "burn with DVD Decrypter" checkbox and replaced with
a selectable backup target.

Added burn with CopyToDVD as a backup target, this appears if
CopyToDVD is installed.

Added automatic support for splitting ISO files if they are
saved to a FAT32 partition. In this case a .MDS file is
also output which can be burned with DVD Decrypter and mounted
by Daemon Tools. MDS files can additionally be opened with
DVD Shrink from the "Open Disc Image..." menu.

Added support for replacing a title with a custom image. A
default image from Guy Incognito is installed.

Added "InstallPath", "InstallApp" and "InstallHelp" keys to
the DVD Shrink registry.

Added "March by ZeF69" toolbar.

Fixed bug where Panscan and Letterbox subpicture streams could
be erroneously discarded in some circumstances.

Fixed bug if volume label exceeded 32 characters.

wmansir
25th July 2004, 21:27
Also, you can replace a title with a still image

It's Christmas in July. A very unexpected addition.

I'm off to test it out.

valnar
25th July 2004, 21:53
quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy.
I'd love to see the results of this comparison. Most curious.

Robert

jhmac
25th July 2004, 22:47
I guess all of our begging and pleading has been answered. Thank you DVDShrink just when I thought DVDShrink couldn't get any better you did it again.

Beter quality video and now supports replacing titles with stills...

DVDShrink v3.2 is awesome!!!

nwg
26th July 2004, 00:25
The quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy. Also, you can replace a title with a still imag

It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

insertdisk
26th July 2004, 02:13
I just got version 3.2.0.15 from the doom9 site - maybe an update already per berndy2001 post.

b0b0b0b
26th July 2004, 02:40
Thank you very much, dvdshrink !!!!

!!!!! :D :D :D !!!!!

chipvideo
26th July 2004, 03:04
Possible bug in the new version. I can't get it to do the deep analsys at all. It wont let me check the box. This is with automatic settings.

ddlooping
26th July 2004, 03:07
valnar, if you have IC8/7 why don't you do the comparison? :)

insertdisk, it is a mistake on the version history page.
It should actually say "v3.2.0.15". ;)

ddlooping
26th July 2004, 03:10
chipvideo, v3.1.7 deep analysis files are compatible with v3.2, so if you already analysed a title with v3.1.7 it will not have to be done again with v3.2. ;)

geffroman
26th July 2004, 04:25
IMHO... if you own IC7/8 and compare it to Shrink and you have "eye balls"... you will finally throw IC away immediately... A reasonable person cannot compare them and continue to waste your time and forum space on IC.. For all the bugs... inconsistencies... expense... lack of image quality... IC really is a dirty word...

SHRINK has been a great tool for long time... It needed two things... better image quality with less image softening... and a STILL IMAGE tool...

Both are here... you really could NOT ask for more... IMHO

Great job SHRINK !

ddlooping
26th July 2004, 04:33
Thanks for the positive feedback, geffroman. :)

I hope you're wearing your flame-proof jacket. :D

Backwoods
26th July 2004, 05:07
Originally posted by nwg
It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

DVD Shrink and Recode should be the exact same program underneath.

ddlooping
26th July 2004, 05:30
Backwoods, nwg meant the "Still Image" feature is similar to Recode.
Amongst other things, the compression algorithms in v3.2 are nothing like those in Recode 2. ;)

brawler
26th July 2004, 06:26
great program. i wanted to add a request for dvdshrink to have a setting to enable full movie or re-encode view at startup. i prefer re-encode view can this be implemented please?

int 21h
26th July 2004, 07:36
The AEC feature is interesting, anyone have feedback or info from testing it? I'm currently seeing if I can see a big difference with it enabled.

Hemmo
26th July 2004, 09:15
I think is time to me post my first post:
Thank you dvdshrink ! :thanks:

berndy2001
26th July 2004, 09:49
Originally posted by insertdisk
I just got version 3.2.0.15 from the doom9 site - maybe an update already per berndy2001 post.

i have the 3.2.0.15 too, but it seems to be, there is no changelog for v .15

tf
26th July 2004, 10:13
I just tried Battle Royale 2, picture quality was good, but shrink didn't detect/show the DTS track (?), and the Closed Captions did not work in my stand-alone (Pioneer DV343)

Shrink 3.1.7 did detect the DTS track, but Closed Captions didn't work either. And no, I didn't deselect them.

-tf

paran0id
26th July 2004, 10:53
In Preferences in 3.2 under Stream Selections just change "AC3 or LPCM" to all types..
Dont have time to try it but that should do it..

jonjon51
26th July 2004, 10:54
:(
bad news... if v3.2 don't recognize closed captions (as Nero Recode 2 :devil: ), I will continue use v3.1.7 :( :( :(
I will try with Pearl Harbor Fr (for japanese captions) tonight :)

tf
26th July 2004, 11:01
My bad, the movie did not have DTS. But subtitles (Closed Captions)does not work.

-tf

DVD Maniac
26th July 2004, 11:16
Timing just could not be better. I am still having problems with Rebuilder (audio drop out) and can't get consistent results and was considering a return to IC. Big mistake :devil:

I downloaded the demo of IC8 which had expired so I tried to "buy" my upgrade from IC7>IC8 on line. After much annoying page jumping on the Pinnacle site it became apparant that you can't do it. You have to order the disc and wait for the post. Is there an award that we can give Pinnacle for the most badly thought out sales process and associated web frontage EVER IN THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTERNET??? :devil:

So I have tried out Shrink 3.2 on two titles now - fantatic results on some really high compression levels (45%). I can definitely see a BIG improvement from 3.1.7

A question on AEC Selection -

Are there some parameters we should be considering prior to selecting the AEC mode. Examples might include type / level of motion or action scenes, input quality (old TV transfers vs pristine Movie), etc etc. It would be useful if we could build up some guidelines based on our experiences of the results obtained.

69Mws
26th July 2004, 14:12
Originally posted by nwg
It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

Too bad, IMHO this is quite annoying, why not replace an unwanted title with a short clip instead of keeping the original length?

I know from dvd95 that it handles it like that. I explained once to someone here (http://www.nefkom.net/miko/dvd95.htm) .

The structure remains the same, but unwanted PGCs are replaced by short clips with 15 frames duration.

To have that at least as an option to choose is the only thing I'm missing in DVDShrink, great app nevertheless :)

Greetz
69Mws

nwg
26th July 2004, 14:19
Too bad, IMHO this is quite annoying, why not replace an unwanted title with a short clip instead of keeping the original length?

