Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > One click suites for DVD backup and DVD creation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26th July 2004, 23:25   #41  |  Link
Joergen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.

Last edited by Joergen; 26th July 2004 at 23:28.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th July 2004, 23:37   #42  |  Link
ddlooping
Classified
 
ddlooping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 375
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?
__________________
Happy Shrinking!! http://www.dvdshrink.info/images/smiles/shrink.gif ~ddlooping~
For DVD Shrink and related softwares guides and downloads, please visit DVDShrink.info.
My other site: Teaching-Tools.
ddlooping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 00:21   #43  |  Link
quantum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 528
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.
quantum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 00:36   #44  |  Link
dvdshrink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 176
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 00:41   #45  |  Link
dvdshrink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 176
I don't think CC is broken! (I hope not ;-)
dvdshrink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 00:59   #46  |  Link
Joergen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The CCCP whatnow? Doesnt matter in PAL land..
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 01:18   #47  |  Link
mb1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Munich, GERMANY
Posts: 280
@ ddlooping, dvdshrink
Quote:
Would you mind conducting the exact same one with other transcoders?
Quote:
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.

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

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

Quote:
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 ...
__________________
regards
mb1

Last edited by mb1; 27th July 2004 at 01:21.
mb1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 01:26   #48  |  Link
quantum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 528
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
quantum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 01:33   #49  |  Link
dvdshrink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 176
"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...

Last edited by dvdshrink; 27th July 2004 at 02:00.
dvdshrink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 01:43   #50  |  Link
valnar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 498
OK, I'm impressed. It equals or exceeds IC7 on Mirrorball. Way to go DVDShrink team!

-Robert
valnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 02:46   #51  |  Link
ddlooping
Classified
 
ddlooping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 375
Glad to hear it, Robert, thanks.
__________________
Happy Shrinking!! http://www.dvdshrink.info/images/smiles/shrink.gif ~ddlooping~
For DVD Shrink and related softwares guides and downloads, please visit DVDShrink.info.
My other site: Teaching-Tools.
ddlooping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 03:07   #52  |  Link
motster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 23
@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... ;-)
motster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 03:10   #53  |  Link
ddlooping
Classified
 
ddlooping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 375
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.
__________________
Happy Shrinking!! http://www.dvdshrink.info/images/smiles/shrink.gif ~ddlooping~
For DVD Shrink and related softwares guides and downloads, please visit DVDShrink.info.
My other site: Teaching-Tools.
ddlooping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 03:31   #54  |  Link
quantum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 528
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.
quantum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 04:44   #55  |  Link
jsquare
BrainDead
 
jsquare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near a Nuclear Power Plant
Posts: 149
Better than IC7!

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.

Last edited by jsquare; 27th July 2004 at 04:49.
jsquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 08:32   #56  |  Link
Lagoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 136
Well you still have to call it a transcoder since it IS technically one
Lagoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 09:18   #57  |  Link
Lazza
DVDR Junkie
 
Lazza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 116
Quote:
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. http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/g0/beer.gif
Lazza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 09:28   #58  |  Link
Solo
Registered User
 
Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Sunshine Motel
Posts: 168
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
Solo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 11:33   #59  |  Link
DVD Maniac
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 413
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!
DVD Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2004, 11:53   #60  |  Link
Lazza
DVDR Junkie
 
Lazza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 116
Quote:
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.
Lazza is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.