ratdvd, new dvd tool

[smearbrick1]

So, help me understand this (I haven't checked this program out yet). From what I'm reading, you can compress an entire dvd down to a ridiculously small size, store it on a cd, play it back on your pc, then decompress the file back to it's original quality and burn it to dvd... complete with extras? After burning to dvd, it would then be playable in a set top player?

Is this correct?

It won't be returned to it's original quality, but yes, that is pretty much the gist of it.

What is the quality once it is returned to original size?

[johns0]

I found a glitch with ratdvd,if you cancel a conversion then it will delete all the files not in a folder on your root drive if you specify the root drive as your destination.

other programs in the past also have been known to do this -- not a good thing, but not the first app to do it ..

Cdmage will do the same thing if you move the working folder from c: drive to d: drive without changing the ini file.

[BJ_M]

dvd2svcd also used to - one version anyway

[dvd.doe]

DVDShrink and/or Recode hat it also. But seems he know since he has it in the FAQ and states that this is fixed in 0.6.

Canceling a conversion from ratDVD to DVD deletes files on the harddisk?

When such a conversion is cancelled ratDVD deletes all files in the specified target folder. You should always make sure that you specify a new folder as target for a ratDVD to DVD conversion. Otherwise it may happen that all the data located below the specified directory is deleted. Starting from version 0.6 ratDVD creates its own folder automatically to prevent this.

Remains the question - when will 0.6 be released? Can't wait for it![/quote]

[jarvis1781]

So, help me understand this (I haven't checked this program out yet). From what I'm reading, you can compress an entire dvd down to a ridiculously small size, store it on a cd, play it back on your pc, then decompress the file back to it's original quality and burn it to dvd... complete with extras? After burning to dvd, it would then be playable in a set top player?

Is this correct?

It won't be returned to it's original quality, but yes, that is pretty much the gist of it.

What is the quality once it is returned to original size?

there is definitely a loss in quality when converting...mostly blurred edges and some blockiness.

[waheed]

As a result of loss of quality. I wouldn't even bother convering it back to the original size.

[dvd.doe]

Interesting xvid/ratDVD video quality compare at http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=138912.

Summary is that xvid is OK for bare titles and ratdvd should be used for complete DVDs. Not much difference in video quality though.

[awlchu]

Looks like version .6 is released......

[boldego]

How or where do you specify the destinatin folder?

[Poplar]

What the heck? I'm a downloader. If RatDVD (what the **** is with the name?!?) is the only format I can find for a title I wanted, I'll download and burn it. Will I compress DVD into it? Perhaps not. It seems a bit odd that such a tool emerged at this point of time when downloading a DVD9 iso isn't that much a big deal over the net.

[tenders]

there is also a torrent site already up and running, dedicated to ratdvd.

if you are having problems trying to play the rat file with MP , i read that this player works. http://www.glop.org/moopeg/

[Kingnog]

It seems a bit odd that such a tool emerged at this point of time when downloading a DVD9 iso isn't that much a big deal over the net.

The hell kind of connection do you have?!

[steve2713]

Now that they've released a new version that resolved my playback issues, I was able to view the quality of my first conversion. I converted a 2 hour 20 minute movie with one stereo audio track, no extras, and a very basic menu. I set the 'quality' to 120. The original data was about 6GB and the final ratDVD size was about 1.3GB.

To be honest, I'm not really that impressed with the quality (and yes, I know it greatly compressed my original DVD). I understand the convenience of having a single file in a format that retains all menu functions, subtitles, audio tracks, etc. But as far as the video quality itself, I believe that the XVID conversions I've done appear better to my eyes at similar sizes to my ratDVD conversion, although they are close in quality.

An interesting program and it does have some nice features - I like the DVD Shrink-like interface that they apparently borrowed from, being able to make compression adjustments on a per-title basis is nice. Of course retaining all original DVD functions is nice. But as far as actual video quality and it's claims of seeing 'no noticeable differences in quality from the original', I think not... It's a nice program, especially considering it's still very early in it's development, just don't fall for its claims that it can take 4+GB to 1GB without noticeable quality loss (unless you're blind).

[red lion]

There is also a ratDVD torrent site up already but cant post it for obvious reasons..
My main drawback is its very slow to compress...

[dvd.doe]

Right, encoding into ratDVD is a bit slow. But for me the more interesting part is the "unratting" of a downloaded ratdvd back to the original DVD. And there it is a lot faster than if you try to convert xvid or the like..

