DVD Rebuilder vs Big 3

[new_student]

Okey, I have searched the forum before posting this, and was unable to find direct answer.

In past, I have used both DVD Rebuilder and Big 3 to make my backups, but I can never decide which one to use. What advantage does dvd rebuilder has over Big 3 or vise versa.

Two basic difference I spotted were:

DVD Rebuilder: Saves me 30 minutes to one hour over Big 3 tools in Prepare and Rebuild phase.

Big 3: Well, using BatchCCEWS I can use Robshot-Batch (atleast to my eyes the quality is almost always better than 4 pass VBR)

Any help will be most appreciated.

Thank You.

[Trahald]

please.. read the forum rules. no 'what is best' threads.

[hutch1711]

Flame me if you wish, but I don't feel the question "what advantage does dvd rebuilder have over the Big 3 or vise versa?" qualifies as a "what is best?"
new_student, for a start I suggest you take a look at the various modes and options available on the main menu of DVD-Rebuilder. That alone should give you some idea of the ease, power, and flexibility of this program. I would also suggest you read the guides available on Doom9 for both DVD-Rebuilder and the big 3 to gain a better understanding of what each can do. Welcome to the Forum! :)

[feedback]

There are functions and abilities in DVD Rebuilder PRO. that you will not find in the freeware DVD-RB version.

That is why I made a contribution.

Indeed, I wanted all DVD-RB Pro. had to offer.

I have been well pleased.

Regards,:)

[brashquido]

I used to be an avid user of the big 3 too. There was most certainly no questioning the quality, but for me the amount of time you're able to save with DVD-RB (especially when using batch mode) is a winner. Also, as suggested it is well worth donating to Jdobbs so you can get the Pro version. Once the ILVU code is bullet proof (it is close), and there is functionality to compress the menu (there are some very fat menus out there) I can't see why you'd use anything else if you value your time, but still want quality.

[OvERaCiD23]

If you value your time, DVD-RB is the way to go. I used the Big 3 for almost 2 years but didn't care for the extra time some DVDs required. I can't see the quality difference between the two methods, especially when using the correct matrices in DVD-RB.

[jptheripper]

big 3 and rb use the same encoder, so the quality is identical using the same settings.

rb is way easier, and as brashquido said about development, once it is done i wont see much use for the big 3.

[hutch1711]

big 3 and rb use the same encoder, so the quality is identical using the same settings.
I assume you're referring to CCE, however, and I think I'm right on this, you can't use version 2.70 with the big 3. And that's another plus for DVD-Rebuilder - the number of encoders you can use with this program, CCE basic, 2.50, SP, and SP Trial, Rejig (transcoder), ProCoder, QuEnc, HC, and although not listed AutoQMatEnc.

[jel]

@ hutch1711I think I'm right on this ... nope, sorry mate ... wrong.
BatchCCEWS 0.9.1.6k Unstable (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=95982)
in addition, Trahald has provided support for all the encoders you have listed ...

[hutch1711]

in addition, Trahald has provided support for all the encoders you have listed ...
jel, thanks for that info. :)

[influenza]

I think Jdobbs has done a great job on DVD RB. It's a great program and easy to use.

I've been using the big3 method for a lot of years now and have been involved with the development of most tools since the very start. I think that if both methods are applied correctly there won't be much difference in quality. Hopefully I'm right (and if not correct me please) about the differences I see atm.

- RB cannot do ilvu stuff atm, nor can the big3 since neither Scenarist nor muxman can do true seamless branching/mutistory. The big3 can do angles correctly though.
- RB always encodes per cell where withe big3 you'll have the choice of cell/pgc/vobid. Theoretically that could mean a difference in quality of encoding. (but RB kind of compensates for that with the dynamic bitrate distribution)
- Preperation/muxing could be a bit faster with RB. Muxing is much faster when using muxman instead of scenarist btw.
- Personally I like to fiddle around with my different assets, settings etc. I have a feeling I have more flexibility using the big3, but honestly i haven't used RB that much.

Basically I would suggest you'd just use what fits you. For me it's the big3 and I don't think that in the end there will be much difference quality like if used by someone who knows what's he's doing. unfortunately I have a feeling that there's a large group of people who think that if they use a high number of passes they get a high quality backup. Regardless of the other settings/kind of assets etc.

[jptheripper]

preparing muxing faster? wow i am surprised these issue still exist with computer speeds these days. Prepare Rebuild combined for me is under 10 minutes.

[jdobbs]

I think Jdobbs has done a great job on DVD RB. It's a great program and easy to use.

I've been using the big3 method for a lot of years now and have been involved with the development of most tools since the very start. I think that if both methods are applied correctly there won't be much difference in quality. Hopefully I'm right (and if not correct me please) about the differences I see atm.

