IC8 undersize-oversize makes me MAD

[moumiaq]

This can't be happening.It's driving me crazy.I've solved some of my problems with InstantCopy Hidden Settings Editor 1.4.2 but i have the right size the second or third time i process the dvd with ic8.But to me it gives the best results after all.

[lighty]

I always set size to 4.9GB and it's size is always slightly resized but close to the one I want.

[Richk50]

I can't figure out why they don't give an option of 2 pass. Allowing accurate sizing.
I know a lot of people who won't use this program because of this problem.

[lighty]

I don't understand why? IMO it's most important to get a picture as close to original as possible and I don't realy care if it fills all of the media or not.

[Kedirekin]

You know what they say; size doesn't matter (unless it's too big - that can cause problems).

All kidding aside, you shouldn't get too upset about undersizing as long as the quality is good. And that's probably why Pinnacle doesn't implement a 2 pass strategy. As far as they're concerned, if it produces acceptable quality, it isn't broken.

FYI: In my limited experience, if you're removing audio tracks, sometimes running things thru DVDShrink first (no compression) gives better sizing. It's still 150-300 MB undersize, but that's better than 600-700MB.

[geffroman]

I have done some pretty intensive testing with all kinds of levels of compression and I can no longer find a reason to use IC7 or IC8 after Shrink. Shrink has come a long way. You would be hard pressed to come up with a better result with IC and with all the short comings it is what I call OBSOLETE.

If you haven't done a serious side by side comparison of Shrink versus IC in a while I recommend you give it a shot.

Like me you might just decide to put IC on the shelf.

[lighty]

Have you tried comparing compression under 80% of original? I did and IC is still better then Shrink - IMO. On the other hand on the materials over 80% I couldn't find any visible difference.

[geffroman]

Originally posted by lighty
I did and IC is still better then Shrink - IMO.

One of the all so important rules around here prohibits making statements about which is better. I just suggest you take a good look yourself. I too used to subscribe to the theory that under 20% use Shrink... Over 20% compression must use IC. But IC kept messing up on a few multi episode DVDs that required HUGE 40% compression I was shocked at the Shrink result. Hence I tested. I have run tests from 10% to 45% compression. I am a graphic artist with a trained eye for detail and color. I can show you examples and make a case for either product. However, they are now CLOSE in image quality. Both have their own issues.

However, there is NO disputing that SHRINK will always use the full disc. SHRINK is used by most of us to PRE-prepare our files for IC. But I think most of us just assumed we NEEDED IC for heavier compression.

I say just test it thoroughly and be sure you aren't wasting your time on a product that offers more frustration than features.

[lighty]

I know about those rules and that's why I added "IMO". However, it's not a question of talking about it or not, it's rather a question of what's real. The problem is that not all methods of testing are standardised. For example when looking on 19? PC screen I saw no difference Shrink and IC but when looking on a big screen TV I most certainly did see a difference under 80%.
The example of your series DVDs are more of an exception then a rule. I too encountered one or two cases where Shrink fared better on higher compressions but as I said it happened very rarely.
AFAIK - the other main difference between Shrink and IC is that one is transcoder and the other is encoder so basicaly the principles of their operation are not the same. You can only requantize video to certain point untill you lose quality to a visible level, but you can re-encode it more eficiently.

Anyway- Shrink in it's current version introduced several blocking artifacts to my video (I think someone else also reported it) on several ocasions so now I am a bit cautious about using it until that problem is solved.

[geffroman]

Originally posted by lighty
For example when looking on 19? PC screen I saw no difference Shrink and IC but when looking on a big screen TV I most certainly did see a difference under 80%.


You hit the nail on the head... I use a Sony XBR through it's HDTV jacks in 480p mode with a progressive player... this makes a huge difference too... when I want extreme quality like watching Lord of the Rings I use a PC connected to the XBR through it's HDTV jacks in 1080i mode... This eliminates the overscan associated with traditional televisions and allows for the most "quality to picture" these devices can run...

All of these factors affect the end result as much as or more sometimes than the files... which I guess is the best reason for why we don't get to state what program is better than another... someone with a 20 inch television and an RF adapter with an Mintek player doesn't see the same thing that I do even if we had the same DVD to view.

Even a big screen can only show what it can accept as a signal... without high res hookups the television is always a huge bottleneck in quality... As a rule big screens are horrible viewing devices unless you are talking a hi resolution HDTV compatible device connected to a progressive scan player... I don't understand how your Big Screen could be the diffinitive viewing device to sort out file quality... But I don't know nearly enough about the hook ups and the player involved to draw a conclusion other than to say NO television can offer a BETTER view of the data that the PC monitor... If one version fell apart on the Big Screen it had to be visible on the PC...

[Kedirekin]

geffroman, no offense but I'm confused by your reply. It starts out sounding like you agree with lighty's post, but ends up sounding like you disagree.

I agree with the ending of your post, with the exception of your statement that a PC monitor will always be better than any TV. In theory yes, but in practice not always. For example, comparing an el-cheapo blurry monitor to a top-of-the-line monitor television, even when the TV monitor connections are less than perfect.

I will say that the equation is mondo complicated, and you can't make any generalized statements that are going to always be true for everyone. For example, lighty, your statement that you can't see a difference on your PC monitor but can on your TV - you can only make that statement categorically for yourself. For someone else, the opposite might be true. And there is even more to it than monitors and hookups. For example, some DVD players have hardware filtering to minimize ringing on playback (and oddly enough, I think the cheaper players implement this more than the expensive ones do - it's a matter of philosophy on the manufacturer's part, and the higher end manufacturers are more like to take a purist 'don't mess with the signal' approach). Having hardware filtering is likely to make comparison on a TV more difficult than on the PC.

