perfect (exact) copy software for movie dvds?

[Jah_Rankin]

but i dont mind the wait while encoding because i just let i run while i do something else.[/quote]

U just sumed up my point in a nutshell, the time u wait on 1 movie to encode, I can do sumthing else like (16 plus movies compared to your 1)of which I'm sure the average person would not b ble to tell the difference between a CCe or TMPG encode oppose to the good transcoding proggys out there.

[donpedro]

Let me sume up my point in a nutshell... (sorry for using your text)

Why should I transacode and loose quality (topic "perfect (exact) copy") by using any shrink software when it can be done probably faster and without any loss at all in movie quality ?

[DoubleShadowIce]

@donpedro

Why should I transacode and loose quality (topic "perfect (exact) copy") by using any shrink software when it can be done probably faster and without any loss at all in movie quality ?

Hmmm...your post seems confusing to me. You are saying that there is a better way to get faster and still retain 100% video quality without a transcoder? You can't be talking about using an encoder because the processing time is longer so I came to only one conclusion, the DVD that can be backed up without the use of a transcoder or encoder has to be a DVD-5. This would make perfect sense as I would just rip and burn. Of course, there is also the option to split the DVD-9 and that also preserves 100% of video quality but the speed to do so varies.

Why all that talk about quality when you can get ORIGINAL QUALITY without any loss at all and for FREE ?

I still want to see the justification of your post. Your claim is a mighty boast indeed...if it's a honest one. It's seems to be the holy grail method or software. Can you share your DVD-9 backup method with us?

[donpedro]

Can you share your DVD-9 backup method with us?

Of course I can :P But I am so lazy person that I am not willing to post it twice in same topic . Just go over this topic. And yes.... sometimes it means spliting to 2 DVDs, but it is "perfect (exact) copy"

[Faustus]

Well I'm pretty much done with this topic. Jah_Rankin you can derail the basic statement with off shoots about cost or money, but CCE still produced the BEST results, hands down. I only want to cover one more thing you said.

which includes audio sync issues, chooppy playback and even not playing in sum stand alone players????

Audio Sync: None
Choppy Playback: Ziltch
Not playing in some players: Only because they will not play ANY burns.

[scubasteve2365]

Thanks scubasteve2365,

Well it is 10% less and it does not realy matter how you look at that. So yes, you will loose 10% of video quality. Whether you can see it or you care is another question. I did, so any lowering is unacceptable for me. That is why I do not SHRINK or XCOPY or 2ONE my backups.
_________________.

A person that believes this has no digital understanding what so ever ...

If I were to take a WAV file of your favorite song, which would be around 50megs .... and i were to fill it up with uneccesary 1s, or 0s ... to where that song is now 75megs ..... The extra information, isnt necessarily information for the video signal ... Most people dont even know what the term digital means, or have any clue about it ... you are apparantly one of them.

Before you attack me, and my credentials ... I have years of experience with consumer electronics, I worked both retail, and technical/installation. I have my BS in electrical engineering from Purdue U. ... Now..

With the above scenario, if I had a decoding program that knew how to look for all that extra information inside the WAV file for you favorite song, and knew about useless data being stored there, I could remove the useless data (Thus a compression of FILE SIZE!!), and take it back down to the 50megs ....

Does using DVD shrink result in loss of DVD quality? , but not always ... some movies need heavy compression of the FILE SIZE, which results in some compression of the Video information ... The only Point I tried to make is that just because you are reducing the file size, doesnt ALWAYS mean you are reducing the video signal information ... Like I stated, A 10% compression DOESNT mean a 10% video loss. ... Then it leads to another bowl of cherries, because then you have individual perception of quality, TV size, Type of Tv, quality of player .... But I can say, ON a $10,000 DLP projector, I dont notice a bit of loss (me nor several people that work for mitsubishi, that was in my store) on typical length movies that were compressed to 80% of original size, in shrink with DVD analysis ... I however do notice a loss in longer movies, (lord of the rings, green mile, titantic ... ect) ... but your typical 1.5hour movie ... I notice no quality loss ... even on good equipment ...

[Shudder]

With the above scenario, if I had a decoding program that knew how to look for all that extra information inside the WAV file for you favorite song, and knew about useless data being stored there, I could remove the useless data (Thus a compression of FILE SIZE!!), and take it back down to the 50megs ....