- RB cannot do ilvu stuff atm, nor can the big3 since neither Scenarist nor muxman can do true seamless branching/mutistory. The big3 can do angles correctly though.
- RB always encodes per cell where withe big3 you'll have the choice of cell/pgc/vobid. Theoretically that could mean a difference in quality of encoding. (but RB kind of compensates for that with the dynamic bitrate distribution)
- Preperation/muxing could be a bit faster with RB. Muxing is much faster when using muxman instead of scenarist btw.
- Personally I like to fiddle around with my different assets, settings etc. I have a feeling I have more flexibility using the big3, but honestly i haven't used RB that much.

Basically I would suggest you'd just use what fits you. For me it's the big3 and I don't think that in the end there will be much difference quality like if used by someone who knows what's he's doing. unfortunately I have a feeling that there's a large group of people who think that if they use a high number of passes they get a high quality backup. Regardless of the other settings/kind of assets etc.
I would have to respectfully disagree with your first two points:

1. RB has been doing reencoding of ILVU for almost two months now. It has been doing straight transform ILVU DVDs for many months.
2. Tests have shown this not to be true -- because DVD-RB performs a first pass analysis before encoding...

Also -- you'll find that DVD-RB puts no restrictions on the amount of "fiddling" you can do (sometimes causing me pain when done incorrectly and DVD-RB gets blamed).

I couldn't agree with you more about passes.... I personally never do more than 3 (VAF pass and two more) -- and 90% of the time I only do 2 (VAF + 1).

[influenza]

I haven't been using using RB too much lately and have not been able to test the Pro version at all,since i don not have that, so I was on dangerous grounds anyway :)

Well thanks for clearing that up and let's all just be happy that we have multiple methods at our disposal to make high quality backups :)

[jdobbs]

BTW... can Muxman do ILVU muxing? I haven't had much chance to play with it.

[influenza]

Not atm. Hopefully it will be added soon.

[new_student]

First of all, thank you very much for helping.

please.. read the forum rules. no 'what is best' threads.

I am sorry if I broke any rule, but I tried to pick my words carefully so I will not break any rule.

Just one more little question...

Is there anyway DVD-RB will do sizing pass if quality is not met by the predicted Q value?? If I can do that, I will never need any other program ever again. :p

[robot1]

Is there anyway DVD-RB will do sizing pass if quality is not met by the predicted Q value??
Not ATM, as far as I know.
Anyway, after the encoding, you could open the project with RB-Opt and change the OPV section to VBR - 2 passes.
Then if you encode again, it will reuse the VAF created for the OPV, performing just the second pass.

[Trahald]

I would say that dynamic bitrate allocation is the best way to go in a split cell environment and would generally give output comparable/equivelant to a unsplit encode (assuming the encoder application was competent as CCE is.) but say you have a demanding scene that was originally 6000kbps and a max of 9000.. the average move bitrate is 4500. the scene is 99% the same way and maybe the last 1% is slow. if the movie is reencoded to 50% (2240 overall) then this section would be given 3000kps average.. it would be able to steal bitrate from that 1% slow part of it during encoding but still end up around 3000... but with a full stream encode it has the entire movie to steal from.. the loss of 100kpbs spread throughout the rest of the movie may allow cce to give that scene closer to or fully the 6000 kbps it needs. it is an extreme scenario but there would be grey area equivelants... also big3 will process preprocessed sources without issue.

having said that .. dvd rb is a fantastic program and definately powerful if you want to click and go, yet have high quality. big 3/4 is really for advanced users or newbies aspiring to learn about authoring as you really reauthor the dvd from scratch. more people fall into catagory 1 and my hat is off to jdobbs for producing this great, newb friendly program.

[jdobbs]

Sorry but I have to disagree... a reduction of 50% across the cell would apply to the average --> but definitely not to the peak areas. It is completely probable that if the peak bitrate for a scene was 6000 in the original, it could very well maintain 6000 in the new encode if that is what was required to keep a constant quality in VBR. So assuming the demanding scene would be reduced by 50% is incorrect. Also, if you reduce the average bitrate for the entire cell based upon the original allocation -- you are still taking from the other cells because of the allocation in the original encode (it was taken from the other cells then)...

I and others have done many, many tests... and it is simply a not factual that encoding across the entire stream will give better bit allocation. There are several mathmatical reasons why -- first because of dynamic bitrate allocation, and second because the size of most cells are already in the framecount ranges that is at optimal levels for bit allocation anyway...

If you do a complete movie the old way, then do it at a cell level with dynamic allocation and you will find almost exactly the same quantization levels across the board.

DVD-RB will handle preprocessed source without issue --> assuming they are done correctly and do not violate standards.

[Trahald]

we can agree to disagree ;) .. anyways.. as i stated your program is great (i play with it myself on occasion) and appreciate all the time you spent to make it so..

a user in the big3/4 forum asked me to implement fmalibu's bitrate distribution idea into batchccews for encoders that are iframe impared *quenc, ccebasic* ) and i will since i would definately agree that it will yield better quality than a flat encode.