The DVD strucure is not left intact. It is supposed to cause problems on some players.

69Mws
26th July 2004, 14:27
Originally posted by nwg
The DVD strucure is not left intact. It is supposed to cause problems on some players.

Yup, that may be. I didn't say it SHOULD handle it like that, but to have at least the option to choose it would be nice, 'cause I never had problems with that sort of replacing :)

Greetz
69Mws

old-hack
26th July 2004, 17:16
@ddlooping,

I was wondering why you can't set the default streams in full backup mode? In reauthor mode you can right-click the title and select the default streams. But those options are greyed out when you right-click a title in full backup mode.

TheSeeker
26th July 2004, 17:26
Anyone played around with this much yet? Anyone care to explain when and where the different AEC settings may be best used? Like I am backing up Catch me if you can and the movie itself is like 7.5 gbs or so. ANd its like 2 hours 20 min. Now I know this wont be perfect but i really wanted to put the new Shrink to the acid test. So my question is for something like this would Max sharpness be better or smoother? Pretty much I would like some idea when to used which settings.

Joergen
26th July 2004, 18:30
This is too good to be true!

I tinkered around with one chapter of a movie, first in 3.1.7 by storing directories with 50,60,70,80 compression, and then did the same in 3.2 with default sharpness setting and the results are amazing! I compared them frame by frame in two dvd2avi windows (RGB mode, on my 19" TFT) and 3.2 with default setting can produce the same quality at 60% as 3.1.7 at 75-80% for this particular movie.

The still image feature is a godsend aswell, the last major feature that was missing. It truly is too much at once, super-encoding enhancement and title blanking!

DVDShrink is truly an amazing package right now, from the gui, performance, stability to the documentation. It's so professional in every way it should be in the top3 of software hall of fame.

We cant thank dvdshrink enough!

TheSeeker
26th July 2004, 18:45
I just finished backing up Catch me if you can.. and really I was just doing it test out dvd shrink because the movie was about 7.5 gb and 2.5 hours long i figured for sure I was going to use rebuilder... but when it finished (used aec with max sharpening) it looked phenomenal!! my god i couldnt believe it. I was a huge fan of IC just for the quality as the sizing is pretty crappy. now im gonna go home right from work and uninstall that now obsolete program from my computer. Excellant job to all those involved my hats off. By the way is there a reason I WOULDNT want to use max sharpening for a heavy encode like this? possibly increased blocks? I dont see any of this in the output though.. maybe a little grainy but hell what can you expect...

bobwillis
26th July 2004, 18:58
Hi,

I'm really glad you like it, dvdshrink, ddlooping and the beta testing team have put several hundred man hours into comparing different clips against IC. My favourite settings with the two backups I've done so far, have been sharp and smooth. IMO, the results are comparable to IC :) IC - Rest in peace!

Regards,
Bob

valnar
26th July 2004, 19:11
I'm really glad you like it, dvdshrink, ddlooping and the beta testing team have put several hundred man hours into comparing different clips against IC.
OH?! :cool:

I'm trying it out now on a 8gb disc with multiple angles - Sarah McLachlan's Mirrorball concert. It's my torture test disc. I'll post results compared to IC7 tonight. So far, with one audio track removed, Shrink is forcing a 55% overall compression. IC7 looked pretty good when I did it a few months ago. Because of angles, DVD-Rebuilder was never an option.

So has anyone compared the results of DVDShrink, IC7/8 and the corresponding original DVD with a bitrate viewer (http://www.tecoltd.com/bitratev.htm)?

-Robert

nwg
26th July 2004, 19:36
Joergen wrote,
The still image feature is a godsend aswell, the last major feature that was missing. It truly is too much at once, super-encoding enhancement and title blanking!

You may also want to create your own image. I created two black bitmap images at 720 x 576 and 720 x 480. It has reduced the disc space on a DVD by two thirds (saving 200MB) compared to the default image.

I tried it with a jpg and the results are the same.

DVD Maniac
26th July 2004, 20:51
You may also want to create your own image. I created two black bitmap images at 720 x 576 and 720 x 480. It has reduced the disc space on a DVD by two thirds (saving 200MB) compared to the default image. I tried it with a jpg and the results are the same.

Try creating a .png format still black image which I found tends to be a much smaller file size than bitmap format and consequently a smaller blanked title size.



Go Shrink and nuts to Pinnacle and IC!

nwg
26th July 2004, 21:00
Try creating a .png format still black image which I found tends to be a much smaller file size than bitmap format and consequently a smaller blanked title size.

I just tried that, and get the same title size whether it is a black png, bmp or a jpg file.

robot1
26th July 2004, 21:23
It's the best transcoder now!

Joergen
26th July 2004, 22:03
I dont think the format of the source still matters since shrink will encode it to mpeg2, but the amount of detail in it certainly does, the blurrier the better etc.

You can even use shrink to hide the copyright warnings with a black screen or other of your choice/making.

edit: I just did more comparison testing (mainly "no compression" vs low%) and I had to drag the 60%~ VOB several times into DVD2AVI cause I was sure I accidentally kept dragging the 100% into both windows. It's uncanny!

Mephiston
26th July 2004, 23:00
So far all i can say is WOW!

I've never used DVDShrink much before as i'm a quality nut.

Just backed up a movie to test it, 1 1/2 Hour movie, with extras. movie @ 80%, Extras @ 60%

movie looks excellent. No difference from original. As good as CCE. And the extras look damn good as well, easily watchable. Gonna try it on a Heavy Action / Space movie next and see how it looks.

If DVDShrink gets any better i will not even both with CCE for movies under 2 Hours anymore, and if Shrink goes retail, i would be willing to buy a copy now.

Great Work!

mb1
26th July 2004, 23:21
Did some testing as well ;)

http://people.freenet.de/mb1svcd/

Joergen
26th July 2004, 23:25
mb1: I dunno what you encoded but home videos or poorly authored/jam-packed discs do not represent the average hollywood movie which is done with high quality encoders and skill. If you take bad material and force it down it wont get any better thats for sure.

