Impressions of Shrinkto5

[writersblock29]

I downloaded and tested this new software, (availible at: http://www.shrinkto5.com/) not expecting much since 1-click DVD backup software is becoming more and more mainstream. Here's what I wound up with.

Movie tested: Star Wars Episode 1, Region 1, Disk 1, Full disk copy.

Decrypted with DVDFab Decrypter.

Installation was fast and easy, since the download is a self-contained installer. Uninstalling left no harsh effects on my test system. The test system is a self-built unit meant for video processing, including the following:

AMD Anthlon 64 on an MSI Socket 939 motherboard which is running 2GB of Micron memory (PC3200) in a dual-channel mode. All programs are in a 32-bit environment (due to lack of support for drivers and programs with Windows 64).

The CPU ran at 94-100% all through the 25 minute, 59 second event. The output size was left at default in the program (4.37GB), but the resulting files clocked in at 4.21GB -- bringing back memories of InstantCopy 7. The average encoding speed was 144 FPS, and completed without any input on my part. The interface itself is clean and easy to understand, requiring only four clicks to complete a full-disk project.

The quality is mixed, however. Granted, there's a lot of reduction necessary to whittle the original 7.78GB file to 4.37 -- and any transcoder currently availible is going to show the strain from that. So to that end, I can forgive the degree of pixelation I saw in the final product since even very good software like DVD Shrink or Nero Recode would show roughly the same thing (to be fair about it, I ran a full-disk comparison with Nero Recode). The issue I ran into that made me frown the most was the handling of Multi-angle material -- which this disk has. There was a high degree of stuttering within these scenes, with flickering images of alternate languages here and there. Since this was absent in both the original rip and the Recode project, I can only conclude that Shrinkto5 has issues with this sort of material.

While quality is certainly subjective, I found the Recode files much more pleasing to the eye, while not necessarilly being as sharp. Much, MUCH, less pixelation with Recode.

Not that I mean to discourage the developers, should they read this post. On the contrary: I'd like to see how this software ends up with a little more development and testing. I love it when a free software rivals high-priced "professional" tools! Reversely, however, I conclude that Shrinkto5 is not yet a threat to other transcoders like DVD Shrink or Nero Recode. It certainly won't be embraced by users of high-end encoders like CCE (nor does it have the many functions availible in DVD Rebuilder... which, incidentally, appears to handle Multi-angle sources just fine).

This is just me testing one (count 'em: ONE) movie. The price is right, so feel free to test it yourself. Curriousity's good for you.

[ChickenMan]

I found also exactly the same obversations as you did writersblock29. I tried it on an old favorite, The American President. PAL R4 6.72gb, with all bar English removed in Audio & Subs. Took 9min 13sec on my AMD X2 4400 to reduce it down to 4.19gb.

End result showed some major blocking in the Universal intro with random flickering of coloured blocks. The actual movie would be okay to watch on a small screen TV but not on anything larger than a 26" set. On the PC screen the pic was very fuzzy and lots of added noise. Back to ReBuilder, that took me 51min and excellent results :)

[mrbass]

thanks for the reports. I'll wait a till the engine improves before trying it myself. If it does get decent it'll be a boon for linux/mac users.

[Aquilonious]

I was just about to install Shrinkto5 but thought, eh, I better take a look on Doom9 to see if anyone else has tried it. I'm glad I did, because I have enough "junk" installed on this system of mine (certainly not that St5 is junk, but I just don't need it).

I only use DVD Shrink to check the options of the movie I want and then export it uncompressed. From there I use DVD-RB Pro. I still find DVD Shrink to be easier in customizing a movie to my own liking. I don't use it at all for transcoding, even for small percentages (under 10%). I use CCE for my encoding needs, using custom matrices and sometimes undot() and deen() when applicable.

I hope St5 improves at least to the point of DVD Shrink since the latter is no longer hosted (though it's easily obtainable via p2p). St5 has a great interface and much potential. It's especially good for those (like many of my friends) who need something very easy to use with relatively good quality output.

