interested in better quality 1:1 backups?

[MackemX]

ever wondered why DVD95Copy is almost the same quality as InstantCopy?

this is because IC may not determine true title sizes of some DVD's and also because it sometimes doesn't reduce extras as much as it says it will. At really low setting IC's quality drops badly

take my SpyKids 2 and the extra 400MB wasted by IC that isnt being compressed

now DVD95copy would have probably reduced that down to 150MB saving 250MB, then add all the other stuff IC doesn't compress as well and you may just end up with 400MB of space

cos DVD95Copy compresses the extras properly and does all of them it can gain this extra 400MB that goes towards the main movie title

say the main movie was 4.5GB and IC squashed it it 3.1Gb which is around 68%. Now add that extra 400Mb to 3.1 and it makes 3.5Gb or a new setting of 77%!

an extra 9% quality increase now that can't be bad can it cos 77% from IC will look a lot better than 68% from IC and also better than DVD95Copy at 77%

so basically all you do is process the main movie with IC (60mins or so) and process the extras/menus with DVD95Copy (8-10mins) and merge the two together using Ifo update

the bigger the main movie the more you will benefit

ok some work is involved and I haven't explained it step by step but it works as I've done it for my last 3 and the latest on which was the Simpsons DVD resulted in an increase from 62% upto 75% for the 4 main main movie when keeping all extras

but if you don't mind a few minutes sorting it out and a little extra encoding time and would like a better quality movie and are fussy about movie quality then this is for you. In fact the encoding will probably take less time than if you done the whole thing on IC

obviously you need both programs but you can get the best of both worlds and use them both to your advantage until one tool does it all and I know some of you have both programs

choice is your but I thought it was worth a mention for all you quality fusspots out there like me :D

[wgw]

Seems like a lot of work to try and gain a slight improvement. The quality of Dvd95copy is even worse than IC at low settings in my opinion. I just set IC to reduce the extras to 55%, remove all the audio and subs I don't need, set the movie as high as it will go and let it rip. If the movie quality isn't good enough at that setting it's time to dump the extras and do the menu and movie only, or just the movie. I wouldn't want extras if they have to be compressed below 50% with either program.

[MackemX]

for me an extra 13% to the main movie makes a difference but thats my opinion and you are entitled to yours

dvd95copy does a better job reducing titles cos it does them all and reduces them by what you set it at

IC doesn't doesnt always come out to the predicted size and worse still ignores certain titles true sizes wasting valuable space :(

[brashquido]

Thanks for the heads up MisterX :) ! I've been scouting the all-in-one camps trying to decide (a) if any did an acceptable job, and (b) which one was better. So far I've been flat out ripping DVD's and as yet haven't brought any software to convert DVD-9 to DVD-5.

I haven't tried the latest DVD2one, but I still think it has a bit of maturing to do from what I could tell. It's damn fast, but has a lack of features, and the quality towards the end of larger movies suffer.

I haven't tried DVD95copy, but it seems to be between DVD2one and IC as far as quality and features go.

IC seems the most "user friendly" of the three, and has a good feature range. I particulary like being able to adjust the compression ratio of each PGC individually, it's a pitty select which audio track you want to acompany each PGC individually as well. I don't see any point in having a Dolby 5.1 track for anything more than the main movie.

Quality in IC is yet to be seen. I've set it to convert the largest movie I have (The Shawshank Redemption - 7.6GB). If the quality of the converted DVD is good, then I think I'll go with IC, but if it's bad, I think I'll look at going the re-encode route with CCE basic and IFOedit.

[MackemX]

IC is basically the same as CCE as to the workings of it's encoding engine as it re-encodes the image whereas the the other 2 faster programs just take it away

some of the differences between IC and CCE is that you can backup a DVD with IC with ease on most occasions :confused: :p

IC's quality is slightly less than CCE but not that far as have been shown in various examples

IC's method of encoding engine is basically the same and anthing over 70% is more than acceptable

the results will all depend on the content of the video and I'm sure if you allocate at least 70% to the main movie video for Shawshank you will be impressed with the results

[brashquido]

Really, I didn't know IC re-encoded!?! Sounds promising then, I'll have to check your guides out :D !