And did you forget to run deep analysis, its not ticked in your screenshot.

edit: How about taking the sharpest possible movie you can find, and fiddle with that. Suggestions are Indy jones boxset, good bad and the ugly, ET 20th anniversary edition.

ddlooping
26th July 2004, 23:37
Thanks for the positive feedback, guys, it is very much appreciated. :)

mb1, your test makes for interesting reading.
Would you mind conducting the exact same one with other transcoders? ;)

quantum
27th July 2004, 00:21
I've got an hour left on my 3.2 encode. Can anyone confirm closed captions are working or not working? Please don't tell me they're broken. :scared:

dvdshrink
27th July 2004, 00:36
Interlaced video is a tough one.

Fortunately it is rare on DVDs, sometimes extras are interlaced, and often music videos, but not your typical movie.

Would be interesting to see some more comparitive tests.

dvdshrink
27th July 2004, 00:41
I don't think CC is broken! (I hope not ;-)

Joergen
27th July 2004, 00:59
The CCCP whatnow? Doesnt matter in PAL land.. :p

mb1
27th July 2004, 01:18
@ ddlooping, dvdshrink
Would you mind conducting the exact same one with other transcoders?
Would be interesting to see some more comparitive tests

Running DVD2one 1.5 now for the second time with different full disk options.
The first one did a better job than DVDShrink 3.2 (in 30:19 minutes).
Blocking was less outstanding and better looking.
But I think DVDShrink 3.2 does have a P-frame-bug on higher compression (like <60% ratio).

Today evening I will do it with IC8 as well.

Will update the site in 24 hours with new comparisons and screenshots.

Interlaced video is a tough one
Of course. Because of that I'm testing on it :D
IC7 had major quality issues with interlaced material. I'm extremely curious if that has changed.

@ Joergen
And did you forget to run deep analysis, its not ticked in your screenshot
I think I wrote it all in the text :rolleyes:

If you take bad material
The material is not bad. DVD is fine (with peaks up to 9400 kbps), but the content is extremely hard for every encoder/transcoder.
Of course there are blocks sometimes in the source material, too. I have DV material (25 Mbps video bitrate) where I can see blocking because the content is so extreme that even this high bitrate is not sufficient.
That's the material where encoders are far superior if settings are optimized.

I already did a lot of progressive hollywood movie comparisons. Other people too. I don't plan to do what everybody else is doing already.
I think I'm not the only tester - I want those cute little programs to reach their limits - or way beyond.
That's the way to find bugs and weaknesses.

Remember my DVD2one comparison with optimized CCE settings (January 2003) with LOTR SEE on one DVD-R. Bad results for DVD2one ...

quantum
27th July 2004, 01:26
I can confirm CC is retained in my first encode using 3.2, whew :)

I can also confirm macro blocks are reduced in comparison to my previous 3.1.7 transcode done at similar compression rates.

I'll do some more tests, but so far this looks impressive. Definitely a significant improvement.

Excellent work dvdshrink :cool:

dvdshrink
27th July 2004, 01:33
"cute little program" - ouch!
You are a harsh tester. Every developer's worst enemy :-)

edit:
On a more serious note, I'd love to see an interlaced comparison with IC8. This didn't come up during beta testing. Interlaced material usually ends up looking worse in transcoders, because the second video field is predicted from the first field, so you get an error propagation nightmare. DVD Shrink does attempt to deal with this...

valnar
27th July 2004, 01:43
OK, I'm impressed. It equals or exceeds IC7 on Mirrorball. Way to go DVDShrink team!

-Robert

ddlooping
27th July 2004, 02:46
Glad to hear it, Robert, thanks. ;)

motster
27th July 2004, 03:07
@dvdshrink & team...

Awesome release! I love the output options! If you get a spare moment (ha!), can you have a pref. setting for setting Verify when using DVD Decrypter to burn?

The other feature I've been thinking about, but I know isn't easy to implement, would be to flag titles that are referenced in the First Play sequence. It stinks when you Still Image some titles, only to find that you'll be sitting through 4 minutes of "This video removed" because you didn't realize they're the stupid intro trailers ;-)

I know, I could figure out the titles myself using a player, but if he gets bored and wanted more features to add... ;-)

ddlooping
27th July 2004, 03:10
mb1, I must confess I did not test v3.2 with interlaced material, but with non-interlaced sources, DVD2One 1.5 was well behind in terms of output quality.
Comparative tests were done for each DVD2One quality options, including the new ones.

quantum
27th July 2004, 03:31
I just compared the mixed extras from Shrek 1 using 3.2 and 3.1.7 reducing both to 60% of their original size. The newer version is obviously and significantly improved in both interlaced and progressive scenes. Macroblocking is reduced everywhere.

It also appears the annoying "pulsing" effect from 3.1.7 and earlier versions is gone. Version 3.2 seems to have a more even distribution so you don't have the 3 good frames and 1 bad frame syndrome which caused the pulsing in previous versions.

My previous comparisons with IC7 and Shrink 3.1.7 showed they were both fairly close, with IC7 maybe being slightly in the lead. I don't intend to retest IC7, but my guess would be that Shrink has at least caught up with IC7 and possibly jumped ahead.

Really fine work dvdshrink.

jsquare
27th July 2004, 04:44
All I can say is that this new version of DVDShrink "kills" IC7 and probably all other transcoders in every aspect.

I was trying to convert the last 2 discs of the LEXX series(S4V5 and S4V6) and was having a lot of problems with them, macroblocks all over the place with IC7, IC8 and Shrink 3.1.7, I even tried DVDRebuilder which did a good job but I didn't wanted to go back to my DVD2SVCD days of re-encoding.

So this new version came right on time, took around 1.5hrs for each disc and the results were better than expected, wish I had this version of Shrink when I started doing the whole series.

One more thing, I don't think you can call DVDShrink a "transcoder" anymore, the new engine have very similar results to those made by CCE with DVD-Rebuilder, so it may have become a fast "re-encoder" instead.

Lagoon
27th July 2004, 08:32
Well you still have to call it a transcoder since it IS technically one :p

Lazza
27th July 2004, 09:18
Originally posted by valnar
OK, I'm impressed........... Way to go DVDShrink team!

-Robert
Glad you like it, I'm sure none of us would object if beers were handed around. :D http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/g0/beer.gif

Solo
27th July 2004, 09:28
Very nice. I have not done a full movie yet, but I loaded an image and took a look. A lot of new options. Looks awesome.

Thanks :D

DVD Maniac
27th July 2004, 11:33
I just tried a "Power" test with Terminator 2 which has always been a problem for any encoding / transcoding tool I have used previously. The interlaced source requires hefty compression if you want to keep DTS and the directors track (55%) and all my previous attempts were very dissapointing - even CCE struggled.

