Best compressor?

[Maginashun]

i havent been following this forum closely for the past few months and i was wonder if there has been any advancements in the way of compressing from dvd9 to dvd5... speaking in terms of quality. im still using IC8 cause at the time it produced the best quality. is this app still at he top of the list or is there something better that i should know about. thanks

[MackemX]

try DVDShrink 3.2 and you may be pleasantly surprised . Most of the popular programs have demos so it's 'best' you try them for yourself as this is always a debatable subject

[Maginashun]

thanks for the reply. i hear this so much and i also hear that everyone has their own opinion but i have compared most apps with stills and nothing produces better quality compressed dvds than IC8 (except for tmpgenc or cinema craft). this is not any opinion... its the truth cause its proven in the stills. IC8 would even be better if its size calculator was to ever be fixed so that is utilized the whole 4.32gb space. i know everyone has there own opinion but i know there is someone out there that is as picky as me about quality. i used to think that dvd2one was good (on same level as shrink) but that was when i was in a hurry and didnt care as much as i do know about quality. if i dont hear anything different then i am just going to take it as IC8 still being the best choice. I apologize if it sounds like i am putting other apps down. if you are happy with that quality than that is great. its just not up to par with what i am used to now. thanks

[Muppet Meat]

reciprocating, centrifugal, screw,scroll, hermetic
centrifugal is the best one by far

[ddlooping]

Hi all.

Maginashun, using frame-captures is far from being the best method for comparing video quality.
Depending on the transcoder used, one frame might be heavily compressed while the next one might not be at all.
What actually matters is what it actually looks like when the frames are played as they should be - in a sequence, for a duration of about 40ms each.

Why not use short video clips instead?

http://www.dvdshrink.info/temp/beta/comparative_tests.html

As you'll notice, the DVD Shrink version used in these tests was v3.2 beta 3.
It has improved since.

[jimmalenko]

Stills don't prove anything as they are not a fair and equitable display of each transcoder's abilities.

If you're happy with IC8 then forge on.

[Maginashun]

i like your argument. i have watched short clips using different apps and thats where you really notice it too. tmpgenc and IC8 (in that order) always come out on top. i keep arguing to my friends that its coming time that hdtv are becoming more standard and compression is important and i have noticed the slowly one by one they are coming to me saying that they really notice the jaggies on their disc when they are using dvd2one and shrink. i cant push IC8 on anyone cause people usually arent willing to wait 3 hours for compression and the big draw to shrink is that its any all in one. in my comparisons it takes shrinks deep analysis mode to bring it on par with dvd2one vbr setting. i think i will stay with IC8.

thanks everyone. the members contributing to this forum have always been helpful to me... i really appreciate the responses

[ddlooping]

Hey Maginashun,

No offense, but it does look like you missed something that happened last month: the release of DVD Shrink v3.2.

Some more comparison tests you might find interesting:
http://www.dvdshrink.info/temp/beta/comparative_tests_smooth.html

This time, v3.2.0.15 was used, with Deep Analysis and the AEC "Smooth" quality option.

Even CCE users might be in for a surprise.

[piano632]

Any opinions on Womble MPEG2VCR re-encode quality? I have noticed they have 3 quality settings and the Maximum Quality seems to redefine the definition of SLOW. Also checkboxes for Scene Change Detection, Temporal Noise Reduction, etc. It can't resize a whole disc, just individual MPEGs as far as I can tell. I use MPEG2VCR to edit and I'm just curious how the quality of it's re-encoding compares to others.

[Maginashun]

thanks for the heads up ddlooping. looks like i will be staying up late this weekend doing my own comparisons

[ddlooping]

You're welcome, Maginashun.

Please let us know of you comparison tests results.

[MackemX]

yep, it's best to test your own Maginashun but as for which is 'best' only you can decide and nobody can tell you different

I could be the only one out of a hundred people that says DVD95Copy is the 'best' after testing every tool out there and get plenty of grief for it (it's an example so don't get carried away hyenas ). My point would be is that is is a pleasure on my eyes. Who really gives a hoot if I do or don't use one that they use because they feel it gives better quality for 'them'?

opinions about quality are like 'a$$'oles', everyone has one but they ain't really interested in someone else's (unless it's JLO's )

as for small comparision tests, although they are nice to look at, I could do 2 sets and make some tools look better than others and vice versa just by selecting certain DVD's and action sequences

if one tool is the 'best' why doesn't everyone use it? :P

[Jah_Rankin]

DVDcopy2 is the best of all I've tried.

