DVD SHRINK QUALITY

[smearbrick1]

This reminds me of friend of mine... she used to think she could hear the difference in quality between a store bought cd and a copy of said cd (disc to ISO - ISO to CD-R). Truth is, she just wanted to sound like she knew something when in reality, she didn't have a clue!

[hech54]

This reminds me of friend of mine... she used to think she could hear the difference in quality between a store bought cd and a copy of said cd (disc to ISO - ISO to CD-R). Truth is, she just wanted to sound like she knew something when in reality, she didn't have a clue!

BINGO
We have a winner...

[Shocker Milwaukee]

You guys really can't hear the difference between a store bought CD & a CD-R copy?! *passes the bong back to Jah_Rankin & exhales a plume of smoke*

[hech54]

Some more reading for you Jah_Rankin:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=233912&highlight=

[fritzi93]

ddlooping, thanks for posting the pix. The new DVDShrink certainly seems to be an improvement. Several weeks ago I ran some comparisons of Shrink (v 3.16) against DVDRebuilder (QuEnc and CCE) on a long movie (Lawrence of Arabia). Stared at a lot of images, and even posted a couple pix at the time.

Shrink still seems to soften the video ever-so-slightly, but it's more subtle. I actually was able to correctly identify which was which, but it's not easy. (Hint: Look at the area directly above his right eyebrow, also his left shoulder where contrast between light and dark was increased minutely).

Pretty damn good for 60% or so! Almost makes me consider revising downward the point at which I'd use DVDRebuilder in preference to Shrink.

[Jah_Rankin]

well i too am a cheap bastage and enjoy the time and effort and time put in to a prgram that i can use for free. so that i dont confuse anybody i suggest that if you want the best possible copy that you have 2 options. 1. spend a little $$$$ you cheap &*^%$# and buy the orignal or 2. buy yourself a dual layer burner with dual layer media and do a 1:1 with out any transcoding or compression. i think that my be your best option but then again thats just my dvdshrink 2 cents.

2 sense is all u have buddy. Most folks have 6 you **** S*#&@^

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator BJ_M

[Jah_Rankin]

Very funny, Good 1, but not good enough. I can tell u however if u look on the skin tone of the actor face on both pics u can see those dark skin tones I'm refering too.

Dude, you know what's hilarious? You never, in all 5 or so of your posts talking about the obvious differences between the two pics, specified WHICH of the two pics was the one with these discolorations. This leads me to believe you really couldn't tell (as I couldn't tell) which pic was from the original and which one was the compressed video. Maybe with a lot of analyzing you could see the difference, but it's definitely not obvious, and very impressive at 60% compression. Although I do think you can't do a real comparison based on still frames. You have to see the video playing to really test the quality.

I too have thought the same thing as Jah_Rankin before when simply taking the main movie from a DVD and leaving it uncompressed. However, this always happens when playing it in PowerDVD on my computer. After playing the original, also on my computer, I realized that DVD's just don't look that great when viewed close up on a computer monitor. When played on a regular television, I get the picture that I'm used to. No compression = no change, right?

The pic is lousy on the tv screen as well. I rest my case.

[MackemX]

Blahh, Blahh, I copied GOD SEND, DORM DAZE, and LAWS OF DATING, Movie only mode, all 3 needed no compression, but the pic was lousy! There were discoloration, especially on skin tones. So u all can take that to the bank. The pic was clear but if one look 's at the flesh tones and finer details the flaws are there!!!!!.

P.S: several bit-by-bit comparison tests of DVD Shrink "No Compression" output and the original stream have shown them to be identical.

a little expansion on this

I've ripped a PGC using DVDDecrypter and extracted the .m2v file with Vobedit. I also used reauthor in DVDShrink and ripped it 3 times with No Compression, Automatic and 100%. I extracted the 3 .m2v files from those also and stuck them into a file compare program and all are identical bit for bit. In the past DVDShrink did change the files if you used the 100% setting

hmm, look at that!
no personal insults, no referral to getting high, no mention of medication,
no questioning of anyone's fathers existence, no correction of grammar or spelling, just plain hard facts 8)

it's amazing how many people Jah_Rankin has pulled in with this thread

I tend to stay away from quality debates now as I don't give a shite who thinks what is best or worst. I'm a big boy now and can decide for myself as it's my eyes, my perception of quality and my equipment I would use to watch them. I don't feel the need to 'push' my opinion onto others regarding this subject :P. I do however enjoy watching the farce these things throw up

[ddlooping]

Thanks for the confirmation, MackaDude.