I watched source and Shrink outputs together and I must say the two really are very difficult to distinguish. There is some very slight blocking on the action scenes and the colour is very slightly washed out (but nowhere near what you got with previous versions). Also, the "mosquito" noise that I got very badly on this title with Shrink before is nowhere to be seen.

All I can say is "awesome". Congrats to the team

Can I ask those close to the development where we should be posting development suggestions? Mine are as follows -

1. Single frame title AND menu vob replacement (ala Menuedit etc)
2. A batch mode (now the run times are approaching 2-3 hours it makes sense to have this feature for running overnight batch jobs)
3. Automated / Semi-Automated Menu button removal / disabling (thats a tough one I know - but this would make the app the ULTIMATE backup solution)

My Pinnacle crapware and other redundant apps are being removed right now!

Lazza
27th July 2004, 11:53
Originally posted by DVD Maniac
Can I ask those close to the development where we should be posting development suggestions? Mine are as follows -

1. Single frame title AND menu vob replacement (ala Menuedit etc)
2. A batch mode (now the run times are approaching 2-3 hours it makes sense to have this feature for running overnight batch jobs)
3. Automated / Semi-Automated Menu button removal / disabling (thats a tough one I know - but this would make the app the ULTIMATE backup solution)

Don't think that's going to happen sadly m8, but only dvdshrink himself can answer that Q about any possible future development of DVD Shrink. ;)

dragongodz
27th July 2004, 13:18
just curious what ideas that were suggested on the dvdshrink forum are actually used.

i can see the higher requant to higher original quants has been for example and error propigation reduction for P frames. the settings dont exactly say though what was found useful and what wasnt. :)

TheSeeker
27th July 2004, 16:59
Am I just seeing things or does shrink tend to output a slightly grainy picture? It may just be that I was compressing by 30% though. Most likely thats it. Would the smooth or max smooth option be better for longer movies that require more compression?

nwg
27th July 2004, 17:04
I have done ROTK (PAL) with Shrink 3.2 and got much better results than with DVD Rebuilder and CCE or other transcoders (DVD2One, CloneDVD and Rejig). I used the default sharp setting and compressed the film down to 58%.

I have also done Once Upon a Time in Mexico (PAL) with the film at 88% and the extras at 45% and the same quality setting. The picture looks excellent for both the film and extras.

TheSeeker
27th July 2004, 17:44
So sharp default setting seems to be good in pretty much any situation? I wonder if smooth would be good for anime? Cause i know that the mosquito noise can really become apparent right in the middle of those flat color areas if you compress too much.

geffroman
27th July 2004, 19:49
It's really hard to compare SHRINK and ReBuilder unless you are going to include the number of passes and settings you use with CCE... and what version of CCE...

motster
27th July 2004, 20:44
Does Shrink have an easy way to tell which title is WS vs FS on a disc? Sometimes doing Re-Author it's not always easy to tell (especially on my machine where i use Remote Desktop and can never preview titles :()

KYUSS
27th July 2004, 21:53
Originally posted by Mephiston
So far all i can say is WOW!

If DVDShrink gets any better i will not even both with CCE for movies under 2 Hours anymore, and if Shrink goes retail, i would be willing to buy a copy now.

Great Work!

what more could be added for retail release?

maybe its own burning module?

Fantatsic proggy

cheers
KYUSS

Gang$ta
28th July 2004, 01:08
This new Ver.3.2 is amazing..
Just did a movie,165 mins using D/A & AOC (default}

Fcnkin Awesome...

A big THX to Mr DVDShrink

bugsy_pal
28th July 2004, 01:35
I am relatively new to DVD burning, but DVD Shrink has been my most used tool. With 3.1.7 I had made a copy of "The Third Man" - the compression level was something around 50-55%, from memory, and there were lots of artefacts and smearing between frames. The new version with AEC does appear to have reduced these effects.

Just a query - do black and white movies present more problems than colour? I backed up Big Fish using the new setting (sharp), and the result was outstanding, but The Third Man just seems to be a really difficult one to get looking clean, unless the compression factor is 80% or higher. Admittedly, there is a lot of detail in the B&W picture, but I would have thought that that would also be the case with a colour flick like Big Fish.

Joergen
28th July 2004, 02:15
Again more testing, and to give an easy-reading comparison:

DVD The Gladiator R2

-DVDShrink 3.1.7: without the commentary track (just the 5.1 track) the ratio is 72%, and the results very blocky in scenes like the opening battle in germania = hopeless.

-DVDShrink 3.2 = WITH commentary and 5.1 track the ratio is 69% and at default sharpness the quality is excellent in all scenes.

NOTE: Interestingly switching on the "maximum smoothness" setting that forces the newfangled encoder on every frame makes the quality far worse. The maximum smoothness reminds me of IC7 quality (or as I like to call it, lumpy block porridge -quality).

dvdshrink
28th July 2004, 02:29
Just a query - do black and white movies present more problems than colour?
Color usually accounts for 1/3 of the compressable data in a movie, but it's quite possible that DVD Shrink would gain more compression than that from the color components, perhaps up to 1/2. If there is no color data, the rest will undoubtably suffer more.

vaylon
28th July 2004, 03:29
Thanks shrink!!!!

Just tried 3.2 and loved it.
I have dvd2one and ic8and7. Neither compare for both quality or speed.

have shrunk several disc for comparison against 3.1 and quality is much better(although 3.1 was great). On full disc backups like lotr-rotk the quality is very noted. But what surprized me was the reauthoring movie only quality.

On 3.1 overall quality was excellent with no compression artifacts at all.Except in dark areas it looked a little washed and grey.

on 3.2 overall quality was excellent with no compression artifacts at all. dark areas were much more true to the originals ,didn't get the wash look. Colors also stayed more vibrant than the earlier version.

another note is about cpu usage- 3.1 hardly used any cpu cycles at all( the most I ever saw it use my xp2800 was maybe 10%)and that was rare.
But 3.2 used 33% right on start up and spiked up to 67%. This is not a complaint, it nice to know a program is actually using my chip. But if someone else has a problem with3.2 locking or crashing their system they may want to quit multitasking and cutoff a few programs.

Overall I would have to give this version 5stars *****.
Great job guys.