[ddlooping]

Jah_Rankin, maybe, I've been unlucky in my choice of DVD to test, but DVDCopy2 didn't come out on top with LOTR-ROTK.

http://www.dvdshrink.info/temp/beta/comparative_tests.html

[Jah_Rankin]

DVDCopy2

[jeremyp969]

Speaking of the new DVDShrink version (3.3 I think it is or 3.2.something), how is the quality. So far I've kept Beta 5 just because it's been better quality with deep anaylsis than the later versions of DVDShrink. Anyone see a vast improvement with the newest version???

[MackemX]

'each to his own' I guess dd

as long as the user is happy, who cares what they use?. I don't care if someone uses a photocopier to make a backup as long as they are happy

[MackemX]

@jeremyp969, it's best you test it yourself and all it will cost you is some of your free time. Please read my above post regarding people's opinions in this very very debatable field

it's nicer to see people have actually tried the software's and then maybe wish to compare opinions in a positive way instead of saying something 'sucks' or 'rocks'

p.s. it's better

[Jah_Rankin]

'each to his own' I guess dd

as long as the user is happy, who cares what they use?. I don't care if someone uses a photocopier to make a backup as long as they are happy

I've tried all before I drew my conclusion.

[ddlooping]

jeremyp969, there's been a considerable improvement between v3.1 and v3.2.
It is especially noticeable at medium to high levels of compression.

Mackadude, you're absolutely right. Sometimes I can't help myself though.

This thread is called "Best Compressor".
I say DVD Shrink v3.2.0.15!! :P

[MackemX]

@Jah_Rankin, I'm happy for you and I applaud you in doing your own tests and respect your opinion even if I do or don't agree with it

[Jah_Rankin]

jeremyp969, there's been a considerable improvement between v3.1 and v3.2.
It is especially noticeable at medium to high levels of compression.

Mackadude, you're absolutely right. Sometimes I can't help myself though.

This thread is called "Best Compressor".
I say DVD Shrink v3.2.0.15!! :P

Try again M*

[ddlooping]

I've tried all before I drew my conclusion.

Including v3.2.0.15 with Deep Analysis and the new Quality Options?

[Jah_Rankin]

New quality options in Shrink is based on IC format??????

[MackemX]

@dd, yep I know but maybe some don't agree

@Jah_Rankin, chill before you even start as that's exactly why I hate this crap and you are looking like a perfect example with your M* . People get upset when others don't agree or force their opinion on others and things turn nasty

chill people and accept it, get over it and move on because what's the 'best' ain't the 'best' for others 8)

[ddlooping]

No, Jah_Rankin, it is not based on IC format.

During beta-testing and development, the main goal was for v3.2 to equal IC8 output quality without its drawbacks.
I guess we overdid it (specially dvdshrink, the developer) as v3.2 now betters IC8.

[Jah_Rankin]

@dd, yep I know but maybe some don't agree

@Jah_Rankin, chill before you even start as that's exactly why I hate this crap and you are looking like a perfect example with your M* . People get upset when others don't agree or force their opinion on others and things turn nasty

chill people and accept it, get over it and move on because what's the 'best' ain't the 'best' for others 8)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding in my post, I meant to say M8 meaning mate oppose to M*

[MackemX]

lol, what a difference a typo makes

all is cool

[Jah_Rankin]

So tell me how do Shrink match up to nero recode?????? Same Author right???

[guns1inger]

The new AEC options have removed one of my biggest issues with shrink - pulsing in fine detail areas. As a test I backed up Chinatown with the new 3.2. Compression ration was 68.9 in reauthor mode (movie, 5.1 audio, no subpictures). No pulsing, no banding. I was very impressed. Speed wise, this took around 90 minutes on my rig (including burn), against 270 minutes using rebuilder and CCE.