Then I'd thank you for inventing mp3

[donpedro]

Thanks scubasteve2365,

Well it is 10% less and it does not realy matter how you look at that. So yes, you will loose 10% of video quality. Whether you can see it or you care is another question. I did, so any lowering is unacceptable for me. That is why I do not SHRINK or XCOPY or 2ONE my backups.
_________________.

A person that believes this has no digital understanding what so ever ...

If I were to take a WAV file of your favorite song, which would be around 50megs .... and i were to fill it up with uneccesary 1s, or 0s ... to where that song is now 75megs ..... The extra information, isnt necessarily information for the video signal ... Most people dont even know what the term digital means, or have any clue about it ... you are apparantly one of them.

Before you attack me, and my credentials ... I have years of experience with consumer electronics, I worked both retail, and technical/installation. I have my BS in electrical engineering from Purdue U. ... Now..

With the above scenario, if I had a decoding program that knew how to look for all that extra information inside the WAV file for you favorite song, and knew about useless data being stored there, I could remove the useless data (Thus a compression of FILE SIZE!!), and take it back down to the 50megs ....

Does using DVD shrink result in loss of DVD quality? , but not always ... some movies need heavy compression of the FILE SIZE, which results in some compression of the Video information ... The only Point I tried to make is that just because you are reducing the file size, doesnt ALWAYS mean you are reducing the video signal information ... Like I stated, A 10% compression DOESNT mean a 10% video loss. ... Then it leads to another bowl of cherries, because then you have individual perception of quality, TV size, Type of Tv, quality of player .... But I can say, ON a $10,000 DLP projector, I dont notice a bit of loss (me nor several people that work for mitsubishi, that was in my store) on typical length movies that were compressed to 80% of original size, in shrink with DVD analysis ... I however do notice a loss in longer movies, (lord of the rings, green mile, titantic ... ect) ... but your typical 1.5hour movie ... I notice no quality loss ... even on good equipment ...

Before I even start to attacking you... Learn how to use computer. Apparantly you don't have a clue what mouse and quote buttton is. It was me who said that and not IkeJon :P

[donpedro]

Like I stated, A 10% compression DOESNT mean a 10% video loss.

I would love to see your complex mathematical equation that will determine how much it is then so I can be exact next time... until you do that I will assume that taking 10% from something means that 10% is gone...

[IkeJon]

but i dont mind the wait while encoding because i just let i run while i do something else.

U just sumed up my point in a nutshell, the time u wait on 1 movie to encode, I can do sumthing else like (16 plus movies compared to your 1)of which I'm sure the average person would not b ble to tell the difference between a CCe or TMPG encode oppose to the good transcoding proggys out there. [/quote]

I see your point but i'm just not "the average person", i guess. I work with video all day, and i notice the slightest differences in quality.

Like i said before too, i'll use the speedier methods for less visually appealing flicks. Besides, I cant think of that many movies per night i'd want to copy. But then again, i dont subscribe to netflicks either.
Have a good one, all.

[roblobster]

Can DVD Shrink restructure menus to function properly when re-authoring? I want to copy my Nemo DVD but only the menu, movie, and the virtual aquarium. I don't think my niece cares about how they made the movie.

[noki]

Can DVD Shrink restructure menus to function properly when re-authoring? I want to copy my Nemo DVD but only the menu, movie, and the virtual aquarium. I don't think my niece cares about how they made the movie.

anytime you mention REAUTHORING the answer is no. BUT you might not have to reauthor a DVD9 to get all the features you mentioned in Shrink.

1. decrypt entire DVD with DVD Decrypter.
2. open files in Shrink.
3. uncheck combined shared titles.
4. under EXTRAS set everything you DO NOT WANT to still pictures and uncheck all associated audio and subpics. the titles you want (Virtual Aquarium) set to Automatic.
5. same for stuff under MENUS.
6. select the main movie if there is more than one of them, and uncheck any unwanted audio and subpic. set to Automatic.
7. hopefully the compression of the main movie is less that 20%. Actually with animation you can get away with more compression (30 or even 40%) and probably won't see any artifacts.
8. burn and enjoy

NOTE: if you can do without the Virtual Aquarium...read my post here...
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=185976&highlight=
good luck.

