dvdshrink v3.2 is released

[bobwillis]

Hi,

A new version has been released. The major improvement is much better transcoded picture quality. The quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy. Also, you can replace a title with a still image :)

http://www.dvdshrink.org - the dvdadvdr.com mirror was working the last time I tried it.

Thanks to dvdshrink, ddlooping and all beta testers.

Regards,
Bob

[berndy2001]

Version 3.2.0.14 - 25 July 2004
-------------------------------

Added Quality Settings tab in the backup dialog, with option
to enable AEC "adaptive error compensation" algorithms.

Updated to NeroSDK 1.05, which includes support for burning
DVD-9 dual-layer media. Added DVD-9 target size in preferences
window.

Removed "burn with DVD Decrypter" checkbox and replaced with
a selectable backup target.

Added burn with CopyToDVD as a backup target, this appears if
CopyToDVD is installed.

Added automatic support for splitting ISO files if they are
saved to a FAT32 partition. In this case a .MDS file is
also output which can be burned with DVD Decrypter and mounted
by Daemon Tools. MDS files can additionally be opened with
DVD Shrink from the "Open Disc Image..." menu.

Added support for replacing a title with a custom image. A
default image from Guy Incognito is installed.

Added "InstallPath", "InstallApp" and "InstallHelp" keys to
the DVD Shrink registry.

Added "March by ZeF69" toolbar.

Fixed bug where Panscan and Letterbox subpicture streams could
be erroneously discarded in some circumstances.

Fixed bug if volume label exceeded 32 characters.

[wmansir]

Also, you can replace a title with a still image

It's Christmas in July. A very unexpected addition.

I'm off to test it out.

[valnar]

quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy.
I'd love to see the results of this comparison. Most curious.

Robert

[jhmac]

I guess all of our begging and pleading has been answered. Thank you DVDShrink just when I thought DVDShrink couldn't get any better you did it again.

Beter quality video and now supports replacing titles with stills...

DVDShrink v3.2 is awesome!!!

[nwg]

The quality (IMO) is comparable to instant copy. Also, you can replace a title with a still imag

It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

[insertdisk]

I just got version 3.2.0.15 from the doom9 site - maybe an update already per berndy2001 post.

[b0b0b0b]

Thank you very much, dvdshrink !!!!

!!!!! :D :D :D !!!!!

[chipvideo]

Possible bug in the new version. I can't get it to do the deep analsys at all. It wont let me check the box. This is with automatic settings.

[ddlooping]

valnar, if you have IC8/7 why don't you do the comparison? :)

insertdisk, it is a mistake on the version history page.
It should actually say "v3.2.0.15". ;)

[ddlooping]

chipvideo, v3.1.7 deep analysis files are compatible with v3.2, so if you already analysed a title with v3.1.7 it will not have to be done again with v3.2. ;)

[geffroman]

IMHO... if you own IC7/8 and compare it to Shrink and you have "eye balls"... you will finally throw IC away immediately... A reasonable person cannot compare them and continue to waste your time and forum space on IC.. For all the bugs... inconsistencies... expense... lack of image quality... IC really is a dirty word...

SHRINK has been a great tool for long time... It needed two things... better image quality with less image softening... and a STILL IMAGE tool...

Both are here... you really could NOT ask for more... IMHO

Great job SHRINK !

[ddlooping]

Thanks for the positive feedback, geffroman. :)

I hope you're wearing your flame-proof jacket. :D

[Backwoods]

Originally posted by nwg
It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

DVD Shrink and Recode should be the exact same program underneath.

[ddlooping]

Backwoods, nwg meant the "Still Image" feature is similar to Recode.
Amongst other things, the compression algorithms in v3.2 are nothing like those in Recode 2. ;)

[brawler]

great program. i wanted to add a request for dvdshrink to have a setting to enable full movie or re-encode view at startup. i prefer re-encode view can this be implemented please?

