DVD2ONE 1.5... how much is better than the old one?

[leopardone]

from their site:

DVD2one V1.5.0 released
New compression introduced, the selective ratio engine.

This new engine is a different way of approaching the video data! Selectable in three pre-defined levels, this new engine determines the balance in distincting the important screen parts from the less important ones.
Things that are not in focus in the current frame, like backgrounds, are low in detail or as we define it, of low importance to the screen.
and can be approached differenty than the important ones.

With this new compression method, setting the slider to low will lead into a scheme where the important parts of the screen are a bit more compressed than the less important ones. Compressing of low important parts can result into macroblock because the original encoder in a good encoder setup already achieved the best possible compression without loss of detail.
In medium the important parts are even more compressed than the non important parts, and in high the compression is almost done only on the important parts.

However in all three mode's the less important parts are still being compressed, because that is still mandatory to get the desired endsize.
By using this new method, the macroblocking (over compressed parts) will be less visible than with the conventional approach.
If they occur they will be more eye friendly shaped, meaning they are not 100% square but a bit more dithered shape.
The human eye will notice them less in this non square shape and thus resulting in a more pleasantly viewable version of the picture.

But all encoders are based on different motion detection scheme's, meaning there's no golden rule.
Most of the time setting it to medium will give you a very descent looking output, however with some encoders setting it to low or high might give a better quality output.
It's advisable to experiment with these settings on different discs from various distributors and view the end result on your setup by burning the video onto a rewritable disc.

Mac OS-X customers will get this new engine when Jack returns from his well deserved holiday

anyone has tried it?
is it really different than before?
is quality similar to IC? :)

[DMagic1]

I tried it and I don't see any improvement.

Its been a long time since I've used it so its possible its a little better but not much. It still doesn't seem to come close to Shrink or Clone DVD IMHO. I used both the low setting and the high setting and couldn't see much of a difference.

The movie I used wasn't an easy one for any transcoder. I used Fellowship Of The Rings to test. Not only were there macroblocks, but there were parts that look like chicken wire was pressed on parts of the screen.

The speed is still there but I think they are getting away from the simple setup that some fans liked. They already had the Constant and Variable setting which no one was sure which worked better. Now they have Selective Ration as a third option with 3 setting inside of it(low, mid, high). "So what would yeild the best quality", Mrs. Parker asked?

[Lazza]

Originally posted by leopardone

anyone has tried it?
is it really different than before?
is quality similar to IC? :)

1) Yes

2) No

3) Not in a million years. :D



Personally did not notice any differenec in pic quality output myself after a couple of small tests.


JM2C :)

[TheSeeker]

Is CloneDVD even close to IC8? I mean nothing really seems to come even close to IC8 or Shrink as far as transcoders are concerned. Does CloneDVD have like a High Quality mode or something?

[DMagic1]

From what I've seen, Clone DVD gives similar results as Shrink when using 80% or higher.

[TheSeeker]

But there is no like High quality or deep analysis mode like IC8 or Shrink?

[DMagic1]

Just because they have those feature doesn't mean every transcoder needs them.

[jake192]

Hi all
I just got my 42in plasma and decided to watch the lord of the rings on big screen.The quality was good on my old 32in wide screen but quite poor on 42in.So I did them again with Dvd2one 1.5 using selective ratio set to medium, wow what a difference almost no difference from original. So to me there is a big improvement over earlier versions.

[localuser]

I've always favoured DVD2one, not just from the speed pov, but also for quality. I found 1.4 good and 1.5 better, even at the default settings. By contrast, I've always been disappointed with DVD Shrink results.

I did try Intervideo's DVD Copy, after reading the reviews here...

http://dvd.box.sk/articles8.php?stranka=1

...and the results were good, but it managed to hide my optical drives from Exact Audio Copy - too big a price to pay :)

It's hard to quantify these things, or even provide evidence. I don't have a TV the size of a football field (I wish I did) so maybe I'm missing something :) However, I do examine my DVDs very critically on a 19" Sony monitor.

Regards,
Alan

[Ton80]

Originally posted by localuser
I've always been disappointed with DVD Shrink results.


