i have both of these softwares and was wondering which one is better for compying movie dvd's quality wise which one makes better backups???

I like them both. For me they yield similar results in quality. However, you can edit more completely with recode. As for speed 1 click runs a little faster on my system. Each have their strong points.

no, no, no. i have both of these programs and have compared them against each other many times(i like to play around with transcoders). i have no doub in my mind that Nero Recode2 is not only better than 1clickdvd(when speaking of picture quality), Recode2 is the best transcoder outthere. i love 1clickdvd, it is the transcoder with the best ripping(scratch discs) capabilities there is, but don't you compare it with the GREAT Recode2 when it comes to quality output.

ps: if the compression is tooo high, i go with: anydvd ripper to HD/Recode2, image recoder to produce a ISO folder/IMGBurn to burn.

Yeah, but doesn't Nero Recode2 only encode to the Nero Digital format?

What good is that gonna do if 98% of the stand-alone DVD players out there will only play Divix (AVI) and not MP4?

quote"Yeah, but doesn't Nero Recode2 only encode to the Nero Digital format?"

no, i do most of my backups with nero recode2, a shrink like type of program, if you didn't know it. yes, i does backup in digital format
also.
ps: DVD FORMAT BACKUPS.

i been using anydvd with clone dvd2. i would like to see if another compression tool is better then what i am using. i was trying to see what the differences out there are with 1 click dvd pro and just the original. I do not know if its worth the 70 bucks or so for the pro when the original is just fine... Any ideas.

Is there a guide here on cdfreaks for Nero Recode2? I don't see one anywhere, unless I go to Nero's website.

And I don't want to be tied to burning DVD-Rs in the Nero Digital mp4 format. That's useless unless you want to settle only for watching the film on your computer using Nero's video player.

Have a look HERE and go to post 9 to see the difference between 1click pro and clonedvd2

@b83768. here is a guide to use Recode2.

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=61452

note: if you have recode2 lern how to use it and use it, for it can only be beaten by encoders which takes way toooooo long to do the job, which is why i don't use them. in any case, the quality picture between recode2, using its best settings, and that of the encoder, is not that much, but, that's just my insane opinion.

Recode2, when speaking of transcoders, is the best; when speaking of picture quality output, nothing else, there are better transcoders in term of other capabilities.

anydvd ripper to hard drive/Recode2 to compress to an ISO folder/IMGBurn to burn/ main movie only. that is my way to get great quality without errors.

Just to clarify for you >+

I was just reading the rest of the thread in that forum about changing the registry settings in Nero Recode and michi90 makes a good point by saying:

So once again, is there really any advantage to using Recode over Shrink?

I have access to both, btw. I've just never bothered to use the Recode on my machine, that's all.

That was posted nearly a year ago!!! Nero recode 2 has had many updates since then.

Max sharp is not the way to go if you want the best PQ you have to set it to max smooth.

Recode 2 is faster than shrink, and is updated unlike shrink.

One last thing Recode 2 also has a slightly better picture.

LOOK HERE

quote"That was posted nearly a year ago!!! Nero recode 2 has had many updates since then." YEEEESSSSS.

quote"Max sharp is not the way to go if you want the best PQ you have to set it to max smooth." YEEEESSS.

quote"Recode 2 is faster than shrink, and is updated unlike shrink." YEEEESSS.

quote"One last thing Recode 2 also has a slightly better picture." YEEEEESSSS.

LOOK HERE

i agree that if you don't have REcode2, there is no need to buy it just yet, shrink does almost as good a job as Recode2. but if you have Recode2, use it, it is the best transcoder there is.

ps: not that i agree with it, but there is a thread in this forum that puts Recode2 as being as good as Rebuilder/CCE. do a search and read about it. i don't remember where it is.

Recode 2 will never be as good as CCE / Procoder 2 / HC18 or any other Encoder.

I tried searching for the thread but I could not find it, anyone put me in the right direction?

You guys made me laugh . You must be joking about not knowing where or not remembering where the thread you're talking of 'is', considering that most of your posts were in that thread!
Funny statement guys.
BTW, Recode doesn't really come that close to the output that is produced by Rebuilder using one of the Encoders mentioned IMHO.

Recode or any other transcoder comes no way close to any Encoder especially with high compressed movies.

That was posted March, 2006.So we don't need to screw around with the registry anymore? Just set Recode to "max smooth" through it's GUI? Is that what you're saying?

The only way to change it is in the registry.

but the OP did start nearly a year ago

Bear in mind Gangster that I’m in the U.S., not the UK, so we use NTSC instead of PAL. Would that make a difference?

Btw, I have Nero Recode 2.2.6.17 that was a part Nero 6.6.1.4

I don't have Nero 7's version, yet. Once again, any difference?

It makes no difference at all.

I am not the best person to ask, I suggest going to Nero's web site, or maybe someone else will be able to tell you the difference, sorry.

if you can get to nero recode2 and it works for you, there is not difference. advise. try to get 7.0.8.2. is the most stabled of the 7 version.

I would just like to add that I was using encoders since the days of SVCD. But to be honest, what Recode 2 delivers today is imho very close to encoder quality. I've done some comparisons again recently, and despite my prejudices towards transcoders, I liked Recode 2 better. When it comes to still pictures, cce does indeed produce better results. But when I look at the running movie, I often prefer Recode 2. Thats my oppinion, no one has to agree with me. Do it as you like, for so do I...

greeting
ux-3

That is true to a certain point but only when the compression is at 85% (15% compression) anything more than that and you will notice a big difference but especially with long films like King Kong, Lord of the rings etc...etc...


Have a look HERE

@uX-3. I agree with you, and I'd add that even in higher levels of compresion than 15%, recode2 does a very close of a job as encoders. i'd be so easy to use clonedvd2 which has the best re-authoring capabilities of all the transcoders put together but, it is because of Recode2's quality output, that i go to a much time-consuming route.
anydvd to HD/vobblanker/recode2/imgburn.

1st picture Original 2nd picture Recode 3rd picture Procoder 2

Tell me your thoughts

Recode 61% compression
Procoder 2 59.5% compression