DVD2One vs DVDShrink (visual quality)

[vitualis]

Apart for the light banter in this thread, I'm rather curious now what everyone else thinks.

I am of the opinion that DVDShrink with both deep analysis and AEC turned on almost always looks better than DVD2One, and that alone makes it worthwhile despite it taking longer to transcode. The effect is far more obvious the "longer" the DVD is (e.g., episode discs) and hard to see/minimal on "short" discs.

However, a few dessenting voices in the thread remind me of the old MPEG encoder threads... especially claims that DVD2One OUTPERFORMS DVDShrink even with DA and AEC. That is contrary to my experience and seems to defy logic... however, quality IS subjective.

So, vote ahead. Which do you think produces visually superior output (overall... let's not quibble in "types" of content here).

DVD2One or DVD Shrink (with DA and AEC on).

Regards.

[mats.hogberg]

Actually, to me, DVDShrink is good enough, fast enough, and free. The day I find any of above critería isn't met, I might start looking at other DVD9 to DVD5 solutions.
If I was a quality freak, I'd reencode. I don't think any transcoder can top that option qualitywise.

/Mats

[jimmalenko]

mats' reasons are good enough for me.

I'm due for a rant:
It baffles me how people can get so emotional over "Which is better" issues. My take on it is that if its free and it does a good job, its good enough for me. I have to laugh at those that promote DVD2One to the hilt and slag DVDShrink - as if the two are comparable to DVDShrink just because it effectively does the same thing. DVD2One is a commercially available product, and considering its followers supposedly paid for said product, they have every right to expect high quality. The other side of the coin is that DVDShrink has always been freely available to the masses for nothing. All things being equal, DVD2One should do a better job. Otherwise, why would you buy it when DVDShrink is free ?

Just a vent.

[fibola]

not only that dvdshrink is far far better then dvd2one .
at the begining, when i just looked for a way to burn dvd movies there werent dvdshrink , and i used dvd2one ,and ALL and i mean ALL of the movie i burn with dvd2one (around 30) are bad quality and i cant watch them today.

[vitualis]

Wow. Do really one third of people (4 vs 7) think that DVD2One looks better than DVDShrink with both deep analysis and AEC turned on? I'm blown away.

Regards.

[jimmalenko]

Wow. Do really one third of people (4 vs 7) think that DVD2One looks better than DVDShrink with both deep analysis and AEC turned on? I'm blown away.

11 people out of what, 89,000 or thereabouts ?

Hardly a consensus

[nitram]

It's obvious more people will think DVDShrink is better than DVD2one because more people use Shrink because it's free. Does free mean better now? People who are using DVD2one V1.5 with selective ratio compression may beg to differ.

[vitualis]

I should have written... one third of people so far...

If you've used both, please vote!

Regards.

[vitualis]

It's obvious more people will think DVDShrink is better than DVD2one because more people use Shrink because it's free. Does free mean better now? People who are using DVD2one V1.5 with selective ratio compression may beg to differ.

Um... did you even read my initial post?

I didn't ask which was "better".

I asked which you think has overall superior visual quality (all other things being equal of course) when transcoding a DVD --> DVD-/+R.

Regards.

[nitram]

Hi Vitualis, I did read the post, Doesn't "superior visual quality" mean better? if not then sorry for the post. However, if the quality is worse then its not better, surely.

[jimmalenko]

visual

To the eye perhaps ?

[lordsmurf]

I'm just going to quote what I wrote here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1052333#1052333

For some reason DVD2ONE does not really have this issue. It's biggest problem is macroblocking.

When picking a transcoder, you've got to pick your flaw. Decide which one you find more acceptable.

Much of this depends on the DVD source.

Movies tend to have the IPB degeneration issue a lot more than episode discs or cartoons/animation.

Young Indiana Jones are one disc I ran into recently. DVD Shrink was awful, while the DVD2ONE was pretty decent. Inversely, try a Stargate SG1 disc in DVD2ONE, if you can see through all the blocks!

I've pretty much determined in the past that the DA (deep analysis) has no effect on this IPB issue. That mainly cleans up blocks better.

DVD-RB with ReJig tends to have both problems, which can be good and bad.

This is my feelings. All the softwares have quirks. You've got to find them, and then deal with them. Sometimes, that means using one over another one.

In the "banter" thread, I referred to this IPB deterioration as CCE-like or Panasonic-like noise. It's pretty bad on shows that were perfect DVDs. I can only guess that it's the lower-compressions that do it. Assuming I understand ADAM correctly, this is because the compressed-domain transcoders do not necessarily alter I and P and B at lower levels. This would make the noise more obnoxious than transcoders that alter all frame information (or when compression is to such a level, that it is unavoidable). This could explain why we see DVD Shrink act as it does. I don't necessarily understand all the tech for "why", but I do know what I see, and can reverse engineer an explanation from there.

