CloneDVD or Shrink?? Which is Better?

[Jonathan]

I've been a long time user of AnyDVD and lately have had trouble burning with Shrink on several backups. I downloaded a trial of CloneDVD and it's seems to work great. One of the problems is that I was getting a message that a backup was too large when it wasn't and the compression would not work no matter what. CloneDVD handled it fine.

I'm hoping to get a few opinions form anyone who has used both. I'm mainly concerned with whether or not CloneDVD gives as good a finished product as Shrink. From my eyes it looks to be every bit as good.

Opinions greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[redwudz]

DVD Shrink doesn't burn, it uses other programs such as Nero or DVD Decrypter for that. I use ImgBurn with it instead. Nero is flaky at times and Decrypter hasn't been updated in quite some time. ImgBurn is it's successor, without the decryption part and is kept updated.

If the Clone output looks the same, it probably uses the same methods, but costs more.

Which is better? Shrink, because it's free. JMO.

[Jonathan]

I forgot to mention that I use Nero for burning.

[NiteLite]

Shrink appears to use a much better way of compressing the file to me.
With Shrink using Deep Analysis and AEC set to sharp it out does CloneDVD by far.
Clone is much faster but for a reason. With Clone you are getting a straight stripping of material from the file to compress it to size. With shrink you are getting the enhanchments to make a better end result.
My observations.
NL

[Jonathan]

Thanks. I was afraid of that. I never had any issues with shrink until lately.

[orsetto]

Being of little patience myself, I stick with the CloneDVD/AnyDVD combo which has so far handled anything I've thrown at it with ease, especially problematic TV series, and does not give me any bugs in the cloned menu structure when I delete fluff and extras before burning. Quite true you can obtain better results with Shrink in some cases but it can also take quite awhile to accomplish that task. If you can keep the CloneDVD bit reduction above 70 or 75% it preserves decent quality on most movies, with TV series you can go somewhat lower on the % scale if necessary or split episodes across two discs while keeping the selection menu intact. Mind you, there are folks on this forum happily using software options that take an entire day to perform an optimized shrink: to each his own according to his preferences . CloneDVD isn't free, but if you don't mind paying it is a very handy alternative tool to have even if you prefer DVDShrink for most jobs. BTW, AnyDVD is a hella-great decryptor which has free lifetime updates and could not be simpler to use: well worth the initial purchase.

[Rich86]

CloneDVD2 is easier to use and has an intuitive gui.
DVDShrink does a much better job of transcoding which is readily apparent especially when you get down to 80% or lower. DVDShrink also has numerous options within it that CloneDVD2 does not offer.
The primary feature in CloneDVD2 that I like is the ability to remove titles and keep menus with only a brief pause if you try to play a removed title afterwards. Other than that - DVDShrink is my first choice.
Imgburn is an awesome and free burning program.

[NiteLite]

The primary feature in CloneDVD2 that I like is the ability to remove titles and keep menus with only a brief pause if you try to play a removed title afterwards.

Yes, very nice feature to have especially for concert videos and such.
NL

[lacywest]

I have run into movies now and then that wont shrink with DVDShrink but will shrink with CloneDVD.

Same similar messages ... size too large.

DVDShrink will make a better copy but CloneDVD is faster.

If quality is important ... use DVD Rebuilder ... two versions ... freeware and the PRO version ... and use Cinema Craft Encoder if possible

[guns1inger]

If quality is important ... use DVD Rebuilder ... two versions ... freeware and the PRO version ... and use Cinema Craft Encoder if possible

HCEnc is slower than CCE, but actually produces superior results at lower bitrates. And it's free.

[alwayssummer]

OK, forgive me if this is a total noob question, but does Shrink use a commonly available codec to compress video? If so, which one?

I've often made DVDs with shrink that I compressed as far as a could ~50% compression to fit more stuff on the disc and noticed a lot of blocking and generally noticeable degradation in quality. Just wondering if this is a common experience.

Aside: Seems like quality is better preserved by using x264 (with the resulting files still dramatically smaller than what Shrink did) but then it's not DVD format anymore.

[redwudz]

Shrink doesn't encode, it 'transcodes'. It basically 'throws' out small parts of the video that it doesn't think you will miss. Sort of like deleting every other frame will make your video half the original size. But it's quite a bit more selective than that. I'm sure there is a better explanation out there, but that one has always worked for me.

Rebuilder, on the other hand, uses a MPEG encoder and basically reduces the bitrate of the file to make it smaller.

And at 50%, DVD Shrink is not a good choice. That's where programs like Rebuilder are the best.

X264 is nice, but takes a lot of CPU power and time to encode and a fair amount of CPU power to play back. But there are some hardware solutions out there and X264 may be more mainstream in the future.

[alwayssummer]

X264 is nice, but takes a lot of CPU power and time to encode and a fair amount of CPU power to play back. But there are some hardware solutions out there and X264 may be more mainstream in the future.

Thanks Redwudz. I don't have a problem with eating up my CPU cycles I just queue 'em on MeGUI and go to sleep, which works pretty well on this machine.

Is MP4 generally going to yield higher quality at smaller file sizes than MP2?

[redwudz]

At lower bitrates, yes, MP4 or X264 should have much better quality. Try a MPEG-2 at 700Kbps and it will be pretty much unwatchable, compared to a X264 which may look quite good at the same bitrate.

With MPEG-2 you can also use 1/2 D1 format with lower bitrates or go even lower with MPEG-1 format if you still need DVD compatibility. But Divx or Xvid would be the better choice for low bitrates if you need set top playback capability.

I suspect we will see set top players for X264 or similar high compression formats become fairly common in the future. There are DVRs made for surveillance video that use X264 compression from a hardware chip that are on the market at present. Not great quality but lots of video storage time.

[ricoman]

I use CloneDVD 98% of the times for movies of 70% or better compression. I will use Shrink sometimes for movies in the 60%-70% range for your average movie. But if I really like the movie, anything from 75% down, I will use DVDRB with HCenc. CloneDVD is the easiest and fastest by far. Shrink is considerably slower but in the range mentioned seems to do a slightly better job. Above that range I can't tell any difference. RB w/ HCenc is by far the best quality, but it takes several hours depending on your computer it could take 5 hrs.

[Rich86]

I do not use CloneDVD2 if any additional compression is required. I know the transcoder in that program is mediocre at best, so I am not interested in using it. I suggest folks not even consider using it for anything requiring additional compression lower than 90%.

I did some testing on a concert video dvd that was very large (> 7GB).
1. CloneDVD2 was fast - but did not do a satisfactory job at all.
2. DVDShrink was slower (but it runs quite fast on my AMD 64x2 machine since this program makes full use of both cpu's) - and did a good job transcoding - clearly superior to CloneDVD2.
3. DVD Rebuilder ran for almost 2 hours crunching this video - but the results were even better than DVDShrink.

I realize I am just rehashing and supporting the opinions expressed by others already on this subject - but thought a recent hands on test experience which supports what has been said might be useful to some folks.