[roblobster]

I'm using the latest version DVDShrink 3.1 but I don't see "combine shared titles" to uncheck.
However, I've set the Extras and Unreferenced Material folders to still pics and eliminated their audio.
I went through the menus and set most of them to stills. Everything else (aquarium & movie) to automatic w/ only the main audio channels and no subpics. After all, the movie is automatically at 77.9%.
If I Re-Author, and dragged only the movie and menu folder, no compression is necessary. But they all fall into one folder which wouldn't playback correctly. So I thought it's just a matter of fixing the file back to a functioning structure. No?

[scubasteve2365]

Like I stated, A 10% compression DOESNT mean a 10% video loss.

I would love to see your complex mathematical equation that will determine how much it is then so I can be exact next time... until you do that I will assume that taking 10% from something means that 10% is gone...

I clicked the wrong quote button, unlike you, Im not hear refreshing my email inbox awaiting for replies, so I do have other things on my mind, human mistake ... no biggie ...

yupe your right, 10% of something is gone, 10% of the file size, that doesnt necessarily mean 10% of quality though. Have you ever downloaded anything off of the internet that was zipped, or RARed??? and it Unpacks into a bigger file ... Holy cow ... does that mean the program has lost quality?? ... Its all a lack of information. People cant distinguish analog signal from a digital one.

There is no mathematical equation, there is no formula, there is nothing. Its just not as CUT and DRY as 10% shrink in file size doesnt mean 10% less quality ... each movie will differ, why is that so hard for you to understand. Your dealing with 2 digit binary that arranged in a pattern of randomness to the human brain. No math formula could arrange this because every disc is different. On some movies yes a 10% shrink could cause a 10% drop in quality ... in fact (this will prolly blow your mind), it could cause In MORE than a 10% quality drop.

I see that I have to map everything out for you, your one of those types of hardheaded people. There is no standard uniform code to the bitrate of a DVD, the true Bitrate. Have you noticed that DTS is encoded at 720kb/s thats a standard that they use, DD does not use a standard that why you have different bitrates on different movies, and also why satelitte providers offer DD with lower bitrates than the DD thats on DVD.

When in the digital world, you sometimes have to fill up empty spaces with essentially nothing,all ones most of the time (just like to truley format a drive, you have to give it all ones, because if you dont, the registry can still be recovered!!) ...

The only point I tried to make is ... that SOMETIMES, a shrink in size doesnt mean the same size shrink in quality. SOMETIMES it does, and SOMETIMES in means an even greater shrink in quality. It all depends on movie length and other varibles. Point is, I bet is I could take a DVD shrunk copy of a DVD and the real one, not let you know which is which, and You not be able to tell the difference

[donpedro]

yupe your right, 10% of something is gone, 10% of the file size, that doesnt necessarily mean 10% of quality though. Have you ever downloaded anything off of the internet that was zipped, or RARed??? and it Unpacks into a bigger file ... Holy cow ... does that mean the program has lost quality?? ... Its all a lack of information. People cant distinguish analog signal from a digital one.

I was waiting exactly for this comment to prove you how uneducated you are. How can you compare what Shrink does to ZIP ? Man.. you need to return all your diplomas... I guess you invented ZIP in video world without loosing any quality at all... You are realy dumb.

Let me use your words : "A person that believes this has no digital understanding what so ever ... you are apparantly one of them."

[Jah_Rankin]

yupe your right, 10% of something is gone, 10% of the file size, that doesnt necessarily mean 10% of quality though. Have you ever downloaded anything off of the internet that was zipped, or RARed??? and it Unpacks into a bigger file ... Holy cow ... does that mean the program has lost quality?? ... Its all a lack of information. People cant distinguish analog signal from a digital one.

I was waiting exactly for this comment to prove you how uneducated you are. How can you compare what Shrink does to ZIP ? Man.. you need to return all your diplomas... I guess you invented ZIP in video world without loosing any quality at all... You are realy dumb.

Let me use your words : "A person that believes this has no digital understanding what so ever ... you are apparantly one of them."

