DVD2one clone (to Major, Kai and Bile)

[expo]

DVD2one. We all know about the app by now. But what does it do? What's it's secret? How can it be so fast and create DVD-R's with all the things we wan't (subs, audiotracks)?

The app is sub 100 kb small. To me its seems like it just gives really smart instructions what to keep on the DVD-R, not really processing the files that much.

Let's not argue if DVD2one does it "the right or wrong way". People like the results it produces, let's be satisfied with that.

Major, Kai and Bilestyle, our digital-video-on-mac-heros, with your combined skills in this area, I'm sure you can come up with an app as fast as DVD2one, doing the same things. Other apps just seem to take "the long way around" while DVD2one takes a shortcut, let's do this on the mac too!

DVD -> DVD-R is growing, and the demand for an app to do it fast, as well.

I'm asking for a lot, I know, but you guys have what it takes.
Let's go!



//Expo

[bullitB]

DVD2one. We all know about the app by now. But what does it do? What's it's secret? How can it be so fast and create DVD-R's with all the things we wan't (subs, audiotracks)?

It cheats. DVD2One recycles all the motion vectors from the original video and just cuts out some data from the B-frames. It just move the data around, which is why it's so small and fast, even on VirtualPC.

You need to understand, however, that this technology has some HUGE flaws. First of all, it assumes that the original video was well-encoded. This is often not true. Many DVDs are actually very poorly encoded (just look at some scenes on the Matrix DVD...artifacts everywhere). Second, because it can only re-compress two-thirds of the frames from the original video, you immediately lose over 30% codec efficiency. To make matters even worse, most I and P frames are bigger than B frames, so you're losing even more quality.

It's a very interesting concept, but I just can't imagine that it's producing optimal quality. You should get much better results by completely either re-encoding the video or just cutting it into two pieces and sticking it on two discs. Both of these options will become much easier with the next version of Sizzle, BTW. Little sneak peaks:




Cool?

[WiseWeasel]

That looks awesome!!! Finally, some multiple audio tracks for a single video track . . . woot! One question: What format do the sub streams have to be in to import into Sizzle? Do we use the .spc files, or let Sizzle extract them directly from the DVD? Looks very promising.

[bullitB]

I'm still working on the subtitle support, actually. It will probably work by extracting them out of a VOB or by using the XSTE .SUB format.

[Thargok]

Can't wait, looks like it could be fun

[pants]

maybe if enough people ask for it the author will make a mac version. a thread was started here

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65737

[expo]

It cheats. DVD2One recycles all the motion vectors from the original video and just cuts out some data from the B-frames. It just move the data around, which is why it's so small and fast, even on VirtualPC.

Cheating or not (asked not to argue about this, but...), can it be done on the mac? People are more than satisfied with the discs DVD2one produces, don't think they mind if the app "cheats" or not.

BullitB, Sizzle looks promising, keep it up, we mac-people need people like you!

SIGN UP at CDFreaks, make the authors know the demand!

[dbaker6165]

I'm sorry but I just can not wait around all day for a movie to be re-ecoded even if the video quality were reproduced 99% of the time. I simply have other things to do on my computer.

It's all about personal pet peeves... For those who use to make vcds (or svcds) alot probably would not mind the quality that dvd2one produces. The quality of dvd2one is just better than a vcds.

Now I don't know about how much quality is degraded by using dvd2one but I do know that its fast and simple. A simple three step process (smartripper, then dvd2one, burn). A 2 hour process. Naw, no one is convincing me to keep my computer busy for 10 plus hours

P.S. : the exception to this is if I really really really really want to preserve the quality of the movie - this would have to be some good movie of course. Or if i was creating an "episode" dvd (family guy for ex.)

[expo]

Yup, speed is essential. The DVD2one-quality will satisfy 95% of all users. So, let's "cheat" like DVD2one and enjoy the speed.

[sportrac]

I prefer the quality to be the most important issue here. It really isn't much of a deal for me to let my computer work while I sleep and go to work. I think most people get discouraged when they wait a very long time to re-encode and it fails. Then the cycle begins again trying something different in the hope to succeed. This stuff is complicated and we are obviously lucky these people are working on this.

I think quality is important in a true backup. My kids tend to treat DVDs like VHS tapes, I would even include my wife too! My ideal situation is to put my original DVDs away and let the family watch the backups. I have had some DVDs destroyed because of carelessness and no backup. I think Forty-two is on track to the real thing. Cheap quality fast backups are no different than putting it on VHS after using DVDBackup (in my situation).

