Which Transcoding Program is best (cost not considered)

[evt]

Hi guys,

I've been trying a variety of programs to backup my DVDs. I started out using Intervideo 2 and was relatively happy with the results until I started to see white pixellation blocks on a few of my backups. At that point I started to use Shrink 3.2 and was really happy with it and all the options it offered. However, I found that unless I used Deep Analysis and the Sharp setting the quality was not as good as Intervideo. The problem with these settings in Shrink is that it takes a really long time (3x as long as Intervideo).

Recently I have tried Clone DVD2 and I found its options almost as exhaustive as Shrink (at least for what I want) and its speed is even faster than Intervideo. Has anyone done a comparison between these programs? I remember reading a review on SK but it was based on the older versions of all 3 of these programs.

[accountwiz]

I bet you'd be visually happiest by using DVD Rebuilder (free) with Cinema Craft Encoder Basic ($58). It doesn't match the speed of a transcoder, but then again, a transcoder can not match its quality. I'm amazed at its results on 7-8gb discs.

[Heff]

I think Shrink with DE is slightly better the CloneDVD2, so if you think IV is close to Shrink then I let you deduce.

Oh I think the best results I've gotten with any app is with DVD Rebuilder and Procoder 2.0 (It takes 4 hours), but I think he's wanting quality, speed, and simplicity.

[accountwiz]

My preferred transcoder has long been DVD2One, which can chomp thru an 8gb DVD in roughly 20-22 minutes on my year-old rig. I've also seen decent results from DVD Shrink and Nero Recode, but they aren't quite as speedy.

I guess DVD Rebuilder has just ruined transcoding for me... even with the 3 hours it takes to do a lengthy disc. I just wish I'd had it earlier.

[evt]

I'm not looking to use an encoder as my biggest pet peeve even with Shrink is the time it takes too long when I run it in deep analysis mode. I guess what I'm after is the transcoder that produces the best quality at a relatively good speed.

[steve2713]

Deep analysis only takes about 15 minutes on my system, having a faster CPU definitely seems to really help in this case. How long is deep analysis taking you on average, evt?

P.S. - I'm doing my deep analysis on full ISO images that have been ripped to my HD first, not from the disc itself.

[evt]

I don't rip to the hard drive first as I use AnyDVD. The whole process including the deep analysis and the other quality feature (name does not come to mind) takes between 50 and 80 minutes (depending on the size of the movie and compression level).

By comparison with DVD Clone 2 or Intervideo it takes me between 25 and 35 minutes.

[steve2713]

That sounds about right, you're using AEC then as well? It will vary in how long it takes to do with it enabled, depending on which setting you used. Leaving it on its default of 'sharp', the transcoding part (not deep analysis) takes about 25-30 minutes on my system for an average disc. 'Smooth' is closer to an hour. So your only slightly slower than my computer, and I've got quite a bit faster of a processor (2.8ghz Hyperthreading). Quality takes time, what can I say? Most people would consider an hour to be incredibly quick, when compared to actual recompressing with CCE or something similar.

[evt]

I guess what I'm trying to determine is whether anyone has compared the latest transcoders and determined which one produces the best quality. I'm looking to save myself the trouble of testing for myself.

So I guess I'm wondering which one of the following does the best job:

1) Clone DVD 2
2) Intervideo DVD Copy 3
3) Shrink 3.2 (With all quality settings enabled)
4) Nero Recode 2
5) 1 Click DVD Copy 4
6) Other

If anyone has tried and determined which one produces the best image can you also identify how long the process takes.

[Heff]

I think you'll fing most people who have tried DVd Rebuilder with whatever encoder of their choice (mine is Procoder) gives the best results.

[Soopafresh]

If cost isn't a consideration, drop $550 for an Athlon 64 with 1 GB RAM and double the speed of your transcode.

[Timoleon]

I just did The Lord of The Rings Extended Edition, comparing both DVD2One and DVD ReBuilder.

DVD2One does a fantastic job transcoding in about half an hour. The result looks superb. At this moment, I think DVD2One is the top dog in transcoding.

DVD ReBuilder is the creme de la creme, though. If you are willing to let it work overnight (it takes about 4-6 hours on a 2 hour movie), you can't ask for anything better on a DVD+/-R. Looks great whether you use CCE, Canopus, or QuEnc.

Both wonderful programs
Unfortunately, they take the madness and challenge out of it all No more trashed two-dollar disks, no more three days trying to make a playable copy of something, no more hair-ripping...

[Gurm]

Ok, considering ONLY transcoders:

- DVD Shrink (with Deep Analysis and the new Adaptive options) is better than CloneDVD
- Nero Recode is now surpassing DVD Shrink (since the author of Shrink is spending all his time on Recode)
- DVD2One is outdated but some people still prefer its "simplicity". In some situations it can return better quality than Shrink, but that number is decreasing.
- Intervideo... bleh.

[RickTheRed]

I have performed a few tests between dvdshrink and recode.
The test consisted in small excerpts from selected scene (smoke, fast action, etc) from different video files.
Both s/w were set at max quality. I had two dvdshrink samples, one at max smooth and one at max sharp.

I've applied severe and equal compression (around 50 to 60%).
I've spent a lot of time watching the excerpt in loop mode on a 19" flat screen.

Conclusion
Recode quality was slightly better or equal for 25% the total transcoding time.
I now use Recode.
But,...I still use dvdshrink whenever I want to split in 2 dvds

[evt]

Hi guys,

I did a little bit of my own testing over the weekend using DVD Shrink 3.2, Clone DVD 2 and Intervideo DVD Copy 3. I used Hollow Man Superbit Deluxe to do my testing.


I backed up this disc with all three programs and to be honest with you it was very difficult to tell the three programs apart. It was too close to call between the three from my 10' viewing distance on my 57" CRT rear projection TV. In the case of Shrink 3.2 and Clone DVD 2 I eliminated all but the DTS audio track; in the case of Intervideo I didn't remove any audio tracks as the program does not take removed audio tracks into consideration in deciding how much to compress.

All three programs produced very good results relative to the original; there was little discernible difference from my viewing distance relative to the original. The quality % in Shrink 3.2 and Clone DVD was just 62% so I was happy with the results given the circumstances. The the case of Intervideo the quality % was even lower as all audio tracks were included yet the quality did not seem to suffer compared to the other two.

Overall, I was not able to identify a quality difference between the 3 programs on this movie. However, the transcoding time differed greatly. I had AnyDVD running in the background and it took the following time each program to transcode:

1) DVD Shrink 3.2 127 Minutes with Deep Analysis and Sharp Setting

2) Clone DVD 2 31 Minutes

3) IV DVD COpy 3 39 Minutes

In this case, given the ease of use and greater customizability of Clone DVD 2 over Intervideo DVD Copy 3 I give the edge to Clone DVD 2, Shrink produced equally good results but required much more time to do so.


I'm planning on also checking this program using a move that's a little bit longer I was thinking of using either the Shawshank Redemption Special Edition or Troy. If anyone can think of a Movie that is more visually challenging let me know I also own all the LOTR films and Matrix films if they would be better candidates.


I have a comment to those of you who keep pushing DVD Rebuilder or other encoders that seem to take a drastically long time to backup a DVD. Obviously, those of you who use these programs must be very quality conscious. Having said that, I wonder why you wouldn't just spread the DVD9 to two DVD5's, surely the minor annoyance of switching discs during a movie has to be easier to swallow than some of the ridiculously long encoding times I have seen on this forum. No need to attack me on this opinion It's just that I personally don't see the logic.

RickTheRed,

Would you say that Recode 2 is similar to Clone DVD 2 and Intervideo 3 in terms of the time it takes to transcode? If so, I may have to buy this one as I do like the extra flexibility that Shrink offers over the other programs in terms of variable compression for different titles but I just can't bear the extra transcoding time with no discernible quality difference.

[archaeo]

has to be easier to swallow than some of the ridiculously long encoding times

the way I look at it, so what if the encode times are longer? I plan on having these backups for years, so putting that time in up front is no big deal. And, if I can get excellent quality on one disc - why bother putting it on two? To go a bit farther with this, I find that most of my Rebuilder/CCE encodes are one pass vbr (opv) which only take an hour or two. The longer ones are few and far between.


EDIT:

If anyone can think of a Movie that is more visually challenging let me know

I think an excellent benchmark test is 'Saving Private Ryan', on one disc.

[evt]

Well, with any luck both encoders and transcoders will be a thing of the past by the end of the year when I predict blank DL media will be a viable alternative. At that point a program like AnyDVD and a good burning program will be all that is necessary.

[archaeo]

by the end of the year when I predict blank DL media will be a viable alternative

Perhaps, but I think the cost will be prohibitive longer than that. By the time the costs of dvd9 R become reasonable (at least to me), there'll probably be HD dvd's (20+ Gb) which will again outreach the capacity of even a dvd9.

[Heff]

I have a comment to those of you who keep pushing DVD Rebuilder or other encoders that seem to take a drastically long time to backup a DVD. Obviously, those of you who use these programs must be very quality conscious. Having said that, I wonder why you wouldn't just spread the DVD9 to two DVD5's, surely the minor annoyance of switching discs during a movie has to be easier to swallow than some of the ridiculously long encoding times I have seen on this forum. No need to attack me on this opinion It's just that I personally don't see the logic.

I do split some movies that really matter to me, but there's some movies that I just don't want on more then one disck (sometimes I need to make mutilpe backups). Also why not use DVD Rebuilder if you can set it when you go to bed, wake up and it's done?

[Gurm]

by the end of the year when I predict blank DL media will be a viable alternative

Perhaps, but I think the cost will be prohibitive longer than that. By the time the costs of dvd9 R become reasonable (at least to me), there'll probably be HD dvd's (20+ Gb) which will again outreach the capacity of even a dvd9.

And even more troublesome than the cost is, of course, the compatibility level, which is still hovering around 50-75%.

[doppletwo]

I don't mean to threadjack, but the thread has now went to DL media.

I think dash/minus DL will fix the compatiblity problems.

I didn't find any comments on -DL media in the media section though.

Any thoughts about this from anybody with experience with -DL?

Is actually even really available?

[Gurm]

Nobody has experience with it because it is not, in fact, available (yet).

Will it fix everything? That remains to be seen. The compatibility problems with +R/DL are threefold:

1. Player compatibility
2. Burner compatibility
3. Software compatibility

Right now, even if your player is willing and your burner is able, for many people there is NO software that will reliably burn +R/DL without munching the layer break.

And having a burner AND a player that deal with it correctly is ALSO a gigantic "IF".