AnyDVD is falling behind!!!

Discussion in 'AnyDVD HD (DVD issues)' started by MMM, Mar 16, 2007.

  1. linx05

    linx05 Well-Known Member

    Hahahaha :clap: :clap:

    That's a very ummm nice way of putting it? lol
  2. Dexter

    Dexter Member

    I've been using anydvd and clonedvd2 for over a year and made many back-ups without any problems what so ever. There's no need to use any other software. I read that so many people have problems with shrink and other software, why is that. IMO Slysoft has the best trouble free software. Thank you Slysoft.:clap:
  3. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    If you sincerely want to know why Shrink users prefer Shrink there's plenty of information on the subject. Try the search function. Past that, I won't let this degrade into another CloneDVD2 vs Shrink-athon.

  4. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    no comparison

    Hotice where all the complaints are coming from...The Shrunken Heads
  5. Spanky

    Spanky Well-Known Member

    I finally got around to this thread and I guess I’m just not the purist you guys are, I just throw in a Verb +R DL and use CloneCD, no muss no fuss. If I want another copy, just do it again. Why the desire for a clean backup – just curious?
  6. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Your doing it the same way Webslinger does - and it's one of the most optimal. :agree:

    However, there's plenty of cheap bastiches that get DVD5's on sale at Best Buy for 23 cents each (Vebatim last week). These people use transcoders, to make them fit, and to get the best quality, clean = better.

  7. Spanky

    Spanky Well-Known Member

    I make SL copies sometimes, but I just copy the main title using AnyDVD and CloneDVD so I never notice. I understand the smaller the transcoder output the better the quality. I just really can’t see the difference, thus my purist comment.
    The exception is cartoons, I use Nero recode on those, the picture does seem to be more vibrant, but that could just be my perception and not reality!

    Thanks, every tidbit of information helps and I appreciate it.
  8. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    The developer of Shrink went on to help develop Nero Recode. Recode tends to transcode faster than Shrink and produces approximately the same picture quality as Shrink, so it's not just your perception.

    What Clonedvd2 can do that both Shrink and Recode cannot is retain menus across split discs, and Clonedvd also transcodes faster than either Shrink or Recode especially when either deep or advanced analysis is used in either of those programs. The tradeoff with Clonedvd2 is picture quality at higher levels of compression. Of course, Clonedvd2 (and many other transcoder based burning applications) also accepts the bad sector Sony junk structures better than Shrink does.
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2007
  9. Spanky

    Spanky Well-Known Member

    Does Nero recode pass the Sony junk to the copy? I don't know that I ever used it on one of those.

    Nice to know it's not all in my mind!
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2007
  10. bilbo65

    bilbo65 Well-Known Member

    For me, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is how flawlessly the copy plays on my players...:D
  11. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    If you see a bunch of useless titles under "content" in Recode that don't play anything in recode's preview screen, delete those titles before burning. Same goes for Clonedvd2 . . .

    If you choose just to backup the main movie only in either program, then you don't need to concern yourself with anything.
  12. Rich86

    Rich86 Well-Known Member

    I expect I agree with you, although I probably would not have said it quite that way. Doesn't CloneDVD2 list all the phony vts titles as selectable? Can't a person just uncheck those to avoid including that junk in the copy? . . . edit . . . I see webslinger was saying this also as I was keying . . .

    To the person who said CloneDVD2 approaches DVDShrink in transcoding quality - it's true - until you begin heading south of say 75% or 80%.
  13. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Yes (you can choose not to burn that stuff in Recode as well)
  14. Rich86

    Rich86 Well-Known Member

    Well said. I find I use CloneDVD2 for those times when it is capable of the re-authoring I want to do (pretty much limited to including or excluding entire titles) if I want to retain menus, and the resulting titles fit on a dvd-5. Other than that, I generally opt for DVDShrink to get the much more powerful re-authoring abilities, and better transcoding quality.
  15. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Yes, you can deselect titles in CloneDVD2 and ReCode (and I believe keep the full menu - right?). So yes, there's a "manual workaround" for the whole DVD backup to a DVD5. The original voiced concern is that many of the Noob type users of CloneDVD2 just back up the disk with one click. Those people (who are the core group of Clone users from the postings I've read) are also compressing the junk and wasting disk space.

    As for transcoding quality, I can start to see the difference at about 80%. To me, if you doing a full disk redux of a DVD9 to a DVD5 - the difference between the two programs is massive. If just doing the main movie, not so much.

  16. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Yes, you can keep the menu
  17. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Yanno.... I've often seen this touted as the great distinguishing "feature" of CloneDVD2.
    I personally think it's just a bunch of marketing BS. :disagree:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall (I havn't split a disk in a long time),
    both Shrink and Recode split disks by putting all the Menu stuff and the extras on Disk one, and then finish the main movie on Disk two. No?

    I mean... what good is having a menu on the disk that dosn't need a menu anyway? Hmmm?? So to me, that "feature" is the only way the Marketing Boys get to say that CloneDVD2 can do something the others can't. Personally, were I not looking for a "feature" to extoll, I think the other way makes more sence. :agree:

    Last edited: Mar 17, 2007
  18. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Thanks... I thought so. I just tend to take the main movie only, and havn't put any serious effort into a whole disk backup of any of the new Sony crap.

  19. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    No. It's useful. Many people including myself do prefer having the menu retained over split discs. Clonedvd2 isn't the only program that can do this either, so obviously there is some demand for it. If you have made language changes, for example, you'll have to select that stuff with the remote manually on disc 2. This is especially annoying with movies that require occasional subtitles to appear (you have to reselect the proper subtitle stream manually again with your remote when you put the second disc in).

    And if you don't want to retain the original menus on disc in Clonedvd2--you can choose not to include them.

    Moreover, you completely lose menu functionality on disc 1 anyway when you split across two discs with Shrink.

    When you split in Shrink, you have to go into "reauthor" mode, so no; you lose the original menus--unless you want the convert the menus into a regular video clip (but that's hardly the same thing, since you lose all functionality).

    No. This claim is complete nonsense. That feature is one reason why I did use Clonedvd2 instead of Shrink and Recode (back when I did split across two single layer discs; I've hated transcoding/encoding for quite some time).
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2007
  20. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    OK.... then well.... "to me" it's not any big deal feature. I think it's faster to toggle the remote button on the second disk than to navigate a menu.
    But to each his own I guess. :)

    And the claim isn't "complete" nonsence... because it is the only leg up it really has on it's closest two rivals. :D :agree:
    (aside from being nOOb friendly)