[int 21h]

The AEC feature is interesting, anyone have feedback or info from testing it? I'm currently seeing if I can see a big difference with it enabled.

[Hemmo]

I think is time to me post my first post:
Thank you dvdshrink ! :thanks:

[berndy2001]

Originally posted by insertdisk
I just got version 3.2.0.15 from the doom9 site - maybe an update already per berndy2001 post.

i have the 3.2.0.15 too, but it seems to be, there is no changelog for v .15

[tf]

I just tried Battle Royale 2, picture quality was good, but shrink didn't detect/show the DTS track (?), and the Closed Captions did not work in my stand-alone (Pioneer DV343)

Shrink 3.1.7 did detect the DTS track, but Closed Captions didn't work either. And no, I didn't deselect them.

-tf

[paran0id]

In Preferences in 3.2 under Stream Selections just change "AC3 or LPCM" to all types..
Dont have time to try it but that should do it..

[jonjon51]

:(
bad news... if v3.2 don't recognize closed captions (as Nero Recode 2 :devil: ), I will continue use v3.1.7 :( :( :(
I will try with Pearl Harbor Fr (for japanese captions) tonight :)

[tf]

My bad, the movie did not have DTS. But subtitles (Closed Captions)does not work.

-tf

[DVD Maniac]

Timing just could not be better. I am still having problems with Rebuilder (audio drop out) and can't get consistent results and was considering a return to IC. Big mistake :devil:

I downloaded the demo of IC8 which had expired so I tried to "buy" my upgrade from IC7>IC8 on line. After much annoying page jumping on the Pinnacle site it became apparant that you can't do it. You have to order the disc and wait for the post. Is there an award that we can give Pinnacle for the most badly thought out sales process and associated web frontage EVER IN THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTERNET??? :devil:

So I have tried out Shrink 3.2 on two titles now - fantatic results on some really high compression levels (45%). I can definitely see a BIG improvement from 3.1.7

A question on AEC Selection -

Are there some parameters we should be considering prior to selecting the AEC mode. Examples might include type / level of motion or action scenes, input quality (old TV transfers vs pristine Movie), etc etc. It would be useful if we could build up some guidelines based on our experiences of the results obtained.

[69Mws]

Originally posted by nwg
It is similar to Recode. The length of the title is the same.

Too bad, IMHO this is quite annoying, why not replace an unwanted title with a short clip instead of keeping the original length?

I know from dvd95 that it handles it like that. I explained once to someone here (http://www.nefkom.net/miko/dvd95.htm) .

The structure remains the same, but unwanted PGCs are replaced by short clips with 15 frames duration.

To have that at least as an option to choose is the only thing I'm missing in DVDShrink, great app nevertheless :)

Greetz
69Mws

[nwg]

Too bad, IMHO this is quite annoying, why not replace an unwanted title with a short clip instead of keeping the original length?

The DVD strucure is not left intact. It is supposed to cause problems on some players.

[69Mws]

Originally posted by nwg
The DVD strucure is not left intact. It is supposed to cause problems on some players.

Yup, that may be. I didn't say it SHOULD handle it like that, but to have at least the option to choose it would be nice, 'cause I never had problems with that sort of replacing :)

Greetz
69Mws

[old-hack]

@ddlooping,

I was wondering why you can't set the default streams in full backup mode? In reauthor mode you can right-click the title and select the default streams. But those options are greyed out when you right-click a title in full backup mode.

[TheSeeker]

Anyone played around with this much yet? Anyone care to explain when and where the different AEC settings may be best used? Like I am backing up Catch me if you can and the movie itself is like 7.5 gbs or so. ANd its like 2 hours 20 min. Now I know this wont be perfect but i really wanted to put the new Shrink to the acid test. So my question is for something like this would Max sharpness be better or smoother? Pretty much I would like some idea when to used which settings.

[Joergen]

This is too good to be true!

