So you wanna hear about some IC8 experiences?

[monomer]

So far not much has been said about IC8, other than the virtual drive doesn't work. Well I have used IC8 to compress five movies so far and it goes something like this...

First movie was 4.8Gb (16:9) and I wanted to tried to have it encode and burn straight to disc all at once. Worked well and the final movie was 4.16Gb... not bad I thought.

The second movie I tried was 4.7Gb (2.35) and the final size was 4.04Gb... a little short but then again it was such a small compression anyway... no big deal.

On the third movie I ended up with a coaster... buffer under-run error, even though I have under-run protection and IC8 recognized it as so. Grrrr... Well, I didn't want to waste anymore time or DVD-Rs so I just re-did it with D21.

The fourth movie was 4.9Gb (16:9) to start... the disc burned correctly this time and the final movie size was 4.17Gb. Okay by me.

Finally, tonight I tried a movie I would normally leave to DVD2DVD (CCE/Scenarist)... it was only 5.04Gb (2.35) so I thought "why not?" Loaded it up in IC8, came back in 2 hours to a freshly burned disc. The final size was 3.22GB!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE F**K?!?!?!?!?

That's it... since I can no longer trust final movie file sizes, I can no longer have IC8 burn straight to disc. Virtual drive doesn't work properly. Encoded movie file sizes are still a crap-shoot, just like IC7 was. The conclusion I've now come to is that IC8 is no better or different than IC7. Boy, did I get ripped off!!!!!

Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!
Pinnacle... I swear never again! You will not fool me 3 times!

[mrbass]

I've had 3 that ended up being about 6GB transcoded with IC8..so don't feel bad. It's still hit and miss. I'm thought I could do all 1:1 with IC8 but the hit and miss of it ticks me off too just like you. The first few were about right on so I thought maybe IC8 changed for the better over IC7...but alas.

And if it makes you feel better I paid full price for IC8 when I could've got the upgrade but I thought everytime I redid my computer I didn't want to load up IC7..oh well.

[spiderman2k1]

Ever movie I have encode with IC8 has come out fine. Ever movie I have made has been about 4.20gig's.

[duartix]

Are you using IC Hidden Settings Editor for IC 8?
Does it have the same influence/results on filesize as it had for IC7?
This is my biggest worry.

[snidely]

Disclaimer: The opinions below are only those of myself and two of my friends, and are not intentioned to start a flame war. The question I raise is legitimate and is asked in all sincerity.

I've never understood the fascination with any version of Takes-A-While-Copy. I have tried it several times anyway and each and every time I am disappointed. The compression quality is about on par with DVDShrink (with deep analysis), yet the program takes an average of two hours. It uses a proprietary ISO format, has unpredictable target size issues, and has a clumsy, unintuitive interface.

Recently I compared two movies (Die Another Day and Terminator 2 Extreme Edition) in four different formats: original, CCE movie only, DVDShrink 3 beta 5 movie only, and IC7 movie only. To keep things fair I used IfoEdit 0.95 to create the "movie only", as well as strip the unwanted streams, PUOs, and RCE protection, and then I processed the resulting files through each of the 3 products.

I invited 2 friends over and made a night of comparing the various versions just to decide what we thought of the various programs. The display device was an Electrohome 9500LC 9" CRT projector (arguably the finest display device ever made) projected onto a 100" X 56" 1.7 gain screen. (I know that very few people have the luxury of comparing quality on such a high resolution setup.) It is upconverting everything to 1080P (not 1080i) and is supported by some of the finest electronics available at any price. I am not bragging about my equipment here (well, maybe a little :) ), but I just want everyone to understand what caliber of equipment was used for the comparisons.

Anyway, the originals were of course the best, and the CCE copies were so good that none of us could easily or reliably distinguish them from the originals. The Shrink and IC copies were significantly lower in overall quality, mostly due to motion artifacts and some macro blocking) and it is simply a matter of opinion which ones were better. The real surprise to me was in seeing just how much better CCE did than the other 2 programs. The CCE copies were razor sharp, free from motion artifacts, and we really had to struggle to find fault with them at all.

So back to my original question - what is with all the fascination with IC? I understand that everyone sees things differently and that everyone's gear will be set up to the individual's preference, but at best IC is really only comparable to the other "quick" compressors (certainly no match for CCE) and is fraught with all the other issues and problems I mentioned earlier. Why do people put up with this program?

