Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Showing results 16 to 30 of 89

Thread: RB 1.03 Pro vs DVD2ONE v2 vs ...

  1. #16
    Red dotted member, Oh boy this isn't ok...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    70

    Default

    To give you a tip RUN DVD-RB-PRO in low priotiry mode.

    The quality difference seems obvious to me.........

    If you will get a better TV-set in the future (I don't know what youre using to look now) , you'll be sorry using a transcoder.

    I know it's aleays subjective, but I have found my DVDSCHRINK beackup to be good, and now I'm redoing 70-90% percent of them because I see the incredible difference with DVD-RB-PRO now.

    Please try to use DVD-RB-PRO a low priority mode . It won't prevent you from having a computer to do other things an be responsive.

    If youre CPU and case is cooled right, It won't make a difference running a cpu at 0% or at 100%. The MTBF is so incredible high with a CPU that is still will work as we are not here anymore.........

    And even then you probably will have youre system upgraded another 10 times as well.......

    I don't say you can make a reasonable quality backup with DVD2ONE but taking the average movie and DTS there will be lot backups very worse then when you used DVD-RB-PRO with a good encoder.

    Run it in low-priotity mode and all encoders will run in low-priority mode.

    Youre computer will behave like normal and you can use it while backups are running in the background.

    You'll get the most quality backups then, without losing a computer running DVD-RB-PRO at 100%.

  2. #17
    Junior Member
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Well you know how long RB works for me re-encoding DVD play time 90min long. It takes me less than an hour, it defends on what encoder you use. Internal encoder is very slow. Try Cinema Craft Encoder you'll notice it.

    CCE the best!!

  3. #18
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    1. there is no such thing as an *internal encoder*
    in case you're talking about hc enc: it's a fine piece of an encoder just like cce or procoder, that can be used from within rebuilder

    2. *cce the best!!* => i wont second that
    procoder provides better results with low-bitrate-scenarios and hc enc on the other hand is a little slower but totally free and an encoder with marvellous quality

  4. #19
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    i have done another conversion with dvdshrink + max smoothness (which should be the best setting for this level of compression)

    transcoding time was ~60min (due to max smoothness)



    1.


    2.


    3.


    4.


    5.




    imho the shrink result is:
    - sharper (despite the fact that max smoothness was used for the aec settings)
    - less noisy
    - less blocky
    - less dark

    all in all i consider the shrink quality slightly better and taking into account that we deal with complete freeware dvdshrink seems the much better deal to me

    still i see a huge difference between the transcoder results and the quality a more powerful encoder is able to produce

    tv screens are getting bigger and bigger and beamer are quite common these days as well and thus i wont say that a transcoder quality is the way to go

  5. #20
    Red dotted member, Oh boy this isn't ok...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I agree with you completely, I've had a 'normal' TV and allways shrink looks statisfying.....

    But then I bought a $2000 TV, and I was going to be completely out of my mind.

    The problem is that not only the screen is bigger but nowdays in Europe who use all kind of tricks to improve quality of the screen without having to change standards.

    These improvements like PIXEL+ form PHILIPS on my TV, do a lot of intelligent image processing. Of course people say look without any option enabled, but the fact is all options are not switchable, the processing is always on and indeed the image looks better.

    This results is a native tube resolution of 1680 * 833 pixels.

    The picture is non-flickering 75 hertz.

    On this TV picture quality is not 'faked' but really processed and it shows details that are normally not seen an a normal TV.

    Internal video-bandwidth = 20 Mhz. ( 4 times normal).

    So using a good DVD-player (yep I can even see the difference form one to another DVD-player, as the Sony seems a lot sharper and other smoother), every stupid little detail can be seen.

    Specs are nice but what you see is more important. This TV gives a very sharp detailed picture on a 34" tube, watching distance 3 meters.

    The problem is however that every picture irrergularity will show up enchanced. So MPGEG-2 atificats will clearly show of.

    A good DVD can be easaly differentiated from a lower quality one, regarding noise, blocking and artifacts.

    Then we are even NOT going to use the ZOOM function the TV has.......

    The I always tend to test encoders./transcoders on my Sony DVD-player, which has the highest sharpness. Take a good action scene and step trhrough it picture by picture.

    Conclusions are easily made. Transcoders don't do the job, having DVDSCHRINK with AEC as the best option.

    You really need a good encoder, and even tried Procoder yesterday.

    I have to try it again, but I tried it with the movie DIE ANOTHER DAY with DTS,5.1,2,2 soundtracks and avg. 3100 kbps for video.

    I tried CCE and Procoder as it's so many time mentioned.

    I'll try again (at this moment the job is running) but Procoder delevired much worse results then CCE at this movie so far.

    Although the 'blocking behaviour' was totally different, Procoder smoothens the picture a lot being less sharp then CCE and has a tend to constantly SOFT block in action scenes. CCE does not tend to SOFT block, but only HARD blocking at very fast movements that will not by noticed at normal playback speed.

    Then CCE can be used with custom matrices, and Procoder cannot.

