DVD shrink 3.2

Discussion in 'Third Party Products' started by tunas427, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. tunas427

    tunas427 Member

    i use dvd shrink and now clonedvd2 ...... are there any advantages of using one over the other?? sometimes it takes me 3 hrs to encode some movies using shrink is this normal? clonedvd2 is faster but is the quality as good as shrink ... any information will be appreciated
     
  2. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    One advantage: CloneDVD is updated while Shrink isn't, so it works better with newer movies. The quality is very close.
     
  3. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    No. Both Shrink and Nero Recode produce better picture quality provided you're using deep or advanced analysis. The cost, of course, is the amount of time taken to transcode. I recommend ripping with Clonedvd2 and then importing into Shrink, if you're having problems with Shrink alone.

    Clonedvd2 also has an advantage if you're splitting across two discs and want to retain menus. Shrink and Recode can't do this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  4. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    For many advanced users, the options available in Shrink are nicer than CloneDVD - like the ability to force any one of multiple streams. Also the transcoder (shrinker) in DVDShrink is second to none, except perhaps Nero Recode2 (written by the DVDShrink dood). Not to say the one in CloneDVD is bad, but it isn't Shrink. CloneDVD2 is prolly the best solution for Noobs when bundled with AnyDVD though, particularly those Noobs without some version of Nero on thier machine to actually BURN the disks ater they are ripped and Shrunk.

    Slysoft has said they'll get around to looking at why AnyDVD isn't working on some titles with Shrink. I hope it's soon.
    In the meantine Elby can keep thanking the Cods it jumped on the AnyDVD gravy train.

    -W
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  5. RedFox 1

    RedFox 1 Super Moderator

    The encoder in CCE Pro is better than Shrink or Recode as long as we are putting time aside as a negitive option.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  6. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    Thanks for setting the fanboys straight, SlyFox.
     
  7. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Lol. I'm not a "fanboy". I don't even use Shrink or Recode for my backups.
     
  8. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    I wasn't referring to you, Web.
     
  9. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Considering Web and I have very similar opinions about transcoders, you can't be refering to one without the other. Unless you're just trolling me specificly for some reason. :D

    -W
     
  10. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    I don't troll or harass anyone intentionally on a forum, that makes no sense. I was just referring to any DVD Shrink fan boy.
     
  11. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    I won't dispute that at all.

    I tend to put time aside as a negative, because Shrink and Recode both have the option to shut down the computer when they are done transcoding. So if a movie doesn't suck, you can just tell the machine to transcode the main movie only - and go to bed. And time ceases to become an issue. :D

    -W
     
  12. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    As does Procoder and most other decent encoders . . .

    Encoder quality > transcoder quality

    In general, the more time it takes, the better the picture should be.
     
  13. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    DVDShrink has thousands of "fanboyz" for a reason you know.
    It's in the top 5 programs ever made for this purpose, it's FREE, and it's got DEEP market penetration because of the above. (Great + Free = Market Penetration)

    The only reasons anyone has ever bashed Shrink, is to somehow try to prop up a competing product.

    -W
     
  14. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    It was one of the top 5 when it is updated, now it becomes harder and harder to use with the newer movies.
     
  15. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    And THAT's only because of COPY PROTECTION issues that we *customers* expect AnyDVD to FIX. This as opposed to blaming Shrink and steering us customers (like the Elby Sheep) to CloneDVD2.

    It's not Shrink that I expect to handle the COPY PROTECTION on the newer DVD's .

    -W
     
  16. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    Obviously AnyDVD does fix it because other programs can copy it. So Shrink is in the wrong, not AnyDVD.
     
  17. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    I've already expressed my thoughts on this matter. I'm not going to be discussing anything further in this thread.

    This has all the earmarks of a potential flame war, so I'd advise everyone to please remain civil.
     
  18. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    Everyone is remaining civil, and that's the way it will continue to be. It's fine to debate things as long as you remain civil and respectful of the other's opinion.
     
  19. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    Funny... AnyDVD said they'd look at this issue once the push for AnyDVD-HD is lessened. And us Shrink users take them at thier word. And it's not just Shrink... Shrink just *comes up* more because it's actually popular.

    What's being done on the newer disks seems to be **copy protection** via an insurmountable number of *somethings* - be it errors or just sheer title or VOB count. But it IS copy protection, ands us Shrink users don't use Shrink to handle the **copy protection** issues.

    -W
     
  20. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    I copied Open Season with AnyDVD and CloneDVD2, one of the movies that couldn't be copied with the inferior and outdated DVD Shrink. So obviously it's not just AnyDVD.