Any reason using IC 8?

Espen · 26th October 2003, 17:54

Haven't heard much good about IC8 so far. Most complaining what I have seen. I use IC 7 for now. It always give me a result between 4.30-4.36 gb. But I'm concernd about the quality, does IC8 gives better quality than IC7? I'm pretty happy with the quality, but on big movies when you have to reduce main movie under 75% it's not that good....

mrbass · 27th October 2003, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Espen
does IC8 gives better quality than IC7?

I don't believe Pinnacle made any core engine changes as far as the video quality is concerned. That's not to say they didn't add additional registry settings, etc. to try to achieve better file size predictabilty. They did introduce an optional faster mode which isn't great video quality. Let's see what update 1 has when it comes out.

Richk50 · 28th October 2003, 22:23

I use DVD2DVD on large movies. It's very easy to use and the results are far superior than any of the transcoders.

Kedirekin · 28th October 2003, 23:54

Not to be disagreeable, but far superior is a matter of opinion. I find many of my DVDShrink transcodes comparable in quality to CCE encodes.

My take on this is everyone needs to form their own opinion.

alibegoa · 29th October 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Richk50
I use DVD2DVD on large movies. It's very easy to use and the results are far superior than any of the transcoders.

I tried DVD2One, shrink and IC and to put it simply IC is way the best. If you take Apocalypse now redux and LOTR I, IC gives you the best quality by huge margin

spiderman2k1 · 29th October 2003, 19:15

DO not get me wrong I love DVD shrink but IC8 is better take a very bad DVD that was encoded like Babylon 5 season 1. IC8 will win. Now if you use a good dvd that encoded DVDshrink will do a great good. Most DVD now are encoded very good.

bobwillis · 29th October 2003, 20:31

Hi,

My tests have indicated that ICv7 quality is the same as ICv8 (IMHO). This is better quality than Shrink v3.0 b5 (again IMHO).
CCE provides significantly less macro blocking than IC.

Test Disc: Shackleton Region 2: 3hrs 46mins, main movie 7.7GB.

The main advantage with ICv8 over v7 is the fact that you can now remove the menu & extras reliably.

Main Gripes:
1. Indeterministic output size (registry mods essential). An oversize is still possible & will occur for the above disc unless the registry is modified. It appears to be identical to ICv7 in this respect.
2. Lack of a Video_TS folder.
3. Erasing a -RW takes half an hour (2 mins in Nero).
4. Instant drive doesn't work for me using Win XP + SP1.

Regards,
Bob

alibegoa · 29th October 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by bobwillis
Hi,

3. Erasing a -RW takes half an hour (2 mins in Nero).

Bob

????

I use IC8 and Pioneer DVD-RW 1-2 speed.
Recording a new movie over an old one is completely finished within 30 minutes

bobwillis · 29th October 2003, 21:43

Hi alibegoa,

That's interesting. It did the same under Win98se as well. I also use a pioneer drive (105) with datawrite 1x -RW. It takes half an hour to erase before burning, so I use Nero to erase first. I wonder if anyone else reports the same thing.

Thanks for the info.

Bob.

Pasqui · 29th October 2003, 21:55

30mn is probably the time needed to do a full erase instead of a quick erase (approx. 2mn).

bobwillis · 29th October 2003, 22:45

Hi Pasqui,

That makes sense. I've had a quick look in ICv8 options, and can't find anthing to force it into quick erase

Regards,
Bob

26th October 2003, 17:54	#1 \| Link
Espen Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 52	Any reason using IC 8? Haven't heard much good about IC8 so far. Most complaining what I have seen. I use IC 7 for now. It always give me a result between 4.30-4.36 gb. But I'm concernd about the quality, does IC8 gives better quality than IC7? I'm pretty happy with the quality, but on big movies when you have to reduce main movie under 75% it's not that good....

29th October 2003, 20:31	#7 \| Link
bobwillis Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 218	Hi, My tests have indicated that ICv7 quality is the same as ICv8 (IMHO). This is better quality than Shrink v3.0 b5 (again IMHO). CCE provides significantly less macro blocking than IC. Test Disc: Shackleton Region 2: 3hrs 46mins, main movie 7.7GB. The main advantage with ICv8 over v7 is the fact that you can now remove the menu & extras reliably. Main Gripes: 1. Indeterministic output size (registry mods essential). An oversize is still possible & will occur for the above disc unless the registry is modified. It appears to be identical to ICv7 in this respect. 2. Lack of a Video_TS folder. 3. Erasing a -RW takes half an hour (2 mins in Nero). 4. Instant drive doesn't work for me using Win XP + SP1. Regards, Bob Last edited by bobwillis; 29th October 2003 at 20:33.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28th October 2003, 22:23	#3 \| Link
Richk50 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: New York City Posts: 171	I use DVD2DVD on large movies. It's very easy to use and the results are far superior than any of the transcoders.

28th October 2003, 23:54	#4 \| Link
Kedirekin Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,110	Not to be disagreeable, but far superior is a matter of opinion. I find many of my DVDShrink transcodes comparable in quality to CCE encodes. My take on this is everyone needs to form their own opinion.

29th October 2003, 19:15	#6 \| Link
spiderman2k1 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 47	DO not get me wrong I love DVD shrink but IC8 is better take a very bad DVD that was encoded like Babylon 5 season 1. IC8 will win. Now if you use a good dvd that encoded DVDshrink will do a great good. Most DVD now are encoded very good.

29th October 2003, 21:43	#9 \| Link
bobwillis Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 218	Hi alibegoa, That's interesting. It did the same under Win98se as well. I also use a pioneer drive (105) with datawrite 1x -RW. It takes half an hour to erase before burning, so I use Nero to erase first. I wonder if anyone else reports the same thing. Thanks for the info. Bob.

29th October 2003, 21:55	#10 \| Link
Pasqui Registered User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 150	30mn is probably the time needed to do a full erase instead of a quick erase (approx. 2mn).

29th October 2003, 22:45	#11 \| Link
bobwillis Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 218	Hi Pasqui, That makes sense. I've had a quick look in ICv8 options, and can't find anthing to force it into quick erase Regards, Bob