    CCE has paramters to play with, that Procoder has not.

    CCE can do user set number of passes, Procoder always 2.

    The general impression was:

    -1- Procdorer was smoother loosing details, like using UNDOT().DEEN() with CCE.
    -2- Procoder was SOFT blocking in action scenes a lot with was noticable at normal playback. Especially concerning smoke clouds at explosions and so forth.
    -3- CCE was more precisie and sharper and did less blocking and if blocking it was only on the highest motion pictures where this even can't be noticed in normal playback cause it lasts for 2 or 3 frames when somethings hits the whole picture form left to right in 3 frames. Using a 'low-bitrate' matrix even surpresses this a lot if not completely.
    -4- Procoder can't use custom matrices.
    -5- CCE is just 1.72 MB in size is pure machine code and faster....


    To be short, but my definite job is running, CCE is concerned better with this source then Procoder.

    I had a lot of expectations from Procoder, but they seem not to be the truth for me.

    I will try other sources also however, maybe there is a difference at the favour of procoder.

    I even find HC (freeware !, but also BETA !) to be a lot better then Procoder.

    HC can use custom matrices and has a VBR_BIAS setting.....

    It's still under development and CCE is proven technology.


    So depite all I tried as objectively as possible, I still find CCE the best encoder.

    In different tests it is always still the number 1 preference, not for nothing I suppose.

    See test at www.tecoltd.com for example.

    So I leave it at CCE for the moment.....

    p.s: The bitrate-gaphics of procoder and CCE differ a lot with bitrate viewer.

    I have the 'feeling' that Procoder overreacts on sudden high-motion frame to frame occurences and then drops the bitrate too much for that what's in the folowing frames. So at first there is no blocking and then the blocking occurs right after the high motion scenes when there still is a lot of motion, causing these frames to block. ('it's out of breath').

    CCE responds more conservative to sudden very high motion frames and CCE has a look ahead mechanism and know what's comming up, being able to better distribute the bitrate in time.

    Will be continued...
    And then there was Blue Ray........ Nothing to backup anymore......

  6. #21
    Red dotted member, Oh boy this isn't ok...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UncasMS
    1. there is no such thing as an *internal encoder*
    in case you're talking about hc enc: it's a fine piece of an encoder just like cce or procoder, that can be used from within rebuilder

    2. *cce the best!!* => i wont second that
    procoder provides better results with low-bitrate-scenarios and hc enc on the other hand is a little slower but totally free and an encoder with marvellous quality

    I think he was meaning one of the encoders included in the installation package of DVD-RB.

    About procoder...... Just testing again.... But I'm not too happy with it and consider CCE WITH the use of custom matrices stiil better, but tried only 1 source and have to do more.....
    And then there was Blue Ray........ Nothing to backup anymore......

  7. #22
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    Will be continued...
    ...in a DIFFERENT/NEW thread please!
    this one was dealing with dvd2one vs rebuilder

    - LOW bitrate was what many of us mentioned when talking about procoders better quality - your bitrate of 3100kbps is not what i consider LOW bitrate

    - and try interlaced material as well

  8. #23
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    another transcoder - another set of screenshots - a new speed record: 13min transcoding time

    it is clonedvd 2.5 this time:

    1.


    2.


    3.


    4.


    5.




    compared to shrink (the best transcoder so far):

    - visibly more blocks
    - more noise
    - less details
    Last edited by UncasMS; 14 Nov 2005 at 12:24 PM

  9. #24
    Left *****
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    I have never liked CloneDVD.

    How about trying the new Rejig 0.5f with DVD-RB? I always thought rejig is close to Shrink.

    http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=57441

  10. #25
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    here you go:

    rejig 0.5f


    1.


    2.


    3.


    4.


    5.



    do i really need to comment on these results?

  11. #26
    Left *****
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    OMG

    I was not expecting that.

  12. #27
    Digital Video Expert
    Digital Video Expert
    jeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    745

    Default

    but have the good side. now i only have to right click and send the new rejig to the recycled without unzip and test.

    thank you UncasMs!

    ot
    UncasMs,
    i start to read the guide for dummies from Cynthia.(too big)
    don't have any short and single guide for kiss?(keep it simple stupid for double dummies).i need to learn dvd-rb freeware edition.
    ot off
    still sending greens(you can't see but can feel)

    geriatric rock fan

  13. #28
    Left *****
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    5,196

    Default

    Rejig 0.5e was never that bad from what I remember. It definitely competed well against Shrink 3.1 at the time (before AEC).

  14. #29
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    i start to read the guide for dummies from Cynthia.(too big)
    don't have any short and single guide for kiss?
    cynthia has made a lovely guide for the freeware version of rebuilder

    i wrote a quickstart guide based on the pro version


    since both versions can be found as stickies in this rebuilder forum, i guess you have seen my guide as well

  15. #30
    Super Moderator
    UncasMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    9,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nwg
    OMG

    I was not expecting that.
    the average bitrate was this btw

    - HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 3.993/600/3.178 Kbs

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
  •