Reading on afterdawn...

"Oriphus,
I know that you have already received many responses on this subject but I'm gonna add my 'two cents' anyway. lol.

I use RipIt4Me (thanks goes out to arniebear for the tut) to rip in for simplicities sake and use the One Click mode so it's all automatic. It does give a nice clean rip.

Then I use DVDShrink or Nero Recode2 if the compression is between 80-100% and write with IMGBURN on quality media (TY, Verbs, Ritek). This method only takes about 25-45 minutes on my machine, which isn't a dual core. That is start to finish ripping, transcoding, and writing.

Now if the ratio is between 50-75% after ripping with RipIt4Me. I use DVD-RB Pro (with HCEnc) by browsing for the file that RipIt4Me added to the HDD. Again I write with IMGBURN on quality media (TY, Verbs, Ritek). Now this method takes an extra 2-3 hours due to the time consumption of DVD-RB Pro.

I know that you have already had similar posts but maybe this narrows down your choices to almost free stuff with the exception of DVD-RB Pro. Good luck to whatever you choose to use. lol."

I am wondering if their is something I am missing my only using clonedvd2+anydvd. Do i really need to learn how to use DVD-RB Pro in order to get good rips..A lot of the movies i do end up at about 65-80% but if it will make my movies more vidiv, I guess it couldnt hurt to learn.

Please some educated opinions would be great

Complete and utter waste of time imo . . .

If you're worried about picture quality either split across two single layer discs with Clonedvd2. Transcoding nor encoding is lossless. Clonedvd2 does produce inferior video quality than Shrink when compressing/engaging the transcoder (and takes longer to produce that superior picture quality), but I don't bother compressing. If you want a perfect picture with no loss you can either split across two discs or . . .

Use Verbatim +R DL discs + Anydvd + Clonecd (this will preserve the original layer break position). Couple of clicks and done. No ripping first before using a burning application (you can even burn on the fly if you want to--but I don't recommend doing so).

Clonedvd2 cannot retain the original layer break position.

If you want to waste time ripping first--and then switch to other programs, then by all means use that other stuff.

Cost vs time (the Clonecd solution is not cheap--but it's easier and faster--and there's no loss in picture quality at all)

Errr

I meant "Neither transcoding nor ecoding . . ."

well...I cant real afford dual layer discs, (well i mean i can but just chose not to). And your saying that shrink will give me a better image. What if i use Nero Recode, as i know that Recode is not coded by the former coder of dvd shrink....

Any thoughts?

Recode IS coded by the DVD Shrink person, I do believe.

DVD Shrink = Fantastic. Just select the DEEP ANALYSIS and leave the quality enhancement at the default of Sharp and it should give you results as good or better than any other app, including Recode.

Taking the copy protection removal out of the equation, DVD Shrink is still the very best at what it does, imo, and there is no reason not to use it.

Rip to disk with whatever app you want, like the FREE DVDFab Decrypter or the RipIt4Me / DVD Decrypter / FixVTS combo, then use DVD Shrink to finalize and you are good to go on a single layer blank.

Best of luck.

Agree with BK here. Beauty is that they're all free & still as as good anything around.

Yes (well, at least, partially)

No. No transcoder is fantastic. Transcoders produce inferior picture quality even when comparied to encoders, obviously. And neither is lossless.

If transcoding were great, no one would bother doing this:

The ecoding process is what's eating all that time. Why would someone do this? Well, because picture quality produced by transcoding is inferior to encoding. But at this point, my suggestion becomes far more compelling: don't transcode nor encode (and yes, you don't need to buy anything to do what I'm suggesting; you can use freeware; it will take longer, won't be as simple to do,etc.--but you can use freeware).

Whatever works for you . . .

Yes. Use your existing software ( Clonedvd2) to split the video across two single layer discs (if you can't afford Verbatim double layer discs) with Anydvd running in the background. This is faster and easier than having to use Ripit4me (which then rips, runs FixVTS, and then runs Shrink).


Again, this is an utter waste of time imo, when the OP already has an easier and faster solution.

I agree with using Shrink, insofar as it can produce a better quality picture than Clonedvd2, provided you are comparing the quality produced by their respective transcoders. But if you really cared about picture quality, you wouldn't be transcoding at all.

Yes, free is good.

No. If that were true, I wouldn't have purchased other software. Period.

That said, there's no doubt Shrink can produce better picture quality than Clonedvd2 if their respect transcoders are being used.

I disagree with most of what you say there, Webslinger. Just the way it is.