Try DVD Shrink again now that 3.2 is out.
I was an IC user until last week, but now Isee no reason to put up with its quirls when DVD Shrink is equal to it in quality and far more flexible.
By 3.2 beta 3 DVD Shrink was already light years better then DVD2One and the final release makes beta 3 look pathetic.

see the beta 3 comparison http://www.dvdshrink.info/temp/beta/compilations.html

Spoiler:
the order is Original, DVDShrink 3.2b3 ,IC8, DVD2ONE 1.4

[localuser]

DVD Shrink favours DVD Shrink over other products? Now there's a funny thing :)

For me it simply demonstrates how subjective the whole thing is. I'm not about to throw away many months of hard-earned experience on the basis of any review, whichever way the cards fall. Someone tells me DVD Shrink is better and I observe differently on my computer and my players. Which way should I jump? Duh...

Happy ripping,
Alan

[TheSeeker]

Wow, DVD2ONE doesnt even come close to IC8 OR The New Shrink in terms of quality. Most especially at compression more than 80%. And no I know that not every transcoder needs a high quality mode but Just observing the results from IC8, Shrink, DVD2ONE, DVDCopy, and CloneDVD, IC8 and Shrink take the cake for quality. Coincidence? Probably not.

EDIT: But they ARE the slowest. But 1.5 hours isn't long to wait for excellant transcodes.

[ddlooping]

localuser, no-one is suggesting you throw away your hard-earned experience.
You might have found DVD2One to be better than DVD Shrink v3.1.7, but I'd suggest you now compare it to v3.2.
Sometimes, experience is only worth keeping only if you update it regularly. ;)

[TheSeeker]

@localuser

Definately I agree, whatever you think looks best to YOU is what you should use. But by your own reasoning shouldnt you at least give the new shrink a try for a couple movies (one movie encoded does not represent experience with a program) if you havent already? See if it looks better than 3.1.7 (im pretty sure you will find that it does).

[Ton80]

Originally posted by localuser
DVD Shrink favours DVD Shrink over other products? Now there's a funny thing :)

For me it simply demonstrates how subjective the whole thing is. I'm not about to throw away many months of hard-earned experience on the basis of any review, whichever way the cards fall. Someone tells me DVD Shrink is better and I observe differently on my computer and my players. Which way should I jump? Duh...

Happy ripping,
Alan

First off this was not a review, it was just 3 sample clips posted as a game. Second I am not involved in DVDShrink in any way. I have used IC7 or other tools since before there was a DVDShrink. In the past people would ask why I still used IC when the were what they considered faster and or better transcoders and I always came to the same conclusion. IC produced the best results with the worst user interface and reliablility. Since all I cared about was quality I lived with the quirks. Then I saw this "guessing game" last week and I downloaded the clips, guessed the right order and was disappointed that IC was still the best. That was only 3.2beta3.

I then got the opportunity to test later beta's and by beta10 I was no longer sure which disk I had burned with IC and which was DVDShrink. The results were that close. By the final 3.2 release I could no longer justify using IC as my main transcoder.

I hated people telling me I should use DVDShrink 3.0 or 3.1 in the past because I knew that the quality was not there. The only thing I was trying to impart to you by posting the link is that DVDShrink 3.2 is a whole new beast and the results are nothing like the inferior 3.1.7 product it replaces.

I am not asking you to throw out your experience with DVD2One anymore than I will throw out my IC experience. I am asking you to take your experience with DVD2One and make the best test you can and then burn the same movie with DVDShrink 3.2 with deep analysis and AEC turned on. Then you judge the results for yourself. If you think DVD2One is still the best, then great keep using it. I think IC is still better than DVDShrink sometimes, but other times it is not. I also don't think anyone would claim that IC is an easier to use or more reliable program than DVDShrink and that is why I will use DVDShrink and why you should at least test it

[Ton80]

Originally posted by Ton80

Spoiler:
the order is Original, DVDShrink 3.2b3 ,IC8, DVD2ONE 1.4

BTW localuser, you obviously didn't follow the link because the spoiler is the order of the clips not results.
If you want to be holyier than thou then feel free, but don't make sarcastic comments about things you don't even bother to look at.

[localuser]

Ton80,

I apologise if my comment offended. My post was intended to be light-hearted rather than confrontational. You couldn't see me grin so I used a smiley :) I did take a look at the link but admittedly did not take the test - I'm on dialup.

OK in the light of everyone's comments I will test the new DVD Shrink (I'm not a Luddite; I do have it installed). I will use LOTR:ROTK as well, to take the program source out of the equation.

