Do DVD Shrink and Nero recode do a good job of compression.

[Firewire60]

I am new to this video authoring so please bear with me.

I prefer to use well configured intuitive apps like DVD Shrink and Nero Recode rather than perhaps better apps that give better compression quality with better VBR but hard to use without a lot of knowledge of using the app. I find nero apps to be fairly well configured and easy to use at least with their basic processes.

Do DVD Shrink and Nero Recode use VBR and which does the best job.

[SingSing]

They do quite well, up to 45% compression.

For heavy compression (25% to 45%), use DVDshrink 3.2 with deep analysis, and sharp compression.

For animation or light compression (<20%) use DVDshrink 2.3.

[smitbret]

I've found that DVD Shrink and Recode are good up to about 75% of normal. Anything more than that and you get macro blocking, fuzziness, etc. They are transcoders and as such do only a decent job. For best quality, especially anything that needs to be compressed more than 75% of normal, then you need a true encoder like DVD-RB.
-Brett

[delius]

i use ripit4me along with dvd rb when necessary as mentioned above
cant say enough about ripit4me fab and free

[SingSing]

I've found that DVD Shrink and Recode are good up to about 75% of normal. Anything more than that and you get macro blocking, fuzziness, etc. -Brett

If you use DVDshrink 3.2, with deep analysis and sharp compression, you can get away with macro block, and fuzziness with up to 35%. The picture will be softer.

rip4me break the encryption, and then uses DVDshrink as the transcoder. It is one of the best DVD backup tool.

[guns1inger]

Do DVD Shrink and Nero Recode use VBR and which does the best job

In the context of your comparison, neither do VBR. Neither encode. They are transcoders within a very specific definition of the term. They are designed to examine the existing data representation of the video image, and to look for ways to reduce the amount of data required without degrading image quality too much. This is a very different approach to an encoder, which examines the image itself, and looks for the best way to represent it as data with certain parameters.

As for which is best - they are almost the same. They are written by the same author, use the same basic techniques, and perform pretty much equally. DVD Shrink gives you access to certain quality settings that Recode, by default, does not. These settings can apparently be made available using a registry hack or mini-application.

As to use what, when - it varies from disc to disc. There is no definitive answer, and anyone who says you can use Shrink /Recode to xx% every time is full of it. Because of the way a transcoder works, it is heavily dependent on how the original disc was encoded. If the original was encoded with a lower bitrate, the transcoder does not have much space to work with, and will start to show visible artifacts at a much lower % than on a disc that was encoded originally at a higher bitrate.

As you can see by the varying responses you have had to date, everyone's threshold for quality is different. We have had people claim that they can reduce a disc by over 55% using Shrink and have it look identical to the original. This is patently untrue, however if they only ever watch the results on a 12 inch screen, they may not be aware of the damage. I think DVD Shrink is better than Recode simply because it performs all the same task with equal quality, but does it with more flexibility and does it for free. It also doesn't require that you install the whole Nero bloatware experience on your system

However it is far from being the total package, and if you intend to back up your DVD collection carefully and with quality high on the agenda, you also must have DVD Rebuilder with HCenc (all free) in your tool kit as well.