'This is the best DVD processing tool I have seen'

MackemX · 5th March 2003, 21:18

Can I try an explain to newbies and people who don't understand the main reason there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding quality loss within DVD2One, InstantCopy, DVD95Copy

firstly a lot of Original VIDEO ONLY filesizes after taking away audio & extras are on average around 4Gb - 5Gb

if you add to this the 1Gb of Audio & subs and the 2Gb of menu's and extras then that is how a DVD is normally 7-8GB

some people don't seem to realise the MOVIE ONLY quality all depends on ONLY the original VIDEO ONLY size and how much space it is allocated in the resulting VIDEO ONLY filesize and this is the reduction %

an Original VIDEO ONLY filesize of 5Gb allocated 3Gb will suffer with quality loss. An example would be something like Saving Private Ryan (150mins+) (40% reduction)

InstantCopy will suffer the least, followed by DVD95Copy & DVD2One. CCE would put them all to shame

But a 4Gb VIDEO ONLY original filesize allocated 3.6GB will be very hard to seperate quality wise between the 3 tools! (but still slighty noticable). An Example would be Shrek (90mins) (10% reduction)

so that is why some people think the quality for all tools is 'Fantastic' because the reduction is size has been around 10% and the differences in opinions start

also note that the bigger the MOVIE ONLY file, obviously the bigger the audio file (which does not get reduced), so there will be less available space for the Resulting MOVIE ONLY file so this is also a factor in quality loss on larger files

Hopefully everyone can understand this now and why sometimes there is always a difference of opinion as to which is best of these 4 tools as everyones Original & Resulting VIDEO ONLY sizes will be different and hopefully all the name calling/bitching/slagging off/arguements etc can stop and we can actually discuss the methods on how to use all these tools to their full potential

All 3 are great tools but each tool has own field that's it is superior in

the user's needs & requirements will determine which tool is best suited for them

before I forget there is one last major factor that affects the opinions of quality loss and that is best said by this quote from DVDDemystified

"In the end it's a matter of individual perception and the level of quality delivered by the playback system"

cheers

p.s. It would interesting to hear people's opinions on this but in a civilised manner and the figures and films quoted are guestimates

mrbass · 6th March 2003, 03:45

I understand and no need to explain it to me. I do menu + main movie only and when it's below 4.37GB the quality is 100% in Instant Copy. Takes me about 20 mins with Instant Copy to do the whole shebang. Remember the masses don't care about quality so your point is like preaching to a choir that is deaf. Oh well, I understand and my friends do too so to me that's all that matters.

ok I'm going to edit these results as soon as their done. I did dvd95copy 1.1 it took 63mins for a dvd. Bad to compare cuz it's impossible to strip out the extras.
dvd2one for just the main movie took 27mins
instant copy 19mins
well what can I say...sometimes it's best to say nothing at all.

strangely for dvdwin95copy and dvd2one it's cpu usage is around 30% while instant copy maxes out the cpu to 100%. So clearly IC is doing it better albeit cost of time.

DenFussell · 6th March 2003, 03:50

MisterX-

Thank you for making it perfectly clear why DVD21 is the superior tool!

Best to All!

int 21h · 6th March 2003, 03:53

@monsieur bass:
Its the MV decoding of the MPEG-2 which takes the CPU usage.

@everyone else:

In my opinion, the 'ideal' application would provide an interface similar to InstantCopy, but also, gracefully allow for the removal of ANY component, including extras, etc. It would allow extensive change of IFO PRE commands (to remove trailers, warnings, etc.) It would also unlink any buttons which were no longer used and relink old buttons (for changed audio streams, i.e. Commentary used to be 0x84, and is now 0x81). The encoding process would have the ability to choose between a compressed domain process and a full all out, decode/encode process, with levels of configuration in between.

After this happened, I'd probably abandon the process of IFOEdit, Maestro, IFOUpdate, CCE, et al. that I use so often now.

Xayd · 6th March 2003, 18:25

But then you have the situation of "if a person knows how to do all of that, they get the individual tools and do it themselves, since the quality will always be better"

.

I agree such a program would be nice, but for someone who wants all of that functionality and has the tools available to them to do it now, it's not necessary. The whole point of me having a DVD burner and not still encoding to DivX (which is just as usable for me, since I have a PC next to my TV for playing video), is to have "DVD quality" video and sound.

If I'm to lose the DTS sound and the video quality, I could save myself alot of money on media by going back to putting DivX encoded video with MP3 sound on CDRs.

Any reduction in video quality is a bad thing, but since it's an unfortunate necessity to compress video streams to fit things onto DVD-Rs, I can't see myself letting go of CCE until one of these all in one tools can match its quality.

mhdrw_00 · 6th March 2003, 18:32

Care to include your process of just doing the movie and the menu for someone who - like you - just wants these features?? Have tried the many things written about but something always go wrong and Nero rejects (video allocation error - or something like that) -- Most larger movies in size -- I just want the menu and the movie - delete the rest --- Do you have a Guide?

int 21h · 6th March 2003, 19:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Xayd
If I'm to lose the DTS sound and the video quality, I could save myself alot of money on media by going back to putting DivX encoded video with MP3 sound on CDRs.

This ideal tool would be configurable enough to allow you to keep whatever audio streams you wanted and get rid of whatever audio streams you wanted.

Quote:

Any reduction in video quality is a bad thing, but since it's an unfortunate necessity to compress video streams to fit things onto DVD-Rs, I can't see myself letting go of CCE until one of these all in one tools can match its quality.

This ideal tool would encode with quality equal to CCE and alternatively allow the option of transferring a new bitstream (generated in CCE for instance) to the old vobs, transferring the necessary navigation, timestamps, etc. from the old stream to the new stream.

If only we lived in an ideal world

mrbass · 6th March 2003, 20:28

and also magically erase the unused items from the menu so when you clicked on a bonus feature that wouldn't exist nothing would happen. In other words it'd just not show up as to prevent lower IQ people from attempting to play a dvd. (disclaimer: that's a joke)

MackemX · 6th March 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by mrbass
and also magically erase the unused items from the menu so when you clicked on a bonus feature that wouldn't exist nothing would happen. In other words it'd just not show up as to prevent lower IQ people from attempting to play a dvd. (disclaimer: that's a joke)

Ifoedit is part that tool

, but you do need a few degree's on how to use it

and I don't mean the heat or singing degrees

int 21h · 6th March 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by mrbass
and also magically erase the unused items from the menu so when you clicked on a bonus feature that wouldn't exist nothing would happen. In other words it'd just not show up as to prevent lower IQ people from attempting to play a dvd. (disclaimer: that's a joke)

That would be the unlinking buttons part

5th March 2003, 21:18	#1 \| Link
MackemX ..DVD GOD.. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,838	'This is the best DVD processing tool I have seen' Can I try an explain to newbies and people who don't understand the main reason there seems to be a difference of opinion regarding quality loss within DVD2One, InstantCopy, DVD95Copy firstly a lot of Original VIDEO ONLY filesizes after taking away audio & extras are on average around 4Gb - 5Gb if you add to this the 1Gb of Audio & subs and the 2Gb of menu's and extras then that is how a DVD is normally 7-8GB some people don't seem to realise the MOVIE ONLY quality all depends on ONLY the original VIDEO ONLY size and how much space it is allocated in the resulting VIDEO ONLY filesize and this is the reduction % an Original VIDEO ONLY filesize of 5Gb allocated 3Gb will suffer with quality loss. An example would be something like Saving Private Ryan (150mins+) (40% reduction) InstantCopy will suffer the least, followed by DVD95Copy & DVD2One. CCE would put them all to shame But a 4Gb VIDEO ONLY original filesize allocated 3.6GB will be very hard to seperate quality wise between the 3 tools! (but still slighty noticable). An Example would be Shrek (90mins) (10% reduction) so that is why some people think the quality for all tools is 'Fantastic' because the reduction is size has been around 10% and the differences in opinions start also note that the bigger the MOVIE ONLY file, obviously the bigger the audio file (which does not get reduced), so there will be less available space for the Resulting MOVIE ONLY file so this is also a factor in quality loss on larger files Hopefully everyone can understand this now and why sometimes there is always a difference of opinion as to which is best of these 4 tools as everyones Original & Resulting VIDEO ONLY sizes will be different and hopefully all the name calling/bitching/slagging off/arguements etc can stop and we can actually discuss the methods on how to use all these tools to their full potential All 3 are great tools but each tool has own field that's it is superior in the user's needs & requirements will determine which tool is best suited for them before I forget there is one last major factor that affects the opinions of quality loss and that is best said by this quote from DVDDemystified "In the end it's a matter of individual perception and the level of quality delivered by the playback system" cheers p.s. It would interesting to hear people's opinions on this but in a civilised manner and the figures and films quoted are guestimates Last edited by MackemX; 5th March 2003 at 21:21.

6th March 2003, 03:45	#2 \| Link
mrbass Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 2,034	I understand and no need to explain it to me. I do menu + main movie only and when it's below 4.37GB the quality is 100% in Instant Copy. Takes me about 20 mins with Instant Copy to do the whole shebang. Remember the masses don't care about quality so your point is like preaching to a choir that is deaf. Oh well, I understand and my friends do too so to me that's all that matters. ok I'm going to edit these results as soon as their done. I did dvd95copy 1.1 it took 63mins for a dvd. Bad to compare cuz it's impossible to strip out the extras. dvd2one for just the main movie took 27mins instant copy 19mins well what can I say...sometimes it's best to say nothing at all. strangely for dvdwin95copy and dvd2one it's cpu usage is around 30% while instant copy maxes out the cpu to 100%. So clearly IC is doing it better albeit cost of time. Last edited by mrbass; 6th March 2003 at 04:40.

6th March 2003, 18:25	#5 \| Link
Xayd Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 132	But then you have the situation of "if a person knows how to do all of that, they get the individual tools and do it themselves, since the quality will always be better" . I agree such a program would be nice, but for someone who wants all of that functionality and has the tools available to them to do it now, it's not necessary. The whole point of me having a DVD burner and not still encoding to DivX (which is just as usable for me, since I have a PC next to my TV for playing video), is to have "DVD quality" video and sound. If I'm to lose the DTS sound and the video quality, I could save myself alot of money on media by going back to putting DivX encoded video with MP3 sound on CDRs. Any reduction in video quality is a bad thing, but since it's an unfortunate necessity to compress video streams to fit things onto DVD-Rs, I can't see myself letting go of CCE until one of these all in one tools can match its quality. Last edited by Xayd; 6th March 2003 at 18:28.

6th March 2003, 18:32	#6 \| Link
mhdrw_00 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 11	to Mr Bass Care to include your process of just doing the movie and the menu for someone who - like you - just wants these features?? Have tried the many things written about but something always go wrong and Nero rejects (video allocation error - or something like that) -- Most larger movies in size -- I just want the menu and the movie - delete the rest --- Do you have a Guide?

6th March 2003, 03:50	#3 \| Link
DenFussell Registered User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Macon GA USA Posts: 107	MisterX- Thank you for making it perfectly clear why DVD21 is the superior tool! Best to All!

6th March 2003, 03:53	#4 \| Link
int 21h Still Laughing Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Around Posts: 1,312	@monsieur bass: Its the MV decoding of the MPEG-2 which takes the CPU usage. @everyone else: In my opinion, the 'ideal' application would provide an interface similar to InstantCopy, but also, gracefully allow for the removal of ANY component, including extras, etc. It would allow extensive change of IFO PRE commands (to remove trailers, warnings, etc.) It would also unlink any buttons which were no longer used and relink old buttons (for changed audio streams, i.e. Commentary used to be 0x84, and is now 0x81). The encoding process would have the ability to choose between a compressed domain process and a full all out, decode/encode process, with levels of configuration in between. After this happened, I'd probably abandon the process of IFOEdit, Maestro, IFOUpdate, CCE, et al. that I use so often now.

6th March 2003, 20:28	#8 \| Link
mrbass Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 2,034	and also magically erase the unused items from the menu so when you clicked on a bonus feature that wouldn't exist nothing would happen. In other words it'd just not show up as to prevent lower IQ people from attempting to play a dvd. (disclaimer: that's a joke)