Nero Recode 0.9.6.6 out now.

[DVDRFreak]

Just downloaded it, need to test to see whats new.

Update:
Did run a few test.
Speed the same
Image quality the same.

Basicly nothing new.

[Sounddude]

Where'd you find it? I did'nt see it on Nero's website.

[mrbass]

http://www.nero.com/us/neroue-prog.php

Nero 6 Ultra Edition
Package 2 contains:

NeroVision Express 2
Nero ShowTime
Nero Recode
- Beta V.0.99.6

[DVDRFreak]

Originally posted by mrbass
http://www.nero.com/us/neroue-prog.php

Nero 6 Ultra Edition
Package 2 contains:

NeroVision Express 2
Nero ShowTime
Nero Recode
- Beta V.0.99.6

Jup it is in the NVE2019 package but it is not 0.99.6 as stated on the website it is 0.9.6.6 dated 5 september 2003.
Maybe the guys at ahead made a mistake and put in an old version.

[Richk50]

"Maybe the guys at ahead made a mistake and put in an old version."

I installed what's there and have the new version. They probably replaced the file but not the display.

[DVDRFreak]

Originally posted by Richk50
"Maybe the guys at ahead made a mistake and put in an old version."

I installed what's there and have the new version. They probably replaced the file but not the display.

Can you check if it is version 0.9.9.6 because my version is still 0.9.6.6 (when pressing the ? mark button) dated 5 september 2003.

[Richk50]

You're right 9.6.6

[rudeboymcc]

what exactly does this program do?

[uklawman]

Originally posted by rudeboymcc
what exactly does this program do?
From Nero's web site it states:-

Nero Recode eliminates bad quality viewing! Now you can make backups of unprotected DVDs without any visible loss of quality! This now means that a whole film will fit on a normal DVD blank (4.8GB)!

The solution is both clever and simple - with Nero Recode you can now remove unwanted material (e.g. foreign language sound tracks or bonus material) from the DVD (9 GB). Then the film is converted, but this time with an optimized bit rate so that it fits on a normal blank (4.8 GB)!

[rudeboymcc]

does the program actually encode the video to a lower bitrate? or does it cut out menu's, subtitles, and extra scenes to make it fit??

[DVDRFreak]

Nero Recode is a transcoding tool.

It also alows you to strip unwanted titles/audio and subtitle tracks.

imho the picture quality is pretty good.

[ddlooping]

rudeboymcc, you could almost describe Nero Recode as a "repackaged DVD Shrink", without the re-author feature (so no compilation, multiple levels of compression applied to the same title,...), but with the ability to replace a title by a still image (lasting the lenght of the replaced title). ;)

[zande]

Does Nero Recode have an noise-reduction option or similar?

Since that would be a good way of keeping good quality when lowering the bitrate.

[rudeboymcc]

is Nero recode better than DVD shrink? i'm normally not a fan of all in one programs becuase there's normally a better alternative (ie Nero's mpeg encoder vs TMPEG), but this one sounds pretty good. haven't tried it though. DVD shrink or Nero recode?

[ddlooping]

rudeboymcc, why don't you try them both and decide for yourself? :)

[rudeboymcc]

good point. i thought you couldn't download a demo but it turns out there is a demo available. for Nero recode i mean.

[writersblock29]

@rudeboymcc

Ddlooping makes a pretty good point: Only YOU can decide which program works the best for you in meeting your individual needs. If you'd like to know how each program differs, however, here's a small rundown -- which I'm sure others here will add to.

Shrink: Decrypts on-the-fly.... Recode doesn't.
Shrink: Allows for the processing of a "movie-only" project, and allows you to clip sections from the film (such as studio logos, credits, and the like)... Recode doesn't.
Shrink's interface tends to be more user-friendly, and offers less problems for first-time users (such as the problem some have had with Recode messing up buttons in menus due to subtitle elimination).

Recode: Allows you the option of burning the project as soon as it's finished processing... Shrink doesn't.
Recode: Allows you to completely remove unwanted material, replacing it with a still image that informs you that the video information has been removed (handy if you want your menus... just not all the material your buttons would have activated such as movie trailers or maybe a lame extra)... Shrink allows for you to simply compress the hell out of unwanted features by creating a series of still images which will play out for the feature's original length.

Now... BOTH take roughly the same amount of time to process a movie, and both yield very good quality (there will be nit-pickers on this one... but try 'em before allowing anyone to decide for you what you should shoot for as far as quality goes). BOTH also create dummy files when streams are removed, so that your buttons still access what they're supposed to (if you select an audio stream that you removed, you'll simply wind up watching a silent movie until you select an active stream).

NEITHER (at least, at this point and to my knowledge) remove layer breaks, so you *may* experience a slight pause in the processed movie during playback, depending on your player.

BOTH are free to try. Nero has a downloadable package that'll give you the demo version of Nero 6 -- which includes Nero Recode. The only limitation Nero places on the demo is a time limit for usage, after which the demo expires and won't run anymore... unless you order a serial number to permanently activate it. DVD Shrink is just plain free, although I'm not alone when I say that hopefully he'll allow donations from us grateful users to help him continue his work; or at least say "thanks!"

Hope this helps you decide!

