BIG 3 vs DVD Shrink - benefits?

[Mekias]

I've been using the BIG 3 DVD backup method for about 6 months now. Burned about 100 DVDs during that time and have gotten pretty good at detecting problems or potential problems and fixing them. The big downside is still the amount of time and work it takes to go through every step. (using Pent 4, 1800 MHz)

1) DVD Decryptor to make ISO on hard drive ~20 min.
2) DoItFast4U to rip to individual files ~45 min to 1 hr
3) ReAuthorist (& DoCCE4U) ~5 hr to 10 hr, depending on size of disk and number of encrypting passes (usually 4 passes on main movie, 5 for extras).
4) Scenarist to put everything back together ~1 hr to run, maybe several hours depending on how much I have to do by hand.
5) IFOUpdate and any extra stripping with IFOEdit ~10 min to 1 hr mostly
6) Burn to blank DVD ~ 45 min @ 2.4 speed

So, minimum time to take a DVD from DVD 9 to DVD 5 and burn is about 8 hours. Most of the time it ends up being about 10-12 hours if I have no problems.

Now a guy at work swears by DVD Shrink saying it only takes him 2 hours at most and the quality of the finished product is excellent. I have yet to try any other DVD backup method than the BIG 3 but have a feeling that DVD Shrink will give me fewer options and a worse quality video.

Maybe I'm just being an elitist thinking that the BIG 3 is the best way and no others can come close. But I figured if it IS possible to cut my time down to an hour or 2 and still produce a great product, then I owed it to myself to at least check it out.

So if anyone can tell me what the benefits or deficiencies of a program like DVDShrink as compared to the BIG 3 are, I'd really appreciate it.

Maybe you know of a way for me to cut down on my BIG 3 processing time. I'm open to any suggestion.

Thanks in advance.

[JustinH]

Well, you can cut alot of the "extras" out of the movie with dvd shrink by reauthoring the dvd, that will take out alot of the compression time.

I can shrink a dvd, them image it, and burn it all in about an hour.

My system is a

Athlon 3200+, 1024 DDR Memory, Serial ATA HardDrive, Sony 510a burner.

JH

[DeeD2k2]

The main advantages of DVD Shrink are:
- It’s free (and CCE isn’t free at all)
- It’s fast
- It’s simple
So, I should say: Stay using The Big 3! Let DC4U do its work while you are sleeping, and the amount of time you are busy is 2 hours too.
And after all, we are talking about DVD’s, so we care about quality!

[Mekias]

So there is a noticable quality drop off when using something like DVD Shrink as opposed to the BIG 3?

I don't want to spend time making backups if the quality is going to be noticably bad. What's the use of having a DVD if it's poor quality? Might as well go back to VHS.

You're right, though. I usually start DoCCE4U before I go to sleep or before work so that time doesn't affect me that much.

I did run into a problem before Christmas when my sister wanted me to make backups of her Sex & the City DVDs (Season 1 - 5). Had about 2 weeks to backup 13 disks and so couldn't really use my computer for anything else during those 2 weeks.

Thanks for the responses. I might try out DVD Shrink just to see how it works but I'll probably stick with the BIG 3 since I know they work well.

[Beastie Boy]

For me, it depends on the compressibility of the movie. If DVDShrink says it needs to compress at 90% or less, then it isn't really worth the extra time to use the big 3. The quality won't be noticably better.
If you intend to do any re-authoring then I suggest sticking to The Big 3. I haven't had much luck re-authoring in Shrink other than doing movie only, or removing audio streams.

Cheers, Beastie.

[pilotsnipes]

Hi,

I'm not being spiteful, but why don't you just try DVDShrink for 1 of your movies?

You seem to have a few hours to spare, so why not try it? It's free!

But do use IFO edit first to rip out some of the extras if you don't want them...Shrink is really only good for re-authoring the main movie only, you'll lose any menus.

It can't hurt can it?

[Pfc Joker]

I started off using Skrink or Recode 2 to do my backups. Now lately I have been doing backups with the Big 3 method to see if the resulting quality is worth the time it takes. I run a 2.4C Pentium on a 875 Canterwood board, 1GB Geil memory and two raid arrays. One raid has a half terribyte of space and the other is two WD Raptors. It takes Shrink almost 45 minutes to do a full backup with advanced analysis and Recode 2 is even faster at about 30-35 minutes.
So I'm making a backup with all three methods to try and see the difference. I'm not shure the best way to compare the end results except for takikng s scren shot with Power DVD, what would be the best way to compare the results?
I just keep thinking that if the Big 3 method takes five times longer that Shrink or Recode 2 it better look five times better.