[MackemX]

Thanks for the confirmation, MackaDude.

you most welcomeness 8)

p.s. is welcomeness a word?, if it isn't then the spell check Kings will get me now

[Jah_Rankin]

Blahh, Blahh, I copied GOD SEND, DORM DAZE, and LAWS OF DATING, Movie only mode, all 3 needed no compression, but the pic was lousy! There were discoloration, especially on skin tones. So u all can take that to the bank. The pic was clear but if one look 's at the flesh tones and finer details the flaws are there!!!!!.

P.S: several bit-by-bit comparison tests of DVD Shrink "No Compression" output and the original stream have shown them to be identical.

a little expansion on this

I've ripped a PGC using DVDDecrypter and extracted the .m2v file with Vobedit. I also used reauthor in DVDShrink and ripped it 3 times with No Compression, Automatic and 100%. I extracted the 3 .m2v files from those also and stuck them into a file compare program and all are identical bit for bit. In the past DVDShrink did change the files if you used the 100% setting

hmm, look at that!
no personal insults, no referral to getting high, no mention of medication,
no questioning of anyone's fathers existence, no correction of grammar or spelling, just plain hard facts 8)

it's amazing how many people Jah_Rankin has pulled in with this thread

Here it is we have a few folks that stated my conclusion is some what correct, or use to be correct, which one is it? U think that the files @ 100% compression remains untouchable, u are wrong. I can't help if u have a cheap TV, or use a PC to look @ movies, therefore the degrade in quality is not visible but With my Projector set up the pic after using shrink latest vs is lousy, all sorts of discoloration, especially on skin tones, without compression in conversion.

[ddlooping]

No comments. Bye.

[Jah_Rankin]

No comments. Bye.

Just as I thought.

[skebenin]

Some people really do see with their ears and hear with their eyes. That's why real tests are double-blind.

Good thing I can think for myself.

[MackemX]

roflmao,

whether you have a tiny tv on your watch or a huge 50 foot state of the art screen is irrelevant and I'm pleased you have a projector screen. You don't have to help me with the TV situation either

the hard fact is that 2 files containing the same data bit for bit, will produce the same picture (according to the limitation of what the human eye can see) IF other factors do not change the final viewed image. I'm not saying there may be differences between the 2 after burning but they will be so minimal you wouldn't have even noticed them to bring up the issue

if you can upload 2 bit for bit samples of some .m2v files that produce images of different quality that I can see on a projector after burning, I'd be rather interested

[Shocker Milwaukee]

*takes another hit from Jah_Rankin's bong*

[MackemX]

No comments. Bye.

Just as I thought.

what did you think?, he's off because he has better things to do than waste his valuable time here as there's are people in greater need than you

if you want to start reeling people in then I'm game anytime as I have dealt with a lot worse than you :P

try to say something constructive in this thread to justify it's place at the top of this forum. If not then give this subject and the forum a break 8)

[MOVIEGEEK]

no, he was too busy, changing bong water

Jah_Rankin,
I think you need to take your meds,AEC(Max Smooth) does work if you use Deep Analysis.
BTW...most people have 5 senses...unless you're psychic.

[plimper]

I have read all your replies people but the v3.2 full version it's the best ever because has the advanced smoothness and sharpness!!!
I have taken LOTRIII The Return Of The King and i made it with the advanced option of full sharpness through full copy.
When i played it i stayed with my mouth open!!!
No color discolorations nothing like some other members said!!!
Just best quality!!!
It's really sad when someone comes with critical updates to a program that is totally free and some people comes out and talks bull.
If you don't like it mate just don't complain and go buy or try something better but don't come here and complain about a free program that is simply the best!!!
Just try the option i did and let's talk!!!
Maybe it's time to change your tv set? Your dvd-rw?
This is the best free program!!!The author needs some respect for the hard job that his doing and some simple donations to carry on!!!
Friendly Plimper.

