Any recent transcoder comparisons?

[Shumbles]

The title is fairly self-explanatory. I was just wondering if any of the still active programs (clonedvd, dvd2one, recode) have made any significant gains in quality.

[elizerrojas]

In term of quality only Recode2 and dvd2one have improved, specially dvd2one with the version 2. dvd2one V 2.1.3, in my opinion, is capable to producing a quality output as good as that of Recode2 and shrink in much less time.

[gizzin]

people still use transcoders?

[elizerrojas]

people still use transcoders?

I'd ask if people use encoders, transcoders nowdays output very good quality, i really see no need to use encoders which take hours(with my system). I can mention three transcoders with which one needs no encoders; recode2, shrink and dvd2one, the last one is the fastest and as good as the others so again, do people use encoders? if so, why?

[blutach]

Quality is better from a re-encode elizerrojas. No question. Unless your compression is v small, quant low, bit rate high and you have a small TV.

Furthermore, because your system is slow, doesn't mean everyone's is. See here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128482). And a slow system does not, in my mind anyway, justify reduced quality.

Regards

[Shumbles]

Personally, I only transcode when the reduction level is less than 10% or so. It seems a waste of time to rebuild for such a slight reduction.
I was just wondering if there were any miraculous advances in transcoding technology. :) I'm guessing not.

[elizerrojas]

1- my system- pentium M/ 1GB Ram, this should not take 4, 5, and up to 7 hours to encode a movie.
2- I do not see much, if any, difference between the original and the copy when transcoding with either dvd2one, shrink or recode2, even @ high levels of compression, i have a 35' TV.
I don't see a need to use encoders.

[blutach]

Each to his own - viva la difference!

Regards

[nicholas30]

Quality is better from a re-encode elizerrojas. No question. Unless your compression is v small, quant low, bit rate high and you have a small TV.

Furthermore, because your system is slow, doesn't mean everyone's is. See here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128482). And a slow system does not, in my mind anyway, justify reduced quality.

Regards
Blutach,

In your post you mention that only if you have a small t.v. then transcoding is worthwhile.

Planning to make a backup of number of DVD's and there is no compression needed.

In the future, if I get a whizzbang large screen tele, will there be quality issues ?

Cheers

nicholas30

[blutach]

If no compression is required, then there will not be quality issues by definition.

Regards

[jfcarbel]

Anyone know if there have been any PQ shootouts between CloneDVD and Recode recently?

[Wombler]

Personally, I only transcode when the reduction level is less than 10% or so. It seems a waste of time to rebuild for such a slight reduction.
I was just wondering if there were any miraculous advances in transcoding technology. :) I'm guessing not.

The only time I use transcoding software these days is if there is zero compression as it's a very quick way of generating a movie only titleset even on my antiquated hardware.

It's also quite handy for generating combined uncompressed titlesets for running through DVD-Rebuilder.

Even on my kit though, I've noticed that for full re-encodes, titlesets requiring little compression, are processed much more quickly than encodes requiring high compression. I therefore do a full re-encode even for titlesets requiring little compression.


Wombler