Nero vs IMG Tool Burn vs Decrypter - PI/PIF Scans Inside.

[Fandim]

Going to be burning the same disc, on the same media, at the same speed, in triplicate.

Please note, burning more than one backup copy is not legal, and I am doing this for testing purpoeses *ONLY*. After burning, all but the best backup, is being destroyed. I will post scans using DVDInfo Pro, and CDSpeed on my NEC3500, and KProbe using my Liteon 832S.

Test media will be CMC MAG E01, burned at 8x. (It's rated speed).

I used Img ToolBurn 1.1.8
I used Nero Burning Rom 6.3.1.6
I used DVD Decrypter 3.5.2.0

The file, is a Video_TS file for ImgTools.
For Nero, and DVD Decrypter, this file was made into a .nrg using ImgTools, to ensure the closest possible image was written to each disc.


Seth

[Fandim]

First... This is the burn time each program took.

DVD Decrypter

Total Time: 9:48


Next, Nero Burning Rom (6.3)

Total Time: 9:59


Finally, IMGTools

Total Time: 9:05



Conclusion: ImgTools is nearly a full minute faster than Nero, and 43 seconds faster than DVD Decrypter. This kind of surprised me.

Winner: ImgTools

Next: DVD Info Speed Test.

[Fandim]

Okay, using DVDInfo to do a transfer graph...

Disc burned with Decrypter:

Start: 6.55 x
Average: 10.99 x
Max: 15.60 x
Scan Time: 5:00




Disc burned with Nero:

Start: 2.2 x
Average: 3.54 x
Max: 5.05 x
Scan Time: 15:31


Note: I tried ejecting the disc, restarting the program, etc. This disc simply would not read faster than this in DVDInfo Pro.

Disc burned with ImgTools:

Start: 6.55 x
Average: 11.02 x
Max: 15.60 x
Scan Time: 4:54





Conclusion: The disc burned with ImgTool scanned in DVDInfo, edged out the burn by Decrypter, while both dominated the scan of the one done by Nero in Speed. ImgTools also has the advantage in terms of quality, once again edging out DVDDecrypter in this test.



Winner: ImgTools

Next: K-Probe.

[lordsmurf]

Interesting.

[Fandim]

KProbe Results


DVD Decrypter :




Nero Burning Rom :




ImgTools :



Conclusion: While all three scans are excellent, DVD Decrypter clearly provided the best results in this test, having several hundred less than Nero, and over 1400 less than ImgTools disc. Also, DVD Decrypter's max PIF capped at 6, while both Nero and ImgTools peaked at 7.

On a less important comparison, DVD Decrypter once again wins, having almost 5,000 less PI errors total (and 2 less max), than Nero. ImgTools again comes in 3rd place, with over 20,000 more errors than Nero total. DVD Decrypter's max PI was 12, Nero's 14, and ImgTools 18.

Winner: DVD Decrypter

Next: Summing it all up

[steve2713]

AHA! Just like I've tried to hammer into peoples' heads on here, if you care about quality DVD Decrypter is the way to go While IMG Tools burns faster in your case, the errors are alot higher, I'd take the lower errors over the saved time personally. Good comparison Fandim, I'd thought about doing a comparison between Nero and Decrypter, maybe I'll do one later.

[ChrissyBoy]

Are you burning the same image in each case? From the first screenshot it seems to be a nrg image... would a img or iso be any different? Doesn't ImgTool Burn use the Nero API? If so it is funny that it gives very different results to Nero itself.

[Fandim]

Final Thoughts:

As far as speed goes, ImgTools clearly has the upper hand, with an 8x burn being nearly a minute faster than it's counterparts. Especially for those that use a program such as DVD2One, where the file output, is in a Video_TS structure, and must first be made into an .iso or .nrg for DVD Decrypter.

In terms of quality, DVD Decrypter clearly displays superior results in all cases. While the differences in quality might not appear to be significant in this test, using a less-compatible media, it could easily mean the difference between a successful burn, and having another DVD to sit your can of soda on.