TheSeeker
28th July 2004, 13:45
I recently backed up Harry Potter and the Sorcerers stone at compression levels of about %64 percent i think, using max sharpness. I have to say the result was darn near indistinguishable from the original. Maybe I was just tired and seeing things but the result was great. Alot of detail preserved. Still not too sure about what settings work in what situations better but that will come with experience. Anyone who has used the final 3.2 alot have any opinion on this matter?

valnar
28th July 2004, 13:56
I'm really interested in the technological advances they made in the transcoder. I know that the old DVD Shrink, DVD95Copy and DVD2One all used something very similar - it's like they read the same white paper on how to do it. Quality was comparable. IC7/8 was ahead of the pack because they did a "deeper" transcoding technique, which also took longer, but made it look nicer.

(Forgive the laymans description, but this is what I've read over the year.)

So my question is what changed at the core in the new DVD Shrink 3.2 to make it better than IC7/8? Is this a brand new development in the transcoding process? Or just an evolutional enhancement?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Robert

smok3
28th July 2004, 13:58
i was just testing the disk1 of 'blue planet' - lots of water and stuff like that - that did not look very good on original either, compression required was under 60% and with deep ticked and the use of aec the quality remains pretty much the same - most noticeably there is no color bleeding.
edit: powerdvd's interpretation (cropped):
http://somestuff.org/tmp/PDVD_033croped.png
(~215k)
(ok, this is all very subjective, i would have to do a lot more testing to conclude anything...)

mb1
28th July 2004, 15:59
Little test update (http://people.freenet.de/mb1svcd/compare1.htm)

I stopped comparison tests for now - because too much time consuming (as long as Shrink does not recognize that no double encoding is necessary for this full disc backup).

But I will further investigate into Shrinks behaviour with MProbe analyzing software.

mrbass
28th July 2004, 17:11
Originally posted by valnar

So my question is what changed at the core in the new DVD Shrink 3.2 to make it better than IC7/8? Is this a brand new development in the transcoding process? Or just an evolutional enhancement?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Robert

@dvdshrink
Can you post partially in your 3.2 beta10 annoucenement describing technically what exactly each option does. You said "not to post it" so I'm not gonna to post it. Can you give just a basic summary of which method is compressing B,I, and P pictures more and/or less like back in the old days with dvdshrink 1.03?

TheSeeker
28th July 2004, 17:19
Are these findings valid for interlaced material only? Because just did a test with Star Trek First Contact. I went and did a full backup with deep analysis and aec max sharpness, and the output look much much better than I thought it would. The only actual noticeable flaw when playing it back on my comp was that some really extreme details (facial hair, wrinkles, etc.) would go a little smooth or fuzzy but then immediately correct itself. Which is what aec does it compares the frame it just encoded to the original to see if any artifacts are introduced and then corrrects it so artifacts dont propogate. I dont know, but Im highly skeptical that DVD2One could get results as good as this. Those times you quote seem a little high to me although I am running a Athlon64 so that might have something to do with my faster encode times.

EDIT: Sorry my compression rate was 50%. That might be important to know.

dvdshrink
28th July 2004, 17:23
Sorry mrbass, I've been passing such questions by. The reason is, I don't wish to discuss in public the technical details of DVD Shrink transcoder implementation.

I'm sure that experts like mb1 (above) will uncover most of the internal workings anyway ;-)

I'd appreciate your understanding.

dragongodz
28th July 2004, 17:33
I don't wish to discuss in public the technical details of DVD Shrink transcoder implementation.
thats fine to some degree but i will quote myself

just curious what ideas that were suggested on the dvdshrink forum are actually used.
since you asked for and got suggestions isnt it also then fair to aknowledge what you found useful ? i do not mean the fine detail but the general concept or idea that was posted.

dvdshrink
28th July 2004, 18:17
The main thing that came out of that discussion was AEC, which is that it is necessary to compensate for errors introduced by the compression process. I believe IC and DVD Shrink are the only ones doing that now (I may be wrong). I'm sure everyone will be doing this soon.

Other ideas were tried and rejected - compress the edges of the frame more, for instance. It didn't work out. I need to read the thread again, because it did go on for a while after I left it.

Then the discussion went into private beta testing forum for several weeks, where many useful ideas were proposed and some of them implemented. There are very many ways to do AEC, some of them better than others, which is why you'll find considerable differences between DVD Shrink and IC.

I'm afraid I did rather lose contact with the original thread (truth is I forgot all about it, I should get back there and make amends).

mrbass
28th July 2004, 19:38
Totally understood dvdshrink. About the thread...not only was the last post about the technical stuffed changed so you never did post the final details anyways so it's a moot point. Only you dvdshrink could post what each one does and doesn't so I totally respect that.

Only thing I can say is it's come a long long long way since dvdshrink 1.03 (October 2003). Here's the table for dvdshrink 1.03 'customize streams' section.

Technical Note on Encode Levels

DVD Shrink uses a simple re-encode algorithm, which operates at one of two levels of compression, on each mpeg picture type. The following chart indicates what each encoding level means.

Level I-pictures P-pictures B-pictures
Level 1: No Compresion No Compresion Level 1
Level 2: No Compresion No Compresion Level 2
Level 3: No Compresion Level 1 Level 1
Level 4: No Compresion Level 1 Level 2
Level 5: Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
Level 6: Level 1 Level 1 Level 2
Level 7: Level 1 Level 2 Level 2
Level 8: Level 2 Level 2 Level 2

So my point is that AEC is nothing like the above because there is so much more going on. Thanks dvdshrink for the intense 3 weeks of development you spent on it which was way more than anyone anticipated when you initially made the announcement.

dvdshrink
28th July 2004, 20:22
Ah yes, I remember the levels!

You could never get the output size you wanted because one level was too much and the next was not enough. Things have improved :-)

Anyway, it is my personal belief that AEC with "max smoothness" option most closely resembles the output from IC8, thus you could hazard a guess that the internal algorithms are similar, although I wouldn't know or assert that to be true, since I'm not an IC8 developer.

It came out during beta testing that "max smoothness" was not always the best choice for encoding hollywood movies, in fact many improvements could be made. Ultimately "sharp" was chosen as the default setting, while "maximum sharpness" seems to do a pretty good job too, and may even be preferable to some.

There is always a trade-off, so ultimately it depends on both your viewing equipment, which may show some types of defect more than others, and your own personal taste - and of course the particular movie you are encoding.

I've been asked to explain which AEC options are best in which circumstances, and the truth is, I don't know. I understand what the options do from a mathematical perspective, but this does not translate into real-life recommendation. I'll be watching reports on this forum and elsewhere with interest: like everyone else, I'm keen to learn which options I should use for my backups.