[expo]

I prefer the quality to be the most important issue here. It really isn't much of a deal for me to let my computer work while I sleep and go to work. I think most people get discouraged when they wait a very long time to re-encode and it fails. Then the cycle begins again trying something different in the hope to succeed. This stuff is complicated and we are obviously lucky these people are working on this.

I think quality is important in a true backup. My kids tend to treat DVDs like VHS tapes, I would even include my wife too! My ideal situation is to put my original DVDs away and let the family watch the backups. I have had some DVDs destroyed because of carelessness and no backup. I think Forty-two is on track to the real thing. Cheap quality fast backups are no different than putting it on VHS after using DVDBackup (in my situation).

Why not have quality and speed. DVD2one does it both. Most of u would not be able to tell the difference between originals and DVD2one backups.

[TugBoat]

I prefer the quality to be the most important issue here. It really isn't much of a deal for me to let my computer work while I sleep and go to work. I think most people get discouraged when they wait a very long time to re-encode and it fails. Then the cycle begins again trying something different in the hope to succeed. This stuff is complicated and we are obviously lucky these people are working on this.

I agree, last weekend my dually worked ALL weekend with 'BloodWork' and 42. I even tried ffmpegX after three attempts with 42 kept resulting in artifacts in the upper right-hand corner at a certain place. Two days 'cause of two seconds of artifacts. Am I a perfectionist? Well, it kept getting the artifacts, I gave up, burnt it anyway. I now have DVD2one, yep, I did BloodWork again and it came out FLAWLESS. OK, I have a 19 inch Samsung 955df. The movies I've done with DVD2one look better than the ones done with 42 even on this small monitor. I REALLY can't tell the difference between the originals. Maybe on a 42 inch widescreen you can tell the difference, I dunno.... Yesterday I did Sweet Home Alabama, it's about 6GB on the original, I can't tell the difference between the 4.2GB and 6GB movies. It took me about three hours to back it up...I'm sold.

I'm not a programmer, I don't know the difference between a B, L or XYZ frame. I don't know about cheating and don't really care. What I do care about is quality and time (And you can vary the size of the output movie if you want). If it looks and plays great on my Macs and Samsung V2000 standalone I'm happy. I've been working aggressively for the last year trying to find the best backup method. I think I've found it.... For now imsim:

[sportrac]

I would like to try the DVD2One but I don't have it nor do I have VPC. I do have my Mac and these brilliant programmers which can make my Mac do it so I am rooting for them. Whatever they do, I will be behind them.

[AntnyMD]

As a user of DVD2One on the Mac via VirtualPC (and one who is over the moon about the quality of the products it produces), I'm hard pressed to believe that anyone who, either technically or anectodally, dismisses DVD2One has ever seen a crunched DVD-R made by the program.

I have literally taken three hours of NTSC Video encoded material from a DVD-9 and crunched it to DVD-5 with VirtualPC, and the only way I know the difference is one disc was manufactured by EMI, and the other one I burned on an Apple disc.

The program has to be systematically dropping certain information from the original encode because re-encoding the material at these rapid rates is just not possible without producing shockingly horrible quality. Whatever it's dropping from the GOPs, it clearly has little effect on the resulting quality. The fact that B and P frames only record what changed in the frame since the last change noted in the previous B or P frames, dropping a few here and there are barely noticeable. Furthermore, since DVD GOPs are no larger than 15 pictures total, the rapid presence of new I frames actually help the untrained eye to continue to see clear pictures (provided the bitrate remains high).

Re-encoding is just not the way to go about squeezing your MPEG-2 video. If that were satisfactory, the desire to develop DVD2One would have never surfaced. If Mac developers are bent on forcing the "re-encoding is better" issue, I for one will keep my cash until one or more of them see the light. Re-encoding really only works best when you're transferring to a completely different format (VCD, MPEG-4, streaming video, etc).

[expo]

If Mac developers are bent on forcing the "re-encoding is better" issue, I for one will keep my cash until one or more of them see the light. Re-encoding really only works best when you're transferring to a completely different format (VCD, MPEG-4, streaming video, etc).

Exactly my point as well.

Remember to post a message:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65737

[Thargok]

DVD2one may look like quality, but it is really crap. It is lossy and so it MAY look better because it tends to blend things together. Overall fourty-two, ffmpegX, anything that re-encodes is better.