[Cyberace]

What happened to ReJig (C++ open source DVD9 to DVD5 transcoder) (http://www.rejig.org) by the way? :confused: ...anyway maybe ShrinkTo5's developers can integrate ReJig's source code (http://nic.dnsalias.com/ReJig_src.zip) into its own (if there is any features/functions or other stuff in there that they can use :rolleyes: )?, it's great that there now is at least one active GPL'ed project/program that does DVD9 to DVD5 ripping simple and quick, (to bad DVDShrink isn't open sourced too :( )

[Cyberace]

to bad DVDShrink isn't open sourced too :(I just read the news that DVDShrink is no more (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=700250#post700250), ...rumour is that the author got employed by Nero to work on Recode (http://www.nerodigital.com/eng/Nero_Recode_2_CE.html) and he took his code with him so DVDShrink will probebely never be open sourced :(

[dragongodz]

What happened to ReJig (C++ open source DVD9 to DVD5 transcoder) by the way?
life, the universe, everything ? :D
it will be updated eventually.

I just read the news that DVDShrink is no more, ...rumour is that the author got employed by Nero to work on Recode
that news is so old its got cobwebs on it. if you :search: you will find posts from a loooong time ago about development being stopped and recode etc. ;)

[Richk50]

I would be more curious how a 10 or 15% reduction would look in Shrinkto5.
There is no transcoder that can make a 7.5gb to dvd5 reduction look acceptable.

[nwg]

I would be more curious how a 10 or 15% reduction would look in Shrinkto5.
There is no transcoder that can make a 7.5gb to dvd5 reduction look acceptable.


Have you tried DVD Shrink? It might surprise you.

[Cyberace]

latest CloneDVD (CloneDVD2) (http://www.slysoft.com/en/clonedvd.html) also give great results, though it's not free :sly:
It also helps if you strip out menus, special-features and foreign audio tracks

[writersblock29]

@Richk50

At 10-15%, pretty much all transcoders will do a somewhat reasonable job on a good source -- it'd be easy to give Shrinkto5 a pat on the back it doesn't deserve. It's best, in my opinion, to push it well beyond where you'd normally put it in order to see if it offers any sort of improvement over what's currently availible. That's why I chose to test it against Nero Recode 2. I wasn't expecting crystal-clarity; in fact, I assumed either test would look like a mess. They did! But the Recode version of Star Wars Eposide 1 was far easier on the eye than Shrinkto5. Therefore, Shrinkto5 offers no improvement over what else is out there. At least, that's what I came up with.

[Chetwood]

I would be more curious how a 10 or 15% reduction would look in Shrinkto5.
There is no transcoder that can make a 7.5gb to dvd5 reduction look acceptable.

Of course there is, it is dvdshrink. It's all about bitrate and not percentage. And YES, I've tested my rips on a friend's beamer, his screen is 2,40 meters wide and there were no artifacts.

[nwg]

Of course there is, it is dvdshrink. It's all about bitrate and not percentage. And YES, I've tested my rips on a friend's beamer, his screen is 2,40 meters wide and there were no artifacts.


I don't have quite 2.4m but I do have 2m wide. So far, all my Shrink backups look great and that includes my Return of the King backup (theatrical version). That looks better than my DVD Rebuilder version and that was at 55% compression in Shrink.

[influenza]

That looks better than my DVD Rebuilder version and that was at 55% compression in Shrink.

Something must definately have gone wrong there :)

[OvERaCiD23]

Something must definately have gone wrong there :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or some ******. IMO, he must be blind ;)

[nwg]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or some *******. IMO, he must be blind ;)

Charming :(

The DVD Rebuilder version was a mess and had sharpness problems. It actually was hard to look at for long periods. The Shrink version had better colour and contrast.

[OvERaCiD23]

With huge macroblocks? Thanks for bitching to the moderators too. :thanks:

[nwg]

With huge macroblocks? Thanks for bitching to the moderators too. :thanks:

No macroblocks and I didn't btw. I would never do that. I would look at the swearing instead.

[goonix]

It depends on the source material.

If the source is encoded really good, then there is enough "room" for a transcoder to reduce the file size without a visible quality degrading and even no macro-blocking. Then it looks better than a new encoding with CCE.