So it's over to you - mrbass, or anyone else - if you have ideas which AEC modes work best for different material (interlaced content, serials, anime, old movies, hollywood movies, etc) please post them!

mb1
28th July 2004, 21:02
Changes are easy to analyse but a little complex to write down:

DVDShrink 3.2.0.15

Compression ratio changes I-frame changes P-frame changes B-frame

90% no aec very slightly no around -15%

90% sharp very slightly very slightly around -15%

90% max smooth around -10% around -10% below -10%

90% max sharp very slightly no around -15%

80% sharp no no around -30%

70% sharp around -20% around -17% around -35%

60% sharp around -38% around -38% around -39%

57% sharp around -42% around -42% around -39%
smallest possible
for example movie

57% max smooth around -40% around -41% around -41%

Of course these values can vary 2% depending on source material.
The values are based on shrinking and analysing progressive hollywood movie 'Starship Troopers' (PAL with GOP15).

There are also some interesting little findings.
B-frame before and after an I-frame doesn't change its size any more below 80% ratio.


I think it would be nice, too if some users develop a database for movie deep analysis data where you can download the analysis data you just need (if it doesn't change for future releases). Would save the community a lot of time and cpu power :D
Maybe any thoughts on that ... :rolleyes:

TheSeeker
28th July 2004, 21:21
It takes 10-15 minutes to do a deep analysis. Its not that tedious that we need to spend all the time and effort to make a database is it?

Not to mention there is like 50 different version dvd's for every movie it seems.

Another thing. Wouldnt those compression ratios vary quite a bit depending on the movie and the amount of action/inaction and color, and brightness?

nwg
28th July 2004, 21:33
mb1 wrote,
I think it would be nice, too if some users develop a database for movie deep analysis data where you can download the analysis data you just need (if it doesn't change for future releases). Would save the community a lot of time and cpu power

It has been suggested before on the Shrinks forums.

There is to many variables to take into account such as what TheSeeker mentions above.

TheSeeker wrote,
It takes 10-15 minutes to do a deep analysis

Wow, it take 30 minutes on my setup.

TheSeeker
28th July 2004, 21:37
Athlon64 3000+ system. My new toy. I love it so much. I can do encodes around 3 times faster now. A 4 pass encode in CCE only takes like 3 hours now. Its great.

nwg
28th July 2004, 21:44
TheSeeker wrote,
Athlon64 3000+ system. My new toy. I love it so much. I can do encodes around 3 times faster now. A 4 pass encode in CCE only takes like 3 hours now. Its great.

Impressive.

I had to make a PC on a budget, I managed to put a AthlonXP 2000 in it.

A 2 pass CCE will take 3 hours.

TheSeeker
28th July 2004, 21:49
Yea I used to have an athlon t bird 1.2 ghz.. so for me this is a HUGE step up in the right direction.

ookzDVD
29th July 2004, 02:24
Just did Mummy Return Region 1 DVD, ~65% on the main movie,
and ~40% on the extra. AEC - Sharp mode enabled.
The result is awesome!

Thank you dvdshrink :)

fozzieb
29th July 2004, 10:52
Not to mention there is like 50 different version dvd's for every movie it seems.

Every version of a DVD has a code just like cd's so the dvd could look up a database find if it has the detail available and download it.

DVD Maniac
29th July 2004, 11:11
Having thought about this and contrary to an earlier post, I am not convinced that a database compilation for AEC settings is really viable (or useful).

Just think about all the varibles we have -


DVD Type -
Hollywood Movie (High Quality)
Old Movie (B&W?)
Anime
TV Series (High quaility)
TV Series (Low Quality)

Format -
Interlaced (Most PAL!)
Progressive

Watched On -
PC CRT
PC TFT
TV Tube (old)
TV Modern Tube widescreen
Plasma
Projector

That's 5x2x6 = 60 possible generic types of scenarios. OK, you can probably get this down to 40 or poss 30 by eliminating the less popular combinations but thats still a lot of work. Add to this the "personal preference" factor and its just not a goer.

What do others think?

mb1
29th July 2004, 11:43
I did not speak of database for 'best aec settings'. That would be in fact nonsense.
I meant 'deep analysis data' which DVDShrink stores for every analysed dvd.

The average analysis on an average pc will last around 30 minutes (sometimes more if structure is complex).

Take 'Matrix RC1' for example. Thousands of people made a backup of this blockbuster. Thousands of times this 30 minute deep analysis could be used for better things. Ok, this dvd is a past one. But think of all the future blockbuster releases, Star Wars IV-VI, Kill Bill 2, Troja, The day after tomorrow, Harry Potter and many more.

I would find that extremely useful. My opinion.

m99
29th July 2004, 13:30
Originally posted by fozzieb
Every version of a DVD has a code just like cd's so the dvd could look up a database find if it has the detail available and download it.

This is something I have missed since I bought my first DVD. Why isn't it something for DVD like CDDB is for CD?

smok3
29th July 2004, 13:31
i agree, that would be a usefull option, similar stuff was recently incorporated into 'some' audio ripping tool, also 'central database' like - just for a litlle different purpose
check:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4789
(but in the case of video dvd - the solution would be easier - as the deep analisis could just compare few seconds generated localy to ensure that input is correct - i guess).

fozzieb
29th July 2004, 13:37
I used to work for a company "www.moviemine.co.uk" and we were sent a program that read the id of the dvd looked it up on the studios web site (or database) and filled in all the info we needed, movie title, director, year of release......

it was very cool and i'm sure it was a shareware app rather than some custom software.

i think a database with the code number and the deep analysis data is all it would need, so if i had LOTR 1 it would see my dvd code and get th deep analysis data, but if you had LOTR 1 extended it would have a different code and get different deep analysis data from databse.

or like whatever :D

infoscapeone
29th July 2004, 15:08
IC7 had such an analysis database but they had to switch it off due to leagal reasons

smok3
29th July 2004, 19:35
Originally posted by fozzieb
[B]i think a database with the code number and the deep analysis data is all it would need
it would be better to use some other logic, think about movies that get reauthored by just adding some subtitles, when video stays (hopefully) the same..., for example let user choose (or even search) for the approapriate title, then the compare can be made with partial local analysis.

edit: (ok, i dont know how related is the analysis to the actual dvd structure at this point)

smok3
29th July 2004, 19:37
Originally posted by infoscapeone
IC7 had such an analysis database but they had to switch it off due to leagal reasons how about decentralized p2p way? :p

TheSeeker
29th July 2004, 20:04
Would it really be worth it to save 30 minutes?

valnar
29th July 2004, 21:09
Would it really be worth it to save 30 minutes?
No, I agree with you. It sounds like we have a bunch of whiners on this board. :devil: :sly:

-Robert

krackato
29th July 2004, 22:13
The point is that it's going to save you 30 minutes and it's going to cost the people who are going to create the database 100's of hours which I think we would all rather have placed into improving the software.

