1 Click DVD Copy (LG Software) - Best all in one??

[zimm33]

Is anybody using 1 Click?
Software Review (http://www.dvd-copy-software-review.com/?engine=adwords!883&keyword=dvd+burning+software)

I have no experience in all this stuff and would prefer an all in one. I'm just looking to copy original as well as previously copied dvd's.

1 Click seems to be the highest rated on most sites right along with DVD Cloner II. 1 Click perfectly copies episodic DVD's where as most others can't

Advantages/Disadvantages versus other packages or seperate programs others are using?

ANY input from you experienced guys would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[dannyv]

I just started using DVD Shrink and found it to do a great job with not to much setup hastle. I've tried them all and DVD Shrink has the most options as well as the best quality and best of all its FREE.
You can get it here http://www.dvdshrink.org/where.html

My hat is off to you MR. Shrink and the entire test team for a job well done.

[Mephiston]

Yes but the poster mentions Episodic disks, which is something DVDShrink still cannot do without massive macroblocking and quality loss.

DVDShrink does have great options, quality is great if you can keep compression above 75% or so i have found in the new version.

I'm gonna see if LG has a trial version of there 1 Click program, because so far no Transcoder i have tried can do TV disks.

[luphy]

Looking at their list of the best copying softwares, I am highly suspicious of this site. Or I question their testing. At the very least, they must not be using current versions.

Who makes this 1-click anyways? LG software I see...but are they new? Is it a possible ripoff of Shrink again?

I don't see why anyone would want to use anything else except for DVD Shrink. It's totally FREE, has a great compression algorithm, and has a great reauthor feature, and title replacement.

As for episodics, I use Shrink all the time on episodics, after trimming to remove opening and closing credits (which is why my #1 request would be to have the ability to combine titlesets into one). The quality looks great to my eyes, but your mileage may vary depending on equipment and eyes.

But I think it's too general a statement to say that DVD Shrink cannot do episdics without massive macroblocking. I for one have not had massive macroblocking doing some episodics.

And if Shrink does have macroblocks on some episodics, I doubt any other transcoder could do any better, and the only solution would be CCE likely.

[Mephiston]

Well i tried out the demo.

Output is bad. Overall about the same as Shrink, not as many macroblocks but still really bad. It will look ok for a few seconds, then the whole screen kinda shifts out of focus, then back in. Very annoying. Almost like it compresses the hell out of the video every few seconds, then compresses nothing. At least thats how it looked on the disk i tried.

Luphy : Your absolutely right. As far as i'm concerned no Transcoder to date can produce a decent backup of a disk with 3+ Hours of Main Feature footage. CCE is the only option. The only TV disks i have had good luck with Shrink 3.2 is SCTV. I guess since the orginal is so horrible, you just can't notice. I've Tried LAW&ORDER, CSI and the Dukes of Hazzard with Shrink. All looked really bad on my 15" LCD (Noticeable macroblocks on all faces & lighter shades). I can't imagine what they would look like on a TV.

[TheSeeker]

I agree with Luphy. He is a newbie and I can assure you the Big 3 will just turn him off to the whole notion of dvd copying with its overwhelming complexity and 50 million different programs.

Dude go with Shrink or Pinnacle InstantCopy 8.3. They are the top contenders right now, although Nero Recode's newest version seems to be fairly good (and very similar to Shrink). They are the best quality you can get while still keeping it very very easy. You may want to learn DVDRebuilder eventually though for those tuff discs. But for the most part you can stay away from the Big 3, unless your obsessive compulsive and you see imaginary macroblocks in everything that isnt done by the Big 3.

EDIT: Oh and just a note. If your really truly set on keeping everything on every dvd then you may want to look into DVDRebuilder right away as oppposed to later when you haev more experience. Because to get the most from Shrink and InstantCopy some preprocessing does need to be done.

[Mephiston]

I've been using the Big3 for quite a while now, and pretty much have it down to about 20 Minutes of interaction with the computer, and an overnight encode. So i have no idea where you get the idea it takes "50 Million Programs" and it's "Complex". I guess if you only use 1 clickers it can seem overwhelming at first, but trust me, it's quite simple to learn.

