How does Nero's transcoding compare to DVDShrink qualitywise?

[napalm]

I understand that When you transcode a dvd in NeroVisionExpress it is not a full MPEG2 recompress but is a "transcode" like DVDShrink does. Is there a quality difference between Nero and DVDShrink's transcodings?

[Beak]

I may be leaping into outer space here but I think the creator of Shrink works for the Nero team so I am betting the quality is at the least equal to shrink.

[napalm]

that is an interesting information, thank you. I can speculate then that DVDShrink's more popular than Nero for transcoding because it's free and smaller in size then...

[Oldeman]

I have been using DVDShrink for a long time and it got a LOT better when version 3.2 with deep analysis came out.

I also have the latest Nero Recode download 2.2.6.11 and have tried to compare the two.

They have similar features with slightly different user interfaces. Some say they have the same author. The DVDShink interface is simple and efficient where the Recode interface is flashier and integrated into Nero.

The main difference is that the Shrink user has four choices (max sharp, sharp, smooth and max smooth)that affect quality when doing deep analysis. I THINK that Recode makes this choice for the user based on compression rate and other factors. This is a plus for Recode.

I transcoded an long old video(60% compression) using similar setting and was able to alternatly compare scenes in it using two DVD players. On a 50" HD moniter, they were very close. To me, the DVDShrink version seems to have a little more "shimmering" effect on finely detailed objects like a lattice fence or a car radiator. This could have been caused by the wrong (max sharp, sharp, smooth and max smooth)setting used in the DVDShrink setup, I did not try all four settimg... I don't think I tell them apart on a good quality video with 90%

Some have reported that Recode runs faster than DVDShrink. On my P4, I did not notice any significant(>20%)difference. They both run much much faster (less than an hour with deep analysis) than any of the encoders that I have tried. QuEnc is a very good free encoder. The tested video takes about four hours (two pass high quality mode) for minor (to me) quality differences.

My Conclusion:
I had tried Recode when it first came out and continued to use DVDShrink. I think that the current Recode has made improvements and I am now using it based on the results of my somewhat limited testing.

Both DVDShrink and Nero Recode do a good job. I would not buy Nero Ultra just to get Recode, but if you haven't tried Recode in a a couple of updates try it again. And if you haven't tried DVDShrink with deep analysis.... why are you reading this?

Thank you again Mr.Shrink (whereever you are) :p

[nwg]

Recode is faster than Shrink. Rcodes high quality mode is about equal to the AEC settings.

So, there isn't much in it between the two apart from a bit more speed with Recode and different GUI.

[Surf]

I concur about Recode being faster considerably. I too have started with DVDshrink and now have been strictly using Recode on the assumption that the author has been improving since Shrink's 3.2 version days....

Did a little un-scientific test between both. Identical compression and high quality settings. Recode appears better....

[cynthia_old]

Originally posted by Oldeman
I don't think I tell them apart on a good quality video with 90% You can't because those options only kick in below approx 70 %. :)

[Surf]

Thanks for the insight, Cynthia. Does this mean that anything compression above 70%, both programs will just compress and spread the bits around equally? Lately I noticed with Recode-ed movies, the black screens still show high bitrate count, say, 4.35mbps which doesn't make sense...Shouldn't it be distributed to other scenes where needed? This brings up another Q whether both practise AverageBR or VariableBR.

(edited typos)

[napalm]

Thanks for the replies, I already own Recode software, so I think I will be using it to encode as I also found it a little bit faster.
Yet here is one thing I like about Shrink over Nero. When I rip with DVDDecrypt "only main movie + ifos" rather than "all files", Recode does not want to accept the directory holding the vobs as a valid input, where as Shrink causes no problems. I think Recode is more strict about the .BUP's and what not. Is there a way around this?

[aaron10]

I read on another board that this is a problem on some systems, not all. However, I too have the problem, napalm. Recode does not understand DVD structure when a movie is ripped to my hard disk.

If I encounter a workaround, I will post it.

[colemar]

Originally posted by napalm
Is there a quality difference between Nero and DVDShrink's transcodings?

If you don't mind looking at a benchmark, and if you won't take it too seriously, see:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=623907#post623907

[napalm]

Originally posted by aaron10
I read on another board that this is a problem on some systems, not all. However, I too have the problem, napalm. Recode does not understand DVD structure when a movie is ripped to my hard disk.

If I encounter a workaround, I will post it.

ATM I have a bunch of rips sitting on my hdd which I can't get nero to encode because of this "issue". I wonder is there a technical limitation to why we can't just throw in a bunch of .vob's for encoding.. On a sidenote, if I load these .vob's into NVE instead of Recode, it "analyzes" them and creates one huge .mpg file, but then says it can't reduce the size and I should try reducing it manually, which sadly I can't figure out how, I change the bitrate but it doesn't have an effect. frustrated :/

[Andykard]

I got this message when I used NVE, but it let me encode the movie to dual layer on hard drive. After it finished Recode accepted the files and reduced the file size in the normal way.

[MSlv]

So Ahead's version of DVD Shrink is faster than DVD Shrink 3.2 and has automated AEM? Cool! Can't wait to rent a DVD and try Recode2. It's a pain to manually select between max soft/soft/shar/max shar.

[samtroy]

>I THINK that Recode makes this choice for the user based on compression rate and other factors. This is a plus for Recode.<

"Automated AEC"? No, I don't think so at all! Recode most probably is just fixed to *one* AEC algorithm out of the four. I suspect it's "Max sharp" (because it's also the fastest). Therefore Shrink is better because it's more configurable. Just set it to "Sharp" and you are cool (in almost all cases). Many comparisons around the web have proved this.

>You can't because those options only kick in below approx 70 %.<

This is not true, either. I definately saw an noticable difference in sharpness with a 84% movie betweeen AEC Sharp on and off. Two (very picky) friends also confirmed this. I would go that far to say that AEC IS noticable already below 85% in many cases.

DVD Shrink's author should clear things up concerning Recode's HQ setting once and for all. And maybe he could add the missing "Set audio/subtitle-stream to 'Active'" option too (which Shrink has). Because this is one of the main reasons I don't use Recode and also don't recommend it to friends.

S.

[MSlv]

Originally posted by samtroy
"Automated AEC"? No, I don't think so at all! Recode most probably is just fixed to *one* AEC algorithm out of the four. I suspect it's "Max sharp" (because it's also the fastest).
And how do you know this?

[samtroy]

Well.. I don't *know* - I just strongly suspect it. Recode's transcoding speed would drastically change from one movie to another IF a different AEC mode would be chosen automatically. I.e. the speed difference from max smooth to max sharp would we HUGE (like 20 min compared to over 1 hour). But this in not the case! Recode's transcoding always takes the time one would expect from using something between sharp and max sharp on a given movie.

But.. that's just my opinion of course and only Mr. DVDShrink himself could (and hopefully will someday) give us some more specific information... :cool:

S.