dvdshrink v3.2 is released - Page 4

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

27th July 2004, 16:59	#62 \| Link
TheSeeker Master of Chaos Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 670	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? __________________ Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe anything. Either because they want it to be true, or they fear that it is true.

27th July 2004, 17:44	#64 \| Link
TheSeeker Master of Chaos Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 670	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. __________________ Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe anything. Either because they want it to be true, or they fear that it is true.

27th July 2004, 19:49	#65 \| Link
geffroman Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: posunplugged.com Posts: 548	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... __________________ FREE video clips \| DVD-Rebuilder \| DVDReMakePRO & MenuEdit \| SHRINK \| Daemon Tools \| VOBBlanker

28th July 2004, 13:45	#73 \| Link
TheSeeker Master of Chaos Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 670	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? __________________ Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe anything. Either because they want it to be true, or they fear that it is true.

28th July 2004, 13:58	#75 \| Link
smok3 brontosaurusrex Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 2,395	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...) Last edited by smok3; 28th July 2004 at 14:10.

27th July 2004, 13:18	#61 \| Link
dragongodz .... Join Date: May 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 2,797	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.

27th July 2004, 17:04	#63 \| Link
nwg Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 819	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.

27th July 2004, 20:44	#66 \| Link
motster Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 23	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 )

28th July 2004, 01:08	#68 \| Link
Gang$ta Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 15	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

28th July 2004, 01:35	#69 \| Link
bugsy_pal Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 13	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.

28th July 2004, 02:15	#70 \| Link
Joergen Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the dvd-rb has you Posts: 736	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).

28th July 2004, 03:29	#72 \| Link
vaylon Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 34	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.

28th July 2004, 13:56	#74 \| Link
valnar Registered User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Cleveland Posts: 498	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

28th July 2004, 15:59	#76 \| Link
mb1 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Munich, GERMANY Posts: 280	Little test update 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. __________________ regards mb1

28th July 2004, 17:19	#78 \| Link
TheSeeker Master of Chaos Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 670	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. __________________ Wizards First Rule: People are stupid. They will believe anything. Either because they want it to be true, or they fear that it is true.

28th July 2004, 17:23	#79 \| Link
dvdshrink Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 176	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.