Back in the forum where I moderate (AV Science), I often see the members fall into what I call the "herd mentality". That is, a few of the "leaders" tell you how much they like a certain product, and pretty soon the entire "herd" starts to agree. This seems to be the case here, though I certainly hope that I am wrong. Or maybe it is just that no one else has the luxury of doing the comparisons on $100k worth of video gear. Or maybe my friends and I are blind. :D

Final message - Do the comparisons for yourself! Certainly don't take my word for it. Just go into it with an open mind and without the prejudices that may affect your decisions. Remember, in the end it is you that will be watching these movies, and you don't need to defend your likes and dislikes to anyone. I only wrote this post in an attempt to free people from the IC prejudices that seem to permeate this forum, and hopefully open the door to other programs that just might fit their needs as well or better.

[mrbass]

I agree with what you said snidely "It uses a proprietary ISO format, has unpredictable target size issues, and has a clumsy, unintuitive interface."

There was quite a difference back when IC7 came out and dvd2one and dvdshrink 1.03 was out, etc. Now it seems like any difference it's much more difficult to discern. However, just like you say everyone has to do their own tests and use whatever makes them happy. I almost always use the deep analysis with dvdshrink nowadays. DVD2DVD I use for those long movies.

[duartix]

If you have the oportunity to put a hand on "Amores Perros" (a mexican movie that won an oscar for best foreign movie a few years ago), check out the first scene (the car chase) between IC7 and DVDShrink 2.3. It's a 8GB PAL Edition with a lot of fast movement at the start.
Even in my home TV I could easily spot major quality issues. IC was at these particulary conditions by far superior. Note that when I performed this comparison, DVDShrink didn't have the deep analysis mode, which I believe I helped to push along with my constant fundamented requests to Shrink himself about constant DCT requantisation as oposed to constant frame requantisation.

So I can vow on the quality diference beeing there at the time. I don't know anymore, because I haven't tried that particular movie again.

As for your adviceFinal message - Do the comparisons for yourself! I couldn't be more with you!

[snidely]

I almost always use the deep analysis with dvdshrink nowadays. DVD2DVD I use for those long movies.

Yup, same here. :) At present those are my two choices as well. I use Shrink with deep analysis for lesser compression and/or titles that I want to keep extras, menus, etc. For the ultimate in quality, but "movie only", DVD2DVD/CCE seems invincible, or at least so far.

It's a 8GB PAL Edition with a lot of fast movement at the start.

That would be the type of movie I would use DVD2DVD/CCE and would not even consider a lesser alternative. Heck, maybe even CCE would fail this particular test and I would opt for a two disc bit for bit copy.


So I can vow on the quality diference beeing there at the time.

Yup, I agree wholeheartedly. BUT, as you mentioned, things change. Once upon a time, IC's video quality was better than Shrink's or DVD2One's (for example). The competition keeps getting better, and though I haven't seen the quality of IC8, nothing I have read has inspired me to upgrade. Maybe people are still just clinging onto "old reliable", especially if IC is the only recent program they have used. Again I just suggest "Be adventurous" and at least try out the competition. You just might be surprised (and then again, you might not :) ).

Edit: Oops, sorry, monomer. I just noticed that your thread was specifically talking about IC 8 and not various other incarnations of IC. I have hijacked the thread enough and will now encourage further discussion regarding InstantCopy 8.

[jfcarbel]

What I can't believe is how Pinnacle avoids adding output to a VIDEO_TS directory in this release when this has to be one of the top 3 requested features.

I mean how hard is it for a programmer to write files to a directory than to create an image file which is much harder. Being a programmer I know the answer to this and yes it would have been very easy to provide VIDEO_TS output. Yes, they offer this InstantDrive (which I hear does not work sometimes) but how hard would it have been to offer both. Whoever is managing the development team there is not doing his job.

On the other hand, DVDShrink is working for nothing while we give our money to Pinnacle, and he goes and implements a request (deepcopy analysis) that does take a significant amount of programming while Pinnacle gives us very little of what we really wanted - accurate size predication and VIDEO_TS output.

So after what a Pinnacle team gives us with IC8 compared to a single developer with DVDShrink, Pinnacle has lost all respect from this user and programmer himself. I will not be buying any future IC versions. IC7 and PDITool is good enough for me while I wait for DVDShrink to offer THE best transcoder around. Which I know he will accomplish eventually considering what we have seen so far. Its seems like DVDShrink really listens to what his users want via his ears (thanks ddlooping) and we are all happy because of that.