Not to mention, as computers get faster, that 30 minutes is going to decrease and decrease. Already on my Athlon 3200+ it's like 15 minutes or something. I'm not entirely sure since it always runs in the background in idle mode so maybe it's a little more or less.

The point is, as time goes by, the database is going to be worth less and less. And frankly, it just introduces another variable into the equation that could mess things up. Pinnacle used to have a database, but they didn't take it down just because of legal reasons, but also because it just didn't work very well.

my 2 cents.

smok3
30th July 2004, 00:19
Originally posted by TheSeeker
Would it really be worth it to save 30 minutes? thats the real question.

dvdshrink
30th July 2004, 00:27
Well for reasons already stated by various posters here, it isn't going to happen! Lets change the subject :-)

More interesting would be a discussion of which AEC modes benefit which kind of movies, or of which AEC modes are definitely NOT worth using in certain circumstances, does anyone have experience of this?

quantum
30th July 2004, 01:09
This thread degenerates quickly :)

I've been in the process of comparing each AEC mode. I examine them zoomed in virtual dub as described here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58808

There is an obvious difference between version 3.1x and 3.2, but so far the AEC modes are very close in my tests. While there are differences, they're minor even at strong compression. If I had to pick one I think default might be my choice.

I'll be doing more tests. Since I'm settling on the default AEC mode, I think I'll be comparing to CCE next ;)

krackato
30th July 2004, 04:24
I'd love to get some comparisons on the different AEC modes. However, I'd like to have the AEC modes sort of built into the deep analysis. How can I be 100% sure that AEC sharp is the best when maybe it might be Maximum Smooth unless I encode the movie 4 times.

Maybe you could have do a deep analysis on the whole DVD and then show an example of how the picture would look at a certain scene with a particular compression amount with a specific AEC chosen. I'm not explaining myself well, but what I'm trying to describe is how Photoshop allows you to set the amount of compression for a jpg image between 1 and 10 and every time you move the slide bar, it shows you what the image is going to look like. Just a thought.

dragongodz
30th July 2004, 05:43
yes 4 options may not be the best for ease of use or choice. certainly testing a movie (or even just a large part) 4 times is very time consuming.

2 options "smoother(playback)" and "sharper(picture)" would have been easier for people to test and decide. each of those 2 being a mid point between the current repective options.

who knows though. maybe after a lot of feedback dvdshrink may change that anyway. :)

dvdshrink
30th July 2004, 06:04
If you're a programmer your boss often says things like, "well, we have a transcoder, and we have a decoder, so there's no technical reason why we can't have preview, have it on my desk by thursday..."

And then you, as the programmer, feel like jumping off a building because although you agree in principle, the fact of the matter is that you have 1/4 million lines of messy multi-threaded code which expects to be dumping output to a file via a multiplexer through a 120MB FIFO, certainly not direct to a preview window, plus implementing seek with a slider would involve complete redesign of code you can't even remember how it works, plus GUI complexities, and so on.

It's like using Microsoft Word. We all suffer from the programmer's bad design decisions ;-)

krackato
30th July 2004, 10:19
Originally posted by dvdshrink
And then you, as the programmer, feel like jumping off a building because although you agree in principle, the fact of the matter is that you have 1/4 million lines of messy multi-threaded code which expects to be dumping output to a file via a multiplexer through a 120MB FIFO, certainly not direct to a preview window, plus implementing seek with a slider would involve complete redesign of code you can't even remember how it works, plus GUI complexities, and so on.

It's like using Microsoft Word. We all suffer from the programmer's bad design decisions ;-)

????

Bootsy
30th July 2004, 10:29
I think he means that your suggestion would be difficult for him to implement.

DVD Maniac
30th July 2004, 11:52
Not sure my previous post was read in context (it was about AEC NOT the DVD analysis database)-

Just think about all the varibles we have -
DVD Type - Hollywood Movie (High Quality)
Old Movie (B&W?)
Anime TV Series (High quaility)
TV Series (Low Quality)

Format -
Interlaced (Most PAL!)
Progressive
Watched On -
PC CRT
PC TFT
TV Tube (old)
TV Modern Tube widescreen
Plasma
Projector

That's 5x2x6 = 60 possible generic types of scenarios. OK, you can probably get this down to 40 or poss 30 by eliminating the less popular combinations but thats still a lot of work. Add to this the "personal preference" factor and its just not a goer.

So now taking into account what dvdshrink sayas about the 1000's of man hours required to do implement the "preview" mode suggested by krackato (good idea in concept BTW) it really does seem pointless due to the other variables. For example, your Progressive Anime movie might look best with max smoothness on your PC TFT but not so hot on your bog standard TV tube and actually required the sharp mode to look best on that.

If dvdshrink has time on his hands I think there are some better development points to work on -

1. Single frame vob replacement for titles AND menus
2. Batch mode
3. Auto / semi auto menu button disabling (stretch goal!)

Shrink would then blow the competition away (it is pretty much doing that already) and then Mr Shrink can then start charging and making some well earned dosh for all his hard work :)

Not sure what Ahead would have to say though :sly:

MAPE
30th July 2004, 14:57
I'm really impressed with the results of shrink 3.2 applied on a music live concert with 2 angles, 70% compression on the movie and the 2 bonus tracks, only keeping 5.1 audio. I selected in first place DA with AEC "sharp" and the image was good but with some noticeable macroblocks on my PC monitor, then tried "smooth" but colours and details not satisfied me enough and finally "maximum sharpness" and... rock it!!! Incredible good looking image even in my PC monitor. It simply terrific, fantastic, awesome I don't speak english very well so my adjetives woud be much more higher than these. I tried with other methods before but without success and now finally get it and as I said before INCREDIBLE.
Thanks a lot Mr.DVDSHRINK, simply the best tool to backups Dvd's.