For myself, I've found that for many movies, even compression down to 60% is excellent in both IC and DVDShrink. It depends a lot on how clean the original is. And as a general rule, when both do produce good results, I find the results of DVDShrink more visually pleasing, despite the fact that Shrink sometimes introduces brief periods of macroblock noise where IC doesn't. I find the output of Instant Copy ever so slightly grainy. Interestingly enough, I find the difference between Shrink and IC is much like the difference between TMPGEnc and CCE. CCE almost never introduces macroblock noise, but often introduces ringing (mosquito noise). TMPGEnc produces clean, crystal sharp encodes, but does suffer from macroblocking in high action scenes if there isn't sufficient bitrate.

Oh, and one final note - I don't believe IC is an encoder. It's a transcoder with feedback analysis (i.e. it analyses the results of transcoding, and if a GOP isn't up to par it transcodes it again with different settings - probably with less compression).

[geffroman]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
geffroman, no offense but I'm confused by your reply. It starts out sounding like you agree with lighty's post, but ends up sounding like you disagree.

You are correct... As I was trying to be polite I made it sound like an agreement rather than a polite disagreement...

I agree with the ending of your post, with the exception of your statement that a PC monitor will always be better than any TV. In theory yes, but in practice not always. For example, comparing an el-cheapo blurry monitor to a top-of-the-line monitor television, even when the TV monitor connections are less than perfect.

While what you say is true it's not really a logical point... We need to try to keep apples with apples... If you compare a crappy monitor to a crappy TV, monitor wins... compare a great monitor to a great TV, monitor wins... Comparing the best $15,000 TV to a crappy blurry monitor doesn't fit with the rest of your clear and on point logic... I doubt you will find someone making back up DVDs that owns a TV superior to his computer monitor... My guess is "computer literacy" + "high end TV" = "reasonable PC monitor quality".

I do agree with most of what you say... wasn't really trying to change the minds of those in the know... but more making general comments for the benefit newbie to intermediate reader... I remenber being new here and not understanding so very much at the time... I always think of those users when I post...

Huggz and kisses... Jeff

[lighty]

The problem is that although a PC monitor can display picture at higher resolution than TV, a high-quality TV has a bigger screen that often shows errors not easily seen at monitor.

So if I could compare picture on the PC monitor and on TV of the same diagonal I would agree that you could more easily spot quality difference more easily on the monitor but since I don't have any 72cm monitor at my disposal I would have to say that it is more easily to spot macroblocks on the bigger diagonal device. Of course we're talking about high quality devices.

Maybe I am being overly pedantic but I can usualy spot any macroblocking with most of the sources when going lower than 80%. And yes -although IC is a bit grainy compared to Shrink it also tends to introduce less macroblocking than Shrink. I mentioned threshold of 80% because in my experience up to that compression level no visible difference is noticeable between Shrink, IC and ReJig. But the higher the compression gets the difference get more and more visible.

Anyway- the point is that IMO usualy for higher compression levels it's better to use IC to avoid eccesive macroblocking. One thing I must say is that with the upcoming dual-layer DVDs all of discussions like this will become obsolete. We will just need a tool like IFOedit to remove some annoying extras (warnings, studio logos) and nothing else. :p


P.S.
@geffroman
"Huggz and kisses"?!?!:D

[br408408]

Originally posted by lighty

One thing I must say is that with the upcoming dual-layer DVDs all of discussions like this will become obsolete. We will just need a tool like IFOedit to remove some annoying extras (warnings, studio logos) and nothing else. :p


That may not be completely true. I'm sure that dual-layer recordable DVD's will be expensive for some time, so for movies that won't quite fit, and if you're like me and only want the main movie, I'm sure that bit reduction will still be used, although I use CCE for this. Also, here in the USA, many movies have both the 4:3 and the 16:9 versions on the same DVD 9. Since I have a high def wide screen tv, I just dump the 4:3, and keep the 16:9 This will fit on a DVD 5.

Bill

[geffroman]

Originally posted by lighty
The problem is that although a PC monitor can display picture at higher resolution than TV, a high-quality TV has a bigger screen that often shows errors not easily seen at monitor.

So if I could compare picture on the PC monitor and on TV of the same diagonal I would agree that you could more easily spot quality difference more easily

This theory holds true if you are viewing both devices from the same distance only. But most of us view our monitor from a desk and our TV from across the room... Before you tell me you walk across the room to view up close macro blocking on that high quality TV I will tell you I accomplish the same thing by leaning forward in my chair to look closer on my monitor...

My point is there is NEVER a time when a quality 10 Television can show you more detail than a quality 10 Monitor... TVs are just crappy monitors.... High quality TVs are like old monitors from the 1980s... If you need your TV to find Macro blocks in a video file... then you just have NOT been looking on your monitor... or you have a very very old video card and 13" PC monitor...

We'll never agree... but we can do that... It's allowed... :D

Regards... Jeff

[MvB]

AFAIK - the other main difference between Shrink and IC is that one is transcoder and the other is encoder so basicaly the principles of their operation are not the same.

It's true that the principles between trans- and encoder are not the same, but i didn't know that IC is a encoder. I always thought IC was also a transcoder that thinks a little bit more as excuse to be slower than the others.

[lrosado]

IC is not an encoder, it is a transcoder.