[smearbrick1]

If the creators of RatDVD inserted a certain codec to do the conversion and maintained the entire structure of the DVD, wouldn't it be possible to make the same program only using a different codec for the encode? Wouldn't that be a great option to have? Imagine being able to select the Codec you wanted in RatDVD rather having to use the somewhat sub-par codec they already use? (sub-par based on what I've heard.)

[dvd.doe]

In theory: Yes. But it practice there seem to be a lot of problems with the usual codecs. Otherwise I would think that ratdvd would just use xvid, h264 or whatever else.

Things that might be a problem is jumping, the whole menu system (with subpictures), mutiple video angles, seamless branching and probably a lot more...

BTW: I have also heard that the ratdvd codec is somewhat sub-par but with everything I have seen I cannot agree. There is not a single comparison out there that shows that xvid would beat the ratdvd quality at the same bitrate. Probably the difference (if there is one) is that small that everyone has to guess for himself.

[ukb007]

Summary so far:

Baldrick: "the playback of the compressed ratdvd is messed up so I can't see how the quality is."

BJ_M: "looked very very good .."

steve2713:"Well I went ahead and tried it, of course WMP 10 won't play it. I get some odd error when I try playing it back, although if I try playing it back with Media Player Classic I can hear the audio."

mgh: "I have media player 9.
The purpose of the software is to compress the DVD for transmission and then restore it back with all original whistles and bells. Looks good for that. "

dvd.doe: "I did 6 ratDVDs until now and when I look at the ratDVD video quality it MUST be H.264 or some high quality equivalent like WMV. "

secretagent: "made my first ratdvd from 4 gig to 1 gig, quality good, then took it to nero and did a hd burn. result a full dvd with extras stored on a 10 cent cd. that's progress."

Hooter Honker: "I have not had any luck with this program. I let it run for 24+ hrs. only got to 15% then the program crashed. I have a Sony PCV-RX790G."

awlchu: "Very impressed with the output, works under Media play 9.
Converting back to DVD format (from ratDVD) this AM to 4.7GB disk. I'm interested in seeing the output.
This tool is a keeper, IMOP. It can only get better!"

This is the long and short of the posts above. Who will say the definitive last word?

Thanks

[SatStorm]

"Let's wait more test results before the final word"

[inuyasha]

Tried version 0.7.1235
My only interest in ratDVD is its ability to shrink large size vobs into rat file and reconvert the rat file to fit on a DVD, though that may not be the main intention of the ratDVD author.
Anyway, I compared the results of shrinking a 7.5G DV footage (mpeg->vobs), to fit on a regular 4.7G dvd-r, using ratDVD (highest quality at 125), DVDrebuilder with both QuEnc and Rejig options (individually, of course) and TMPGENC Plus 2.5 (2pass vbr 3800kbps, full D). All tests were done with the highest possible quality settings of the respective programs.
As expected, TMPGENC has the longest encoding time (14hrs) while the rest of them are roughly 6 hours. Quality wise, ratDVD, IMOP, is the worst, in terms of macro blockings, lost of details of objects, and the whole picture appears to be much washed out, and "aged" like ancient 8mm video. The rat file was only 2.3G from a 7.5G vobs. Too much details might have been thrown out / simplified.
DVD-shrink did better than the rat, but when the camera pans or subject moves, major pixelization occurs suddenly. This happens even at slow panning movement. DVD-Rebuilder with QuEnc was better than the above 2, with better consistent image quality at still or moving scenes. Macro Blocks were less pronounced. However, the rejig option was not as good as the QuEnc. Best of all, is still TMPGEnc, where macroblocks were there if you looked for them, and the final image is more truthful to the original DV footage.
On a side note, the rat file when played in media player, is good quality, comparable to a divix file that I previously created with the same dv footage (I think it was 2 pass vbr, divx pro codec, ?1000kbps bitrate).
As I said, the main function of the Rat may not be to shrink a oversized video_TS, but when used this way, those were my findings.
Has anyone found any "shrinker" that does better than TMPGEnc?

NB. The footage used for comparision I have watched and used on other comparisons many many times and I could spot any differences right a way.

[CrisCr0ss]

1 question if u convert a 4gig + dvdr to rat dvd and then reconvert the 1gig ratdvd back to its original size will there be heavy loss in picture quality, (very noticable) if so plz post screens..

[BJ_M]

inuyasha - your comparisons make no sense ..

you are going through TWO conversions and then trying to compare that to a single conversion ..

It just doesnt work that way with the lossy compression formats you are using ..

[jimmalenko]

inuyasha - your comparisons make no sense ..

you are going through TWO conversions and then trying to compare that to a single conversion ..

It just doesnt work that way with the lossy compression formats you are using ..

what he said.


