VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Search Comp PM
    I've just installed a new burner, which came with the Nero package, including Recode. Since I've never used it, I decided to give it a try. I used both programs on the same set of files, which I ripped with DVD Fab. While I haven't watched both disks all the way through, I have scanned them and they look very much alike. But, the big difference, was that Recode took less than one third of the time that Shrink did, to re-encode (transcode) the movie. Does it really work that much faster, or will I see some artifacts when I watch the disk on a screen larger than my computer? I have always used Shrink, but I will admit that I was impressed by Recode. It looks like the developer of Shrink has learned a lot during his years with Nero.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Yep, he improved the speed with Recode.
    However, shrink has a little more functionality when it comes to your shrinking options.

    I use them both.
    tgpo famous MAC commercial, You be the judge?
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I use the FixEverythingThat'sWrongWithThisVideo() filter. Works perfectly every time.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    There's no difference in the encoders between these 2 programs. The difference is in the quality settings that Shrink has, which Recode does not have. If you have the quality settings set the same, they will encode at the same speed.

    The main difference is in the use of the deep analysis in Shrink, which is effectively a 2-pass encode. Results will be markedly different if the compression is severe, but no different with less than 80% compression in most cases.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads