Removing Audio Tracks from DVD

[harishkumar09]

I am having several movie DVDs of minimum 7.21 GB capacity. These movies have multiple audio tracks, of different languages such as English,French, Russian, German, apart from Director's comments about how the scene was shot and how the actors behaved on the sets. Now I want to backup the DVDs. But I want only the English audio track and the Director's comments, and not the French, German and Russian audio tracks. This because I don't understand these languages. These audio tracks no doubt take too much space on the DVD, and I am sure if I can eliminate them I can back them up to 4.37 GB DVDs and also store them in the HDD without consuming too much space.

Is there a way to do this?

[Baldrick]

You can remove the audio tracks with dvd shrink and make new dvd.

[hech54]

I am sure if I can eliminate them I can back them up to 4.37 GB DVDs

Doubtful removing languages alone will get it down to single layer size.....but it's a start.

[harishkumar09]

You can remove the audio tracks with dvd shrink and make new dvd.

But I don't want the Video quality to suffer a wee bit. Will the Video quality be maintained as is?

[harishkumar09]

I am sure if I can eliminate them I can back them up to 4.37 GB DVDs

Doubtful removing languages alone will get it down to single layer size.....but it's a start.

Thats OK, at least it will take much less space on the HDD.

[Baldrick]

You can remove the audio tracks with dvd shrink and make new dvd.

But I don't want the Video quality to suffer a wee bit. Will the Video quality be maintained as is?

I think you can set the video tracks to no compression. So no video and audio quality loss.

[harishkumar09]

You can remove the audio tracks with dvd shrink and make new dvd.

But I don't want the Video quality to suffer a wee bit. Will the Video quality be maintained as is?

I think you can set the video tracks to no compression. So no video and audio quality loss.

Thanks Baldrick. Is there any good guide or tutorial you can point me to?

[Baldrick]

http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/16/59/

[harishkumar09]

http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/16/59/

Thanks Baldrick. I am on my way to shrinking my DVDs.

[Hoser Rob]

http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/16/59/

Thanks Baldrick. I am on my way to shrinking my DVDs.

I think you may have misunderstood baldrick's earlier comment that said "you can set the video tracks to no compression. So no video and audio quality loss".

You can certainly do that with dvd shrink, if it's not a newer dvd with newer copy protection techniques. Don't get me wrong, I think dvd shrink is the best program of its type, but it hasn't been updated for years.

But the point about no compression means you can't shrink the disc. You cannot shrink it without losing video quality. Period. To compress = to reencode. What he meant was to just copy to Hdd without reencoding and play it from there using software. It's certainly faster that way, and you don't lose any quality, but be prepared to budget for more external drives if you have a lot of dvds.

What I'd do is use dvdfab hd decrypter (the free part) as a front end for dvd shrink, which has much better encoding quality. I'd set dvdfab for dvd-9 output onto the Hd. That just copies the dvd content and strips out the copy protection, which dvdfab is very good at.

With dvdshrink, if you want the best output quality, always use 2 pass mode, which it calls "deep analysis". That's another advantage to using a hard drive folder as input. It's way faster. 2 pass is slower but you can't get good quality dvd reencoding without it.

Also, dvdshrink has some video filters that are very useful, like sharpening and softening. The latter is great for a grainy dvd source video.

This may sound slower than just using one program but it isn't. You're only using the slow dvd drive for decryption, which isn't cpu intensive, and doing the hard stuff from the hard drive. I've done it this way many times. It's better.

[harishkumar09]

http://www.dvd-guides.com/content/view/16/59/

Thanks Baldrick. I am on my way to shrinking my DVDs.

I think you may have misunderstood baldrick's earlier comment that said "you can set the video tracks to no compression. So no video and audio quality loss".

You can certainly do that with dvd shrink, if it's not a newer dvd with newer copy protection techniques. Don't get me wrong, I think dvd shrink is the best program of its type, but it hasn't been updated for years.

But the point about no compression means you can't shrink the disc. You cannot shrink it without losing video quality. Period. To compress = to reencode. What he meant was to just copy to Hdd without reencoding and play it from there using software. It's certainly faster that way, and you don't lose any quality, but be prepared to budget for more external drives if you have a lot of dvds.

What I'd do is use dvdfab hd decrypter (the free part) as a front end for dvd shrink, which has much better encoding quality. I'd set dvdfab for dvd-9 output onto the Hd. That just copies the dvd content and strips out the copy protection, which dvdfab is very good at.

With dvdshrink, if you want the best output quality, always use 2 pass mode, which it calls "deep analysis". That's another advantage to using a hard drive folder as input. It's way faster. 2 pass is slower but you can't get good quality dvd reencoding without it.

