Any other ideas on DVD player to DVD recorder -- good quality?

[kevs]

The reulsts are horrid with usual cables getting good quality from a standalone player to a standalone recorder, for reason specified on some other threads, but I do see an orange port called coaxial digital (I think) on the back on my player, and the same orange port for an input on a recorder I'm testing now. Could this help? any other ideas on this? thanks!

[yoda313]

I'm sure this has been mentioned but for best results on copying dvds you should get a computer based dvd recorder. Then you can do a fast bit for bit copy and not have to do it in realtime. Your results will be far superior plus using programs like dvdfabdecrypter you can keep the digital surround sound which you lose in a direct dub like you are attempting.

[samijubal]

The connection you're talking about is for audio, not video.

[kevs]

thanks sam -- good info. I'm just flailing here for hope, and idea on this.

YEs Yoda you are right-- but for some stuff I like to edit material in bed laying down relaxing, and not always at computer. and it looks like, after so much trying I cannot achieve this with DVD recorders and players: see thread:

https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1537267&sid=afc769f155794eb1b55a9b7bac05e333#1537267

[kevs]

PS:
what would it take from the manufactures to solve this problem input output wise? to go dvd player to a dvd recorder and get great quality?

[samijubal]

That's not something the industry wants done.

[hech54]

DVD Burner - Computer
DVD Recorder - a "VCR-like" device

I get great quality from my DVD Recorder....and it is as old as dirt.

[kevs]

good insight Sam
it would be nice if the industry did what consumers wanted I think.

[ClubSteeler]

I'm surprised you are having so many problems.

Do you have a quality DVD player that provides a great looking picture even on the composite video output?

I am a new owner of a DVD recorder, and haven't fullly tested it out yet, but I did try to copy a few minutes of a movie from my DVD Player to DVD Recorder and I thought it looked great as long as you use the best quality sampling rate possible to fit it on the disk. I couldn't tell a difference from the original, although to be fair maybe I could have seen a difference had I played them both side by side, but the results were very good.

Also, due to the limited output jacks on my cable box DVR, I have the DVR connected to the DVD Recorder using the RG6 coax connection, which is about the poorest quality way to do it, and still my recordings on 1,2,and 2.5hr modes are indistinguishable from the original in my opinion.

My recorder is just a cheapo $96 Sam's Club Magnavox.

I wonder if you have a bad noisy video cable. Try svideo for comparison. Use a video cable that is not very long, the shorter the better. Try a monster cable. Try another DVD PLayer to see if they player has a noisy composite output jack.

Let us know how it pans out for you.

[kevs]

Club:
sometime I do see great results, but many other times it pretty inferior compared to VCR to VCR. Cables are fine. --which I think as Sam is implying is just the way the manufactures want it.

[hech54]

Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder....and so is inferiority I guess.

[LCSHG]

Well
I’ve Just got some junky LiteOn/ilo units with those nasty LSI chipsets. In my set up with both Video and audio, I have a Go-Video combo unit to feed the ilos.
I even use an RF connection [after all the signal and all info is fed to the satellite receiver that way. and it has all the info but I guess that sameware along the way this is all improved
I’ve even used some, get ready, phono cables in the Video jacks. I even have some long, long cables with RCA jacks that I made using RG59. If anyone can tell me the difference in a video or audio cable, please do
I have made over 1000 disks from VHS, DVD, off air program. All are great.
DVD recording is superior to VHS especially if over SP time

Yea there is a slight difference in DVD if you go over LP 3hr but even at EP 4hr its acceptable but than that’s me and I don’t have a Sony.
I used to use a PC and it is the only thing to use if you want menus and all. I just want to see the main program and for that, a good stand-alone unit will beat a PC

I heard said that component output is better It is really red, green, buue, and vedio as an independent output ? that most often needs adjusting, which is already done in a good composit circuit. Most units have contrast, brightness and tint adj. Its a matter of preference but why would one be better than the other.

[ samijubal ]
That jack on a Sony has to be for better video. One has to believe this Wait my ilo has one two

[yoda313]

I used to use a PC and it is the only thing to use if you want menus and all. I just want to see the main program and for that, a good stand-alone unit will beat a PC

???

Not if you have a dual layer burner and a dl blank. Than its a 1:1 backup, no compression or loss at all.

