Matrix Revolutions. Movie-only. Original versus Shrink versus InstantCopy.

[JFerguson]

Well, I haven't done an analysis like this in a while, but since I've been having trouble with the Big 3 on this movie (R1), I decided to run it through a coupla of my favorite transcoders. Thought you might find it interesting.


Preparation:

I used DVD Shrink v3.1.6 to create a movie-only backup of this title. Disc 1 of the R1 release is basically the movie, 550MB in menus, and 230MB of trailers. The main movie was not compressed (Note: used No Compression, not 100%).

With just the uncompressed movie, english soundtrack and english subtitles, the size came to 5.28GB.


Compression:

DVD Shrink v3.1.6: Compressed movie at about 81%, full analysis was run prior to compression. Final output size: 4.37GB.

InstantCopy v7.0.3.140 (I think the final patched version of InstantCopy 7): InstantCopy shows estimated compression of about 81%. The movie is 2.40:1, so I knew the final output size was unpredictable, but it came in pretty close. Final output size: 4.28GB.

Note: These compressions bring the video down from the original bitrate of around 5000 down to 4000.


Analysis:

I loaded up the original into PowerDVD v4 and captured snapshots at Chapter stops 1-32. Then, the same with the two compressed versions.

To start, I did bytewise comparisons of the files, especially knowing how Shrink has a funny way with perfect matches at various chapter stops. Well, here, all of the Shrink snapshots were bytewise identical to the original snapshots, so a different method was needed. The IC snapshots bytewise matched only at the first chapter stop (basically a black screen).

Revised, I loaded up the original into PowerDVD v4 and captured snapshots at Chapter stops 1-32, but two frames past each chapter stop. Then, the same with the two compressed versions. BTW, I wrote a macro to do this; I didn't do all that mouse clicking myself - bleh! :)

Now, with the exception of chapter stop 1 (plus two frames -- again, just a black screen), all snapshots were bytewise different.

The snapshots were renamed from the default PDVD_000.BMP - PDVD_031.BMP, to PDVD_0xxorig.BMP, PDVD_0xxic.BMP, and PDVD_0xxshrink.BMP.

Fired up ACDSee Classic v2.43. With the files being renamed as above, they were positioned so that I could PAGE UP and PAGE DOWN in ACDSee's slide show viewer in this order: first the InstantCopy snapshot, then the original snapshot, and finally the DVD Shrink snapshot. This made it easy to switch back and forth from the original snapshot, and either of the two compressed snapshots.


Conclusion:

With this sampling, InstantCopy pretty consistently maintained the quality of the original frame. DVD Shrink was less consistent, and in some high-motion frames, really hammered things.


The pics are 1MB, and compress to about a third of that. I'll see if I can find a place to host a few, or I'll put a small package together and throw it up on the eDonkey network.


p.s. - Does anyone expect Recode to produce different results (say, from Shrink)? I could do that one as well...

[MysticE]

Why bother using an old version of InstantCopy?

Although you seem to have taken some time to do this, I think it's been well established that when it's working right, InstantCopy produces better results than Shrink, especially with greater compression.

[sweetness]

i don't know it if anyone read this but have a look at http://dvd.box.sk/articles8.php they did a test on some transcoders. have a look if you haven't already and make your own conclusions.

[dragongodz]

sweetness - old news. try reading these before believing that rubbish.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70146

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72517

[sweetness]

@dragongodz
ya i know it's kind of old but it's more visual. and i did see that fisrt thread there but not the second.
BTW does anyone still transcode anymore with DVD-RB around? well only if i have to compress 90% then i still use DVD-RB with rejig.

[dragongodz]

i know it's kind of old but it's more visual
yes but its results are also unreliable which testing of other dvds by people have shown. the results they give for that 1 dvd are not reflected in others, 1 dvd tested is not really enough. so that test should be ignored as it proves nothing.

[MysticE]

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes but its results are also unreliable which testing of other dvds by people have shown. the results they give for that 1 dvd are not reflected in others, 1 dvd tested is not really enough. so that test should be ignored as it proves nothing.
The results seem pretty accurate to me, it's just that the Shrink lovers don't want to accept the fact that almost all of the commercial products will produce better vid quality at higher compression. Shrink is a nice program that works well on many folks systems and produces very compatable output, and the price is right. But if you are willing to spend a few bucks almost all of the others listed in the test, will for the most part (no software is perfect all the time), produce better vid quality.

[Lagoon]

Personally I think Shrink is pretty bad quality and I only use it with no compression to prepare my IC8 transcoding, because I have to admit the reauthor part is pretty good.

But in this test it shows intervideo winner, and the quality of their transcoder is as bad as shrink if not worse.

Anyway, IC8 forever.