[int 21h]

At higher bitrates, the difference between CCE and IC will be nearly imperceptible, however, its hard to say what the exact process IC uses is, or even the accuracy at which its encoding. We know that the % measurement obviously changes bitrate expenditures, but that brings the big question of accuracy. We increase accuracy in CCE through multiple passes. Its entirely possible that IC is always using a fast motion search algorithm instead of something that would be slower and yield better results. I would also venture to say, that if you calculated the bitrate used at certain percentage marks, and compared directly to a 3 pass file from CCE or even a 2 pass file from TMPGEnc using a high accuracy motion search, the results would be much different for the same bitrates.

So the question that presents itself is, if you're going to use a hybrid method such as this, why would you continue to use IC's lower quality encoder when you can use a higher quality encoding mechanism (such as TMPGEnc, et al.)?

[MackemX]

Originally posted by int 21h
So the question that presents itself is, if you're going to use a hybrid method such as this, why would you continue to use IC's lower quality encoder when you can use a higher quality encoding mechanism (such as TMPGEnc, et al.)? I have spent many an hour ripping,stripping,demuxing,encoding,authoring using CCE and enjoyed it funnily enough but for a miniscule amount of usertime I can get results which are probably 90%+ CCE image quality of what I would achieve with CCE and barely noticable if at all during playback unless I hit the pause/zoom button

10-15mins at keyboard, 90-120mins processing also

I'm sure 99% of all users could also use this method I use and afford the 2 tools also whereas CCE is an option for the minority unfortunately due to cost/method/time

so now I think why bother going to all the fuss of using the longer/harder methods for a 5% accuracy increase that won't even be seen unless I (quote taken from a funny post at dvdrhelp) 'ANALYSE THE SCREEN WITH PIXEL ANALYSIS QUANTUM DIFFERENCE GOGGLES' when I can always pull out the original for special occasions :D

no offence of course :), it's just the masses ain't that fussed about quality to even use this method never mind using CCE. I was a diehard CCE user until just recently but have now jumped ship :(

[brashquido]

I must be one of the minority then, I think quality is the most important thing above all else, I'd much rather a conversion take 24 hours and be of very good quality than take 20 minutes and be of VCD or lower standard. Watching everything on a 120" projector screen as I do certainly highlights image artifacts as well.

I backup my DVD's to protect my investment. If the backups are going to be of a noticably lower quality than the original, I don't see the point in doing it, I may as well convert them to DivX (I use a HTPC for 90% of DVD playback). I don't mind if the extras are of lower quality, so long as they are watchable.

Anyway, my IC backup Shawshank Redemption didn't fair to well last night. I suspect it may have been PDItool that caused it though. After the conversion I used the PDItool to extract the pdi file to my HDD. It seemed to play back through PowerDVD XP ok, but when I put it to my DVD-RW with Nero (as I've done sucessfully several times before) it was very scrappy on playback on my Pioneer 355. The image was badly pixelated and skipped several seconds at a time until it eventually just fell over. I'll have to give your guides a try tonight MisterX.

[mrbass]

Did you see Demi9OD screenshots by chance? I thought IC actually looked closer to the original than CCE done at 4 pass.
http://www.striker2000.com/pics.zip

CCE really shines when the bitrate is low...say 2500 and below. However, these DVDs have a much higher bitrate. I always would do 2 hr movies and 4 pass for SVCDs as long as the bitrate was above 1600 with CCE. That's all I've done for the past 2 1/2 years. Try 1600 with Tsunami and it won't be pretty.

What would be the average bitrate for a 2 hr video assuming audio is 500MB. 4.37GB - .5GB = 4.32GB or 4320MB
4320MB / 7200secs [60secs x 120min] = .6MB
.6MB = 4915 Kbps or 4.8Mbps
So as you can see the bitrate for DVD is much higher. The DVD-9 I think maxes out at around 9Mbps or 9216Kbps.

