CloneDVD & DVDShrink Compression Questions ??

[ultravista]

I am making a backup of "The Core" with both CloneDVD (1.3.11.2) and DVDShrink (3 Beta 5), movie and audio channels only AC3/6CH and 2 channel).

CloveDVD is showing the movie quality of 68% (in copy DVD titles)
DVDShrink is showing the movie quality of 78% (in re-author mode)

Why am I getting two different comrpession settings? I know that DVDShrink shows the original quality, but what about CloneDVD?

This should be a comparable backup, the compression should be the same but both applications are reporting different. I would assume that DVDShrink at 78% would be better, 10% less compression.

Am I thinking wrong here, what's up?

Both applications should churn out the same struff, right? Which is better?

[spiderman2k1]

The program's really are just take a good guess of what it will be before you transcode. I did a test with Harry Potter and CloneDVD but you might so another movie where DVD shrink might do a better job ever DVD is different on how they are encoded. I alway same do your own test to see. only you can tell what program you will like. For full DVD back up's I like IC8

[BODYBUILDER]

CloneDVD Compression Bar is stuffed up at the moment, they are going to fix this in the new version, its only that bar so dont worry, and in the next version they are re-writing the transcoder for even better quality. this will be a great version but i have found that clone dvd gives better quality, when u test the bitrate its way more then dvd shrink, ive done over 12 movies now and it gives better bitrate on every movie then dvd shrink even if you had done it with deep analysis, just remember only leave the menus with movie only deselect all the unwanted audio tracks, video titles and subtitles. best thing to do is test a few movies out with DVD Shrink main movie only, and with clone dvd also main movie only (movies that need compression obviously) then when playing back on your computer dvd player show information for bitrate and see which one has a higher bitrate simple as that.

i used to use dvd shrink, im not bagging dvd shrink i used to love it, but when something is better i simply move on, this even burns your movie, so no more trouble for others that dont know how to burn it with nero and such, it does the perfect ISO/UDF that they use for dvd-video

so just test out a few and see for your self.

[defense]

BODYBUILDER wrote:

Compression Bar is stuffed up at the moment, they are going to fix this in the new version, its only that bar so dont worry

No it isn't just the compression Bar..CloneDVD is completely screwed up and will transcode heavily when not needed or will transcode when it ISN'T needed at all.

I don't know where the compression bar stories have come from as i've read several people mention this, but i've actually tested it. I tested it on 4 different movies and each time CloneDVD transcoded when it was not necessary. The last movie I tried was Shanghai Noon. That movie when keeping the English subs and English 6 channel surround is about 4.21 GBs. I used IFOEdit and stripped streams...and that's what I got. When I did the same in CLONEDVD...it made the main movie files 3.79 GB's...CLEARLY transcoding about ~450 MB's of film for absolutely no reason.

The latest version was just recently released and the problem is still there. DVDSHRINK takes into account when various audio tracks are unchecked, and that's why it's a better option for "most" movies, as most movies have numerous audio tracks that most people won't keep anyway.

[BODYBUILDER]

your simply wrong, dont give out false info, i spoke to the creator of clone dvd this is what he had to say:

"As mentioned, this is on the way together with additional functionality...

In the meantime, remember that the failure to show a lower video compression rate when audio tracks are dropped is purely cosmetic. The reduction in compression does take place, but the compression bar is not updated to show it. "


so Anyway As you should know CloneDVD compresses differently to DVD Shrink so thats why the movie you done with clonedvd came out smaller.
because i done a movie that did not need compression after deselecting the audio tracks with dvd shrink and clone dvd and came out to be the same in size, but when compression is needed clonedvd will output smaller then dvd shrink and i found still it to be better quality, this is a big advantage because you can have menus and more extras with that space

[defense]

no bodybuilder YOU'RE wrong...and way off. Go talk to the author of CLONEDVD again..i'm sure he wants all the sales he can get. Too bad some people are so naive. The proof is with the actual results buddy...not with some bogus B.S someone "claims" to of said. I don't doubt they said it though...but the facts are that CLONE DVD DOES transcode when NOT NECESSARY.

You sure are doing a good job of spamming CLONEDVD everywhere. Instead of going back and forth with you PICK ANY MOVIE and try this for yourself...you're the one giving the incorrect info. I've already given you one movie...but I can give plenty more. So pick a movie and post it on the forum so I can once again get the same copy and show that CloneDVd is completely flawed. Try and make it a movie that is somewhat popular.

[BODYBUILDER]

im not spamming anything, im trying to prove a point here mate, try THE NEW GUY, its 4.81 gig do this in dvd shrink deselect all other audio tracks except for the main ac3 make sure that in dvd shrink it then says on the bar that u dont need no compression ok, then rip that, now go in to clone dvd do the same rip it and watch. for me exactly the same size why the hell would i be lying for, but when compression is needed it will compress more then dvd shrink and i still have found it to output more bitrate check it out on your dvd player or computer player the bitrate is more like i said before big advantage can fit more stuff on along with menus.

[defense]

Once AGAIN..I just tried this on a movie I think some people would have..it's "LOST IN SPACE." And once again, CLONEDVD compressed the main movie files when it SHOULD NOT HAVE! The main movie files just ripped with DVD DECRYPTER are 5.09GB's. After using IFOEDIT to strip all but the 6 channel subs and audio...the total file size is 4.32 GB's. That is obviously with NO COMPRESSION.

Then using ANYDVD along with CLONEDVD to create the main movie by keeping the SAME EXACT audio and subs....CLONEDVD output the main movie files at 3.94 GB's...so once again..for the FIFTH time...CLONEDVD DOES compress the video when it is COMPLETELY unecessary!

The only time this proggy is worth using is when there are NO ADDITIONAL audio tracks on the disk..which is very RARE. Almost always there's at least a directors commentary track. CloneDVD is now 0 for 5 and unfortunately DOES compress the video when it shouldn't TOUCH IT.

If anybody has Shanghai Noon or LOST IN SPACE, try for yourselves and you'll see first hand. Or try on ANY movie that does NOT need compressing after removing certain additonal audio tracks. CLONEDVD is bugged which is why I barely use it...but hopefully this issue with OVERCOMPRESSING files that don't need compressing are fixed in the next issue. I guess the author isn't even aware of how is own program works...that is..IF he did say it's just a "cosmetic" thing.

[BODYBUILDER]

stop lying

[Reallyscrued]

hey body builder, u claim that with the same movie u get better quality with clonedvd? did u cheak the same movie at the same exact spot? same with you defense. I have a version of blue thunder, which is a retail single layer( although annoyingly dual sided for widescreen) disc which should fit onto one disc rite? i've already tried it with dvd shrink and it leaves compression alone. Lemme try with clone dvd and see if i get the same results. Is my test flawed? inform me....

[Reallyscrued]

is there a dvd program that plays a dvd and tells you the bitrate? i dotn want to burn these, waste of two cd's.

[energy80s]

Power DVD for a start.

[Phantom Of The Opera]

I have used the free trial version of CloneDVD, but haven't yet decided whether to buy it. Based on my few trial runs, I can say the following things:

• CloneDVD is absolutely the easiest program to use that I have ever tried out. It works, and it works well without screwing up the user with complicated screens. That in itself is a huge plus, and IMO a testament to good design. Complicated user interfaces are not a sign of smart designers.
  
• It allows you to compress a DVD, with "movie-only" option, while retaining the menus if you wish to. DVD Shrink doesn't allow this.
  
• If you deselect certain audio tracks/menus/etc to a sufficient extent that the remaining portion (the stuff you want to back up) will fit on a blank DVD, CloneDVD does not do any compression. It simply copies the selected items to the backup. I believe this is true of DVD Shrink as well, but I've never tried it.

I am not in any way affiliated with CloneDVD, DVD SHrink or any other program. I am simply a user of these progs. BTW, I own a copy of Nero 6, and I am very pleased with the latest version of Nero Recode 2.

[Kdiddy]

I hate to throw fuel on this fire..but I did 2 tests...Home Alone & a 2.1 GB movie that I already compressed. Only movie & 1 audio track on both.

The files in BOTH tests resulted in the EXACT SAME file size

My conclusion is that no compression is done by either application when the filesize will fit on DVD+/-R as is.

[defense]

@ kdiddy, you also aren't understanding. Read the posts. Home alone 1 & 2 are BOTH single layer movies...SINGLE LAYER..meaning that of course CLONEDVD is going to output the correct size as it would have to compress a single layer disks total files and be completely screwed up if it did otherwise. So go ahead and try home alone 3 too..that's a SINGLE LAYER MOVIE and will also give "exact" file sizes. That's not the issue.


So you aren't throwing any fuel in the fire, because you aren't understand the problem with CLONEDVD. As i've said several times already..when you have a DUAL LAYER disk with audio tracks that will put the file size OVER 4.37 GBs and you DESELECT those extra audio tracks in CLONEDVD..CLONEDVD will output a file size taking into account the fact that those extra audio tracks are there..when in fact, they aren't...and it will uncecessarily compress files when it shouldn't. The reason CLONEDVD is going to output the correct file sizes on a single layer disk like HOME ALONE OR HOME ALONE 2 is because the compression bar will still show "100%" even after you've deslected the audio tracks.....that's because with ALL AUDIO TRACKS selected the bar is still at 100%..lmao...."SINGLE LAYER."

The problem is on movies where you can strip out audio tracks and NOT touch the video...that's where CLONEDVD is bugged and it's been a myth that it's only the compression bar. Anyone else who tries this on any movie that fits the category of elimating audio tracks to make the movie fit on a DVDR will see that CLONEDVD unfortunately compresses the video when there's no reason to do so. I've tried it 5 times and each time it's done the same thing. The last two movies were Shanghai Noon and Lost in Space. The program is flawed and it's pretty simple to test.

[soundforbjt]

I have used the free trial version of CloneDVD, but haven't yet decided whether to buy it. Based on my few trial runs, I can say the following things:

• CloneDVD is absolutely the easiest program to use that I have ever tried out. It works, and it works well without screwing up the user with complicated screens. That in itself is a huge plus, and IMO a testament to good design. Complicated user interfaces are not a sign of smart designers.
  
• It allows you to compress a DVD, with "movie-only" option, while retaining the menus if you wish to. DVD Shrink doesn't allow this.
  
  Yes DVD Shrink allows that if you know what you're doing.
  
• If you deselect certain audio tracks/menus/etc to a sufficient extent that the remaining portion (the stuff you want to back up) will fit on a blank DVD, CloneDVD does not do any compression. It simply copies the selected items to the backup. I believe this is true of DVD Shrink as well, but I've never tried it.

I am not in any way affiliated with CloneDVD, DVD SHrink or any other program. I am simply a user of these progs. BTW, I own a copy of Nero 6, and I am very pleased with the latest version of Nero Recode 2.

[Kdiddy]

@ kdiddy, you also aren't understanding. Read the posts. Home alone 1 & 2 are BOTH single layer movies...SINGLE LAYER..meaning that of course CLONEDVD is going to output the correct size as it would have to compress a single layer disks total files and be completely screwed up if it did otherwise. So go ahead and try home alone 3 too..that's a SINGLE LAYER MOVIE and will also give "exact" file sizes. That's not the issue.

I suggest you go back and REREAD this thread, more importantly, do a WORD FIND on this page for single & layer...and tell me EXACTLY where you used those words before this last post of yours. I'll save you the trouble, you won't. Furthermore, and I quote from a post of yours above "PICK ANY MOVIE and try this for yourself." which is exactly what I did. So if ANYONE is having trouble understanding what you say, it is because you are doing a very poor job conveying your meaning.

Now having said that, I'll do a dual layered disk and report later.

[BODYBUILDER]

hey body builder, u claim that with the same movie u get better quality with clonedvd? did u cheak the same movie at the same exact spot? same with you defense. I have a version of blue thunder, which is a retail single layer( although annoyingly dual sided for widescreen) disc which should fit onto one disc rite? i've already tried it with dvd shrink and it leaves compression alone. Lemme try with clone dvd and see if i get the same results. Is my test flawed? inform me....

now ive done a few movies and the bitrate throughout the movie is basically higher then dvd shrink.

say for instance on city slickers which is a high bitrate movie it had to compress it down bigtime from 6.81 gig and the bitrate wuth clone dvd;s output was an average 8.0 mbps throughout the movie and dvd shrink was only like 6.5 - 7.0 this just shows its better, to me now ive done a few movies and in every movie its the same clone dvd shows higher bitrates to me thats just proving that its better and im trying to share this with you all.

[ddlooping]

Hi all.

...clonedvd's output was an average 8.0 mbps throughout the movie and dvd shrink was only like 6.5 - 7.0; this just shows its better.

If I may disagree, it doesn't show the quality of the backup will be better, just that the average bitrate is higher.

[Kdiddy]

@Bodybuilder

Higher average bitrates doesn't not translate into "better quality" being that bitrate is not the ONLY variable in that determination. So that is not a safe assumption.

@defense

Having now done the test as you stated AFTER I had done my original test using The Grinch, dual layered, just movie & 6CH AC3, the results are as follows:

CloneDVD v1.3.11.2: After stripping away unwanted material leaving movie and all audio tracks & subs, compression level reported 95%. Then stripped all subs and audio tracks but 6CH English, compression level still reported 95%. Started DVD file creation process and noticed that estimated time was severely higher than single layer file test of roughly same size. 12 mins vs. 3 mins. Hmmmmm, what is it doing differently?? Resulting filesize as reported by Windows 3.48 GB (3,744,751,616 bytes)

DVD Shrink 3.0 Beta 5: Loaded movie. Opened up new window via the re-author option and copied only main menu files over. Deleted 2 unwanted titles which left main movie title w/ all audio tracks & subs. Selected no compression for video, deselected all subs and audio except for 6CH AC3. Estimated filesize is 3,585 MB. Created DVD files. Resulting filesize as reported by Windows 3.49 GB (3,748,159,488 bytes).

Analysis: While technically defense is correct. I don't see where a .1% difference really matters. I also assume that CloneDVD is indeed doing a unneeded reauthoring process simply based on time it took compared to single layer test. Even though that reauthoring process results in the same file size, its still a waste of time.

[BODYBUILDER]

yeah the higher the bitrate the better, simple. and the quality does look better.

[BODYBUILDER]

Analysis: While technically defense is correct. I don't see where a .1% difference really matters. I also assume that CloneDVD is indeed doing a unneeded reauthoring process simply based on time it took compared to single layer test. Even though that reauthoring process results in the same file size, its still a waste of time.

dont you get it, CloneDVD is different to DVDShrink its not the same program, so when its stripping stuff its doing it differently, thus can take a longer time or shorter time depending on the program

[defense]

I suggest you go back and REREAD this thread, more importantly, do a WORD FIND on this page for single & layer...and tell me EXACTLY where you used those words before this last post of yours. I'll save you the trouble, you won't. Furthermore, and I quote from a post of yours above "PICK ANY MOVIE and try this for yourself."

I didn't have to specify "SINGLE LAYER"...I already specified that by saying a movie that does NOT need compression to fit onto a DVDR by elimating audio tracks. That statement right there makes the movie automatically dual layer..because if a movie with everything, including ALL audio tracks was still at 100% in CLONEDVD...then that means it's a single layer movie and I thought that was common sense.

Your results will be the same as mine..as will anyone else who tests this. And just taking "ANY" dual layer movie isn't going to do much..as you'll need specific movies which will NOT need encoding after additonal audio tracks are removed..but WILL NEED it..if they aren't removed. Movies like the ones I mentioned or ANY others fitting this tag will clearly show a transcoded output smaller then an IFOEDIT or DVDSHRINK strip.

And after reading your last post kdiddy...I know someone who has the Grinch/Widescreen so I can test this myself. The Fullscreen and WIDESCREEN versions are different though in terms of size..but it really doesn't matter. IN your situation..the difference was only 10MB's.....i've also tested CLONEDVD and if you read my previous posts on the other thread..some of my results were also ONLY off by 10 MB's or so. However, the more compression a movie "SUPPOSEDLY" needs...the MORE CLONEDVD will SHRINK UNCECESSARILY. Try a movie at 80% or so..and you'll see hundreds of MB's get transcoded unecessarily.

[BODYBUILDER]

just say it does do what you say defense even though to me it hasnt yet so i dont know what the hell your doing wrong, but anyway my point is its still better quality.

[defense]

just say it does do what you say defense even though to me it hasnt yet so i dont know what the hell your doing wrong, but anyway my point is its still better quality.

It hasn't done it to you because you are either full of crap, a liar, or have no clue what you are doing or talking about.

Of course, I find all three of those things to be accurate as you've now admitted the program does what I said all along...yet how could it? The AUTHOR told you differently.

[JasonK]

I think some of the new people are having trouble understanding the technical details Defense is giving, but it's accurate and makes sense.

CloneDVD is now 0 for 5 and unfortunately DOES compress the video when it shouldn't TOUCH IT.

Exactly! And I almost always strip away audio tracks so that DVDshrink doesn't have to compress at all. Too bad CloneDVD isn't smart enough to handle it on those same DVDs. (Of course, there are always some disks that are in a size range this might not matter, but it DOES matter OFTEN, which is going to be a problem wiht CloneDVD.) Between this problem and the audio dropouts/video freezing, there's definitely some problems that need worked out with Clone. In the mean time, DVDshrink has been great, and I highly recommend it.