However, two points I made should stand - video quality is subjective and the superiority of DVD Shrink is not axiomatic. I repeat, on my equipment, transcoding program I am interested in (not necessarily LOTR epics), it has been the worst performer for me. So far.

Thank you everyone for the feedback,
Alan

[jake192]

Just done a backup of Welcome to the jungle using latest Dvd2one and latest shrink. I found viewing on 42in screen Dvd2one did a slightly better job of the background than shrink but not much to choose from.So I will be using Dvd2one from now on. So much quicker and slightly better quality.

[pgreed]

jake192, what were your DVD2one 1.5 settings - low, medium or high?
I have only tried medium so far, with good results, and the speed cannot be beaten!

[jsquare]

Originally posted by jake192
Just done a backup of Welcome to the jungle using latest Dvd2one and latest shrink. I found viewing on 42in screen Dvd2one did a slightly better job of the background than shrink but not much to choose from.So I will be using Dvd2one from now on. So much quicker and slightly better quality.
Try a more difficult material for testing, something like Saving Private Ryan, or interlaced TV mini-series with 4+hours per DVD and you'll see the difference. Your movie is only 1:45 and easy to transcode.

I did Return of the King in all 3 transcoders IC8, DVD2One 1.5, DVDShrink 3.2 and Shrink is clearly the winner in every aspect, don't mind waiting an hour more to get better results.

[TheSeeker]

@jsquare

Speaking of encoding tv miniseries. Can you or anyone for that matter the best way to back up the miniseries Taken? Im doing the first disc. Im running it through remake now but the output is still about 7.8gb. That is all main movie video! I dont know if even cce can do anything about this. Will I have to split it to two discs?

[jake192]

Originally posted by jsquare
Try a more difficult material for testing, something like Saving Private Ryan, or interlaced TV mini-series with 4+hours per DVD and you'll see the difference. Your movie is only 1:45 and easy to transcode.

I did Return of the King in all 3 transcoders IC8, DVD2One 1.5, DVDShrink 3.2 and Shrink is clearly the winner in every aspect, don't mind waiting an hour more to get better results.
I will try something difficult in the next few days,let you know how I get on.It may be shrink for long movies and DVD2one for the shorter? I don't mind waiting longer if the quality is better.

My settings with DVD2one were medium.

[localuser]

Originally posted by jsquare
Try a more difficult material for testing, something like Saving Private Ryan, or interlaced TV mini-series with 4+hours per DVD and you'll see the difference. Your movie is only 1:45 and easy to transcode.

This is amazing. jake192 expresses his transcoder preference for material he presumably enjoys watching. That's not good enough. He has to keep trying until he finds something that DVD Shrink will handle better?

As a matter of record, he does see the difference. The difference he sees is that DVD2one outperforms DVD Shrink.

Good grief :(

[jsquare]

Originally posted by TheSeeker
@jsquare

Speaking of encoding tv miniseries. Can you or anyone for that matter the best way to back up the miniseries Taken? Im doing the first disc. Im running it through remake now but the output is still about 7.8gb. That is all main movie video! I dont know if even cce can do anything about this. Will I have to split it to two discs?

I did Taken over a year ago and at that time the only choice was IC7 for multi-episodes TV series DVDs, it came out OK but not as good as wanted. I just did the last 2 DVDs of the Lexx series which is probably one of the most difficult mini-series DVDs to transcode, used Shrink 3.2 and the quality is unbelievable compared to the previous Lexx DVDs that were done with IC7.

Another choice for troublesome disc is DVD-Rebuilder+CCE, you'll re-encoding instead of transcoding and it would take a lot longer, but the results will be as good as the new Shrink.

As for those that want to use D2O for every single transcode on their collection go for it, soon or later they'll find out that there's is no such thing as a one-for-all solution.

Localuser,
Try to bring something valuable to the table, like experience!
On a 19" TV anything will look great, even a crappy VCD.

[Ton80]

Originally posted by jsquare

Localuser,
Try to bring something valuable to the table, like experience!
On a 19" TV anything will look great, even a crappy VCD.