But for many movies this is'nt the case and DVDRebuilder wins.

goonix

[nwg]

It depends on the source material.

If the source is encoded really good, then there is enough "room" for a transcoder to reduce the file size without a visible quality degrading and even no macro-blocking. Then it looks better than a new encoding with CCE.

But for many movies this is'nt the case and DVDRebuilder wins.

goonix

Exactly. It is also helped by using deep analysis and AEC settings in Shrink.

Using DVD Rebuilder doesn't mean it is automatically better everytime. IT depends on the bitrate of the original. I also have plenty of Shrink and DVD-RB discs that look the same.

[influenza]

Using DVD Rebuilder doesn't mean it is automatically better everytime. IT depends on the bitrate of the original. I also have plenty of Shrink and DVD-RB discs that look the same.

I do not say that shrink won't give good quality and in some cases quality comparable to CCE but at at 55% I'm having a hard time believing that.

[nwg]

I do not say that shrink won't give good quality and in some cases quality comparable to CCE but at at 55% I'm having a hard time believing that.


As already been said. If the bitrate is high to start with then it can take more compression than normal. To get a artefact free backup just takes about 3.5 to 4mbps bitrate for most DVD's. If the average bitrate is 7 to 8mbps. Then it can take a 50% reduction in bitrate and still look great to most people.

[influenza]

Well As I only do full dvd backups I'm usually not so lucky to have a 3.5-4.0 Mbit bitrate to work with. 3.5 on the main asset could be possible, but the extras are usually not given more than 2250. And while most PAL extras are interlaced and require quite some bitrate, those will look horrible.

Edit: but this is becoming offtopic this way. Let's stick to the original intent of this thread, being the impression of this new tool (yes I'm guilty of this going offtopic myself ;)).

[Chetwood]

Exactly. It is also helped by using deep analysis and AEC settings in Shrink.

Using DVD Rebuilder doesn't mean it is automatically better everytime. IT depends on the bitrate of the original. I also have plenty of Shrink and DVD-RB discs that look the same.

Excatly. However, there are a lot of 'coding masters' out there who think encoders must be top notch so they use it often never doing direct comparisons on the same material and equipment. It's always funny though when they say anything less than 80% requires an encoder showing that they totally don't get it.

[Lazza]

Excatly. However, there are a lot of 'coding masters' out there who think encoders must be top notch so they use it often never doing direct comparisons on the same material and equipment. It's always funny though when they say anything less than 80% requires an encoder showing that they totally don't get it.
Agreed, there are way too many variables for any given situation to = DVD-RB+CCE always gives best results on every DVD. OK, so in most situations it cetainly is true there is no argument whatsoever in that ... but not all. Even with some films in the 60 -75% bracket.

[n3rdyguy]

So anyone tried the new version yet ???? Post results ;p

[emazur]

I'm wanting to try this b/c dvdshrink has obselete ripping and I want an all-in-one freebie, by there are some serious red flags being raised:

1) it is adware. = spyware?

2) it don't decrypt css without machinist2.dll, which is not included.
google won't give ya jack, and the file(s) that appear on shareaza are infested with a trojan horse according to the free antivirus software AntiVir:
http://www.free-av.com/

[ricardo.santos]

you can find the machinist2.dll here (http://www.gravure-et-traductions.com/Downloads/Machinist2.setup.rar)

the shrinkto5 website forum says the dll was supplied to doom9.org and others but none hosted it.

[emazur]

thanks, that file seems to be virus-free but why the need for an executable setup program for just a freaking dll?
That's a bit unsettling, plus I don't know if the main program is spyware or not. Embedded ads that don't connect to the internet and don't install any other software on the system are within my tolerance (dvdinfo pro seems to take this approach), but if it's about phoning home or installing browser bars or tray apps then screw it.

[ricardo.santos]

if you like me just want to try out its capabilities, theres a 3 day no ads installed version on their website.

none of my anti spyware detectd anything when installing that version.

[stoney]

none of my anti spyware detectd anything when installing that version.

It's a no-no for me. Don't like Adware - and the Layout of the program is FUBAR on my Display (1680x1050 large fonts)