Also, dvdshrink has some video filters that are very useful, like sharpening and softening. The latter is great for a grainy dvd source video.

This may sound slower than just using one program but it isn't. You're only using the slow dvd drive for decryption, which isn't cpu intensive, and doing the hard stuff from the hard drive. I've done it this way many times. It's better.

Thanks Hoser Rob. I am ok with video set to No Compression and I am aware that it means that the video stream will be as is, without any shrinking. I am trying to reduce the size of the DVD9 by getting rid of audio tracks of non-English languages. I don't want any shrinkage/loss of quality of the video streams.

[harishkumar09]

By removing the non-English audio tracks, three of them, I was only able to reduce the size by 1.07 GB. Not much as heck54 said. Each audio stream seems to be no more than 350 MB.

I might as well keep the files as is, as I don't want to shrink by compressing the video, causing the video quality to drop down.

[hech54]

By removing the non-English audio tracks, three of them, I was only able to reduce the size by 1.07 GB. Not much as heck54 said. Each audio stream seems to be no more than 350 MB.

I might as well keep the files as is, as I don't want to shrink by compressing the video, causing the video quality to drop down.

Again....you are not listening.
Removing audio tracks does not effect video quality.
Just because it is called "DVDShrink", you don't NEED to "shrink" or lessen the quality. There is a setting in DVDShrink that
leaves the video quality as is.

[Baldrick]

I guess harishkumar09 understands that now....

I am ok with video set to No Compression and I am aware that it means that the video stream will be as is, without any shrinking. I

[harishkumar09]

Yes hech54, I understand as Baldrick said. I was just hoping to reduce the size a great deal (actually by half) by simply eliminating audio streams of languages I did not know.

But the reduction in size is just 1 GB, so I might as well keep things as they are.

I was hoping that if I eliminated the unwanted audio streams, I might be able to shrink the size of a DVD9 to DVD5 and then I could backup two movies on one DVD DL, but obviously it is not going to happen.

[hech54]

But the reduction in size is just 1 GB, so I might as well keep things as they are.

Leaving unwanted languages is not very rational to me, that's all.....if that is in fact what you mean by keeping things as they are.

[CobraPilot]

Before you completely refuse to consider compression, try a simple experiment to see if you can perceive the quality loss when you convert from a DVD9 to DVD5.

Using software described above, remove all the audio and subtitle tracks you don't want and then let the software compress to a DVD5. View the results. See if you can tell the difference between it and the original.

My own "calibrated" eyeballs can seldom tell much difference even when compression rates down to 55% of original are needed for a DVD5.

[harishkumar09]

Before you completely refuse to consider compression, try a simple experiment to see if you can perceive the quality loss when you convert from a DVD9 to DVD5.

Using software described above, remove all the audio and subtitle tracks you don't want and then let the software compress to a DVD5. View the results. See if you can tell the difference between it and the original.

My own "calibrated" eyeballs can seldom tell much difference even when compression rates down to 55% of original are needed for a DVD5.

You are bloody right! I just took an MKV file of a famous movie and turned it to DVD9 and DVD5 using DVDFlick and compared many shots, close-up, long-shots, even explosions with lots of dust particles. They were both identical! Even the pixellations were identical!

Then why the hell did they invent DVD9? What purpose does it serve?

Except may be to archive data files!

[CobraPilot]

Actually, what I was suggesting related to converting a "true" DVD9 to DVD5, but now you've obviously seen just how hard it is to tell the difference, in most situations, with your MKV trial.

[manono]

Then why the hell did they invent DVD9? What purpose does it serve?

Try and compress a good 16:9 DVD of Sholay to DVD5 and then you'll know. Many films can't be compressed with good quality to a DV5. And what about the extras many people enjoy?

[CobraPilot]

Then why the hell did they invent DVD9? What purpose does it serve?

Try and compress a good 16:9 DVD of Sholay to DVD5 and then you'll know. Many films can't be compressed with good quality to a DV5. And what about the extras many people enjoy?

All my comments about DVD9 to DVD5 refer to conversions *with* all the extras, in most cases, unless it's a 3+ hour movie, and even then, it's worth a try.

As mentioned, my own "calibrated eyeballs" experience completely disagrees with the opinion "many films' can't be compressed with good quality to a DVD5." I can seldom see the difference on a 50" big-screen TV.

Others' experiences may vary, of course, but it seems to come down to a "try it for yourself and then *you* decide" whether the quality is acceptable.

[manono]

All my comments about DVD9 to DVD5 refer to conversions *with* all the extras, in most cases, unless it's a 3+ hour movie, and even then, it's worth a try.