-----------------------------------------------
All in all, I recomend using DVD Decrypter, as the difference in speed is negligible, and the overall quality appears to be much better.
-----------------------------------------------
End


Seth

[steve2713]

Excellent test. The only thing that may come into question right now is that, technically, you used a different source for IMG Tools than the other two. Any reason why you didn't just use an ISO image for all three?

[Fandim]

I dont think you *can* burn a .iso with Img Tool Burn..? And I wanted them to all burn the same thing, so the .nrg I burned should be pretty much the same image I actually burned onto the disc using ImgTool burn in the first place, which is why I used imgtools to make the .nrg, so it'd reallocate the files exactly the same into the image I was using.

Seth

[steve2713]

If that's the case, gotcha. I've used IMG Tool before, but only a couple of times and it was awhile ago, I'd assumed it could do ISO images, my bad. They call it 'IMG' tools and it doesn't even burn ISO Images, go figure...

It may have been IMG Tools Classic that I was thinking of.

[Fandim]

Sure dosnt...but it will make a .nrg image out of a video_TS folder.. Pretty useful...(although a lot of other things will do it to..like TDA)..but as long as I'm using ImgTools, and going from the folder, to a .iso, it takes under 3 minutes. (ASSUMING I'm making the .nrg on a DIFFERENT hard drive than the source file.. (I.E. Going from C:\Video_TS, to E:\Video_TS.nrg)

Heh...if I go to the same drive, it takes about 8 minutes.

[jawgee]

In my experience, DVD Decrypter produces the best burns out of Nero, ImgTools, & DVD Decrypter. However, you failed to include the highly revered RecordNow & ONES programs. Where all other programs would fail, RecordNow would always work for me, unless media issues were present. I think ONES shares the same burning engine as RecordNow, but not certain. I've read lots of great things about that application. Also, one could argue that VSO's CopyToDVD is a worthy competitor as it can be integrated with DVD Shrink, but I haven't had much success with it (didn't try it much, to be honest).

Is it possible that you could include one or all of those other programs in your analysis? It would make your analysis a very useful resource.

Thanks,
jawgee

[bugster]

Great work and very interesting, but one point. You may have used the same media for each test, but you did use 3 different disks. Unless this test is repeated several times and shows the same (or at least very nearlY) results, then statistically the results are insignificant. Don't get me wrong, I think it was a useful and interesting exercise, but the results so far only 'suggest' DVDdecrypter as the better burning engine.

[dipstick]

Agree with bugster. This is very interesting, but far from an accurate test of quallity. It does give a good speed test though.

[-jsl-]

Did you verify the write times with a stopwatch? Because I find the time for the img tools burn somewhat hard to believe. As it's nearly a full disc on a NEC burner @8x it should take at least about 9:30 min including lead-in/out.

When it comes to burn quality there is no significant difference and even if there would be one then variations in the media and scanning would be a more probable cause than the burning software which really should not affect the burn quality at all (unless it has some real major bugs). At least you would have to do hundreds of burns to show such a thing.

Sorry to sound like an ass, no offence I hope

[MOVIEGEEK]

I wonder why the disc made with Nero scanned so slowly?
Did you scan the Nero disc again using Nero CD-DVD speed or DVDDecrypter?

[steve2713]

I certainly haven't done 'hundreds' of comparisons, but I've done quite a number comparing Nero and Decrypter, and Decrypter has consistently had lower errors than Nero burns, with similar results to Fandims' tests. It's not that Nero is BAD, it's just that, given the choice, it's become a no brainer which program to use.

[sync]

I wish DVD-Lab had an option to output to an ISO. You can convert the files to an ISO but that takes more time and disk space.

[dipstick]

DVDLab does let you save to an image file. I believe it's an nrg file, but could be wrong. I always just burn the files with Nero and never once had any problems.

I seriously doubt any software will burn a disk better than another, unless the other is flawed. Any discepancy in the scans is directly related to media inconsistancy in my opinion. You could burn all 3 disks with the same S/W and same image file, yet still get inconsistant scans. That's what I believe is happening here.

[steve2713]

I seriously doubt any software will burn a disk better than another, unless the other is flawed. Any discepancy in the scans is directly related to media inconsistancy in my opinion. You could burn all 3 disks with the same S/W and same image file, yet still get inconsistant scans. That's what I believe is happening here.