If you want to see how bad your output is with DVD2one, compare a file of the same size (from the same movie; it could take some time) one fourty-two, one DVD2one. If you are still satisfied, convert those streams to Divx and see which looks better. I would bet my 15" 1 Ghz pb g4 that the full re-encode looks better than cheating. And when you play the DVD's on tv there is another signifigant loss of quality due to putting crap into a hardware decoder.

[mcrispin]

I am somewhat baffled why those of us in the mac community, for whom all things media related we've been champions of for so long, must deal with an apparent technology gap with those wintel knuckle-draggers.

While I appreciate the thoughtful approach of BullitB, and his superior work on the forthcoming Sizzle programme (not to forget Kai, das Wunkerkind to whom I've already sent 20 US dollars), I think the general issue is being missed here. I don't see how "cheating" is a defence; this argument is not only intellectually bankrupt, it fails to acknowledge the fundamental purpose for which this sort of software has: to provide an easy method of "backing-up" DVDs so that a knuckle-head like me can put a disc in and forget about it.

Let's imagine the world twelve months from now. But first, let's look back.

What is iTunes? it was SoundJam, and a few other things put together. I know, I bought the damn thing, only to get it free with my OS upgrade (BTW, thanks Apple, nice one, really).

While the problems of making DVDs a more portable medium are certainly more difficult, it would seem that we are not far off from a time when the transfer of DVD's and their various capabilties will be a commonplace theme in the ever-present battle of "whose computer rocks my world now". Therefore, would it not be logical to think that in the very near future we will hear about an iDVD that will "back-up those Hollywood movies with a click of your mouse?"

At the end of the day, the programs that now that are considered "subversive" for potential "illegal" use will be considered as banal as the cassette recorder was in the 80's. No one was sued over iTunes despite the fact that any mac bloke worth his weight uses the thing to catalogue and play every illegal song they can find.

Therefore, would it not be wise to incorporate any solution, from any platform, that appears to deliver what the community wants?

Right now, some late-20-something jerkoff is typing into google the following phrase:

"dvd copy mac"

What do you think they are going to find? A pointless, without results, full of needless complications, too many programs to mention, too many problems to mention thread.

If they owned a PC, the problem would have been solved by now.

We are so close to a solution I can taste it. Someone at apple has a copy of Sizzle, has a copy of 42, has a copy of whatever, now who is going to get the sweetheart deal to be bought out and claim they brought true DVD duplication to the mac (iDVD or whatever the hell they choose to call it)?

DVD Rental (per month on Netflix, I'm not stupid): $20
DVD-R's (by the batch): $2 each, if I don't screw it up with one of those needlessly complicated mac programs.
A program that I don't have to worry about: Priceless (or about $49.99, why should anyone get more than what I pay for a stupid game?)



I don't mean to get on a rant here, but....

[AntnyMD]

People who are satisfied/happy/ecstatic with DVD2One are not looking to make DivX, and therefore are not basing their quality judgments on a DVD to DivX comparison. To do so would be inappropriate, as DVD2One doesn't make DivX files (I assumed that was clear).

DVD2One crunches are "lossy" only in the sense that it appears to be deleting systematically parts of the GOP it deems unnecessary in order to yield a final file size of 4.4 gb or less. It is not lossy in the sense that bitrate is lowered in order to achieve the same file, which is what re-encoding (to any format) does. Every kind of re-encoding is inherently lossy in some way, but I am very resistant to declare DVD2One is lossy in the "re-encoding" sense of the term. When you examine the crunched VOS in, say, MPEG Info X, the results are the same as they were for the original DVD. Amazing!

I won't continue to labor the point, though, until more of you decide to give it a go and examine the results for yourself. To have a discussion about it that's actually worthwhile just requires more people to see actual DVD2One results. I'd send you a DVD2One-maded disc if you promised to return it, but I think that I'd be jailed and executed under DMCA if I did!

[rockinsage]

This is turning into an interesting thread.

[rant]
Thargok, I hear where you're coming from, but the argument "DVD2ONE video may LOOK great, but it's actually CRAP" doesn't hold any water. When 99% of users are watching video, if it LOOKS great, then it IS great. It doesn't matter that converting DVD2ONE video to DivX may look a hair worse than converting a ffmpegx transcode to DivX (though honestly I'd have to try this before I believe it).

And as AntnyMD stated, DVD2ONE is lossy, yes, but so is any transcode/re-encode/whatever down to a lower bitrate. It's just lossy in a different way.

We can argue ad-nauseum about what one app does under-the-covers vs. what another app does, but the fact is that DVD2ONE is fast, it works, and the end result looks great. That's all that 99% of users care about.

And yes, I have compared other apps' DVD output to DVD2ONE's output, and I'm still satisfied. But I have to admit, you have me curious, so I'm going to look again.
[/rant]

[KaiCherry]

Guess What?

I have code, in c, that this code is the basis/groundwork for something like DVD2One, that would do what DVD2One does.

There, I've said it. I have it right here...I'm looking at it. In fact we've had it for awhile.

Its not rocket science.

So, why haven't we produced anything with this?

A) I'm not convinced that anyone would pay for it.
B) We might incoporporate it into an existing product
C) It has problems.

After seeing some of the posts in thread alone, it just reinforces a lot of the...bad feelings I have about working on/with it.

AntyMD's post was really a good one. For the record "Kai and Bile" have discussed this, and I've talked it over with a bit with Henry.

You guys don't seem to understand that often the goals of programmers aren't *YOUR* goals, the risks with distributing and designing software aren't YOUR risks, and quite frankly, the abusive and often accusatory nature of the loudest among you make things WORSE not BETTER.

Its funny...damn near a month ago, I posted on this very forum, "Hey programmer guys, if any among ye' wanna do this DVD2One thing contact me."

No one has.

-K

[the future]

Kai, I don't know about the other (rather vague) points you make, but I wouldn't worry about A) at all! There are enough mac users desperately trying to make dvd2one work in VPC, and every single one of them would OF COURSE much rather have a native Mac OSX app doing the same thing.

As for B), I think it would make most sense to incorporate this app into Disco(+) so that it would make a complete non-reencoding app that either splits or "dvd2ones" the movie.

[KaiCherry]

But you see, you ignore all important point C) It has problems.

Like I said, no competent developers that I know are really interested in touching this; there are issues far and great involved with such a thing that Joe User doesn't understand, or want to understand.

"We just want DVD2One on OSX and we want it NOW!"

I think this whole excercise will be eductional to this "scene" as their pleas for help and support from PC evs fall on deaf ears.

I *know* PC Developers...I know what they think and how they feel about the Macintosh platform.

"Its not worth it *to us* to expend the same amount of resources for 3% of the computing world as we spend for the other 97% only to have a 5% return."

We're (us mac devs) are all you got, people and its about time someone had the ball-balls to stand up on their hind legs and tell y'all the truth.

Go to a WWDC, if you can...talk to some devs...the story is the same, over and over...

"Love the platform, Apple, when not screwing us, are great. The *users* otoh..."

:lowly I turn::

Again...if there is a competent programmer out there that wants in on this, we can talk. Since I've been shopping this around to the fellas, I can tell ya that its not really a priority among anyone to *do*...they just wanna know how it works, say "Yeah, thats what I thought too" then go back to what they are working on...

-K

[rmassung]

Just dipping my feet in.

Pinnacle systems makes the same thing that DVD2one does, take a dvd-9 to dvd-5

however it doesn't decrypt or strip the protection out and it doesn't allow the compression to dvd-5 of discs that are prtected.

however the pinnacle app does it better than DVD2one.

just for comparison.

[KaiCherry]

Well see? There we go

BYW, we are looking at this, but its just not high on our list. Improving what we have (in other ways) is right now.

-K

[TugBoat]

BYW, we are looking at this

So look into it a little more seriously! DiscomVOBulator(Plus) looks like a great piece of work, however, I'm really not interested in a two disk backup. To me, a backup is for convenience, having two disk just isn't a convenience. Now, if I had the Author's statement that the fast one disk feature would be included in the near future, I would probably be extremely interested in DiscomVOBulator(Plus). Seriously, I'd buy it immediately, for the same price as DVD2one. Pinnacle Systems, aren't they the ones getting sued 8)

Tom

[rmassung]

Not yet that I know of.

I thought the company was the ne that made DVDXCopy.

Pinnacles won't work with protected DVD's

The ones that do DVDXCopy is just like Disco+ but they strip out the protection and everything.

So if Kai didn't leave the protection in, he might as well be on that list too.

See, the line is getting very close here.

[KaiCherry]

Slightly OT beginning here:

Well, I'm sorry to break this to folks but...

We won't be supporting "VOBs" after all.

By this I mean that if you say "rip" a dvd into a big ol' "vob" with like 0SeX or similar shady tools, and expect to feed it into our stuff...

It ain't gonna happen. "Political" issues aside, the truth is these things (at least the ones I've seen) are in fact not VOBs at all! They do NOT have the real live, honest-to-goodnes VOB data in them, hence there is nothing I can do with them.