Show a little luv my friendz

[donpedro]

There is no mathematical equation, there is no formula, there is nothing. Its just not as CUT and DRY as 10% shrink in file size doesnt mean 10% less quality ... each movie will differ, why is that so hard for you to understand. Your dealing with 2 digit binary that arranged in a pattern of randomness to the human brain. No math formula could arrange this because every disc is different. On some movies yes a 10% shrink could cause a 10% drop in quality ... in fact (this will prolly blow your mind), it could cause In MORE than a 10% quality drop.

Another bullshit. If you can not calculate loss how can you claim if it is more or less than 10% ? I agree that it might be less or more visible, but how in the hell did you came up with facts if it is more or less than 10% ? Just think if you have something to think with.

[Discrepancy]

One more time and this time I will be more specific.

1. All I need is DVDDecrypter to get movie from DVD to PC.

2. One of the following two guides from www.doom9.org (instructions, not additional sofware)

- 1 to 2 :Split a DVD to 2 DVD-Rs
- 1 to 1 :How to keep only the main movie of a DVD

3. IfoEdit that is used it these guides.

4. Nero or any DVD burning sofware.

As you can see No re-encoding, no 8h and finaly NO LOSS AT ALL and it is probably faster then any other method I would assume.

Thank you sooooooo much, heh.

I've been looking for a guide specifically for burning/ripping a DVD onto 2 discs (So you could have "perfect" quality). I have a pretty big DVD collection, people bug me to lend them DVDs, and i've lost a couple because people don't give them back or take forever to do so, so I figured I should start backing up my DVDs for when I give them out.

I bought a pack of Phillips DVD+R's a while back, and i've been meaning to do this.

Much appreciated.

Edit: Newbie question, how do you tell the exact size of a DVD (Just one of the disc if it's a multiple disc movie)? I wouldn't want to burn a DVD onto two DVD+R's if I don't have to and it will fit fine on one.

[spiffy]

Maybe it's just me; but I find ifoedit very daunting -- it definitely has a sharp learning curve. I've even started a new thread asking about choosing a split point, I don't know if I'm going to get any replies...

But seems like that is the best method if you want full control of your lossless backups... Though I wish it's easier, or me smarter. *Sigh*

[donpedro]

Newbie question, how do you tell the exact size of a DVD (Just one of the disc if it's a multiple disc movie)? I wouldn't want to burn a DVD onto two DVD+R's if I don't have to and it will fit fine on one.

I believe that it is nicely explained in those guides. If not, than definitaly in some another doom9.org guide.

[donpedro]

Maybe it's just me; but I find ifoedit very daunting -- it definitely has a sharp learning curve. I've even started a new thread asking about choosing a split point, I don't know if I'm going to get any replies...

But seems like that is the best method if you want full control of your lossless backups... Though I wish it's easier, or me smarter. *Sigh*

It's funny. What I do is I follow guides and I don't bother with changing split point. It always worked just fine with default one.

[scubasteve2365]

I dont need to return any diploma, because You simply didnt read what I wrote. You CANNOT calculate it mathematically, how could you. You can make a decoder, encoder, transcoder mathematically but there is no mathematicaly equation for a DVD, because EVERY dvd ISNT the same. a mathematical equation could be derived, for lets say FORREST GUMP, but the same equation wouldnt work for Silence of the Lambs ....

As for the compare what shrink does to a ZIP .... what do they both do .... Its an easy comparrison ... they are both COMPRESSION utilitys ... they both take a file (or group of), and compress that information into a smaller file for media effeciency means ...

Go to www.download.com and look under compression utilitys ... there you will find winzip, winrar ... ect. ... I shouldnt have to tell you that dvd shrink is a compression utility that compresses VOB files ... Id hope that you know that ...

And no I didnt create zip in a video world, in fact the MPEG standard a compression in itself from the natural recording., the utilities that we use just compress it a little more. Do you think that the recording studios that use digital video cameras record at the same bitrate that they transfer to DVD with??? once it goes to DVD it is compressed (after its converted to 480i NTSC) Just like an MP3 (Mpeg layer 3) is compressed audio, DVD mpeg2 is compressed video.

Id hope to no longer argue with you, I posted in this thread to make a simple comment to the author of the thread, so that hopefully if hes in a situation where he has to compress his movie, he wont necessarily think he is losing quaility, You stepped in to tell me that I am wrong, that I dont know what Im talking about, and That I should return my degrees. When I personally have seen the downconversion from Sonys studios down to DVD resolution and Mpeg2 format. What they told me is wrong too I guess!!