As he's from India, harishkumar09 will know of Sholay. And it's well over three hours long. I did my best with it, and am pleased with the results, but wouldn't consider what I did nearly the quality of the source DVD (which is French and not Indian). For one thing, to make it more compressible I removed most of the film grain.

I also compress most DVD9s to DVD5, and include what extras I can (although not at the same quality as the film itself) when the quality of the film isn't degraded too much as a result of including them. And if you're really using DVD Shrink for the job, you've lost all credibility in my eyes. Maybe if you were doing it manually, or even with DVD-RB...

[CobraPilot]

And if you're really using DVD Shrink for the job, you've lost all credibility in my eyes.

1. Who said I was using DVD Shrink? (Hint: NO ONE!)

2. Do you think I, or anyone else on this forum, really worries about whether or not we are credible in your eyes? [Hint: Probably not.]

3. I stated *opinion*, just as you did. I wasn't trying to build or inadvertently harm my credibility, just sharing my opinion, based on a lot of experience.

4. I merely suggested that a trial DVD9 to DVD5 (or comparison conversion from other video sources to the two compression levels) might produce acceptable results to a person's own "calibrated eyeballs."

5. Inherent in *all* postings to these forums: "Your mileage may vary."

[manono]

1. Who said I was using DVD Shrink? (Hint: NO ONE!)

My own "calibrated" eyeballs can seldom tell much difference even when compression rates down to 55% of original are needed for a DVD5.

Which suggests you do use it, or have in the past.

And where did this 55% figure come from? Is it derived from something harishkumar09 said, or did you just make it up out of thin air? When a DVD has to be shrunk by a significant amount, no one that cares about quality uses DVD Shrink or any other transcoder. They use a good encoder.

[CobraPilot]

Wow, wrong again, manono.

You're inferring things that just aren't there to be inferred except as your SWAG. Even if I have used DVD Shrink in the past, that has nothing to do with the current topic, except to serve your apparent need to ridicule such use. I previously used MS-DOS, too . . . . that's just as germane to the discussion as your fixation on DVD Shrink. [Hint: NEITHER ARE.]

As to the 55%: My OWN personal experience, credibility-smashing-in-your-eyes as that no doubt is. [HINT: No one cares.]

If you'd read my comments s-l-o-w-l-y before jumping on the keyboard to ridicule them, you might infer that if I comment about evaluating videos with a compression rate "down to 55% of original," that I might reasonably be implying I have actually seen them, no "thin air" involved. That would *not* be a SWAG, but an educated (and accurate) inference--a rarity for you, so far, in this thread.

If the points you're trying to make are that you don't like DVD Shrink and think poorly of those who have EVER used it since Time began, I think you've succeeded. I'll leave it to others to decide what else you've succeeded in accomplishing in this thread.

I've certainly come to a conclusion, and it isn't a SWAG.

Your mileage may vary.

[harishkumar09]

I agree manono, you are being too rude here. Everybody here is trying to help each other and nobody here is trying to impress anybody. If for some reason you consider DVDShrink to be the wrong software to use, you could give reasons for it and suggest a better software to use and give reasons why it is better, which would be enlightening, instead of trying to prove yourself as superior and painting those who use DVDShrink in inferior colours.

Sholay is an action movie, an Indian Western or I think the proper terminology is Curry Western. It has lots of action sequences, no doubt, the quality was not good when it was shrunk to DVD5. An Indian or Hollywood movie with much less action sequence in my opinion will compress better with no visible loss in quality.

[CobraPilot]

harishkukmar09, as you perhaps have noticed, there are those on this board (and certainly not just manono) who disdain (and often ridicule) any software that hasn't been updated regularly or recently, or one they don't use.

In the case of DVD Shrink, it hasn't been updated for years. Therefore, they think DVD Shrink unworthy of consideration now. (If memory serves, the author went to work for Nero to produce Nero Recode.)

Yet, it continues to be a very useful program now.

Does it choke on some of the newer protection schemes? Yes.

Does it choke on all of them? No.

At what compression level does a "shrink" become acceptable? Depends on the individual's "calibrated eyeballs," i.e., "your mileage may vary."

[Cornucopia]

Yeah, I'm tired of people giving "old programs" like DVD Decrypter and DVDShrink a bad rap.

Yes, of course, they are NO GOOD for items that require ripping/decrypting of the "newest, latest, most confounding" copy-protection enhancement. But there are literally 10s of THOUSANDS of DVDs out there that don't use that whizbang new CP, so those DVDs can EASILY be used quite well by the aforementioned apps. And for those users, those apps are probably some of the best choices to use, quality- and feature-wise.

Yes, Shrink doesn't have the best quality as a fast transcoder vs. a full re-encode, but as long as you keep it to ~75-99% of size, your quality level is very decent. And it sure doesn't take as long as a true, full re-encode.