You might think that'd be the case, but I've done several comparisons, and if what you've said was true, than every single time of about 20 comparisons Nero was magically given the lower quality disc by default. I'll say it again, my comparisons have matched those of Fandim's every time I've compared Nero vs. Decrypter. The differences aren't that great, but if you are picky about getting the best burns Decrypter has shown to do better for me.

[mike1061]

Thanks for this.
Mike

[Methanoid]

It would also be interesting to see the results using different burner(s). I'm a fan of DVDDecrypter for all images but use Nero if the files are VIDEO_TS folders to save the time of making an ISO image.

[rkr1958]

I was following this thread https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=258009&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 which had a side discussion on Nero versus DVDDecryptor. I've always used Nero to burn my DVDs but got interested in the difference with DVDDecryptor. The following two burns are the same video (VHS to DVD conversion of Walt Disney's Pinocchio, use the same media (Taiyo Yuden 8x DVD-R) and were burned at the same speed (8x). Based on the two sets of scans can you tell which is better? I can't.

[mike1061]

I have a question on how to burn with DVD decrypter. I have posted as much info as I could here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=258687
Would somebody somebody give it a try?
Thanks Mike

[RickTheRed]

I did the same test a couple of months ago.
Burned the same ISO image using Nero and dvd decrypter.
Tested all discs at 4x with a NU dvdrw drive.
The PIF total and max was always lower with Nero.
I compared Nero with Iso file, Nero with Video files and lastly, Dvd decrypter with Iso file.

The winner was Nero with Iso file, followed by dvd decrypter (close, but second). Far away at the third position was Nero with video files.

Just a different conclusion

[steve2713]

I did the same test a couple of months ago.
Burned the same ISO image using Nero and dvd decrypter.
Tested all discs at 4x with a NU dvdrw drive.
The PIF total and max was always lower with Nero.
I compared Nero with Iso file, Nero with Video files and lastly, Dvd decrypter with Iso file.

The winner was Nero with Iso file, followed by dvd decrypter (close, but second). Far away at the third position was Nero with video files.

Just a different conclusion

LOL, certainly then it may differ on some peoples' systems it seems:P. You do bring up another good point though - Nero burning actual video files vs. ISOs also resulting in quite a bit higher errors than even Nero burning ISOs. I've also experienced that, so there seems to be a trend there.

I initially tried Decrypter for burning only because it was so quick and simple, I didn't compare results vs. Nero for quality until I'd read of others also having lower errors when burning with Decrypter. I did comparisons, and my results also showed it, so I've stuck with Decrypter for most of my DVD video burning. I think if all of this says anything, it's that whether you use Decrypter or Nero, you're likely to have better results burning ISO files. There's less chance of user error this way, also.

[rkr1958]

My first set of scans is from Nero 5 buring the VIDEO_TS & AUDIO_TS folders (NOT from burning and image but burning files). The second set of scans is DVDDecryptor burning an iso file made by TMPGEnc DVDAuthor from the Video_TS file. I really can tell a difference in the quality of the two burns. It looks to me that using Nero to burn the video files (not the image) produces the same quality burn as using DVDDecryptor with an iso image. Am I missing something here?

[RickTheRed]

I initially tried Decrypter for burning only because it was so quick and simple, I didn't compare results vs. Nero for quality until I'd read of others also having lower errors when burning with Decrypter. I did comparisons, and my results also showed it, so I've stuck with Decrypter for most of my DVD video burning. I think if all of this says anything, it's that whether you use Decrypter or Nero, you're likely to have better results burning ISO files. There's less chance of user error this way, also.

I agree.
I switch from time to time between both s/w, only using ISO files, and I am quite satisfy. Sometimes I do not have a choice but using Nero because dvddecrypter cannot burn nero recode *.nrg files.
If I use dvdshrink, I will often opt for decrypter.

Well, even in the post here the results may be better with decrypter but it is not a big difference. I am surprise to see different results. I may try another test with latest s/w version.

[Gen-An]

DVD Decrypter tends to give lower PIE levels than Nero with my PX-712A.