P.D.: the dvd was Simply Red live in Sicily (Ntsc) and I did it in full backup mode.

voo_doo99
30th July 2004, 18:23
Originally posted by dragongodz
yes 4 options may not be the best for ease of use or choice. certainly testing a movie (or even just a large part) 4 times is very time consuming.


What you can do is to use DVD Shrink Re-author mode and the Start/End feature to prepare a favorite 5 minutes clip and manually run it thru the 4 compression modes. After 10-15 minutes, you have 4 sets of video for viewing comparison. I put up this idea for automation, BCS, Best Clip Selection :D during Shrink beta testing. What a feature to tailor your DVD backup, but that may be asking too much from Dr. Shrink :p

geffroman
31st July 2004, 01:19
What I find MOST amazing about SHRINK is that even though it is the single best tool out there for ease of use and now rivals even CCE in 2 pass mode for quality that SHRINK gets more feature requests than simple "Thanks for the new version"

It's like throwing a party at your house... It takes you a week to get ready... you invite all the neighbors... you lay out the money for beer and food... everyone shows up and pigs out... and some sorry ass folks sit in the corner and discuss how the food could have been better... the beer could have been colder... the music could have been a live band... Yet NONE of them ever throws a party...

SHRINK is awsome... SHRINK is free... I'm not saying suggestions are not OK... but damn... some of you guys have even suggested SHRINK build in a tool that automates your own testing of his program... and the dumb ass suggestion that in this highly legalized world that someone develop an analyzed file sharing system to save a few precious minutes... Get real...

Does IC or DVD2One or Rebuilder or CCE or DVDXCopy do that... Hell do they do half what SHRINK does so efficiently, so simply...

Flame on... I'm off my soap box now... but some of you just come off as incredibly greedy...

nwg
31st July 2004, 01:26
SHRINK is awsome... SHRINK is free..

I agree and Shrink has been my favorite bit of software since the very first version. I managed to do LOTR FOTR over a year ago and went WOW when I saw the results.

Every version since then has been a milestone over that!

krackato
31st July 2004, 01:27
Dude, of course we're grateful. You don't see the DVD95copy release thread filled with posts. Not to mention that DVDshrink said:

"More interesting would be a discussion of which AEC modes benefit which kind of movies, or of which AEC modes are definitely NOT worth using in certain circumstances, does anyone have experience of this?"

So I'm sorry if all you want us to say is, "OMG! DVDshrink is better than Jesus!!!!" Yeah, it's a killer tool, but I don't think it's uncalled for to mention a few ideas on how to make the tool better. If they want to spend the time, awesome. If they don't, well we've already got a killer tool.

HanSolo00
31st July 2004, 06:59
Regarding the online Deep Analysis database idea:

Initially I thought it made sense, but then when I looked at the way I backup DVD's, I realized it would be useless for me since I pre-process my DVDs before any transcoding or re-encoding. Deep Analysis is (as it should be) the last step done after I've already trimmed down the feature with other tools such as DvdReMake... thus, my pre-processed DVD won't be recognized in the database because it is unique (as a whole.)

However, if one were to retain the Deep Analysis data for only the main movie(s) on the DVD, and use some checksum or other to identify said main movie(s), then it might in fact prove useful. Otherwise, the database would only be of use to people that use Shrink on the original untouched disc.

Of course, I'm making several assumptions about the kind of information stored in the Deep Analysis:)

Greystorm
15th August 2004, 02:38
For some reason Shrink 3.2 has decided to start crashing on me. It works fine on my other PC. Never experienced a crash, but on this one it locks up with the CPU going to 99% when I click the Re-Author button after opening a movie from the HDD.

If I don't open the movie and then click re-author, but rather click re-author and then browse to the movie from there it doesn't crash.

I think I need to reinstall windows, but I thought I'd post it in case it's a bug in Shrink.

Edit: I may have found the problem. I also found I could not preview videos so I changed the DirectX Video Renderer from System Default to Overlay Mixer and Shrink is now behaving itself! :)

Flux
27th August 2004, 10:03
Is it normal that DVD Shrink let me to choose deep analysis and AEC mode even all I want to do is to replace extras with still image (no still pictures)? There is no compression for menus or main movie. Still DVD Shrink start to analyse and encode. :confused:

Dunno if it happens with other version than 3.2

nwg
27th August 2004, 12:00
If the source DVD was originally dual layer then yes. It doesn't matter if you choose still image/still picture.

I did a DVD where I still imaged all the extras and took some audio off. It made the film and menu uncompressed as it was 4.3GB. AEC and Deep Analysis was still selectable afterwards.

Flux
27th August 2004, 13:36
Originally posted by nwg
If the source DVD was originally dual layer then yes. It doesn't matter if you choose still image/still picture.

I did a DVD where I still imaged all the extras and took some audio off. It made the film and menu uncompressed as it was 4.3GB. AEC and Deep Analysis was still selectable afterwards.
But it's sure that Shrink didn't touch the main movie or menu which I selected to be uncompressed but just encoded extras to still image?

usg
27th August 2004, 13:38
I would suggest a MPEG mode shrinking. Now a days, most DVD players can play MPEG files. People who regularly backup their ReplayTV/TIVO MPEG files and HDTV recordings, will highly benefitted by reducing the file size without compromising the perceived quality to fit DVD-r(s). For this, the DVDShrink will have to relax the DVD requirements for this option. What is others' opinion?

ddlooping
27th August 2004, 14:18
Originally posted by Flux
But it's sure that Shrink didn't touch the main movie or menu which I selected to be uncompressed but just encoded extras to still image?
If "No Compression" is used on a title, its video stream is left untouched. :)

geffroman
27th August 2004, 19:19
Hi ddlooping...

One thing I would think should be changed is the way Shrink auto selects whether or not to offer deep analysis... I noticed if you have a movie UNDER DVD-5 size there is of course NO option for Deep Analysis... But if you click on a Title you want to remove and select STILL IMAGE, Shrink defaults to Deep Analysis mode... This makes sense if you are compressing for quality... but it can be assumed that Still Image needs no Deep Analysis... especially of the whole DVD...

Not a big thing but something that seems odd in the functionality, if you wanna pass it along...

ddlooping
27th August 2004, 19:30
Hi geffroman. :)

I think dvdshrink is aware of this issue.
http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=184601#post184601

geffroman
27th August 2004, 19:36
Thanks dd...

ddlooping
27th August 2004, 19:46
No problem. ;)