[noki]

roblobster

I'm using the latest version DVDShrink 3.1 but I don't see "combine shared titles" to uncheck.

click on the menu buttons on the menubar to see where combined titles is located. It is checked by default. I'm still using v3.0b5 (until someone declares that the video quality is better with v3.1.2) and it is located under one of the menus.

If I Re-Author, and dragged only the movie and menu folder, no compression is necessary. But they all fall into one folder which wouldn't playback correctly. So I thought it's just a matter of fixing the file back to a functioning structure. No?

if you reauthor with movie and menus the menus are not functional; they simply play back as mini-movies. BUT with animated titles 22% compression should be no problem. I would go ahead and backup with the settings you mentioned. Don't forget to use Deep Analysis. If necessary burn to a RW to check the quality. I think you will like the result. good luck.

[donpedro]

Id hope to no longer argue with you, I posted in this thread to make a simple comment to the author of the thread, so that hopefully if hes in a situation where he has to compress his movie, he wont necessarily think he is losing quaility, You stepped in to tell me that I am wrong, that I dont know what Im talking about, and That I should return my degrees. When I personally have seen the downconversion from Sonys studios down to DVD resolution and Mpeg2 format. What they told me is wrong too I guess!!

You are not telling the true. You started to make this personal by comments like:

"A person that believes this has no digital understanding what so ever ... "

"Most people dont even know what the term digital means, or have any clue about it ... you are apparantly one of them. "

So next time you attack somebody, don't be surprised when they attack back.

[donpedro]

I dont need to return any diploma, because You simply didnt read what I wrote. You CANNOT calculate it mathematically, how could you. You can make a decoder, encoder, transcoder mathematically but there is no mathematicaly equation for a DVD, because EVERY dvd ISNT the same. a mathematical equation could be derived, for lets say FORREST GUMP, but the same equation wouldnt work for Silence of the Lambs ....

Then stop arguing with me about 10%. If you can't calculate it than you can't prove that I am wrong.

As for the compare what shrink does to a ZIP .... what do they both do .... Its an easy comparrison ... they are both COMPRESSION utilitys ... they both take a file (or group of), and compress that information into a smaller file for media effeciency means ...

You are wrong again. ZIP compress by preserving all data in original file that can be UN-ZIPPED back. SHRINK is throwing away / deleting information that it thinks is not important. This in my world (and in real world not your small imaginary) is BIG DIFFERENCE.

And no I didnt create zip in a video world, in fact the MPEG standard a compression in itself from the natural recording., the utilities that we use just compress it a little more. Do you think that the recording studios that use digital video cameras record at the same bitrate that they transfer to DVD with??? once it goes to DVD it is compressed (after its converted to 480i NTSC) Just like an MP3 (Mpeg layer 3) is compressed audio, DVD mpeg2 is compressed video.

That can not be un-compressed back to original. Got it ? So stop using ZIP as argument.

[noki]

roblobster
read your other thread here
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=776416#776416

[DoubleShadowIce]

roblobster

I'm using the latest version DVDShrink 3.1 but I don't see "combine shared titles" to uncheck.

click on the menu buttons on the menubar to see where combined titles is located. It is checked by default. I'm still using v3.0b5 (until someone declares that the video quality is better with v3.1.2) and it is located under one of the menus.

@noki

Have you done any research on 3.1.2? The "Combine Shared Titles" option that was available in 3.0 beta 5 is definitely gone in v3.1.2. Read here. You're driving robloster stircrazy looing for it!

[noki]

Have you done any research on 3.1.2?

if you read my post correctly you would know the answer Now i think i will install and play with 3.1.2...best feature is the low priority mode Guess I won't be looking for combined shadred title, though thanks for the heads up.

[scubasteve2365]

I dont need to return any diploma, because You simply didnt read what I wrote. You CANNOT calculate it mathematically, how could you. You can make a decoder, encoder, transcoder mathematically but there is no mathematicaly equation for a DVD, because EVERY dvd ISNT the same. a mathematical equation could be derived, for lets say FORREST GUMP, but the same equation wouldnt work for Silence of the Lambs ....