I tinkered around with one chapter of a movie, first in 3.1.7 by storing directories with 50,60,70,80 compression, and then did the same in 3.2 with default sharpness setting and the results are amazing! I compared them frame by frame in two dvd2avi windows (RGB mode, on my 19" TFT) and 3.2 with default setting can produce the same quality at 60% as 3.1.7 at 75-80% for this particular movie.

The still image feature is a godsend aswell, the last major feature that was missing. It truly is too much at once, super-encoding enhancement and title blanking!

DVDShrink is truly an amazing package right now, from the gui, performance, stability to the documentation. It's so professional in every way it should be in the top3 of software hall of fame.

We cant thank dvdshrink enough!

[TheSeeker]

I just finished backing up Catch me if you can.. and really I was just doing it test out dvd shrink because the movie was about 7.5 gb and 2.5 hours long i figured for sure I was going to use rebuilder... but when it finished (used aec with max sharpening) it looked phenomenal!! my god i couldnt believe it. I was a huge fan of IC just for the quality as the sizing is pretty crappy. now im gonna go home right from work and uninstall that now obsolete program from my computer. Excellant job to all those involved my hats off. By the way is there a reason I WOULDNT want to use max sharpening for a heavy encode like this? possibly increased blocks? I dont see any of this in the output though.. maybe a little grainy but hell what can you expect...

[bobwillis]

Hi,

I'm really glad you like it, dvdshrink, ddlooping and the beta testing team have put several hundred man hours into comparing different clips against IC. My favourite settings with the two backups I've done so far, have been sharp and smooth. IMO, the results are comparable to IC :) IC - Rest in peace!

Regards,
Bob

[valnar]

I'm really glad you like it, dvdshrink, ddlooping and the beta testing team have put several hundred man hours into comparing different clips against IC.
OH?! :cool:

I'm trying it out now on a 8gb disc with multiple angles - Sarah McLachlan's Mirrorball concert. It's my torture test disc. I'll post results compared to IC7 tonight. So far, with one audio track removed, Shrink is forcing a 55% overall compression. IC7 looked pretty good when I did it a few months ago. Because of angles, DVD-Rebuilder was never an option.

So has anyone compared the results of DVDShrink, IC7/8 and the corresponding original DVD with a bitrate viewer (http://www.tecoltd.com/bitratev.htm)?

-Robert

[nwg]

Joergen wrote,
The still image feature is a godsend aswell, the last major feature that was missing. It truly is too much at once, super-encoding enhancement and title blanking!

You may also want to create your own image. I created two black bitmap images at 720 x 576 and 720 x 480. It has reduced the disc space on a DVD by two thirds (saving 200MB) compared to the default image.

I tried it with a jpg and the results are the same.

[DVD Maniac]

You may also want to create your own image. I created two black bitmap images at 720 x 576 and 720 x 480. It has reduced the disc space on a DVD by two thirds (saving 200MB) compared to the default image. I tried it with a jpg and the results are the same.

Try creating a .png format still black image which I found tends to be a much smaller file size than bitmap format and consequently a smaller blanked title size.



Go Shrink and nuts to Pinnacle and IC!

[nwg]

Try creating a .png format still black image which I found tends to be a much smaller file size than bitmap format and consequently a smaller blanked title size.

I just tried that, and get the same title size whether it is a black png, bmp or a jpg file.

[robot1]

It's the best transcoder now!

[Joergen]

I dont think the format of the source still matters since shrink will encode it to mpeg2, but the amount of detail in it certainly does, the blurrier the better etc.

You can even use shrink to hide the copyright warnings with a black screen or other of your choice/making.

edit: I just did more comparison testing (mainly "no compression" vs low%) and I had to drag the 60%~ VOB several times into DVD2AVI cause I was sure I accidentally kept dragging the 100% into both windows. It's uncanny!

[Mephiston]

So far all i can say is WOW!

I've never used DVDShrink much before as i'm a quality nut.

