Ripit4me

[Flyonthewall]

Can't seem to find an answer to this question.... when I burn results of ripit4me/decrypter/shrink the DVD player says no audio/no image but it plays fine on my PCs... Anyone know what I can do to burn the results so it plays on a DVD player..... Thanks bunches

[Baldrick]

Try rip with Dvdfab decrypter and burn with imgburn.


Ripit4me, dvddecrypter and dvd shrink has not been updated in years.

[hddvdrebel]

Rip with DVDFab; compress with dvdshrink; burn with imgburn

[hello_hello]

I very much doubt it's anything to do with the way the discs are being ripped. I still use RipIt4Me regularly and aside from some newer DVDs (mainly Disney discs, I think) it works fine. When it can't rip a disc properly you'll generally know about it, and if you've got as far as successfully shrinking the ripped files with DVDShrink, then chances are pretty good the problem is the way the discs are being burned.
What are you using to burn the discs? Are you burning a DVD compliant disc rather than just burning the files as a data disc etc? That sort of thing....

I generally use an old version of Nero on the odd occasion I still burn DVDs, and if I try to burn a DVD compliant disc which isn't actually DVD compliant it complains about it. I'm not sure which other burning software does the same.

[Ai Haibara]

Take a look at the content of one of the discs you've burned. Does it have a VIDEO_TS folder at the base of the disc, with several VOB, IFO, etc. files inside? (See "What is DVD" in the top of VH's toolbar for more information, under the "DVD File/Folder Structure" header..) Or does it have all of those VOB, IFO, BUP files in the root directory, instead?

[froggythrower]

Can't seem to find an answer to this question.... when I burn results of ripit4me/decrypter/shrink the DVD player says no audio/no image but it plays fine on my PCs... Anyone know what I can do to burn the results so it plays on a DVD player..... Thanks bunches

Old thread I know, but it sounds like the disc wasn't finalised

[jman98]

Old thread I know, but it sounds like the disc wasn't finalised

You joined us in 2006 and you wait until now to post AND you make your first post a grave rob?

You may actually be right, but generally just leave the old threads alone. Flyonthewall never logged in again since the day he made that one and only post.

[froggythrower]

Old thread I know, but it sounds like the disc wasn't finalised

You joined us in 2006 and you wait until now to post AND you make your first post a grave rob?

You may actually be right, but generally just leave the old threads alone. Flyonthewall never logged in again since the day he made that one and only post.

I am certainly not a newbie to forums of this nature, just spend my time elsewhere, and It's never too late to post, it may help somebody else in the future, and surely as a seasoned member like yourself you should be encouraging people to post and contribute, not flaming them, I was actually searching for something else when the post came up, and immediately knew the answer, something you seem to have failed to do in the last 8 months of being an active member of this forum unlike myself...

Furthermore I did troll todays posts to see if I could help before leaving the site, I was looking for a new home to waste endless time helping others who rarely appreciate the help, but due to your warm welcome I think I will go away for another 6 years... in fact you can even delete my account if you like

[hello_hello]

I don't see why people make such a fuss about reviving old threads myself. Several times I've found threads in forums via Google while looking for a solution to a problem, and if the answer wasn't there but I found a solution which worked for me, I'll post my solution for the next person who finds the same thread via Google. Or finds it via the forum search function which we're so often told to use.
A couple of times, when the problem isn't one which posters would be asking about regularly, I've joined a forum specifically to add some new information, even when the thread is old. I'm sure the next person using Google to find a solution to the same problem will be grateful and I guess it'll keep a couple of the regular forum members happy by giving them something to complain about. Win, win.

[Seeker47]

I don't see why people make such a fuss about reviving old threads myself. Several times I've found threads in forums via Google while looking for a solution to a problem, and if the answer wasn't there but I found a solution which worked for me, I'll post my solution for the next person who finds the same thread via Google. Or finds it via the forum search function which we're so often told to use.

Why this point (the so-called "grave-robbing" of threads) is a controversial as it seems to be -- in some circles -- continues to elude me. I think you'll probably find just as many members with the contrary opinion, much along the lines you stated. I think an equally valid counter-argument could be raised, against needless redundancy and proliferation of threads on the same topic. Reading a much later "jump-cut" post does not phase me unduly. I think we can all discern when it may be frivolous, vs. when it was posted in the right spirit.

[CobraPilot]

Consider the source of the flame remark, a regular, ongoing problem.