As for DVD-RB. It's convenient thats for sure, but some disks just need a little extra tweaking to get good results.

As for imaginary macroblocks, well i wouldn't go that far. I'm just picky, i want the best quality i can get. Try to get a decent backup of the Soprano's with one of your one clickers. Or a nice Concert DVD with a 1.5 Gig DTS File.

[ddlooping]

Originally posted by Mephiston
Output is bad. Overall about the same as Shrink, not as many macroblocks but still really bad.
Mephiston, you wouldn't make that kind of statement if you had tested DVD Shrink v3.2, using Deep Analysis and AEC/"Sharp" or "Smooth". ;)

If you're not bothered to do some comparison tests yourself, have a look at the following:
http://www.dvdshrink.info/temp/beta/comparative_tests_smooth.html

[jorel]

a good choice and good taste after lots of tests(for copy):
without compression ---> DVDFab (fantastic media/menus divisions if needed)
with compression (70% compression)---> DVDShrink

[DK64_MASTER]

episodic discs are a cinch. Just keep menus, and blank each other corresponding episode using shrink's title blanking feature. You can easily have multi-episodic discs with menues.

[Mephiston]

Of course i use Deep Analysis & AEC. Tried Max Sharp and Smooth. The output was horrible. I ain't making this up, and coming from someone who owns more than 500 Originals i have done my fair share of testing.

If you own CSI or Law & Order give it a try. Blank out all extras/logos with titlesetblanker and then transcode it. It will look horrible, if you think otherwise then you must be used to SVCD's or something.

I'm not putting down Shrink, i think it's an excellent program. I've backed up several movies with 75% or so, and put extra's down to 40% and results were great. (Even on the extra's). but on episodic disks where they need 55% to 60% even with everything else blanked it looks horrible.

Anyways to each his own, if you guys are happy with Shrink for backups that need a lot of compression, then thats great. For me, i will still use CCE (I can see a big difference), and advise anyone who asks to do the same.

[ddlooping]

Mephiston, I do not have any TV Series DVDs to backup, so I cannot comment on that point. :D

I was simply reacting to your blanket statement that did not seem to apply specifically to TV Series. ;)

Anyways to each his own, if you guys are happy with Shrink for backups that need a lot of compression, then thats great.
For me, i will still use CCE (I can see a big difference), and advise anyone who asks to do the same.
Does this one also only applies to these specific DVDs or is it a more general statement?

[jorel]

Originally posted by Mephiston
...Shrink, i think it's an excellent program. I've backed up several movies with 75% or so, and put extra's down to 40% and results were great. (Even on the extra's). but on episodic disks where they need 55% to 60% even with everything else blanked it looks...
bad!!

Originally posted by Mephiston
Anyways to each his own, if you guys are happy with Shrink for backups that need a lot of compression, then thats great. For me, i will still use CCE (I can see a big difference), and advise anyone who asks to do the same.

i agree. using dvd sources with no more than 6Gb,Shrink is great for no more than 70% and, more than this CCE with the right filters is better.....i can see that big difference too easily!
no ilusions: shrink is the best for copy for no more than 70% and CCE(dvd2dvd with Roba) if you need more compression. this 2 magnific toys are precise, simple to use and perfect for that targets...i (we all) don't want bad results, right?

;)

[zimm33]

Wow, you guys are soo much more responsive here than other forums!

But you guys are going over my head. What is CCE?
What are the Big 3?
Is Pinnacle Instacopy an all in one?

I don't care about spending the money as long as it's good software. My buddy has been using DVD X-copy and has only had 2-3 disks out of around 100 so far that he has not been able to copy.

But if you guys say this freeware DVD Shrink is as good as any than I'll trust the experts!
Does DVD Shrink do it all or do you still need other software?

I'm not looking to do anything special besides just copy originals and previously copied DVD's.

[TheSeeker]

We are really quite active here in our response. I think it may be because we are all just fanatical about the subject. Though granted there are a few regulars who are posting pretty much every day. Now as to your questions.