Oh well. Pretty hard to disagree with factual information. My main point is compression produces inferior picture quality; my sub point is that you can should use what works best for you--but the freeware stuff is a slower option than what the OP already owns.

DVD Shrink has better compression quality - period. DVD Shrink takes more time IF you select the Deep Analysis and Quality options. You can choose not to use it if you prefer speed over quality.

DVD Shrink is FREE and flat out awesome. It is still a fantastic option, and it's pretty sad to see people badmouth it in favor of an inferior product, especially since it's not free.

I've already stated this. In fact, this is a point I've made repeatedly on these boards.

Actually, Shrink is always slower than Clonedvd2 for the transcoding time taking place, regardless of whether deep analysis is selected, in my tests (and in the findings of others). I've tested this with 5 movies a long time ago. Unless something has changed drastically (which is unlikely in Shrink's case), I fail to see how things differ now.

Yes

No transcoder is awesome; transcoding is inferior to encoding in terms of picture quality--and, in turn, it's far worse than not compressing at all.

What holds true here is the longer you spend compressing, the better the picture quality should be.

It's sad to see people that are blind to the flaws of the products they use.

Video compression from encoding and transcoding is not lossless.

Consequently, those who truly care about picture quality should avoid compression--in my opinion. In addition to the superior picture quality of the backup--you have the added bonus of not spending time transcoding (or encoding depending on the programs you use).

Oh well, agree to disagree, at least on part of it.

Optimally, no compression is best, but not always worth it. Single layer DVD's are cheap and reliable, and DVD Shrink does one HECK of a job. All things considered, most of us make the small compromise and don't regret it one bit.

Fact

This is where we differ, and this point is definitely debatable. Granted, some people can't afford Verbatim double layer discs. Single layer discs have dropped in price to such an extent, I fail to see why using two is such a cost issue. I'm not talking about freeware vs paid programs at this point at all. You can split video over two discs very easily using freeware.

Shrink does a better job than most transcoders I've come across. Shrink definitely produces better video quality than Clonedvd2. But all transcoders are brutal--especially when you start comparing output produced Procoder (and CCE). Even free encoders produce better video quality results. This is also fact. It's also fact, as you've stated, that no compression is best.

Consequently, I disagree that any transcoder (including Clonedvd2's) "does one Heck of a job". This is opinion and debatable. And I accept that my opinion on this specific matter is also debatable.

Fair enough. I agree that for many people the quality produced by Shrink is perfectly fine. As I said before, whatever works best for you . . .

My preference is to avoid transcoding or encoding completely.

Sorry i definitly meant to state that Recode WAS coded by the author of Shrink...sorry for any mixup

I guess im just picky...I dont want to spend teh money for dl's but i dont want it on two discs...Im more willing to shell out the money for larger discs before i will get up half-way through my movie to change discs. I think I will have to take a look at DVD Shrink again. And can someone point out why i would use DVD Shrink over Recode if its just an updated version of Shrink...Basically Im looking for the best Single layer back-up possible. Using Anydvd in the backround to decrypt. Im willing to spend money on software, and even though ive kinda gotten used to the blazing fast times of clonedvd2, im sure a lil longer wait would be worth it in the name of quality...

Btw im on a 32inch Sony Trinatron that is about 10 years old...(:still a lot better then some new SD tvs out their) so I havent even really noticed a diff in quality...although i must say i have havent watched Retail vs Single Layer since my Shrink days...

Recode's transcoder presumably has been updated somewhat since Shrink has stopped development, but I honestly don't see a huge difference between these two programs in terms of picture quality produced by transcoding.

I do know that with Recode 6.x versions, if you have more than one optical drive in your system, you should attempt to import the disc directly from your burner only (otherwise, you may experience problems . . . this was an issue recognize by Nero techs). With Nero 7.5.9.0A, this isn't an issue with the version of Recode that's included.


Then you need to look into dvd-rebuilder pro with Procoder, CCE, or a freeware encoder. You would also have to rip first. You're may be adding several hours to your encoding time, depending on how much encoding or passes you want to do. And for dvd-rebuilder pro, I would probably recommend Ripit4me instead of using Anydvd ripper. But you can achieve the same thing using Anydvd and using Clonedvd2 to rip (just select dvd9 for output). I haven't compared the time it takes to produce perfect rips using either method (I rarely rip first).

For Recode, it still makes sense to use Anydvd instead of ripping first, unless you absolutely have to.

Again, I just prefer bypassing all this transcoding and encoding mess, but to each, his or her own . . .