[Kdiddy]

@both, I'm not getting in the middle of your "who is swinging the bigger stick arguement", only trying to provide a 3rd person objective view of the situation.

@bodybuilder
"yeah the higher the bitrate the better, simple. and the quality does look better."

Seriously, if you truly understood the mpeg2 encoding process, you would understand the error of that belief. An average higher bitrate does not ALWAYS translate linearly to better quality. Again, its not something I'm going to go back & forth with you over, as I'm sure many other people who been at this a lot longer than both you and I will tell you the same.

@defense
Full Screen Grinch.
I don't know about any other thread, only been reading this one. So I'll say it again, because you obviously still did not reread this thread. What you stated was " Or try on ANY movie that does NOT need compressing after removing certain additonal audio tracks. "
Home Alone, did "NOT need ANY compressing" once I removed the additional tracks. The Grinch did "NOT need ANY compressing" once I removed additional tracks. Starting to get the pattern here?

The layer of the disk is not the faulty variable. The faulty variable in CloneDVD is simply that the removal of any additional tracks within the MAIN MOVIE title set does not appear be factored into total disk space availabilty correctly. I now agree with this assessment.

The point that I think is missing in this discussion is that they are VERY few movies out that have enough subs & audio tracks in the main movie title set that one will see huge % difference. Taking your "~450MB" example, and applying it to my filesizes, one would see a worse case scenario for 700 kb/s drop in video bitrate. I'm not sure one wants to argue the subjective quality loss tween an average bitrate of 4700 vs. 4000. I know I don't.

Nowwwww back to the orginal question, of which is subjectively better application?

* Given this flaw that might be rarely seen both in disk form and with your eyes, I would say go with Shrink if truly worries you. I haven't come across the other reported problems by Clone

* Clone wins on relative ease of use for beginner, but Shrink is not that hard to master.

* Shrink is free (that is if you pay for apps in the 1st place, ), Clone is not.

[jawgee]

@Bodybuilder

Higher average bitrates doesn't not translate into "better quality" being that bitrate is not the ONLY variable in that determination. So that is not a safe assumption.

@defense

Having now done the test as you stated AFTER I had done my original test using The Grinch, dual layered, just movie & 6CH AC3, the results are as follows:

CloneDVD v1.3.11.2: After stripping away unwanted material leaving movie and all audio tracks & subs, compression level reported 95%. Then stripped all subs and audio tracks but 6CH English, compression level still reported 95%. Started DVD file creation process and noticed that estimated time was severely higher than single layer file test of roughly same size. 12 mins vs. 3 mins. Hmmmmm, what is it doing differently?? Resulting filesize as reported by Windows 3.48 GB (3,744,751,616 bytes)

DVD Shrink 3.0 Beta 5: Loaded movie. Opened up new window via the re-author option and copied only main menu files over. Deleted 2 unwanted titles which left main movie title w/ all audio tracks & subs. Selected no compression for video, deselected all subs and audio except for 6CH AC3. Estimated filesize is 3,585 MB. Created DVD files. Resulting filesize as reported by Windows 3.49 GB (3,748,159,488 bytes).

Analysis: While technically defense is correct. I don't see where a .1% difference really matters. I also assume that CloneDVD is indeed doing a unneeded reauthoring process simply based on time it took compared to single layer test. Even though that reauthoring process results in the same file size, its still a waste of time.

Kdiddy,

I've read your last post which provides a bottom-line answer to why one should use one app over the other. In your previous analysis of the "The Grinch", however, you didn't mention if one app provided a better picture quality over the other. According to BODYBUILDER, CloneDVD should win hands down. Since DVDShrink, in this case, is not performing any transcoding at all, & because we don't really know if CloneDVD is transcoding or not, I'd like to know if you could see any difference in image quality. DVDShrink should be a perfect clone in this case, while CloneDVD, might look a bit different. This may be a bad test case for my questions since the difference in file size is so small, but it would be interesting to note a worst case example.

Thanks,
jawgee

[Kdiddy]

@jawgee

I'd compared them. The video output looked about the same to me, not enough difference to argue that one is vastly superior to the other. But there in again, that is something is measure VERY subjectively. Keep in mind the variables in determining "quality" are eyes, media, dvd player, & TV. There is truly no point in arguing quality level when none of these can be constant for everyone.

[cafetimer]

Bodybuilder, how do you test backups (or originals) bitrate?