CCE is Cinema Craft Encoder - A very very nice and powerful encoding application by Custom Technologies. This is normally used in conjunction with a "Frontend" application such as DVD Rebuilder, and the big 3 (though the big 3 actually consists of more than just the front end for cce)

For movies that require alot of compression DVD Rebuilder or the BIg 3 is usually favored by many. THis is due to the fact that they use and ENCODER (CCE) as opposed to a TRANSCODER (IE, instantcopy, shrink, recode and many others) I would say that since you seem to be new I would stick with DVD Rebuilder for the really hard movies because of its ease of use.

For pretty much everything else though I would use DVDShrink, and I would really quite recommend staying away from DVD X Copy. The quality really cant compare with InstantCopy or SHrink or even Nero REcode anymore. Oh and yes Pinnacle InstantCopy is a one clicker.

EDIT: You may want to look into getting DVD Remake as this allows you to remove any unwanted extras and menu buttons to features that you have removed. Its really quite a handy tool to have. Also IFOEdit is really great as well. IFOEdit would be needed to remove multiple angles or seamless branching from titles that use such. You may want ImgTool Classic to make an iso image from VIDEO_TS directory so you can test the output of shrink in a software dvd player before burning.

[dannyv]

>Wow, you guys are soo much more responsive here than other forums!

Sorry about going over your head like that, And welcome to the forum. As someone new to this you need to start some where and I would start with DVD Shrink as it is free and easy to use and it has some advanced features which the other one touch programs don't have. When you get a basic idea of what the process is all about you can move on to the more advanced methods as described by the other very knowlegable people in this forum.

>I don't care about spending the money as long as it's good software

Why spend anything when you can start off for free.

>My buddy has been using DVD X-copy and has only had 2-3 disks out of >around 100 so far that he has not been able to copy.

I've used DVD X Copy and it is a movie only copying software. All menus, extras etc are removed. And it imbeds your user identification on the disk to identify you in the event you try to profit from the copy. And it puts this annoying banner at the beginning of the movie. The quality of DVD X Copy is much lower compared to DVD Shrink. Sure its a very easy program to use but it is also very limited.

>But if you guys say this freeware DVD Shrink is as good as any than >I'll trust the experts!
>Does DVD Shrink do it all or do you still need other software?

It will do a whole disk including the extras and menus but at lower compression rates (below %70) the quality degrades a bit. I've done movies as low as %63 that came out fine. You will need additional software as theseeker explained to do some prepreperation such as removing some extras and leaving others and removing buttons but you should leave that until later when you become more exprienced at it. It is not a nessessity at this point. DVD Shrink will do the entire disk as well as just the movie with no additional software. I'm sure questions will come up as you start using the software and we will be happy to answer any questions you have. There is an excellent guide on using DVD Shrink right on doom9. Get it here http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/mpg/dvdshrink31-main.htm and browse through it then make a few copies to get used to the software then come back to the board and search on dvd shrink and read the posts. You will find many tips on how to tweek it.

[MackemX]

I think 1ClickDVDCopy is also one of the easiest out there

there is a review HERE (http://cdr-zone.com/news/1590/1clickdvdcopy-review-by-cdr-zone.html) and you can see how simple it is

it has it's limits on the expert settings though such variable compression, Title/Audio removal so I guess it's just down to the user as to whether it justifies it's $50 price tag :)

[nwg]

Mephiston wrote,
Your absolutely right. As far as i'm concerned no Transcoder to date can produce a decent backup of a disk with 3+ Hours of Main Feature footage. CCE is the only option.

My Shrink 3.2 (default AEC) of LOTR ROTK is much better than my CCE version. That is 3 and a 1/4 hours. It has better colour and contrast. The CCE version is too sharp and looks grainy.