MackemX - I know you worked closely with Pinnacle and it sounded like they really resolved alot of issues and gave us what we wanted, but according what other users have commented on and with what my experience has been - it was less than impressive. Would like to hear your take on this, since you seemed to have felt the IC8 release was looking to be a significant release for us demanding users. Note, I am not using the IC8 hidden settings which for IC7 really helped size prediction, but it sounded like your beta testing did not include any hacks either.

[Sbofen]

Originally posted by duartix
If you have the oportunity to put a hand on "Amores Perros" (a mexican movie that won an oscar for best foreign movie a few years ago), check out the first scene (the car chase) between IC7 and DVDShrink 2.3. It's a 8GB PAL Edition with a lot of fast movement at the start.
Even in my home TV I could easily spot major quality issues. IC was at these particulary conditions by far superior. Note that when I performed this comparison, DVDShrink didn't have the deep analysis mode, which I believe I helped to push along with my constant fundamented requests to Shrink himself about constant DCT requantisation as oposed to constant frame requantisation.

So I can vow on the quality diference beeing there at the time. I don't know anymore, because I haven't tried that particular movie again.

As for your adviceI couldn't be more with you!

I would have left that scene not compressed with DVDShrink(see this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59039) )

[ddlooping]

Its seems like DVDShrink really listens to what his users want via his ears (thanks ddlooping) and we are all happy because of that.
That's the first time I have been described as someone else's ears. :D
I'm sure big enough to hold dvdshrink's glasses, but he would have to wear really funny hats. :eek:

P.S: You're welcome. ;)

[monomer]

Originally posted by snidely
Oops, sorry, monomer. I just noticed that your thread was specifically talking about IC 8 and not various other incarnations of IC. I have hijacked the thread enough and will now encourage further discussion regarding InstantCopy 8.

"Nee ya ha ha!"... so we meet again, Mr. Whiplash. Hijack my thread will you... Dudely Doright will get you for this dastardly deed. And untie sweet young Nell from the railroad tracks, you cad!


Naw, someone in another thread questioned as to why so little was being said about the new and improved IC8... I just thought I'd give him a little something to go on.

The reason I still use D21 and Shrink is mainly for convenience. I try to balance visual quality against the time investment in any compression project. I don't feel the extra time spent using CCE is worth it when compressions are very small (say no more than about 90%). My (cheapy) display set-up does not allow me to see any differences in Picture Quality at compression levels to about 75%. But I'm afraid that if I ever do win the Lotto, I will step-up my projector display system and see what I've been missing... compression artifacts 'up the wahzoo'. I would sure hate to have to re-do my whole DVD collection at that point... so I try to keep my standards up and use CCE for most movies >4.9Gb (and any movies with lots of fast action).

[AtaqueEG]

Originally posted by duartix
[B]If you have the oportunity to put a hand on "Amores Perros" (a mexican movie that won an oscar for best foreign movie a few years ago)

Just a small clarification, "Amores Perros" was just NOMINATED
The winner was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"

A rip-off, IMHO

[duartix]

Just a small clarification, "Amores Perros" was just NOMINATED. The winner was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" Absolutely right! Thank you!
A rip-off, IMHO too, but what would you expect from hollywood?
It's the same as looking for good music in the Grammies! I would have left that scene not compressed with DVDShrink Not possible, I was keeping the menu!

[DVD Maniac]

The debate about image quality and functionality between IC and Shrink et al looks like it will go on for ever. For my part I ditched IC7 for Shrink months ago and have never looked back.

Just one other observation regarding Pinnacle. Have they employed the services of a chimp from their local zoo to design their "on line" ordering pages? Its like trying to navigate your way through a treacle filled swamp in a rubber dingy.

This, added to the fact that they have STILL not fixed the flaws that made me ditch IC7 will not result in me parting with £13.

Oh look! DVDShrink has just created yet another perfectly sized and working backup while I was typing this note.

Pinnacle and IC - Don't do it!

[ddlooping]

Oh look! DVDShrink has just created yet another perfectly sized and working backup while I was typing this note.
:D

[th3m]

mrbass which version of CCE you are using with DVD2DVD to do the encoding?

[mrbass]

2.50

[old-hack]

@ddlooping & DVD Maniac,

I bought IC8 thinking it had some quality features that DVDShrink didn't. Can't tell. I do know that last night I tried to shrink Jason X first with IC8 and got the notorious XP error "Please send this error message to Microsoft". Without rebooting, fired up DVDShrink and processed the same files no errors.

Could have been a fluke, but my faith remains in DVDShrink.

[ddlooping]

...but my faith remains in DVDShrink.
Glad to hear it, old-hack. :)