[MysticE]

But in this test it shows intervideo winner, and the quality of their transcoder is as bad as shrink if not worse.
I usually do movie only burns. Have used IC8 for a while and am pleased with the results (when it behaves). I have been using InterVideo 1.2 lately ( after reading the review). Ripping with Decrypter, I 'Select Main Movie Files' and feed that into IV 1.2, the results are quite good, miles ahead of Shrink on long movies. The program is a bit twitchy though (chokes on some DVD's), but it's transcoding engine is excellant and more often then not, produces great video quality. The WinDVD folks know video (WinDVD renders better than PowerDVD), they just have to work on the program a bit. Lately though for anything over 2+ hours I strip out the DVD in Shrink (uncompressed) and run it through Rebuilder/CCE, that combo seems to be about as good as it gets with very consistant results.

[dragongodz]

if you are willing to spend a few bucks almost all of the others listed in the test, will for the most part (no software is perfect all the time), produce better vid quality.
i think you will find if you read back through is forum you will find instantcopy has been said to have the best quality ,especially for heavier compression, by many many people. the results for clonedvd 1 and intervideo though were not so good. clonedvd 2 is meant to be a good improvement over version 1 aswell.

it's transcoding engine is excellant and more often then not, produces great video quality
if you go by that 1 review you would think it outdoes everything when people have tested it on other movies and shown that it doesnt. look at Doom9's codec tests. notice he doesnt do just 1 film or just 1 level of compression ? thats to test the codecs properlly. when such a thorough test is done for transcoders i will take it more seriouslly. :)

The results seem pretty accurate to me, it's just that the Shrink lovers don't want to accept the fact that almost all of the commercial products will produce better vid quality at higher compression.
that i do take exception to. as i already said, if you take the time to read back through this forum you will see that instantcopy is actually considered by most to be the best for heavy compression but dvdshrink is fine(again for most) for lighter compression. to blow others opinion off as simple "shrink lovers" is ignorant of the facts and condicending.

[MysticE]

@ dragongodz

Well then I must apologize, if somehow the term Shrink lovers was somehow construed as condescending, nor did I blow off any opinions. And note that none of my posts dealt in absolutes.

But now your posts:
so that test should be ignored as it proves nothing.
try reading these before believing that rubbish.
I guess it's just me, but I found the test interesting, informative and as I said in general correct. I do not consider it the end all to all tests... nor did I state as much.

You may not agree with the test, but they did in fact pick a popular movie that is difficult to backup and performed their tests in an orderly manner. To dismiss it 100% and call it rubbish shows either a certain bias or some other less obvious agenda.

[dragongodz]

if somehow the term Shrink lovers was somehow construed as condescending
well it just sounds like you are saying that some people wont hear any bad word against it even though its not perfect. sort of like being called a fanboy. :)
but to make things clear even dvdshrink(the programmer) says its imperfect and especially interlaced material dvdshrink(the program) does poorly on. most here find it is acceptable for less compression(usually above 80%-85% or original size).

I guess it's just me, but I found the test interesting, informative and as I said in general correct.
yes and everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course.

You may not agree with the test, but they did in fact pick a popular movie that is difficult to backup and performed their tests in an orderly manner.
yes but testing 1 movie only is in no way any indication of how it performs with a variety of movies. the programmers may have tunes the engine using that very movie for all we know which is why it performs so well. try it with a completly different type of movie and it falls down, as others did test in those links i gave. thats why i said testing 1 movie alone is not in the least reliable. especially when you compare all the reports of people results using instantcopy and dvdshrink on this very forum.

To dismiss it 100% and call it rubbish shows either a certain bias or some other less obvious agenda.
hmm or maybe it means i have been around long enough to know a poor test when i see one. :sly:

[Zhnujm]

Originally posted by MysticE

I guess it's just me, but I found the test interesting, informative and as I said in general correct. I do not consider it the end all to all tests... nor did I state as much.


Many of the pictures in this test are 1:1 copies of the original, i had compared them some time ago.
You can also read this in the threads dragongodz mentioned above.
Lets say if they would compare a frame after or a frames before these frames, when DVDCopy really reduces the size you would come to a completely different result.

I thinks its most important if you compare transcoders to compare frames that are actually compressed and not some frames were no compression is done at all.
Thats why i think this test is completely useless.

[aicha]

for my first time to back-up dvd is using instantcopy (have 200title), but when dvdshrink release 3beta5 until 3.1.7.6 i'm change to use it (and today have 1000title).

1. instantcopy; compression setting need hidden-setting to make it "flexible" or i talk it like constant bit rate if not using the hidden-setting (cmiiw) and don't have closed-caption feature, usually this is my reference to back-up episode title (but from today i'm using dvdshrink). and this instantcopy i think like elby clonedvd but this elby have closed-caption feature (before version 2.0.4.1, compression setting like instantcopy - cannot change it), and i'm using it before dvdshrink have closed-caption feature, to back up studio infinifilm, lionsgate, artisan and anchor-bay.

2. dvdshrink; compression setting from 3beta5 until 3.1.7.6 have more option, but the good is automatically compression setting so i talk it like variable bit rate (cmiiw) and for this time the competitor of this program is dual-layer media (cmiiw)....ha....ha.