[Lazza]

Originally posted by nwg
My Shrink 3.2 (default AEC) of LOTR ROTK is much better than my CCE version. That is 3 and a 1/4 hours. It has better colour and contrast. The CCE version is too sharp and looks grainy.
Agreed on that film nwg and many other titles too, as good as CCE is many backups can and do look better when transcoded by DVD Shrink 3.2. I just did some tests on "The Shield - Season 2" PAL boxset comparing Shrink 3.2 screenshots with CCE shots the CCE 4 pass encoded ones were slightly sharper in the darker scenes (and I mean very slight) wheras with the Shrink 3.2 equiv's on standard default "sharp" setting the colours were far more accurate and the overal picture was a much truer rendition compared to the original.

Before beta testing started on DVD Shrink 3.2 if someone had said that the final product would be able to compete with a 4 pass CCE encoded disc I and many others would have laughed that it would be possible but the facts are that on many discs the final product can and does rival CCE in many ways. I am not saying that DVD Shrink can now do this on all DVD's of course, that would be madness, but from my own testing and the tests of many others like nwg & ddlooping the facts speak for themselves in that 1) DVD Shrink 3.2 is easily the best transcoder out there & 2) It can reneder a more accurate final backup on many films includind eppisodic discs when compared to CCE. :)

[nwg]

I tried my first episodic DVD. It was Millennium Disc 1. I did it with Shrink 3.2 (AEC default) and DVD-RB set to 3 passes. I cannot easily tell the difference between the two.

[dannyv]

Originally posted by nwg
My Shrink 3.2 (default AEC) of LOTR ROTK is much better than my CCE version. That is 3 and a 1/4 hours. It has better colour and contrast. The CCE version is too sharp and looks grainy.

I have to agree with both NWG and Lazza. I did LOTR-ROTK in DVD xcopy, DVD Rebuilder and DVD Shrink. DVD Shrink came out the clear winner.

In DVD Shrink the color and texture of the video was excellent but some pan scenes were a bit jurky.

DVD-Rebuilder had a sharper picture but the colors were not as good as dvd-shrink and the picture was a bit grainy but the pan scenes were smooth.

DVD xcopy the colors were washed out and the pictures were dull almost out of focus and the pan scenes were very jerky, much more so then dvd shrink.

My conclusion is that dvd shrink gave the best results and I can live with the slight jurkyness of the pan scenes.

[nwg]

dannyv wrote,
My conclusion is that dvd shrink gave the best results and I can live with the slight jurkyness of the pan scenes.


I didn't notice any. Even I did, I could live with it for that particular DVD.

I have even played it on my projector and it still looked good.

[dannyv]

Originally posted by nwg
I didn't notice any. Even I did, I could live with it for that particular DVD.


I beleave it was the beginning of chapter 2 or 3 where froto and sam were laying in a cave then golum looks down at them from the top of the cave opening. The very beginning of the scene pans the trees. You can see it very clearly there. It may have something to do with shrink set to max sharpness. I did not try max smoothness. I also viewed it on a 46" HDTV.

[nwg]

The very beginning of the scene pans the trees. You can see it very clearly there


That scene is one I noticed that CCE didn't handle very at all. The trees seem to shimmer as it pans to the left. There were several scnes like this.

I just compared my Shrink version with the original and it is the same to me. There is a slight jerky bit on both, which lasts for less than a second at the start of the chapter 2. The rest of the pan looks fine. My Shrink copy was done with the default AEC.

[dannyv]

Originally posted by nwg
That scene is one I noticed that CCE didn't handle very at all. The trees seem to shimmer as it pans to the left. There were several scnes like this.


On my copy it was a very noticable jurky panning motion that others may have described as a pumping motion. But in cce it was not noticable at all, the trees did seem to shimmer a bit in cce but the panning motion was smooth. I think it may have been the max sharpness setting. I'm going to try max smooth and I'll report back my findings.

[nwg]

You may want to use the default sharp setting like I did. Also, my version is PAL, if that makes a difference?

Smooth should reduce or eliminate the pumping action. This is something I haven't seen yet.

[dannyv]

Originally posted by nwg
You may want to use the default sharp setting like I did. Also, my version is PAL, if that makes a difference?

Smooth should reduce or eliminate the pumping action. This is something I haven't seen yet.

My version is NTSC and I've read that it is a little more difficult and is prone to this effect. I've also read that using smooth or max smooth helps so I will be testing this.