Just backed up a movie to test it, 1 1/2 Hour movie, with extras. movie @ 80%, Extras @ 60%

movie looks excellent. No difference from original. As good as CCE. And the extras look damn good as well, easily watchable. Gonna try it on a Heavy Action / Space movie next and see how it looks.

If DVDShrink gets any better i will not even both with CCE for movies under 2 Hours anymore, and if Shrink goes retail, i would be willing to buy a copy now.

Great Work!

[mb1]

Did some testing as well ;)

http://people.freenet.de/mb1svcd/

[Joergen]

mb1: I dunno what you encoded but home videos or poorly authored/jam-packed discs do not represent the average hollywood movie which is done with high quality encoders and skill. If you take bad material and force it down it wont get any better thats for sure.

And did you forget to run deep analysis, its not ticked in your screenshot.

edit: How about taking the sharpest possible movie you can find, and fiddle with that. Suggestions are Indy jones boxset, good bad and the ugly, ET 20th anniversary edition.

[ddlooping]

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys, it is very much appreciated. :)

mb1, your test makes for interesting reading.
Would you mind conducting the exact same one with other transcoders? ;)

[quantum]

I've got an hour left on my 3.2 encode. Can anyone confirm closed captions are working or not working? Please don't tell me they're broken. :scared:

[dvdshrink]

Interlaced video is a tough one.

Fortunately it is rare on DVDs, sometimes extras are interlaced, and often music videos, but not your typical movie.

Would be interesting to see some more comparitive tests.

[dvdshrink]

I don't think CC is broken! (I hope not ;-)

[Joergen]

The CCCP whatnow? Doesnt matter in PAL land.. :p

[mb1]

@ ddlooping, dvdshrink
Would you mind conducting the exact same one with other transcoders?
Would be interesting to see some more comparitive tests

Running DVD2one 1.5 now for the second time with different full disk options.
The first one did a better job than DVDShrink 3.2 (in 30:19 minutes).
Blocking was less outstanding and better looking.
But I think DVDShrink 3.2 does have a P-frame-bug on higher compression (like <60% ratio).

Today evening I will do it with IC8 as well.

Will update the site in 24 hours with new comparisons and screenshots.

Interlaced video is a tough one
Of course. Because of that I'm testing on it :D
IC7 had major quality issues with interlaced material. I'm extremely curious if that has changed.

@ Joergen
And did you forget to run deep analysis, its not ticked in your screenshot
I think I wrote it all in the text :rolleyes:

If you take bad material
The material is not bad. DVD is fine (with peaks up to 9400 kbps), but the content is extremely hard for every encoder/transcoder.
Of course there are blocks sometimes in the source material, too. I have DV material (25 Mbps video bitrate) where I can see blocking because the content is so extreme that even this high bitrate is not sufficient.
That's the material where encoders are far superior if settings are optimized.

I already did a lot of progressive hollywood movie comparisons. Other people too. I don't plan to do what everybody else is doing already.
I think I'm not the only tester - I want those cute little programs to reach their limits - or way beyond.
That's the way to find bugs and weaknesses.

Remember my DVD2one comparison with optimized CCE settings (January 2003) with LOTR SEE on one DVD-R. Bad results for DVD2one ...

[quantum]

I can confirm CC is retained in my first encode using 3.2, whew :)

I can also confirm macro blocks are reduced in comparison to my previous 3.1.7 transcode done at similar compression rates.

I'll do some more tests, but so far this looks impressive. Definitely a significant improvement.

Excellent work dvdshrink :cool:

[dvdshrink]

"cute little program" - ouch!
You are a harsh tester. Every developer's worst enemy :-)

edit:
On a more serious note, I'd love to see an interlaced comparison with IC8. This didn't come up during beta testing. Interlaced material usually ends up looking worse in transcoders, because the second video field is predicted from the first field, so you get an error propagation nightmare. DVD Shrink does attempt to deal with this...

[valnar]

OK, I'm impressed. It equals or exceeds IC7 on Mirrorball. Way to go DVDShrink team!

-Robert