I'm using the platinum demo. It is working but it is frustrating me on the results. The resolution appears poor compared to the other programs I am testing. I am using AMD Thuroughbred procs at 1.8 ghz with 512 megs and my latest burn was ripped from DVDdecrypter. I am using an NEC 2500a. Tests so far: http://home.kc.rr.com/dfulghum/photo.htm Is there something I am doing wrong. What is the setup you guys are using. P4s primarily? I have only one more day on demo and I'm willing to try whatever is asked. I used Any dvd once successfully but it now says again that the dvd is encrypted even with safe mode off. But if decrypter is fine I'll stick with that.
I use a 3-step process that works flawlessly. Rip dvd to HD with dvd-decrypter, compress with Intervideo dvdcopy2 platinum, and burn with Nero. Why do I use a seperate app to burn? More control imo.
Wulfie, where do you re-author or do ya? I prefer to use dvdremake with dvdcopy2 or IC8 and then compress in those programs. If you haven't tried it and you do re-author, it's a jewel. I do not care for the re-authoring function in either of those programs, especially IC8.
6402642, I also tried the Platinum demo version and got VERY POOR results on the one movie I tried it on, Lawrence of Arabia, a long movie. While I copied the entire movie with several apps, the test scene I used is the one in which after receiving approval from the general for the mission he meets and has a drink with the head of the "Arab office" or something like that, a good bright scene with several close-ups. The Intervideo was significantly worse than the DVD X-Copy Express version, the close-ups of the faces were lacking in detail and filled with artifacts, the X-Copy Express version suffered from noticable degradation but had lost less than half the detail of the Intervideo copy and had fewer/no artifacts. The artifacts that I'm talking about are those little "squiggles" you get where fine detail used to be, no white blotches or whatever. With Intervideo, I ripped with Decryptor and then used IV Copy2 P to compress and burn to Ritek G04 -R media. The copy was also unplayable in both a Toshiba stand alone player, and two computer DVD drives, it would only play in a Panasonic stand alone player, I ripped a second copy with slightly different settings in IV Copy 2 and got the same result. As of last week I own a copy of CCE Basic, so I'll try that this weekend assuming I've got some free time. I didn't try this movie with DVDShrink because it wanted an hour and a half for analysis!!! X-Copy Express did the whole nine yards in 40 minutes on a 4X burner, hard to beat. I've got DVD2one, and I'll shrink one to the hard drive and compare it.
Wulfie66 Software developers who make 1 click transcoders all would like you to think that their software can make 1:1 copies. DVD movies are often cramed full of extras that contribute nothing to the enjoyment of the movie but make it harder to copy without having to sacrifice some video quality. I just edited the Haunted Mansion using DVDremake that was an actual 6.87 gigs in size (measured in 1000 megs rather than 1024 megs) and I was able to remove 380 megs from it. I was able to keep all the menus and bonus features. After having checked it to see what audio tracks it had I saw that it had both a French and Spanish soundtracks. That will allow me to remove another 500 megs from the movie, and added together that's almost a gig shaved off the movie. What that means is less compression and less compromise to the video quality. _ _ _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small] "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)[/small]
and I've been able to take Apocolypse Now Redux which is just over 8GB and put it on a dvd5 with all the extras and the quality is just as good as the original. IV dvdcopy2 has gotten the highest ratings of all the 'one-click' apps eventhough I don't use it to burn. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]ps2 v7 with fliptop and swap magic 2 pioneer a05 dvd-rw Nero Burning Rom Windows XP Pro[/small]
Wulfie66 DVDcopy 2 does a great job (I use it often) but there are those who would convince you that it doesn't. Even though you got a good copy and believe me even most highly compressed movies are way better than VHS, you nonetheless sacrificed some picture quality. There's a group of us who perhaps fall into the perfectionist trap a bit but for me it's not only about getting the best picture quality it's also about the learning experience. I am not however trying to change your mind if you're happy with your results then what more could one ask for. _X_X_X_X_X_[small] "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)[/small]
64026402, I am having some trouble figuring out where you are coming from. Sometimes you come over as a bit hardheaded about DVDCopy2, at other times you bend over backwards - and more - to be as conciliatory as can be. Why don't you just forget about DVDCopy2? You do have SHRINK, Decrypter, Rebuilder with CCE, DVDX and other programs. They should more than just meet your needs. I don't see where your equipment is inadequate. You are getting good results with the other programs. Some of us are feeling pretty happy about DVDCopy2 (including myself) but don't let that spoil your day. So what?? What difference is this going to make to your obvious search for good quality software. You already have some very good alternatives working very well for you.
siber Solid point that is well taken, and I too am seeing redflags regarding 6T4T's constant bashing of DVDcopy2 and then while sounding exasperated comes the feigned interest in trying to make it work. I don't care if you like it or not, it'll still be my first choice for small sized type 9 movies and CCE will take care of the rest. When it comes to a genuine to a real debate there is room to grow and change and to admit being right or wrong but in an argument everyone becomes right in their own minds and no one is likely to change the others view. _X_X_X_X_X_[small] "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)[/small]
wulfie, I'm glad you're happy, but no way is the quality as good on a more compressed movie than a less compressed movie, if it was there would be no need for all the re-authoring software out there. I myself like some extras, alternate endings, deleted scenes, and outtakes, so by re-authoring I still keep those and toss out the rest and IMPROVE pic quality. Also I get rid of foreign audio and director's commentary which I'll NEVER use. Sometimes in rare instances, such as the new Peter Pan, I really like all the extras and how they had used them with a unique menu, so I put extras one disc and the movie on another and put it in a double dvd case(as i told sophocles, creating my own 2-disc special collector's edition, lol). Because I like menu function i don't use shrink, it destroys this when you re-author, recode and the others don't. I have only been using remake a short while, but it has become indispensable to me. So, to quote sophocles[bold] "but in an argument everyone becomes right in their own minds and no one is likely to change the others view."[/bold] there you have it, but facts is facts, and no way a movie with 50% compression will have a pic as good as one with say 20%.
Sophocles wrote, "DVDcopy 2 does a great job (I use it often) but there are those who would convince you that it doesn't..." If that comment was directed at me in any way, then I wish to say that I don't care which of these programs WINS, I just want to find the best tools for the job. I guess "Lawrence of Arabia" at 3 hours 40+ minutes (depending on version) and a very visually "bright" movie is a real tough test. I was suprised at the performance of DVD X-Copy Express, as I was disappointed with the performance of the Intervideo product, I'm assuming that the demo version I downloaded on 06/23/04 was the same as the unrestricted version except for the 3 day limit. Of the two copies of Lawerence of Arabia I made, the Intervideo product wasn't much better a good Betamax tape, the 321 product was about halfway between DVD and tape. Also my method of comparision was to watch the same few minutes of one scene over and over again and noting the sharpness and detail of the objects in the scene. The Intervideo product is friendly but uninformative. I'd like more info on what it is doing and how. In particular I'd like to know more about whether it is using constant or variable bit rate. In an article I found linked on the Visible Light web site (CCE purchase place) it stated that variable bit rate was good for action scenes, makes sense, more change needs more info. But another article (I think on CNET.com in a review of either the Intervideo product or Instant Copy) stated that movies on DVDs are already compressed and especially long movies with action sequences are already using variable bit rate, so a CONSTANT bit rate should be used to compress and encode LONG running time movies. So maybe the poor performance of the Intervideo product on this really long movie is due to its using a variable bit rate scheme. So those of you using CCE basic, since it allows a choice of constant or variable bit rate, have any of you tried the same movie with both constant and variable bit rate settings, especially a really long movie and if so, which option was better? I'm not recommending DVD X-Copy Express either (I own Plantinum also, and consider it worthless) because 321Studios will soon be out of business (that's the word anyway), so support will be non-existant and Express still has the same problems which drove me to this board in the first place, namely it does a poor job on foreign films without an English soundtrack, and in a very few American films it will add a pause like a layer change for no apparent reason, in Chocolat' it added about 4 "layer changes" ?!@
DemonDog [bold]Sophocles wrote, "DVDcopy 2 does a great job (I use it often) but there are those who would convince you that it doesn't..." [/bold] Get a life I've taken no heed of anything you've posted at any time or on any thread. I wouldn't have this time either if Sophocles wasn't the first word in your post.To put it simply, I really haven't noticed you at all.
Demondog, I think it is obvious from the posts that 'some of us' do like DVDCopy2 for compression of 5 or 5.5Gb movies. It is fast and at that level of compression (10-20%) it does a very good job 'for us'. If I plan to compress an 8-9 Gb monster, I don't use DVDCopy2 or any other similar '1 click' software. That's where Rebuilder/CCE come in. I like to just save the movie for my copies. AFTER ALL, I do still HAVE the original if I really want to look at some of the 'Bonus Material'(!). This means I rarely have to compress that sharply. If you - on the other hand - feel the need to have 2 copies of all that 'Bonus Material', you may need to look for the right software that compresses to your liking. From all indications, that would not be DVDCopy2 for you, which is really fine with me.
Siber and Sophocles I apologize for bugging you about DVDcopy2. I am not bashing it. I just wish to get the same results you guys get. As to why, I still use shrink on a lot of midrange movies for speed but I would rather use DVDcopy2 for those if I can get good quality at a faster pace. As I get quicker with CCE and can put more power to use I can gradually increase the number of movies done with top quality. For reference I just backed up Secret Window at 55% compression on DVDcopy2. It looks very good on the screen. For that matter when I viewed the previously tested Braveheart on the tv it looked very good. This brings up the possibility that my captured image might be the problem. Anyway as long as the final product looks good on the screen I'll be happy. My Ideal setup is DVDcopy2 for the smaller movies and CCE for the bigger movies. My only concern is that I get the results from DVDcopy2. I'll have to install the demo on a couple of machines to continue burning. I had one other question for those who own DVDcopy2. Can you change the burned dvd size? I didn't see where. Also, Is the Platinum worth the extra or is the 50 dollar version OK.
64026402 I really am unfamiliar with the $50 version. I always buy the top of almost everything whether I'll use its features or not. I got curious about DiVx again because of the Platimum version, the result is home theatre compliant and burnt onto one CD. Now I'm going to have to buy a DiVx complaint DVD player and I will make some travel backups that will be really no loss if they get damaged. I haven't tried the VCD function yet but I will because my wife has an old collection musical videos.
6402.....No, you cannot change target size in the purchased version, it is set at 4.7, they are working to change this. _X_X_X_X_X_[small] [bold]GO VOLS![/bold]........Dell Media4600, XP home,Pentium 4 @2.80GHz/800Mz, 512MB, 280 HD w/8MB, 17" flat panel, AIO-A920, 8x DVD-ROM, integrated 5.1 audio, HP dc4000, Plextor PX-708UF[/small]
Sophocles Sounds like demondog credited you with something I might have said. I remember saying something along those lines somewhere. [bold]"DVDcopy 2 does a great job (I use it often) but there are those who would convince you that it doesn't..."[/bold] Only I always write it as DVDCopy2 with the 2 attached (usually). Another interesting fact is that I own DVDXCopy Platinum with Xpress in the suite. Like the advanced but rarely use the Xpress. I know this program well as I have owned and used it for a long time. Makes me wonder about Demondog. He swears by Xpress but says he owns Platinum to and it is worthless. Sort of funny as Xpress is part of the Platinum suite along with the advanced X Copy. Anyway his talk of Xpress and other 321 software reminds me of the test results we observed at the test site you supplied the URL for. The interesting point was that Xpress did the job on long movies but sufferred from quality loss on large movies. Only they rated DVDCopy2 as superior. Anyway I find it interesting he speaks more of tests than actual findings. The findings he does come up with seem erroneous. I often get better results on some software than the socalled testers. I am just curious where he found a copy of Lawrence he could use Express to copy whole. I have the latest release from Columbia and it is a two disc set. Unless he found a copy of Lawrence I don't know of, he didn't use Xpress to copy the whole original from DVD. You're talking well over 9GB for the original tracks and Xpress, even though good, isn't up to that task. That movie seems to be his prime example. BTW, I backed up the individual disks with DVDXCopy Platinum and the quality is very good. Must be in owning it and knowing how to use it. It was compressed and both discs are at maximum capacity. He goes on to say that he also owns Platinum and finds it worthless. I hate to tell him, but Xpress is part of the Platinum suite. DVD X Copy advanced in the Platinum is far from worthless. It's editing properties are quick and the video quality is excellent. I speak from long experience with the program. I started with the original and upgraded with each new version. Still have the program and it does excellent work. Anything in the 5 to 6GB range (that I want to edit) usually gets done in this if I am in a hurry and still want good quality. I have only had DVDCopy2 for a few weeks. My experiences with it are positive. I did LOTR-Return of the King and the quality was excellent. One could almost reach out and touch the knap of the velvet cloaks. If the quality had not been good I would have only seen a purple cloak, not the purple velvet. The entire film was a rich video experience, and IV DVDCopy2 did an excellent job of capturing it. I only had one negative experience and that was when I fed IV a poor quality video file. Seems the bad can be exaggerated as well as the good. As far as a fast and good copy software, this one could be a favorite. Sounds good until you listen to what is being said. Support for the 321 software. True, due to legal constraints 321 no longer supports the old ripper software. Surprisingly though, even before the lost case, there was a reference to AD for aid with problems. The best support probably resides here at AD. He did get one thing right. Unless you have the files saved to reactivate your software, you're in trouble. 321 no longer activates the old software with a ripper. I have never had a problem with 321 encountering problems with layers. Then again I'm not a foreign film afficianado. Makes me wonder though, what is it about the foreign films that causes the problem. Could it be a problem with what's going in as much as what's coming out? Instead of quoting a lot of tests, I think it would behoove Demondog to do more testing and speak of his own test results. A lot of the tests can be wrong and results can vary according to equipment. The only problem I ever encountered with 321 was software interference. As far as the quality, I don't know of many who knocked that. Used within its limits, it is a good program. Most people that had problems were concerned with keeping the program going, not the video quality. Not the best for the mega size movies. Platinum can edit to improve quality by reducing compression. The Xpress either automaticly edits with no user input or records the whole DVD (a one button wonder trait). Sounds like demondog needs more work and less reading. Appearances might dictate he learn more of what he speaks before tackling the more complicated CCE.
well, if anyone cares, there is a comparison of all the 'one click' dvd copy programs out there...I think it's a pretty fair comparison too.. http://www.dvd.box.sk/articles8.php?stranka=1
Below are the test software and version numbers. I am as capable at testing software as was done on this test. Plus my programs are shown on a 60" screen. So any flaws really get exaggerated. Placing Recode2 in the same category with Shrink and saying CloneDVD was slightly better is one of the worst errors I note. I and several others have had enough success with Recode2 to dispell this assumption. By the way, I own and have used all the programs with the exception of Pinnacle InstantCopy v. 7.0, and Matrix DVD PAL. Also, these are one button tests and Recode2 has an editing function as well. This test only concentrated on the one button ability and I can't say I agree with all the results. I speak from experience and like results of other members here at AD. Big movie recoding quality test Test setup Ahead Nero Recode 2 ver. 2.0.0.7 Elaborate Bytes CloneDVD v.1.3.11.2 download DVD X Copy XPRESS download DVD2one v. 1.40 download DVD Shrink v. 1.3.1 download Pinnacle InstantCopy v. 7.0 InterVideo DVD Copy v. 1.2 Matrix DVD PAL Closing evaluation If you have carefully read this test, then the victor is clear, and that would be the program from the firm InterVideo DVD Copy. As I have mentioned in the test, on this programs the producers advertise the technology UniPass. The use of this patented technology has made DVD Copy the clear winner, not only for its quality, but for speed of back up. Judged against InstantCopy it is several times faster. The next duo who sit in second and third places are the programs DVD X XPRESS and DVD2one. These programs achieved very similar results as for not arriving at pixelization and vertical lines. Especially DVD X Copy XPRESS surprised with its results and its overall third place shared with DVD2one is deserved. Sitting in the final spots are a trio of programs. They are to a great extent used and loved for their managing, pleasant environment. I am disappointed by the result of DVD Shrink, this freeware program could have deserved a better placing, but the quality of its output was low, that`s a shame. Similar results were offered by Nero Recode 2 so they both finished in last place. For the debris, and debris only, Clone DVD finished slightly higher in second last place. The prizes have been awarded, and the winners and losers may exit stage left, but we in the hall still have something to say and that is that not only the quality, but also the speed and options of back up programs are interesting for us users, so eventually a comparison of speed and features of individual programs will appear. As individual producers issue their newer versions for their programs, we will test their quality as well. [bold]It is tests like this that a lot of Newbies read and then come back and try to tell the forums all they know and have learned.[/bold] _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