[Trahald]

i did a test with dvdshrink compared to big3.. i tested it with a movie that needed heavy duty shrinking. it want even close.. big 3 won. now was the big 3 version 5 times better? nope.. id say 3x.. but for that 3x id even go 10x longer.. especially since it was the difference of the backup not being worth it (the blocks were way too noticable with shrink) and it being worth it. at higher bitrates i say the noticable difference gets smaller, maybe 2x.. at really high bitrates 1.5x Again.. still worth it for me. its all up to the end user.. if dvdshrink is exceptable for you or if you even cant tell the difference.. then your better off using it.

what im saying is .. like pilotsnipes said. try it yourself.. its only a hour or so investment. and give it a good test.. do like lotr and check the big3 version against dvdshrink or recode... then try something that is easier (hour and 1/2 movie w/few extras) and do it both ways... They are your backups so, ultimately it will only be you possibly wishing you took a little more time on it.

[Pfc Joker]

then try something that is easier (hour and 1/2 movie w/few extras) and do it both ways...

You read my mind. I have done exactly that with "The World Is Not Enough" and am still checking out the results. :D It's Nero 2 vs Shrink vs Big 3.

Is there a way to post pictures? I would definately like to have someone else check out what I come up with when I'm done. More opinions the better I think.

[pilotsnipes]

Originally posted by w00kiee
.. do like lotr and check the big3 version against dvdshrink or recode...

Well that really would be a waste of time using shrink for a movie like that. Especially when you're compairing it to something that encodes for 10x longer!

The way i see it, and of course it's only my opinion, if you place a DVD into your drive and Shrink says it's going to be in the range of mid to high 70% of the original, you really REALLY aren't going to see any difference between the 2.

Honestly. Just sitting there with the wife/husband/partner watching the movie on a wet windy night....you'd never be able to distingush between the original and the backup.

LOTR etc are obviously going to be around high 50% to at best low 60% of original, so yes, you'd be wise to use the big 3.


Me? I like to fall into the 1st camp as much as possible. SO I have no problems losing crappy extras (are ANY DVD extras ever all that interesting?) til I get the rate into the 70ish, and then I shrink away!

[influenza]

Well I want to give you my biased view here as well. I've been using the big three method for quite some time now and I won't use anything else.

Well first of all for all the people who want to do comparisons it's important to do a fair one.

The big 3 methos is developted to make a FULL backup of your dvds at the highest qualility possible. So by full meaning to keep all menus and extras. Well I won't object to stripping out foreign languages and subs, but I never loose any of the extras, not even warning screens etc.

So if anyone wants to make this comparison do it that way: keep everything and I'm quite sure you'll notice the difference. Keeping evrything will mean encoding at on average lower bitrates, which will be hard for any transcoder like dvdshrink.

If you are only going to keep the movie and this movie is not too long then you'll be able to accomplish quite nice results with a transcoder. But if you have a lot of video to encode in the case you keep everything you'll notice the loss of quality.

[Pfc Joker]

So if anyone wants to make this comparison do it that way: keep everything and I'm quite sure you'll notice the difference

I've started to become biased as well, http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69030

[Kedirekin]

I want to pipe in with a dissenting opinion here. You could call me devil's advocate, except that this really is my opinion.

My experience is that, on most DVDs, if you keep everything equal (especially aiming for comparable quality on extras), the results from DVDShrink and The Big 3 are about the equal - different, but equal (Shrink exhibits more blocking, where CCE exhibits more ringing). Of course there's a high degree of subjectivity here - if ringing doesn't bother you, your will come to a different conclusion.

Also, The Big 3 lets you use really low bitrates on the extras (1850 kbps) thereby allowing higher bitrate on the main movie. Shrink limits your options in that respect. However, to me extras at 1850 kbps are completely unwatchable (to the point where there is no point keeping them). Many extras are full screen, 30 fps interlaced, and really need higher bitrate than the main movie to get comparable quality.

[Trahald]

again.. not to draw this out.. mekias as well as everyone must make up their own damn minds </oracle> i think the benefits of both have been laid out fairly well

[Kedirekin]

Agreed, but informed discussion is good. It helps them (and all the silent spectators) in doing their own comparisons.

[Beastie Boy]

Originally posted by influenza

So if anyone wants to make this comparison do it that way: keep everything ...
If anyone goes to the trouble of doing a comparison then they will obviously do what suits their preference. Personally, I usually keep the intro, main menu and chapter menu only and so for me, a comparison that included the entire disc would not give realisitic results.

Cheers, Beastie.

[DeeD2k2]

As said before, I think everybody has compared yet. You use what you use, so you are probably happy whit it. If you don’t, or you doubt about your choice, you are free to try the other way.
After all, an opinion is personal, and your comparison results are probably not the same as mine.
I’m a happy user of The Big 3 and I’ll stay using it. If you like comparing, do it. I won’t spend my time on it and certainly won’t change my mind!

[Pfc Joker]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
Agreed, but informed discussion is good. It helps them (and all the silent spectators) in doing their own comparisons.

Three cheers, and no not everyone has compared the different ways yet cause I just got done doing my own little test today.

Yes, Big 3 is better, and greater, and nicer, and all that. But I think unless you have a second computer just to do your backups, Big 3 is a complete waste of time.

If anything it gives me a reason to build another computer. :D