Then stop arguing with me about 10%. If you can't calculate it than you can't prove that I am wrong.

As for the compare what shrink does to a ZIP .... what do they both do .... Its an easy comparrison ... they are both COMPRESSION utilitys ... they both take a file (or group of), and compress that information into a smaller file for media effeciency means ...

You are wrong again. ZIP compress by preserving all data in original file that can be UN-ZIPPED back. SHRINK is throwing away / deleting information that it thinks is not important. This in my world (and in real world not your small imaginary) is BIG DIFFERENCE.

And no I didnt create zip in a video world, in fact the MPEG standard a compression in itself from the natural recording., the utilities that we use just compress it a little more. Do you think that the recording studios that use digital video cameras record at the same bitrate that they transfer to DVD with??? once it goes to DVD it is compressed (after its converted to 480i NTSC) Just like an MP3 (Mpeg layer 3) is compressed audio, DVD mpeg2 is compressed video.

That can not be un-compressed back to original. Got it ? So stop using ZIP as argument.

Zip unpack, but there is a such thing as 1bit of data being used more than once in a movie ... Just like a Zip unpacks (this is done because of windows installer files/progs) The data on the DVD may be used in more than one part of the movie. (thus being used in the same fashion as unpacking)

There is nothing I could say to prove it to you, even If there was a mathematical equation, you prolly wouldnt understand it, But you believe in encoders, decoders and transcoders. You believe the programs are made to compress files, Do you not believe that when they make a movie they dont use these programs?

Lets imagine a scenario, some motion video of the sky. and a cloud floating by from one side to another. (in analog Film format, each frame is fully represented) that is the thought process that you live in. In MPeg format, the sky is only represented one time, the data repeats itself, and the only new data is reflected upon the movie objects (the cloud). There for you have compression/shrinking if you will (but during playback the data may be represented more than once)

Do files unpack on the Disc, of course not. But they can be reused. The information doesnt unpack fully then playback, but it goes through the same process information is RE-hashed DURING playback. there is your difference. If you have windows XP(using windows built in unzip/unpacker), and use DVD shrink you would now that you can use shrink without extracting/unzipping it. I in fact leave the compressed dvdshrink program on my desktop. I double click the zip, and then execute the .exe file within the zip. How could I do that, because it unpacks as it is used..... same thing with a DVD

Another example:

Lets say you take a CD, and record the same song back to back. Two tracks of the same information. A person could easily take that CD, and get rid of the second track (cutting the size in half) and add just a little instruction to the player (naviagation ins.) to repeat the 1rst track. Would that be a quality loss???

This is a basic simple principal, but this can be done with any digital information. The great part about binary is that you always have certain sequences of repeated information (code), and if you simply leave instructions to go back to that code, you can take out the repeated code.

one last thing, This isnt a trail, there is nothing saying that I have to prove you wrong, we are stating what we believe to be facts. To say that you wont believe anything I say unless a bring forth a mathematical equation and prove you wrong is kind of immature. I could easily take the same approach and say that you would have to prove me wrong. You would have to bring forth a mathematically expression that says that any of my theories are incorrect. Same rules apply both sides. I do have one mathematical principal for you.

One byte of information is 8 bits. there 4,700,000,000 bytes of storage capacity on a DVD (just assuming 4.7gig, I know its a little less), if you take the number of bytes times 8 to acheive the number of bits, you would come to a approximate number of 37,600,000,000 bits of information. Now with 37,600,000,000 digits of only a 1 or a 0 , by any means of mathematics you would now that there are gonna be repetitive bytes. Remember a byte is 8bits. If you take 8^8th power you would get a total of 16,777,216, possible combinations of 1 and 0's within a byte. if you take the data storage capiblities of a DVD 37,600,000,000 and divide by the total number of byte possiblites ... 37,600,000,000/16,777,216 = 2241. Id say that mathematically proves that chances are you are going to have repetitive information. This is with a 4.7gig dvd, when you have a stamped DVD of 8gigs, those numbers get even higher, wich exponentially increases the already guarentee of repeated information.

[donpedro]

scubasteve2365, you posts are getting longer and longer... I see you are desperate to prove your little lies so I am going to let you alone. It is not even worth of reading so that's it. I am done with your ignorance of facts. :P