Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hypnosis4U2NV The same author created both Shrink and Recode |
I don't believe he created Recode; I believe he went on to help develop it.
But I could be wrong.
Quote:
|
and given the fact that only the default 'Sharp' compression method was utilized I would call that test inconclusive.
|
I would expect Shrink to take slightly longer with "max" anything. Recode makes things easier for its users by automatically setting those other Shrink options at about a 70% compression level, iirc.
Here are some more tests:
http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=63668 http://forum.digital-digest.com/show...419#post388419
(I'm not sure I understand comparing Shrink to encoders in this one,
but the different max settings were interesting)
Quote:
|
You may have had the same or better/worst results if the other options were tested (Maximum Smoothness, Smoothness, Maximum Sharpness).
|
In terms of picture quality, that's possible. Both programs produce very similar results, but, on average, I find Recode is faster.
Quote:
|
In either case Im not knocking Recode, its just that Shrink is a very effective program in a smaller and free package.
|
I agree.
Quote:
|
Thanks for pointing that review out.. Ive actually compared the movies compressed with Shrink and CloneDVD on my 65" HD set and Shrink is the clear winner of the two..
|
At higher compression levels, you are certainly correct. Clonedvd2 transcodes much more quickly, however.
Regardless, these comparisons rarely interest me. While everyone is busy ripping and then encoding or transcoding, etc., I'm watching my backups on Verbatim +R DL media using
Anydvd with
Clonecd.