There are two serious reasons to use a pc for dvd backups:

1. YOU KEEP THE 5.1 SURROUND SOUND (if any)

2. FASTER THAN REALTIME

The digital surround sound and faster processing are the main reasons to use a dvd burner on a pc. These days they are so cheap and blanks (well single layer blanks anyway) are cheap that it makes more sense in my opinion to always do it on the pc.

[hech54]

[ samijubal ]
That jack on a Sony has to be for better video. One has to believe this Wait my ilo has one two

If the jack is orange....it is audio only....plain and simple.

[LCSHG]

[ yoda313 ]

I reread your post.
In my post it wesn't clear but what I meant in the term [menu and all] was to having the Nenu options, as play, language, options, etc
In any copy I would only get the entire program on a 4.7 disc by selecting an appropriate bit rate, SP, LP, etc. If ithe program was longer tha a bitrare I wanted. I would have to go 2 discs.

My experance with DL recorders is that, such a program can be placed on 1 DL disc and possibly a higher bitrate. This could be an advantage of DL

I know of no DL recorder that would copy the Menu Options, By this I mean. A commercial disc will start and display the Menu Options Play, Language, special effects, ecc, A selection must be made to continue.


If I wanted this [not likely] I would use a PC. Other than that I feel a standalone recorder is more easy and a PC use can have its proplems

The [Total] time in using a PC can be longer than using a standalone

[yoda313]

The [Total] time in using a PC can be longer than using a standalone

How do you figure???

Depending on your ripping speed its 10 to 20 minutes to rip the disc (on average). Then 10 to burn with an 8x dl disc I believe.

For a 2 hour movie PLUS all the bonus features that is WAY faster than realtime.

But if you like doing it the long way who am I to stop you.

EDIT - I'm referring to a straight 1:1 - no editing, recompressing, no changing menus, or stripping, pure no hassle bit for bit copy. If you're talking about remuxing and adding your own stuff then yes that will take more time than dubbing just the movie (of course again you lose the 5.1 dubbing so I don't see any point in that personally).

[LCSHG]

yoda313

The time issue can be a matter of the individuals use and equipment and is a real discussion issue

My post was to clarify the use of a recorder with DL [or without] to do the same with menus and selections as done in a PC But I think that was clarified in the Edit of your last post

Now if I want all the options. I would use the PC but we are talking time and hassle and
I can’t see using it for a 1:1 copy for just the movie
Using a standalone [at this time] with DL will not do as a PC for all the options
And most if not all DL units [at this time] in recording, have a delay when switching over at the disk end if they don’t fail.

I have used both CP and stand-alone and feel that the results received are better and more easy than with a stand-alone than a PC and fewer problems
Now that’s Me and there has been much debate on this issue Many that use PC say they lose Nothing. In my experience many of us spend a lot of effort and money to get something we can’t see or hear in the first place

You are right about [Total] time, a poor choice and use of words.
In the straight 1:1 recording as in your Edit [bit for bit copy] I wasn’t talking about my stuff but all the options on a commercial disk

Using a PC to copy just the movie, the total time is about is about 35min. and one must be at the PC. Pretty much the entire time. Give it about 20min [Total time]

Using a stand alone I put the disk in my player that feeds the recorder.
Set the timer on the recorder to start in 1.5min and after the end of the program 10min max. and turn the recorder off. Thats about 3min. [The recorder has a HDD and I do about 98% to it]

Wait for the recorder to start, give it some 10 sec and play the disk and walk away.
Come back any time and Edit the first and last parts, about 5 min.

Now I can record to either the DVD disk or the HDD
Recording to a disk as in above and edit is, in time for me, some 10min

If I record to the HDD and than copy to a Disk it takes about 20 min to copy but in time for me its less than 1 min to set up to copy and walk away
So my time is less or about 15 min for the whole operation.
Time is not an issue Its the the better result and less hassle with a Stand-alone

To me that not the long way

[hech54]

DVD Burner - in your computer.
DVD Recorder - "like a VCR".

Any way you look at it....copying a factory pressed DVD to a DVDR is better and faster on a computer....unless your computer is as slow as molasses in January.

The ONLY way to copy the menus and the movie is via a computer burner.

Even taking the "movie only" with a DVD burner is faster and better than pressing record on a DVD Recorder. Quite often the "movie only" ends up being small enough to fit on a single layer DVDR anyway...now you really have en exact copy of the material that is on the disc....bit by bit(rate).

You won't get a "better result" from a DVD Recorder....plain and simple. If you prefer to use a DVD Recorder.....fine....but it won't be better.