Quality Issues

Discussion in 'CloneDVD' started by therivetman, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    I want to clarify a misconception that seems to exist....Clone DVD 2 is now capable of producing an "equal quality copy" comperable to any copiers on the market including Shrink....Previously Clone DVD 2 would over compress some disks and others too to some degree as well....the updates on the last release have equaled Shrink, and you can test this yourself....I had 14 of my older DVDs redone and no Shrink users I know were able to pick the Clone DVD 2 disks or Shink disks apart from Nero or others such as Fab. Well done Sly Soft.
     
  2. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Actually, that's not true, especially if Shrink is using "Deep Analysis".

    And Elaborate Bytes develops Clonedvd, not Slysoft.

    What Clonedvd does do is retain main menus over split discs, and Clonedvd also tends to compress faster.
     
  3. Wotan

    Wotan Member

    there might be a small difference for dvds that require alot of compression...but i usually remove everything except menu's and main movie (and maybe deleted scenes) on my backups so there's is little to no difference between the backup and the original.
    how come after all these years, dvdshrink is still a very good choice to use to backup your movies (was it really that well made)?
     
  4. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    a point

    Knowing Shrink uses Nero to burn, all the images were burnt with nero to discount Nero as the improving factor and a note DTS and AC3 were enabled on "all" with deep analysis enabled on shrink....no one could pick out the 2 movies done by Shrink...they all looked equal...test this yourself.
     
  5. Wotan

    Wotan Member

    what kind of tv did you test it on?
    i did a test myself with 60% compression and i couldnt tell the difference between the original dvd and my backup on a 42 in plasma.
     
  6. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Transcoder quality has nothing to do with the burning engine.

    Numerous people have including myself. click http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=316209&postcount=23

    "compared to shrink (the best transcoder so far):

    - visibly more blocks
    - more noise
    - less details"

    The source of the comparison starts here: http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=57235

    The transcoder quality in Clonedvd has not been improved. 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. Clonedvd2 transcodes faster. If you can't notice the difference in picture quality, it's due to a low compression level and/or the size and quality of your display. Test with Lord of the Rings (extended edition). There's a huge difference.

    Most people who care about picture quality do not use transcoders. They either do not compress at all (I use Clonecd and Verbatim +R DL), or they use encoders.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2007
  7. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    42 inch plasma

    I have a 42 inch plasma hooked to a pioneer up converting player through hdmi....I cannot see a difference between any of the image files when burnt....they all look the same except the Shrinks DVD's sometimes freeze where the layer break was....
     
  8. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    I can see the difference on a 46" 1080p display quite easily, and I can also see the difference on 22" widescreen monitor. The evidence exists from the screenshots.

    It's not even debatable; it's a fact: at higher compression levels, both Shrink and Recode using deep or advanced analysis offer better picture quality.

    Clonedvd is still, however, a fast, effective program for most users.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2008
  9. Wotan

    Wotan Member

    you mean between shrink and clonedvd or clonedvd/shrink and the original?
     
  10. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator


    PQ from the original>PQ from Procoder and CCE>PQ from Shrink or Recode> PQ from Clonedvd's backup at higher levels of compression

    Always

    Time taken to compress . . . .Clonedvd > Shrink or Recode > Procoder and CCE

    ">" (better than)

    Clonedvd remains the best method to rip with first if you use Anydvd (so Clonedvd is effective as a pre-processor).
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  11. Wotan

    Wotan Member

    with lord of the rings and long movies like that its better to use an encoder or split it on 2 dvds or just use a DL dvd...thanks for the link...i'll check out some movies and see if i can tell the difference between shrink and clonedvd :) nero recode...isnt that the same as shrink except a little faster?
     
  12. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Mostly, yes (although some claim there is a slight difference)

    The author of Shrink went on to help develop Recode.
     
  13. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    Can you list the products in order of quality

    Of quality?...If a major difference exists between CLONE DVD 2(the latest)
    and Shrink then the best encoder should show a major difference.
     
  14. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    Shrink, Nero Recode, and Clonedvd all use transcoders, not encoders.

    Both Procoder and CCE are significantly better than Shrink, Recode, and Clonedvd in terms of producing good PQ. Procoder and CCE are encoders. However, they take significantly more time to compress video. HC encoder is a freeware encoder that's very good as well.

    There's not a huge difference between Clonedvd, Shrink, and Recode when the quality bar in Clonedvd is 85% or higher. I would be hard pressed to tell the difference. But when the quality bar in Clonedvd is much lower, there's a pretty big difference provided deep or advanced analysis is used in Shrink or Recode (Shrink and Recode will take a longer time to compress than Clonedvd).

    The transcoder (picture quality) quality between Recode and Shrink is not significant. However, Recode does tend to compress faster in testing than Shrink.

    I hate compressing. I use this method: click http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=327 (or I will use Clonedvd to split the movie over two single layer discs).
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2007
  15. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    Shrink vs Clone DVD 2

    After 6 hours of testing on 2 large movies I can state quite comfortably, There is no noticable difference on a movie done with Shrink(latest version deep analysis etc.) or Clone DVD2(latest version)...None whatsoever on a 42 inch plasma down to the finest detail including print. That's the last I'll say. I'm beat...Night All.
     
  16. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    ah save for one thing....

    Clone DVD 2 did it in a fraction of the time.
     
  17. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator

    No offense, but there's something seriously wrong with your setup then. The differences are pretty obvious (and no significant changes have been made in Clonedvd in terms of the transcoder for a very long time, so it doesn't matter really that the latest version is being used).

    But if you're happy with the output from Clonedvd, then that's great.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  18. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    no offense but

    The difference is purely imaginary....after 6 hours I can guarantee that statement.
     
  19. Webslinger

    Webslinger Retired Moderator


    No. You need to visit the thread I linked to and take a look at the screenshots provided by the various programs, including Clonedvd. Screenshots are not imaginary.

    Clonedvd2 is a great program. It's easy to use and very fast at transcoding. That said the transcoder quality difference is quite apparent.
    In terms of the transcoder being improved in Clonedvd, nothing has changed from then until now.

    click http://www.digital-digest.com/~uncasms/spiderman/Spiderman.html

    The next test didn't even bother Clonedvd2.
    from http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=388419&postcount=1
    "CloneDVD and DVD2ONEv2 were not used any more for this test as their results were too poor the last time:
    click http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=63668
    click http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?t=57235"

    In particular, visit http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=316209&postcount=23
    What's noted first is how fast Clonedvd2 is. And what's noted after is the picture quality in comparison to Shrink.

    Clonedvd does a lot of things extremely well, but its transcoder does not produce the same results.

    And hopefully, I don't get into tons of trouble for posting this info . . .
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2007
  20. therivetman

    therivetman Well-Known Member

    i did

    After I checked the link I spent 6 hours doing 2 dvds( i needed to see for myself)....2 copies with shrink deep analysis etc and 2 with clone dvd 2 .....then I scanned both looking for fine detail sitting close in front of my 42 inch plasma HD tv .....Both original copies were dual layer 7.5 gig movies with lots of previews...."no disernable difference"....the link I noticed is using the older clone that never had the pixilating problem addressed. The latest version can do the Messengers without pixilation whereas the version used for the test on the link is the one with conmpression ratio problems. My guess is there was always a degree of pixilation on the old clone dvd 2...fixing the Messengers problem improved the whole program....i'm using the latest CLONE DVD 2