[brashquido]

Thanks for pointing that one out mrbass :)

When you consider those pics are all frames from a movie sequence, there isn't a lot in it. However as I'm fussy, it is easy to notice a lack of definition on the DVD2ONE and DVD95COPY in pic 3. CCE and IC7 are both so close to the original that I'd strongly doubt that it'd detract from the movie watching experience even for the very fussy.

IC definitley seems to be the most promising DVD-9 to DVD-5 all-in-one conversion program, but it's lack of IFO smarts as MisterX pointed out on his webpage still make me a bit weary on parting with my hard earned. Plus I'm not sold on their proprietry PDI image format. Why not just ISO?

[int 21h]

Originally posted by mrbass
So as you can see the bitrate for DVD is much higher. The DVD-9 I think maxes out at around 9Mbps or 9216Kbps.

9.8 Mbps actually ;)

I think percieved quality depends greatly on the settings used... CCE will have a tendency to smooth the picture if the anti-noise filtering is activated, but I'm of the opinion that at bitrates above 3000, you don't really need to have it enabled. I'd be curious as to what settings he used for this comparison.

[2COOL]

Cut and paste from the DVD Demystified FAQ,

Maximum video bit rate is 9.8 Mbps. The "average" video bit rate is 3.5 but depends entirely on the length, quality, amount of audio, etc. This is a 36:1 reduction from uncompressed 124 Mbps video source (or a 28:1 reduction from 100 Mbps film source). Raw channel data is read off the disc at a constant 26.16 Mbps. After 8/16 demodulation it's down to 13.08 Mbps. After error correction the user data stream goes into the track buffer at a constant 11.08 Mbps. The track buffer feeds system stream data out at a variable rate of up to 10.08 Mbps. After system overhead, the maximum rate of combined elementary streams (audio + video + subpicture) is 10.08. MPEG-1 video rate is limited to 1.856 Mbps with a typical rate of 1.15 Mbps.

[MackemX]

I think most people will know that CCE is the best encoder but it does not backup complete DVD's 1:1 with a few simple clicks and is not an option for the masses due to programs needed (price when legally purchased & unavailabilty),the knowledge of programs used and finally complexity of DVD structures yet CCE users still seem to always belittle the 3 other cheaper easier methods which are aimed at the masses

think of it as you would the car industry, I don't drive a Ford Focus and then compare it to a Ferrari, so why would a Ferrari owner compare his car to my Ford when I know and he knows it's better?. I would compare my car to a Vauxhall Astra or similar car of that class and hope that he would too as they all have an engine but overall are completely different

so why do CCE users always seem to compare CCE to the 3 cheaper easier methods as an option for 1:1 backups when it's superior for encoding but not in the same class overall?

I know there are a fair few CCE users yet some seem to look down on the other 3 programs and this is unfair in my eyes

If you look at the overall cost, the amount of user input required and the quality results of the end product I will be brave in saying that IC is better overall as a package for the high majority of DVD's than CCE

Please accept this a friendly comment CCE users, as that is what it is meant to be, but please be a little more leniant on us little guys :(

[MackemX]

Originally posted by brashquido
I must be one of the minority then, I think quality is the most important thing above all else I'm also fussy about quality but if you set IC to say around 75% for the main movie you may find it satisfactory. If your standard is higher then aim to set it higher and reduce the extras a little. Like I said previously you can also get an extra 10%+ using IC for main movie and still have 'watchable' extras using DVD95copy

All you do is stick IC's movie VOB's into the DVD95copy folder and use Ifoupdate to fix it. It takes a little more processing time but very little usertime with only a few clicks so it should appeal to the majority of users who luckily have both tools

the end result is you get a better quality movie than you would if you used just one program for the whole package :)

[Fmazzanti]

MisterX,
I like the way you defend IC and dvd95copy, but still I would say that some of the points you're making are not 'the universal truth' and that therefore these should be taken with a grain of salt (don't worry, I don't think I have the truth neither). As for exemple, you sy you can't compare IC to CCE since these are completely different programs. Well I would say that for many people what matters is the final result, and not the way you get it. In this sense, all programs can be compared as long as they produce a playable DVD, and that answers your question. Concerning CCE itslef, there are new and affordable releases (look at recent news in doom9 site), so it seems to be no longer expensive(hard to find. For me, doing a backup of a DVD is an 'annoying' operation that will produce what you'll have in your shelves for years, that is, the DVD. And that's why I take my time doing it, because I want to have something that delivers the best possible quality... just my 2 cents.
BTW, I have a question for you about your IC+dvd95copy+IfoEdit procedure. Is it easy to integrate movies with multiPGCs created by IC into dvd96copy and viceversa? I ask that because my experience with CCe is that doing so is a pain in a quite sensitive part....
I would say that.

[MackemX]

I don't defend IC and the rest, I guess I'm just realistic

the big difference between those 3 and CCE is that you feed them a 100% fully compliant DVD then they spit out a DVD at the end albeit with a few bugs that can be overcome but they are in the early stages of development and should improve with age

simply put, the 3 cheaper/easier methods are 'complete 1:1 backup tools' which need very little input and a maximum of 2 additional programs, one in IC's case

the CCE method on the other hand does not offer the all in one package of feeding a DVD in and getting a DVD out, so it cannot be compared in a 1:1 backup tools comparision unless you include all the other stuff that is involved and that is a totally different ball game I think but the quality comparision issue, yes you could include the CCE with the others

complications arise with these 3 programs when users decide to remove bits from the original structure either by not ripping the complete DVD or other methods but without ensuring they have correctly maintained the DVD structure and compliance

agreed CCE by itself is now cheaper, but again the rest of the items needed for the complete package are not and may not be as simple to use and need more than a few clicks and tweaks to get the desired results with more complex DVD's (as you truthfully admitted :respect:.), and I agree single PGC's Titlesets are very simple to do and can be done with free tools but that's coming from someone who knows what to do

As for the what is more attractive to people I'm sure the answer lies within the two quotes in my sig and will be different for everyone :)

[MackemX]

Originally posted by Fmazzanti
Is it easy to integrate movies with multiPGCs created by IC into dvd96copy and viceversa? I ask that because my experience with CCe is that doing so is a pain in a quite sensitive part....
I would say that.
bah!, I went and lost my post :D

so basically the short answer is yes, using Ifoupdate with a few clicks works cos you are merging the IC movie VOB's into the DVD95Copy menu/extras, so you use DVD95Copy as the original and IC as the authored, all the original multi PGC IFO's are intact throughout

I did have an 8 step mini-guide just now but lost it :(, showing how esay it is, but I'm sure you can work out a system to workout out sizes and methods to do the whole process if you ever wanna try it :)

after stripping DVD of the stuff you don't want it takes about 10-15 mins usertime and 90-120 mins processing depending on speed of computer and DVD length

njoy!

[Fmazzanti]

Such a pitty lyou lost it... well anyway. Please post it if you ever get to find it again :D

[brashquido]

My problem is I just don't have the time to sit down and familiarise myself with anything more than a point and click conversion program at the moment. Hence why I've been sniffing around the IC, DVD95COPY and DVD2ONE camps.

I have some time off over easter, I should be able to actually sit down and read through a few guides then without distractions.

[MackemX]

guide for using IC for movie and DVD95copy for extras HERE (http://www.deano.dsl.pipex.com/backup/files/dvdcalc.xls)

download HERE (http://www.deano.dsl.pipex.com/backup/files/dvdcalc.zip)

hope this helps people with both programs and if you need help using Ifoupdate and have any questions just ask as it ain't exactly a dummies guide, but gives you the basic idea :) and boy you will be pleased with results if you are a movie/menu/extras man like me

if I'd used one program for the complete backup I would have come across these issues

because of IC's inability to fill 4.37Gb and also not being able to compress menus/extras uniformly and wasting more space(like the example in 1st post of this thread!), I have got better quality due to filling the complete DVD with exactly the compression rates I want

Using IC engine gives you get better quality than either DVD2One or DVD95Copy

DVD2One would have been an equal compression of 73% so quality would have been 12% less and using the lower quality engine resulting in a much poorer main movie but better menu/extras

you could use IC for menu/extras andthen use the remaing space for CCE as the engine for the main movie as shown in the other guide or use DVD95Copy for extras then CCE due to it's better resulting filesizes