Plus, for those DVDs that DO use the newest CP stuff, Ripping to ISO (with a newer app like DVDFabHDDecrypter or ANYDVD) and THEN using one of these apps to do what you are used to is also an option, even if it does involve a few more steps, as both DVDShrink and DVDDecrypter have very nice toolsets that really haven't been duplicated anywhere else.

This is one of those cases where OUTDATED does NOT have to equal OBSOLETE. And to discount them out of hand is overly-presumptive, pompous and judgemental.

Scott

[manono]

Sholay is an action movie, an Indian Western or I think the proper terminology is Curry Western. It has lots of action sequences, no doubt, the quality was not good when it was shrunk to DVD5.

So you've seen some of the attempts to shrink it to DVD5 size? canuckerfan's attempt, maybe? But you haven't seen mine. It's free for the download. Just PM me if interested. And I didn't use DVD Shrink for the job.

An Indian or Hollywood movie with much less action sequence in my opinion will compress better with no visible loss in quality.

That's just my point. When some idiot pulls a figure out of his ass like 55%, he obviously knows nothing about transcoding .vs encoding, or how transcoders produce the results they do. They know nothing about different movies having different amounts of 'overhead' for further compression. They know nothing about different movies compressing differently. Nor does he know how to tell the difference between the results a transcoder produces and those a good encoder produces. My differences with that person have nothing to do with the age of the program. DVD Shrink was inferior (but easy and fast) from day 1. I use DVD Decrypter for about 99% of my work (Cornucopia), and use plenty of programs myself (like AutoGK, for example) that have haven't been updated in some time. That's just a red herring, just like that other idiot saying DVD Shrink has nothing to do with the current topic when, as near as I can tell, every post after the first has mentioned it either directly or indirectly.

If for some reason you consider DVDShrink to be the wrong software to use, you could give reasons for it and suggest a better software to use and give reasons why it is better,

I already said you use an encoder and not a transcoder. When you used DVDFlick you used an encoder (FFMPEG's, I believe). So, if you're incapable of doing it manually using CCE or HCEnc, you use some all-in-one program as a front-end, ones such as DVD-Rebuilder or Avs2DVD. Or even DVDFlick.

[harishkumar09]

Sholay is an action movie, an Indian Western or I think the proper terminology is Curry Western. It has lots of action sequences, no doubt, the quality was not good when it was shrunk to DVD5.

So you've seen some of the attempts to shrink it to DVD5 size? canuckerfan's attempt, maybe? But you haven't seen mine. It's free for the download. Just PM me if interested. And I didn't use DVD Shrink for the job.

An Indian or Hollywood movie with much less action sequence in my opinion will compress better with no visible loss in quality.

That's just my point. When some idiot pulls a figure out of his ass like 55%, he obviously knows nothing about transcoding .vs encoding, or how transcoders produce the results they do. They know nothing about different movies having different amounts of 'overhead' for further compression. They know nothing about different movies compressing differently. Nor does he know how to tell the difference between the results a transcoder produces and those a good encoder produces. My differences with that person have nothing to do with the age of the program. DVD Shrink was inferior (but easy and fast) from day 1. I use DVD Decrypter for about 99% of my work (Cornucopia), and use plenty of programs myself (like AutoGK, for example) that have haven't been updated in some time. That's just a red herring, just like that other idiot saying DVD Shrink has nothing to do with the current topic when, as near as I can tell, every post after the first has mentioned it either directly or indirectly.

If for some reason you consider DVDShrink to be the wrong software to use, you could give reasons for it and suggest a better software to use and give reasons why it is better,

I already said you use an encoder and not a transcoder. When you used DVDFlick you used an encoder (FFMPEG's, I believe). So, if you're incapable of doing it manually using CCE or HCEnc, you use some all-in-one program as a front-end, ones such as DVD-Rebuilder or Avs2DVD. Or even DVDFlick.

manono, regarding your comment:

That's just my point. When some idiot pulls a figure out of his ass like 55%, he obviously knows nothing about transcoding .vs encoding, or how transcoders produce the results they do.

I don't think he just pulled out a figure. He did say CHECK. There may not be any visible differences, or there may be. It also depends on how caliberated your eyeballs are. I think he qualified his statements very well.

He may be dumb, but you are BLIND. Go and consult an eye-doctor first.

I hope some moderator shuts up these guys who may these kinds of presumptuous comments. First read what the other person says. I found his advice useful. May be you are a Ph.D and he is not one, but his advise was useful to me. BTW, you seem to know everything about the guys on this board. Even if somebody makes a mistake on some point, that does not make him an idiot. Are you perfect in everthing?