[jimmalenko]

In the past DVDShrink did change the files if you used the 100% setting

Interesting. Logic would tell us it is just ripping the files and not transcoding, wouldn't it ?

hmm, look at that!
no personal insults, no referral to getting high, no mention of medication,
no questioning of anyone's fathers existence, no correction of grammar or spelling, just plain hard facts 8)

I am learning to bite my tongue, master

I tend to stay away from quality debates now as I don't give a shite who thinks what is best or worst. I'm a big boy now and can decide for myself as it's my eyes, my perception of quality and my equipment I would use to watch them. I don't feel the need to 'push' my opinion onto others regarding this subject :P. I do however enjoy watching the farce these things throw up

Good call.


I just fail to understand the method behind a thread like this - just venting perhaps ?

[ddlooping]

I just fail to understand the method behind a thread like this - just venting perhaps ?

I think it is a campaign of misinformation by an ex-KGB member under the influence of very good "afghan".

[Jah_Rankin]

I never said anything negative in reference to the producer of Shrink< I simply said the new vs pic quality.is not the best of all versions

[Jah_Rankin]

no, he was too busy, changing bong water

Jah_Rankin,
I think you need to take your meds,AEC(Max Smooth) does work if you use Deep Analysis.
BTW...most people have 5 senses...unless you're psychic.

Another chat room forum Science Major

[BJ_M]

I never said anything negative in reference to the producer of Shrink< I simply said the new vs pic quality.is not the best of all versions

in defense of Jah_Rankin - he does have a right to have his own opinion ...

he should not jump on other people that don't agree with him -- but also , let him have his opinion also and don't jump all over him (or her)...

[ddlooping]

I'm not jumping on ayone, see..

I think we all agree Jah_Rankin is fully untitled to prefer v3.0b5 to v3.2.
That's a personal view (and as all personal views, very subjective).

However, he made statements that are blantantly false, hence the reaction of some of the participants to this thread.

[BJ_M]

I'm not jumping on ayone, see..

I think we all agree Jah_Rankin is fully untitled to prefer v3.0b5 to v3.2.
That's a personal view (and as all personal views, very subjective).

However, he made statements that are blantantly false, hence the reaction of some of the participant to this thread.

well yea -- that also.. its a thin line

[fritzi93]

*takes another hit from Jah_Rankin's bong*

When you're done, I think I'll take a hit off that myself. :P
Amazing how threads can degenerate.

[Sabro]

Just downloaded both Gandie's and ran them thru a lil pgm called Dup Detector that does a pretty decent job at detecting Duplicate images.

While this pgm might not be 100% fool proof (as with most thing....go figure no matter what setting I selected it reported 100% each time.

Maybe I've gone blind from doing something too much, but from as far as my eyes can tell, very hard to tell the difference between the two and am just wondering if the Gandie poster (sorry didnt jot down the name) didn't pull a close scam to see who'd actually disagree and posted the same image twice...

Maybe / Maybe not but Shrink is FREE, excellent app in my opinion and really don't understand the rant about 1 movie. Does it do the same on your machine for ALL or a MAJORITY of the movies, or just every now and then?

Alot of factors could account for the mucked rip on YOUR machine, then again maybe not....

I just recently moved from VCD to DVD and HEY big difference for sure, but you wouldn't believe how many FREE apps I went thru / made coasters with / CUSSED at for days to get a decent VCD......BUT didn't flame the authors or pgms for doing so...alot was my mistakes, some where theirs....but atleast I was able to make backups and didn't gloat on 1 or 2 movies.


Nuff Said,

Sabroi

The rules of time management state that if you spend x amount of time staring at one frame to determine flaws, and there are approx 100k + frames, you've invested more (depending on how you prorate your time) then it would of originally costed to purchase a 2nd original copy.....

[ricky1756]

jah rankone might not be psychic, but he's definitely psychotic.

[ddlooping]

Sabro, if you stick the two images on different layers in Photoshop, then change the top layer type to "Difference", you will see this...

.

This image had its white level boosted to emphasize the difference between the 2 pictures.
No boost and the image would have been black (or dark grey) on PC monitors with low contrasts.