Also, you're comparing encoders with a transcoder with an encode to a much more lossy and high-compression codec and then an encode back to "DVD" format. It isn't designed to rival DVDShrink, DVD2One or Nero Recode's transcoding ability, nor QuEnc, Rejig or TMPGEnc. All things being equal, no transcoder will be as good as an encoder either.

You're trying to use it for something it isn't designed (or optimised) to do, so no wonder you got sucky results with it.

[Pisces225]

It may be me, but it may be the two of you, I understand him to be saying something different that makes sense.

I believe him to be saying he used a single test video. He used three different popular backup methods and compared the results. One 'run' was using Shrink. A new 'run' was performed using DVDRB/Encoder. A third and final run was done using RatDVD.

Also, in response to the comments above regarding transcoding/encoding...
It may be me, but I perceive myself to get better results using Decrypter to rip, and Shrink+Deepscan to transcode the main movie only (usually 85%-90% with some requiring no compression at all) than I do using DVDRB and CCE. However, using the RB/CCE method I've not yet gotten into including lots of extra avisynth filters and whatnot, so maybe that's why, but so far I've seen the transcoding I do look better hands down than the encoding I've done, regardless of the fact that my encoding took approx. four times longer than rip/shrink/deepscan/burn takes.

If the quality was even slightly better encoding I'd do it as quality is my #1 concern, not time, but my encodes consistantly look worse and my transcodes appear to be just like the original to me.

I'm viewing my backups on a 32" Sony so it's not an especially large HDTV type screen. I suppose this makes what would otherwise be noticeable, unnoticeable?

Sorry, hope I haven't gotten too off topic here but the whole "encoding is always better than transcoding" thing is really confusing me as I hear it a lot.

[lordsmurf]

Encoding is analyzing the data, and making a new encode.

Transcoding is NOT analyzing (or just partial analyze), and then tossing out "unneeded" data to compress.

Transcoding is lossy because it does not entirely decode and analyze the footage. An encode does.

[inuyasha]

Pisces225, thanks for really reading thro the lines.

I said in the beginning:

My only interest in ratDVD is its ability to shrink large size vobs into rat file and reconvert the rat file to fit on a DVD, though that may not be the main intention of the ratDVD author

I also said at the end:

As I said, the main function of the Rat may not be to shrink a oversized video_TS, but when used this way, those were my findings

My results should only be interpreted within the context of how they were performed. The test objective was the quality of DVD shrinkage. As I have reiterated twice in my previous post, and I am going to say it again, in all fairness, RatDVD might not have been written to specifically do this job at all, though it potentially could. My test showed that if you are looking for a quality DVD shrinker to shrink your oversized DVD or vobs to fit into a 4.7G DVD-R , the Rat would not suit your purpose.

Like myself, or other people, who is looking for a DVD shrinker, the only way one can tell which is best for them is by trying them out and comparing the results. Whether internally the program shrinks it by encoding, transcoding or what not is not important as long as the outcome looks great.

CrisCr0ss
Converting from the 1+ Gig rat file back to dvd is not good. Still picture looks blurry and heavily marcroblocked. Worse when viewed as movie. Kind of like an extremely low bit rate wma /rmvb playback.

[whitejremiah]

im not too sure i would go as low as saying wma/rmvb...but yes, it is definately noticable, and the video codec does DEFINATELY need some more work...what you guys are failing to remember is that the program is still in a rather early state...so this could get better given some more time. Im definately not saying its the best program for encoding/transcoding a movie, because that sure isnt the case...as of the moment, id stick with other better established methods of backing up a dvd....

[inuyasha]

The rat file played well in Windows Media Player. Very comparable to a divx file of similar compression ratio. But reconverting from rat to dvd, in my case, it gave nothing to be desired of (low bit rate wma /rmvb pretty much says it all, seriously). The original dvd file was 7.5G and the compressed rat file was only 2G. I wonder if the converted dvd quality be any different if the original vob file sizes are smaller (or bigger).

[dvd.doe]

Did you reconvert it to a double layer DVD or a single layer DVD?

Guessing from your post you probably have used single-layer and so ratDVD needed to reduce the (MPEG-2) size more to fit to the disc.

Like DVDShrink this can give lower quality results when there is not enough space for the video. If it fits fine to the disc there should not be any notable additional quality loss.

[inuyasha]

ratDVD offers the options of 4403MB or 8653MB for the converted DVD destination size, but no matter what I chose, the converted DVD was the same size 4.3G for either options. Maybe the content of the rat file was too small to fill a double layer disc, even though the original size of the dvd files is 7.5G. Quality might have already lost when the rat file was made?