It has now entered the realm of a Technical Problem, so if folks would let me be on this, that would be great

I won't support what we can't test, so its *right out* as far as I'm concerned.

Movin' on to this latest wave of "Well when X does Y thing..."

Its like this folks, Disco+ is not designed to be the Ultimate Tool for Ripping off Netflix...sorry. I know this is what the kids want, but we can't give it to you, for technical as well as personal reasons.

If you don't like "two disk backups" then by all means, we invite you to use whatever works for you.

Disco+ *customers* know we are serious about it, we take every suggestion, no matter how looney, under advisement because we want it to be the best at what it is on the Mac for what it is intended to do in a simple way.

What disturbs me however, is the trend I'm seeing in these forums of people playing the "I'll take my toys and go to Windows" card.

Its really funny to me that when developers rumble about this sort of thing, there is great weeping, moaning and gnashing of teeth. The forums are clogged with posts of hatred and woe.

Leave us face it people...Windows is a better platform for this sort of thing, but if you are going to beat down the few that are trying to bridge this gap in Free Simple Trancoding for Normal People(forty-two), Free Decent Media Cleaner that Actually works(ffmpegX) Free MpegTool Suites and Burning software(Ross, our man in the field), Free DVD Authoring That Isn't Cripped By Apple(Sizzle) and our simple but effective lil' DVD stuff...then who do you think is going to solve this for you?

Apple? Macromedia? Adobe? Alladin? Discreet? ROXIO?!?!

Seriously folks, this is a bottom-up effort if ever there was one, on all fronts...and it just vexes me how rude and demanding people are!

Something to think about people...I might be the only fool here that vocalizes about this, but some of you folks *reeeeeeallly* need to chill on this.

Its not cool, its bad form, its pissing where you eat...but more than that, I don't think it inspires anyone in our *very* little world within a *very* Little World who might care to really sink the deep dev time into figuring out a solution.

There are solutions out there, and meritous ones at that...most of them free.

You get what ya' pay for, and folks that work on these things gratis are paying on your behalf, for *whatever* self-serving reason(s) they may have.

Ultimatley the users are the benefactors hopefully, but sometimes it *really* makes me wonder about folks...

-K

[expo]

Okey, here's the deal.

The reason that these topics about DVD2one or an app just like it are so "popular" are caused by the abscense of such an app on the mac-platform.

Nobody's, what we know, developing such an app, there you have the answer to "I'll take my toys and go to Windows".

People seem to have problems sticking to the topic. There are several posts above suggesting the apps that around today for the mac dvd ripping scene. BUT those apps DOES NOT do what most of us want. We want an app doing EXACTLY what DVD2one does, with the same amazing speed.

By saying this; I'm not saying that the existing apps are crap, no, but they CANNOT be compared to what we're requesting, it's like saying "use Illustrator instead of Graphic Converter".

Let's stick to the topic: DVD2one Mac OS X native or a clone.

This forum and others have proven the huge demand for an app like DVD2one for mac os x, I don't understand why there shouldn't be a market for it then?

I'm sure there are more Mac OS X developers in this world than just the ones in this forum, one of them will most likely release an app like this, in a, hopefully, near future.

Kai, I'm not forcing you to develop things you don't want to, especially not for us non-grateful-mac-users. My intention was only to show where the real demand lies, a DVD2one clone. Good luck with 42 and Disco, great apps, both of them.

Now, stick to the topic, please.

//expo

[KaiCherry]

Its JUST the above *snit* that promts me to say...

"Good luck with it, then" as I put the code back on the back burner.

Your DEMANDS for "A DVD2One Clone, something JUST LIKE IT or a clone" will get ya nothin' from where I looking from.

Go on...put out the call far and wide...and use that same tone, too

Wishin' ya the best with it,

-K

[AntnyMD]

I thoroughly appreciate tools like ffmpegX and forty-two for what they do, but when I found out about DVD2One, I couldn't find my dusty copy of VirtualPC 5 fast enough. It was shocking how quickly I was ready to leave Mac/*nix tools behind in favor of What I Really Wanted.

The sooner Mac developers address market desires, we'll gladly buy MacDVD2One ... and for even more than 40 Euros (as most Mac software is grossly overpriced anyway). I mean my god, some of us would sell our left nut to shell out $3,200 for the biggest baddest Powerbook.

If Mac developers don't want to do that, that's ok also. I'll keep my VPC up to date while you guys take your time to come around.

I've never said anything so explicitly GRRRR about the recent advances in Mac video transcoding, but dudes -- take a look at the light: It's Blinding You.