Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Showing results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: this is why i prefer rebuilder to shrink

  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default this is why i prefer rebuilder to shrink

    an encoder like procoder, cce or hc wins hands down when it comes to heavy compression

    rebuilder will let you use powerful encoders with a few clicks and in addition to easy usage dvd rebuilder offers matrix usage and avisynth filtering which can improve the compression even further

    take a look at the following examples from ALIEN I
    (dvd contains director's cut as well as theatrical version and i kept both)

    SHRINK was used with deep analysis + aec sharp (default)

    REBUILDER was used with hank315's latest HC 016 release with profile BEST + matrix *autoq2* + avisynth filtering *undot + fluxsmooth*


    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc




    and here are some zoom-ins with 200%
    (to save 2cool some work )

    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc


    shrink


    hc
    Last edited by UncasMS; 20 Sep 2005 at 12:04 PM

  2. #2
    Digital Video Specialist
    Digital Video Specialist
    Taelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    887

    Default

    take a look at the following examples from ALIEN I
    (dvd contains director's cut as well as theatrical version and i kept both)
    While the point is certainly valid and the Quality difference is obvious, this isn't exactly fair to Shrink is it? I'd never keep both versions in a Shrink'd backup to DVD-5. Also you didn't post processing times, I'm guessing Shrink was between 60 - 90 minutes. RB was 4, 5, 6 or more hours?

    Plus I think your images just killed my modem

    Start Here!
    DVD Shrink for Dummies Guide
    Search the Incredible Knowledgebases
    DVD Shrink FAQ's - DVD Decrypter FAQ's
    Eliminate CRC & Read Errors
    Cleaning & Polishing Guide

    Advanced DVD Reauthoring Essentials
    PgcEdit v6.1 - Muxman - PgcDemux - VobBlanker v2.0.1

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    well, processing time isnt part of my arguments: i simply want the best quality

    thus i dont want to loose anything from the original source material - in other words i want menus, i want bonus + extras when done decently and in the case of alien quadrilogy i definitely want a perfect copy with all the content

    backup times were:

    shrink - 45 min
    rb/hc + filtering - 297 min


    i wouldnt consider this an unfair comparison - this is what i call my everyday conversion

    going for a backup with everything ripped off the comparison would rather be unfair because comparing a CDT vs ENCODER @ bitrates of ~4500kbps is more or less senseless imho


    Plus I think your images just killed my modem
    i'm deeply sorry
    Last edited by UncasMS; 20 Sep 2005 at 11:25 AM

  4. #4
    Digital Video Enthusiast
    Digital Video Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taelon
    While the point is certainly valid and the Quality difference is obvious, this isn't exactly fair to Shrink is it? I'd never keep both versions in a Shrink'd backup to DVD-5. Also you didn't post processing times, I'm guessing Shrink was between 60 - 90 minutes. RB was 4, 5, 6 or more hours?

    Plus I think your images just killed my modem
    Not fair? Hmmm.... so what you're saying is that Shink can only compare if it is given an advantage (higher bitrate by removing part of the disc)? What's fair about that?

    How about keeping one copy of "Lord of the Rings" or "Gladiator"? Maybe trying to keep a series disc with 3 hours of video would be a better example?
    Last edited by jdobbs; 20 Sep 2005 at 11:53 AM

  5. #5
    Digital Video Specialist
    Digital Video Specialist
    Taelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    887

    Default

    Alot of people use Shrink because it's easy and fast, unfortunately quality is secondary or they just don't realize the amount of quality they are sacrificing when starting with LBR sources or from doing full disc backups of 8 Gb disks, which is why I understand the need for threads like this one.

    But from a personal standpoint, I consider the test unfair because I would Never do it. If I really wanted both versions, I'd burn them both, seperately.
    Quote Originally Posted by jdobbs
    How about keeping one copy of "Lord of the Rings" or "Gladiator"? Maybe trying to keep a series disc with 3 hours of video would be a better example?
    Yes, I'm guessing that those would be much better examples, although I haven't backed up my copies of LOTR or Gladiator yet.

    Personally, I've only needed to split one backup onto two DVD-5's so far "Saving Private Ryan", I'm sure it could have squeezed down to one disk, but I probably wouldn't want to watch it. I process most DVD's with PgcEdit and VobBlanker before shrinking. Tonight I started with a 7 Gb DVD, after processing I had a 5.2 Gb copy ready for shrinking, in Shrink I realized there were 3 commentary tracks so I dropped the last one, bumped up the compression of the few menu transitions that I left in, and the chapter selection screens. This gave me a 99% Ratio for the main movie, and Shrink Deep Ananylzed it and Transcoded it in about 30 minutes. The whole process took about an hour from start to finish.

    Ok, you might argue that I cut out extra features. Yes, but I consider many extra features to be annoying, I'll no longer have to watch copyright warning screens, studio logos, and the transitions into and out of the set-up, language and subtitle menus. I've also eliminated the 6 trailers for old movies, and the foreign language streams. I've retained the transition to the main movie, and a fairly cool DVD credits presentation (virtual tour of a house).

    To me, this backup is superior to the original disk in every way, and since it is the one that I'll be watching in the future, isn't that what's important?
    Last edited by Taelon; 20 Sep 2005 at 02:03 PM

    Start Here!
    DVD Shrink for Dummies Guide
    Search the Incredible Knowledgebases
    DVD Shrink FAQ's - DVD Decrypter FAQ's
    Eliminate CRC & Read Errors
    Cleaning & Polishing Guide

    Advanced DVD Reauthoring Essentials
    PgcEdit v6.1 - Muxman - PgcDemux - VobBlanker v2.0.1

  6. #6
    Digital Video Technician
    Digital Video Technician

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    484

    Default

    i'm with Uncas on this one. my main concern is quality, i even do main movie-only with rebuilder and HC in best quality mode. the quality of my back ups are a close to those of the original as one can get it, IMHO.

    when it comes to time, have you heard of sleepingtime, i rebuild while that is happening.
    Last edited by elizerrojas; 20 Sep 2005 at 09:31 PM

  7. #7
    Not a god of digital video blutach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    is everything!
    Posts
    24,627

    Default

    @Taelon - As UncasMS says, this is the standard way of backing up if you want quality. You just set it overnight and it's done in the morning.