[rudeboymcc]

thanks for that run-down. very usefull.

i've been trying both of the programs out for about an hour now and i've decided that DVD shrink is the best for me.

why?
recode Allows you the option of burning the project as soon as it's finished processing, but Shrink Decrypts on-the-fly so they kinda cancel eachother out if you see what i mean. either way you have to use another program.

and shrink has the movie only feature, which i feel is very usefull for DVD-9 backups onto DVD-5 media.

and getting recode means upgrading my Nero software, which i don't want to do becusae hte one i have (Nero 5.5.10.50) has been updated so many times there are very few bugs in it. it's not the money, i've just heard many people having problems iwth the new version.

thanks a lot guys/

[atreides93]

I agree. DVDshrink is far superior. I just hope he comes back out and finishes up 3.0 :)

[mikegun]

I have done 2 movies with recode for the first time, after using dvdshrink. image quality of recode is imho better, the image seems to be more stable. I have a sanyo z1 and it is very easy to see differences if the picture is 2,50m wide ;-)
if done a lot with shrink before and I was satisfied with it, but now I give recode a chance.

mikegun

p.s. watching on tv it seems like quality is the same. I hardly can see any difference.

[ddlooping]

mikegun, was the comparison on backups made using DVD Shrink deep analysis?

[mikegun]

sorry, can't remember. in doubt I would say "yes" ...

[ddlooping]

Thanks for the reply. :)

[mikegun]

anytime :)

[writersblock29]

@mikegun

You know, I've always thought that my Recode projects have slightly more color depth than my DVD Shrink projects... but since Recode's kind of fussy with me about certain movie projects (stutters with certain movies, regardless of how I ripped them or burn them... doing a quick search of the word "stuttering" will probably bring up the thread I posted this problem in) I've been using DVD Shrink. Strange -- if the author of DVD Shrink is also the developer of Nero's Recode -- if there IS any sort of difference in picture quality! However, the difference that I see is so slight that it's really a non-issue: When I'm watching a movie, I'M WATCHING A MOVIE rather than studying color saturations, pixelations, ect. Not that I'm trying to defend one product over another, mind you; I just found it interesting that you've noticed a differance between Recode and Shrink. I thought it must just be me seeing what I want to see (which certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened!).

[ddlooping]

writersblock29, this difference in color depth you're talking about really intrigues me.

The only time I have heard about something similar was when the comparison was done using two instances of WinDVD.
The difference in images was due to this use of two WinDVD instances (something to do with filters or codecs or something like that), and had nothing to do with DVD Shrink.

I have never experienced this myself either, even though I made quite a few comparison tests, both on my 1280x1024 EIZO LCD display and my 32" widescreen TV. :confused:

[writersblock29]

@ddlooping

Well, like I said: It may only be me seeing what I want to see! (Two different programs... there'll be a difference... right? THAT sort of thinking, if you follow.) I only notice the difference on my computer monitor

(and we are only talking about a SLIGHT difference)

but not on my television set -- of course, I'm also not able to accurately compare the image quality between two different sources on my TV! I know that Shrink doesn't allow for QUITE the finished file size (4.35 Gigs as opposed to Recode's 4.36) without manually tweaking it... so if it's not all in my mind, perhaps that's where the difference lies. I'll have to customize it, run a movie through both programs, and get back with you on that one! *Of course, it's not like I'm having headaches worrying about such a minute difference that's probably imaginary to begin with!*

If I hadn't read Mikegun's comment about considering Recode's image quality as superior to Shrink's, I would probably never have thought about it ever again.

I use and love DVD Shrink, and it's because of that Deep Analysis function. All the quality of InstantCopy, with none of the guesswork! Plus, I come from the days of using tons of freeware programs and investing days of effort just so that I could author a disk that *just MAY* work. Now I can achieve far better results in FAR less time with ONE freeware program. Life's great!

[ddlooping]

"Life's great!"

It is indeed. :)

[mikegun]

Originally posted by writersblock29
@ddlooping

Well, like I said: It may only be me seeing what I want to see! (Two different programs... there'll be a difference... right? THAT sort of thinking, if you follow.) I only notice the difference on my computer monitor

(and we are only talking about a SLIGHT difference)

but not on my television set -- of course, I'm also not able to accurately compare the image quality between two different sources on my TV! I know that Shrink doesn't allow for QUITE the finished file size (4.35 Gigs as opposed to Recode's 4.36) without manually tweaking it... so if it's not all in my mind, perhaps that's where the difference lies. I'll have to customize it, run a movie through both programs, and get back with you on that one! *Of course, it's not like I'm having headaches worrying about such a minute difference that's probably imaginary to begin with!*

If I hadn't read Mikegun's comment about considering Recode's image quality as superior to Shrink's, I would probably never have thought about it ever again.

I use and love DVD Shrink, and it's because of that Deep Analysis function. All the quality of InstantCopy, with none of the guesswork! Plus, I come from the days of using tons of freeware programs and investing days of effort just so that I could author a disk that *just MAY* work. Now I can achieve far better results in FAR less time with ONE freeware program. Life's great!

watching DVDs in a home cinema gives you good impression how good a dvd is and I don't need to talk of re-compressed dvds but original ones. you definately can see a difference between good and bad original dvds ! so you can between recompressed ones !
and yes, I'm watching movies, not pixels ;-)
I won't consider recode as the better app, I just wanted to say that there was a more stable picture with recode.

regards,

mikegun

[writersblock29]

@mikegun

Gotcha. Ever see the studio DVD to ESCAPE FROM LA? Horrible. Even if you tell yourself that all those pixels swimming across the screen "look like film grain."

--cheers!