Because of all this, I cannot answer your POLL. My Stargate discs would look like trash in DVD2ONE, but my Indy DVDs would give me a headache in DVD Shrink. I vote for "(C) Both and neither at the same time".

[nitram]

Let me get this right, if you personally think one program gives superior visual quality over another, do you think that program is better or worse?

OK some will say no its not "better" it just gives superior quality, others will say its better. Either way aren't they the same thing?

Anyway back to the topic of the thread.

[vitualis]

Not necessarily

Better can mean many things to many people depending on the relative weight they put on specific advantages and disadvantages to the program.

For example:
--> what is the "best" way to encode a DivX clip?

For one person, the "best" program may be Dr. DivX because it is easy to use.

For another, it may be through Gordian Knot because it allows for much greater control over the process.

etc.

Thus, I'm fairly specific about the end visual quality in my poll. For some people, speed may be the most important factor, and for that, DVD2One may well be "better". That isn't the question I'm asking though and I want to know which program people think produces superior output quality. The answer is always interesting as sometimes there isn't a consensus where you think there should be.

Regards.

[nitram]

Vitualis. Point taken, didn't think of it like that, I assumed (wrongly) that most people go for quality over anything else. I should think before I type.

[vitualis]

In the "banter" thread, I referred to this IPB deterioration as CCE-like or Panasonic-like noise. It's pretty bad on shows that were perfect DVDs. I can only guess that it's the lower-compressions that do it. Assuming I understand ADAM correctly, this is because the compressed-domain transcoders do not necessarily alter I and P and B at lower levels. This would make the noise more obnoxious than transcoders that alter all frame information (or when compression is to such a level, that it is unavoidable). This could explain why we see DVD Shrink act as it does. I don't necessarily understand all the tech for "why", but I do know what I see, and can reverse engineer an explanation from there.

Interesting.

Yes, this form of artifact can be annoying but I think it is the sort of thing that people have different "tolerances" to. For example, although I can see this effect commonly on my Panasonic encoded VCDs on a PC monitor, I find it rarely noticable (or objectionable) on the TV.

Regards.

[garryheather]

ALL and i mean ALL of the movie i burn with dvd2one (around 30) are bad quality and i cant watch them today.

You may have transcoded with DVD2ONE, but you sure as hell didn't burn with it - if you can't watch them several months down the line I'd have to blame the media or how your recorder wrote to it.

DVD2ONE does not have a burning engine in it as far as I recall.

[GKar]

I recently backed up Star Trek Voyager Season 3 with DVD2one Selective Mode High (1st time tried), most were 8GB disks. I had a hard time distinguishing them from the originals, of course I'm blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. About 10 min rip (DVDDecryptor) and 18 min conversion each, Nero burn 15 min. I like both DVDShrink and DVD2one depending on my mood more than anything else as to which one I'd use.

[skebenin]

ALL and i mean ALL of the movie i burn with dvd2one (around 30) are bad quality and i cant watch them today.

You may have transcoded with DVD2ONE, but you sure as hell didn't burn with it - if you can't watch them several months down the line I'd have to blame the media or how your recorder wrote to it.

DVD2ONE does not have a burning engine in it as far as I recall.

I think he meant he can't watch them because he can't stand the quality, not because the disks won't play.

[skebenin]

To be honest, I don't think I'd trust the validity of this poll. There's no way you can stop people from voting who don't regularly use both.

The poll may be biased in either direction
- a free program probably has more users, so it might reasonably get more votes
- a program one pays for may bias them to vote to justify their purchase, even if the video quality is the same (or worse) or if they don't use both (i.e. they might be more likely to vote than freeware users who don't use both). I forget the name for this phenomenon (justify purchases of more expensive, though not necessarily superior, products). I remember the US auto industry claiming that was what was going on when Japanese cars were consistently getting better reliability ratings - they claimed the infidels that bought them were falsifying (biasing) their responses to justify their more expensive (and non-patriotic) purchase.

Personally I think lordsmurf is probably right - each tool probably has it's own tradeoffs.

At any rate, the poll is fun, so I'm all for it - I just don't think we should invest any emotional energy in the result (why isn't my choice winning).

FYI: I don't use both, so I didn't vote.

[vitualis]

At any rate, the poll is fun, so I'm all for it - I just don't think we should invest any emotional energy in the result (why isn't my choice winning).

The voice of sanity.

Regards.

[indolikaa]

Good poll. Nice to see it's deep into Page 1 and we're not at each others' throats.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

*quickly grabs indo by the throat*

WHADDAYA MEAN BY THAT!!!

[marvel2020]

Who Cares,


Both are good at what they do, so to me this poll is totally pointless.

If you happy using either or both then there's no need to vote.

[Shocker Milwaukee]

*quickly comes to his senses & releases indo's throat*

Sorry about that, indo. You must have triggered a flame-war flashback.

Who Cares,


Both are good at what they do, so to me this poll is totally pointless.

If you happy using either or both then there's no need to vote.

I disagree. If you have personal experience using both transcoders, I would find your opinion regarding the visual quality of their respective output valuable. I see nothing wrong with comparing our personal experiences with similar tools. This forum is a marketplace for just that: the free exchange of ideas, opinions & information. That being said, I've never used DVD2ONE, so I won't vote, but I do value the opinion of those who've used both.

[marvel2020]

Ok, i stopped using Shrink because from time to time it would cause my backup's to freeze in the DVDplayer. But when i use DVD2ONE i don't have any problems.

Visualy i don't see any difference's in quality between them, but i'm only using a standard TV Screen.

Anyway i only backup DVD Boxsets that don't have a PLAYALL button on them such as Buffy, Angel, Star Trek TNG, Deep Space Nine etc.... anything else i'll just watch the original.

[cal_tony]

For what it's worth, I use both and lots of times I use both on the same DVD. 2 to One has a nice seemless join function and it does allow for multiple chapter selection. Shrink does not, but it has so many more other features. As far as picture qual. goes it seems that both are subject to the same rule -the less transcoding the better. So many times it seems that the quality origional stuff is the most important factor. If an origional DVD was well mastered, either will transcode amazingly well. Moreover, whoever does the Mastering can't do much if the origional filming didn't use good lighting and good cameras for dark scenes. I transcoded my copy of Waterworld with both to see which worked out better. Since the graphic qual of the move was so good to begin with, both did an amazing job down to 70%.

anyway, that's my opinion

[MackemX]

If you think that DVD2One looks better than DVD Shrink with deep analysis and AEC, then I strongly suggest that you get your eyes checked.

I'm curious as to why you would start this poll when you posted the above in the other thread. You have obviously made up your own mind and I doubt very much you would change it no matter what anyone says and you see what happens when the personal insults start

this is just another which is better, apples or oranges thread? Personally I like bananas more anyway as apples and oranges suck

@everyone else, if someone is really that bothered about quality then they would do their own tests and make up their own minds. There would be nothing anyone could say that would change their minds about which is 'best'. It is good to read constructive thoughts about the tools though but those are a rarity (lordsmurf's post for example)

if people would rather listen to someone else's opinion and take that as solid evidence that it's the 'best' for them, even though it's against their own thoughts, then I don't think they are that fussy about quality

those who have seen this all before know that sometimes people post stuff that is a little bit questionable. That's where the fun starts when it is called into question although it hasn't started yet in this poll .

the 'best' poll would be a poll where users can just click one or the other and not be allowed ro post and give 101 reasons why it's better and end up flaming each other because someone doesn't agree with them

take those posts out of the thread an it's rather informative but some people around here aren't mature enough to keep it at a mature level. They take the slightest thing to heart and start acting like kiddies and it only takes one to start the ball rolling (saddo's). Maybe a very stern warning that any childish behaviour in subjective threads like this will lead to warning may keep the thread under control

oh, you are wondering about my opinion? both suck in my eyes anyway so I haven't voted

[vitualis]

I believe that the reason I started the poll is explained in my first post... which people obviously continue to either not read or ignore.

I believe (based on personal experience) that DVDShrink with DA + AEC can look significantly better than DVD2One (or DVDShrink without these enhancements on) and that it will never look worse (though the benefit can be minimal depending on the content). My impression (now appears to be probably erroneous) is that this statement is true for most people.

Extract from first post in thread:

However, a few dessenting voices in the thread remind me of the old MPEG encoder threads... especially claims that DVD2One OUTPERFORMS DVDShrink even with DA and AEC. That is contrary to my experience and seems to defy logic... however, quality IS subjective.

I wanted to see if indeed a significant number of people think that DVD2One with its speed outperforms DVDShrink in the visual quality department as well.

I'm not particularly interested in what I think as I already know that. I'm interested in knowing the subjective experience of other people too.

Regards.

[Jah_Rankin]

IC8 beat them all, by far. DVD2One is better than shrink (depending on version) or recode due to no macroblocks.