Why does Instantcopy do better than DVD2one

[rdefino]

Why is the video quality better when using Instantcopy than DVD2one?

[int 21h]

Why are two coats of paint better than one?

Why does one coat of paint take less time to complete than two?

[rdefino]

That was no help.

[JonRead]

Personally speaking I find both to be amazing quality, but I do only have budget gear to play the DVDs back on.

But if there is a difference between the 2, then the answer would probably lie in the fact DVD2One is purely a transcoder, while Instant Copy is both a transcoder and encoder. I guess it is a case of speed too, if you want it fast then I suppose you have to put up with a bit of quality loss. Although as I mentioned, I personally find them both to be amazing. I did a backup of Shrek with DVD2One including commentary, and the quality was impossible to distinguish between the original. I would have said it is more down to how big the thing you are shrinking down is, if a movie is 8gb then it will be worse quality then shrinking a 5gb movie. A fair comparison could only really be done on a DVD with no extras so that both are the same size.

[MackemX]

I have just voiced my answer to this common question here

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47869

InstantCopy takes more time trying to reduce the file, how I don't know but this is why it results in better quality :)

[mrbass]

I did a movie and the ac3 and movie file were 4.22GB. Well IC took 19mins and dvd2one took 27mins...so clearly IC is faster when there's nothing to do but just process the movie at 100% which btw occurs a lot and thus you have people thinking dvd2one is fantastic when actually it and ic didn't really do anything at all just not include any of the extras. An 8GB or 7GB dvd won't really tell you because an 8GB dvd could still have a movie of say 3.9GB or so. Only if the original movie is say 5.5 or 6GB or more will you then appreciate the quality that IC delivers. With IC I only include menu and main movie pretty much and it does same thing as dvd2one and when it's below 4.37GB (main movie + ac3 audio + subs) then ic is actually faster than dvd2one.

edited: ok I stayed up now it's almost 6am..did Life is Beautiful the main movie is 5.17GB and audio is 328MB so the main movie vobs are 5.89GB. dvd2one took 16mins and IC7 took (80% pic quality) took 90mins. I have to say dvd2one looks just as good as IC7. So I guess IC7 would only be good to use for main movie .vobs over 7GBs perhaps. I wanna try to find one that is (main movie 6GB and 6.5GB) and see if dvd2one can keep up quality wise. But for 5.17GB main movie dvd2one looks fantastic along with IC7.

But for this movie..Life is beautiful dvd2one is clearly the one to use.

[int 21h]

Life is Beautiful, R4 fits on one disc with no transcoding :) Maybe it doesn't have the same extras...

[mrbass]

well R1 is nearly 8GB so evidently it isn't the same as R4


Directory of F:\VITABELA\VIDEO_TS

03/06/03 09:50a <DIR> .
03/06/03 09:50a <DIR> ..
03/06/03 09:50a 0 life.txt
03/03/03 08:05a 24,576 VIDEO_TS.BUP
03/03/03 08:05a 24,576 VIDEO_TS.IFO
03/03/03 08:05a 8,550,400 VIDEO_TS.VOB
03/03/03 08:05a 18,432 VTS_01_0.BUP
03/03/03 08:05a 18,432 VTS_01_0.IFO
03/03/03 08:05a 231,424 VTS_01_0.VOB
03/03/03 08:05a 10,240 VTS_01_1.VOB
03/03/03 08:05a 16,384 VTS_02_0.BUP
03/03/03 08:05a 16,384 VTS_02_0.IFO
03/03/03 08:05a 10,240 VTS_02_0.VOB
03/03/03 08:05a 9,574,400 VTS_02_1.VOB
03/03/03 08:05a 26,624 VTS_03_0.BUP
03/03/03 08:05a 26,624 VTS_03_0.IFO
03/03/03 08:05a 10,240 VTS_03_0.VOB
03/03/03 08:08a 1,073,709,056 VTS_03_1.VOB
03/03/03 08:09a 347,557,888 VTS_03_2.VOB
03/03/03 08:09a 92,160 VTS_04_0.BUP
03/03/03 08:09a 92,160 VTS_04_0.IFO
03/03/03 08:09a 4,927,488 VTS_04_0.VOB
03/03/03 08:11a 1,073,709,056 VTS_04_1.VOB
03/03/03 08:13a 1,073,709,056 VTS_04_2.VOB
03/03/03 08:14a 1,073,709,056 VTS_04_3.VOB
03/03/03 08:16a 1,073,709,056 VTS_04_4.VOB
03/03/03 08:18a 1,073,709,056 VTS_04_5.VOB
03/03/03 08:20a 952,909,824 VTS_04_6.VOB
03/03/03 08:20a 18,432 VTS_05_0.BUP
03/03/03 08:20a 18,432 VTS_05_0.IFO
03/03/03 08:20a 10,240 VTS_05_0.VOB
03/03/03 08:21a 292,419,584 VTS_05_1.VOB
30 File(s) 8,058,859,520 bytes

[int 21h]

Yep, looks like R4 got ripped off for this title...

http://dstore.com.au/?action=view&id=4722


02/07/2036 04:58 AM <DIR> .
02/07/2036 04:58 AM <DIR> ..
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 12,288 VIDEO_TS.BUP
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 12,288 VIDEO_TS.IFO
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 118,784 VIDEO_TS.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 79,872 VTS_01_0.BUP
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 79,872 VTS_01_0.IFO
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 84,025,344 VTS_01_0.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 1,073,709,056 VTS_01_1.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 1,073,709,056 VTS_01_2.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 1,073,709,056 VTS_01_3.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 1,073,709,056 VTS_01_4.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 191,393,792 VTS_01_5.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 18,432 VTS_02_0.BUP
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 18,432 VTS_02_0.IFO
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 118,784 VTS_02_0.VOB
02/07/2036 04:58 AM 81,537,024 VTS_02_1.VOB
15 File(s) 4,652,251,136 bytes
2 Dir(s) 0 bytes free