@jsquare
That is not called for. Localuser has the right to his opinion and has brought his experience to the table.
For low compression movies DVD2One might be every bit as good as DVDShrink in his view. After all he prfers DVD2One over DVD Shrink 3.1.7 and for lower compression movies 3.2 is almost identical to 3.1.7 unless Max Smoothness is selected. Therefore I would expect him to use DVD2One for these movies and would be surprised if a DVD2One users thought DVDShrink is better in this case.
For higher compression movies he might find that DVD Shrink is truer to the original, but that does not mean that the should prefer it more. He may prefer the tradeoffs DVD2one makes more than those of DVD Shrink.
I would disagree with his results, but not with his right to feel that way as long as his feelings were based on his tests and not blind faith.
I jumped on Localuser earlier not because he had a different opinion, but because I thought he attacked me just because I suggested he give the new version a try.

I was an IC user before DVDShrink 3.2, and if pinnacle released an IC9 with a more reliable interface and better size prediction, I would most certainly test it against DVD Shrink 3.2 and would use whichever I thought would give me the best results.

Oh and btw he said he uses a 19" monitor, not a TV. I see more defects on my 21" trinitron monitor than I do on my 42" HDTV, so don't claim that is the reason he prefers DVD2one

[jake192]

I just did The Fellowship of the Rings extended edition Disc one full disc 6.7 GB. Dvd2one selective ratio set to medium.Dvdshrink deep analysis etc.My wife put them in the player so I didn't know which one I was watching. Disc A played flawlessly while disc B didn't handle the dark backgrounds as well.I would highly recommend both programs but to me there is only one winner.As I don't want to be involved in a slanging match with people who can never be convinced and will stick with there favoured program come what may I suggest you do the same and make your own mind up.

[jsquare]

@Ton80 and jake192,

The whole point of my comments is directed to the idea of not to "Put all Your Eggs in The Same Basket". As far as I remember D2O was the 1st transcoder out there, it did a good job in the earlier versions then the quality and reliability came down a bit with newer versions, in top of that it was a "movie only" transcoder, when IC7 and DVDShrink came alone everyone started using them and mostly forgot that D2O ever existed.

DVD2ONE is having a hard time to keep up with the new breed of transcoders, they haven't changed their GUI layout or added any new features aside from "Full Disk" and new trasncoding engines in over 2+ years of existence.

I have an 55" HDTV and can tell a big difference when macroblocks and other artifacts introduced by whichever application used for transcoding ruins the picture, and in that department D2O 1.5 still has problems while Shrink 3.2 has made great improvements over previous versions, even IC7&8 can't compete against Shrink.

One more thing DVDShrink is "FREE"

[localuser]

Originally posted by jsquare
Localuser,
Try to bring something valuable to the table, like experience!
On a 19" TV anything will look great, even a crappy VCD.

Thanks jsquare, I needed that :p

Ton80 was kind enough to point out the factual inaccuracies in your brief rant. The precious little that remains does nothing to refute my earlier comments.

Ton80,
I am still trying to get hold of a copy of ROTK for testing. Mindful of the comments about mini series here, I did have a go with Mash Series 2 Disc 1. This is 7.5 GB+ (don't have the exact figures, I'm at work now). It may not be ideal but I imagine the 4:3 format is better suited to my 19" monitor. I used DVD2one 1.5 and DVD Shrink 3.2. The latter did a deep analysis first. Because I am biased ;), I arranged a blind test - my son played each rip five times, five minutes each. Only he knew the order and I took notes. No details here, but just a couple of examples - I found smearing and pixellation beneath the bold yellow opening credits to be equally bad (or good). Scenes where a head moved in front of a bold coloured wall showed about the same blockiness and fringing colour instability. Bottom line - I couldn't tell them apart, but I was quite impressed with both efforts. Both bettered my previous backups (DVD2One 1.3 or 1.4) noticeably. BTW, I know, I know, it was a mistake not to include the original rip.

IMHO:
1. DVD2One 1.5 is better than DVD2One 1.4
2. DVD Shrink 3.2 is better than the 3.1 series.
3. They performed equally well in this test.

Now, jsquare I know that won't be good enough for you so I cordially invite you to pop round with your widescreen HDTV and I'll throw in the beer. May the best encoder win :)

Alan

[Mr Sweden]

I found 1.5 being a big improvment when backing up DVDs with multiple episodes on or putting two movies on one DVD-R. I have "Fawlty towers" on DVD (6 episodes on each DVD) and it used to be rather blocky. Now, useing the "Secective mode/low" setting it's much better. The same if I put regular-lenght (90 min) movies on one DVD-R, v1.5 gives you a visable better result then before. Just my $0.02