    @UncasmS - I'd be interested to see how DVD Shrink compares in the "smooth" mode. Sharp seems to be too horrible to look at for low BR stuff. You seem to be using those filters permanently now. They look fantastic.

    @jdobbs - great to see you

    Regards

  8. #8
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    UncasmS - I'd be interested to see how DVD Shrink compares in the "smooth" mode. Sharp seems to be too horrible to look at for low BR stuff.
    i can add a shrink output with max smooth

    You seem to be using those filters permanently now. They look fantastic.
    no, i dont use them permanently but with alien1-3 i find them more than helpful because the material is quite noisy

    of course they take up additional processing time but who cares

    i didnt build this athlon64 to play ut2k4 all day long - this is my encoding machine and so it may run ~300 min for a conversion with hc + heavy filtering

    i like the results and that's all that counts

    we didnt bother when flask and mpg2avi took nearly 2 days some years ago so why would i worry about 3-6 hours for a decent conversion in these days ^_~

  9. #9
    Digital Video Enthusiast
    Digital Video Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Flask MPEG... hmm... I remember those days well. Remember how hard it was to get audio sync in all those early apps?

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    a pain in the butt, i remember, because of dropped frames and so on

    and we were lucky if flask didnt crash half way through

  11. #11
    Kamen Moderator V3 2COOL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdobbs
    Flask MPEG... hmm... I remember those days well. Remember how hard it was to get audio sync in all those early apps?
    Ahhh...before I got my first DVD burner.
    2CL C Henshin!
    If you got a dollar for everytime someone called you ugly, you'd be a millionaire...an "ugly" millionaire.


  12. #12
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    here are the shrink results with MAXIMUM SMOOTHNESS











    200% zoom-in












    the results are much better than with aec sharp but still visible more pixelated than the encoder output

    of course the price is more conversion time in shrink and because time seems to be an important issue for most shrink users i wonder who will use a transcoder with deep analysis + aec MAX SMOOTHNESS

  13. #13
    Digital Video Specialist
    Digital Video Specialist
    Taelon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UncasMS
    i'm deeply sorry
    Seriously, why not use thumbnails if you're gonna fill a page with images. All broadband users with their condescending attitude towards those still on dial-up seem to not realize that we may not have a choice! Being stuck with dial-up is the price I pay for the peace and serenity of living in a rural area. Some day cable may become an option out here lord knows I keep hoping, but for now, even DSL isn't available, and I sure as hell don't plan on moving into urban sprawl just so I can brag about my connection speed. Besides I remember the days of BBS'ing with a 1200 baud modem, and if I survived those days I sure as hell can survive on 52k bps connections until other options become available.
    here are the shrink results with MAXIMUM SMOOTHNESS
    Since nobody else seems interested in picking up the gauntlet, I'll continue to play devils advocate. I find the last set of Shrink images remarkable, with AEC = Max Smooth they are nearly indistinguishable from the RB output until zoomed x2 and even then the difference is small.
    ...of course the price is more conversion time
    I know you aren't interested in conversion time, but I'm sure Shrink users are, you stated earlier that Shrink took 47 mins. @ AEC = Sharp. How long did it take with AEC = Max Smooth?

    Start Here!
    DVD Shrink for Dummies Guide
    Search the Incredible Knowledgebases
    DVD Shrink FAQ's - DVD Decrypter FAQ's
    Eliminate CRC & Read Errors
    Cleaning & Polishing Guide

    Advanced DVD Reauthoring Essentials
    PgcEdit v6.1 - Muxman - PgcDemux - VobBlanker v2.0.1

  14. #14
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    Seriously, why not use thumbnails if you're gonna fill a page with images
    you're right, taelon

    we should think about using thumbnails when posting somehting like this in the future

    on the other hand you could set your browser to NOT display pictures ^_~


    concerning the quality with max smoothness: i used the very same areas for the 200% zoom-in which i used before - just to be fair

    taking a look at the entire picture, though, I do find areas (different to the ones i zoomed into) that are more blocky or blocky at all whereas the encoder output does not show a macroblock at all

    so to me the result is a little blurry and i still find areas with visible macroblocks and that's simply something i dont want


    you stated earlier that Shrink took 47 mins. @ AEC = Sharp. How long did it take with AEC = Max Smooth?
    i cannot give you a precise answer to this because the first time the deep analysis was part of the 47 min - this time shrink of course skipped deep analysis

    the pure *encoding* time takes ~2x as long on my machine (athlon64 3500+) when max smoothness was used compared to aec sharp and sharp was roughly 2x as long as using NO aec at all
    Last edited by UncasMS; 21 Sep 2005 at 07:40 PM

  15. #15
    Not a god of digital video blutach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    is everything!
    Posts
    24,627

    Default

    Yes, DVD Shrink at max smooth is quite slow, but is the choice for shrinkers at low BRs (say <2Mbps). I'd stick with "sharp" for anything over 3Mbps.

    There is still quite a bit of macroblocking, but probably not noticeable on a normal TV. Big screen though (I'm talking about projector system) and you'll only go for DVDRB.

    Regards

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •