I'll bite

[Chewy]

no guides or links to home page

exactly what does the program do in plain english?

[jwo62]

Hi Chewy,

the phrase "I'll bite" could be somewhat threatening coming from a wookie :).

thank you for pointing out that I failed to post even basic info on the program,I guess I assumed everyone new what it was :smashead:.

I have now posted a sticky with a breif description of the programs capabilities.

in short,its a transcoder. it is in fact the first transcoder that was available,before even IC, D95C and DvdS. the "oneclick backup sub form at doom9 was started initially for this program (dvd2one is still in the sub forum description).

the program does not now,nor has it ever ,included a ripper.

only encryption free titles may be used with this program. neither the author or I will offer any assistance with breaking encryption.

free trial versions are available :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PC version, Windows 2000 and XP
http://www.dvd2one.com/files/setup_dvd2one213.exe

Mac OS-X 10.3.9 and 10.4, Universal Binary
http://www.dvd2one.com/files/dvd2onex213.zip

[Chewy]

does it only make iso's? not big on those

[jwo62]

no,it will also do files and or burn.

[locoeng]

Here is a pretty good comparison chewy...

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/343299

I've not used it, but wouldn't mind giving it a go at some point.

[evdberg]

no,it will do files and or burn.

Actually it can make ISOs ... and even better, DVD2one makes them on-the-fly. So no need to first create a fileset and then convert it to an ISO, the process is just in one go. I am not sure, but I do not think there are other progs that can do this.

[evdberg]

A small bit of history:

I was not really one of the first to step into dvd burning. My first drive was the Sony 500a, the first + and - combo drive. The need to create DVD2one came quite soon after buying the drive, with the 5th or 6th dvd I tried to copy. The problem? Well, it did not fit on a single layer recordable, even after processing it as movie-only with Darrow's IfoEdit. I called a friend, and asked how he proceeded. He came up with a long and complicated process involving lots of tools, of which one was a very expensive mpeg-2 encoder. I tried this encoder once, but canceled the procedure as the estimated time was more than 10 hours. This was clearly not the way to go. I knew roughly how mpeg video encoding worked, and had an idea. I read through the mpeg-2 specs to see if it was possible, and it seemed so. After that I decided to give it a try and started coding ...

The fun thing is that when I had the engine working and told another friend about it, he claimed that something like this already existed. He send me a scan from the november edition of C'T magazin about VOBs Instant Copy. I felt pretty bad, because I never had thought of it that others were also on the same track. Luckily from the report it seemed that IC was much slower. So I finished my product, made a new website and released the worlds first one-click dvd copy tool ... what happened after the release I will tell another time ...

[jwo62]

Here is a pretty good comparison chewy...

http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/343299

I've not used it, but wouldn't mind giving it a go at some point.

hi locoeng,

This mainly is comparing hc and procoder and cce,which are encoders. programs like dvd2one,d95c clonedvd are transcoders. its not a true comparison.

i am also not sure it reflects the latest version of d2o.

[locoeng]

I'm sure the version used is older than current, but it is a good side by side comparison between the encoders and transcoders IMHO.

[jwo62]

I'm sure the version used is older than current, but it is a good side by side comparison between the encoders and transcoders IMHO.


True,i think encoders almost always look better than transcoders,but you pay for it and it takes much longer.

[Gary D]

What is exactly the difference between an encoder and a transcoder??????

The terms sound similar and sometimes used interchangeably in different posts. (Maybe wrongly)

[soup]

http://www.free-codecs.com/guides/Whats_the_difference_between_decoding_encoding_rec oding_and_transcoding.htm

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40159.html

[blutach]

@Gary D

Easiest way to explain this is to consider the source. Transcoding takes an original source and takes away stuff to lower the bitrate. The discarded stuff is determined by the program's algorithm, which might cosider high motion scenes etc. This process may introduce artifacts in scenes which require high bitrates. Top 2 pass transcoders figure this out and can produce very high quality results, particularly if the quant is low.

Encoding takes the source and builds up a complete new video from the bottom up, distributing the (lower number of) bits to a higher quant. This almost universally produces a higher quality video output, depending on the quality of the encoder. Top quality ones are Procoder, CCE, HCEnc.

Believe it or not, as film is transferred into a DVD via MPEG2 encoding, there are qualified "compressionists" whose job it is to ensure the artefacts are minimised and the bitrate and quant is set to ensure a high quality picture. These folks are reputed to attract pretty good $$$ for the painstaking work they must do.

This (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=63587) is a very good thread that further explains things.

Regards

[anonymez]

To transcode something is to decode, then encode, ie the source and output are compressed. Most of the time, when someone says "encoding" they should really say "transcoding". DVD to MPEG4, FLAC to AAC, DVD9 to DVD5 with DVD Rebuilder, etc are all examples of transcoding. If you are encoding then your source is uncompressed, which is rarely the case when working with video (but then you could argue the decoding is not part of the process and that the encoder is being fed uncompressed content anyway).

However we still refer to Shrink as a transcoder and DVDRB as using encoders. In this case, transcoders (compressed domain) might first do a quick analysis of all the GOPs, determine where the most bits are needed and adjusts quantizers accordingly. Encoders (spatial domain), on the other hand, redo the whole thing from scratch. They take longer but generally have better quality output.

Edit: Dammit Les! http://img438.imageshack.us/img438/2631/tongue2qu.gif

[elizerrojas]

I'm glad there is now a thread about dvd2one on this forum. i have been using this program since V. 1.52 which i still use. and now i use V. 2.1.3. this little program is very fast, and has a very good quality output. in my view, it produces the same results as shrink and recode2 but it takes less time.

[jwo62]

I'm glad there is now a thread about dvd2one on this forum. i have been using this program since V. 1.52 which i still use. and now i use V. 2.1.3. this little program is very fast, and has a very good quality output. in my view, it produces the same results as shrink and recode2 but it takes less time.

Hi elizerrojas,


It was your post at D9 that got me thinking about a new sub forum here for D2o.


:toast:

[elizerrojas]

Hi elizerrojas,


It was your post at D9 that got me thinking about a new sub forum here for D2o.


:toast:

thanks jwo62.

[Chewy]

OK, at what compression does the "quicker engine" start to deliver a unsatisfactory result?

[elizerrojas]

Can't really answer that question, all i can tell you that last week, can't remember what movie was it, shrink read a compression level of 54%( 46% actual compression), i did this movie with dvd2one V. 213 and i notice no difference between the original and the copy in my 36 inch TV.

[elizerrojas]

this program produces closed to similar quality to shrink or recode2(with AEC and deep analysis) but in about one fourth of the time. it also has its own burning engine.

[Chewy]

very interesting, but let's not talk about "forbidden programs"

the burning engine is of no interest for me since I distrust doing anything before I verify the results of a transcode or a conversion

thanls Eliz..., I am a hard sell and your reccomendation carries a lot of weight

[elizerrojas]

if you do a search, you find a comparison between many programs including dvd2one. In that comparison, dvdone was trashed because it was matched up against encoders like procoder, cce and others. that was an unfair match up, we all know encoders do a better job than transcoders but they also take much much time. dvd2one can transcode a three our movie under 30 minutes. i would like to see dvd2one compare with other transcoders. see you chewy.

[evdberg]

On my entry level iMac processing usually take 8-9 minutes per disk ... :-)
In V2.0.4 (see revision history) I improved the speed of DVD2one, and the speed of DVD2oneX even more. I even have some small ideas that may improve the speed even a bit more, but I am not sure if that is usefull to invest more time in.

I recommend you always use 'Best quality' mode. The fast mode may be a bit quicker if little compression is needed, but with more compression the speed is the same and the image quality less. Maybe I should just remove the fast mode from the program ...

I tested the engine lots of times with heavy compression, testing the result on a 42" plasma screen, and I was always quite happy with the result (with the best quality engine that is, not with the fast mode) ... and yes, I am picky on image quality!

[elizerrojas]

good to see the admin of the dvd2one site in here. on question i have is. the program is fast enough, i would like to use it at its slowest speed for better results, what settings should i use. thanks.

[evdberg]

^^^ Please always use 'Best quality' mode, as recommended in the post above.

[photo_angel2004]

On my entry level iMac processing usually take 8-9 minutes per disk ... :-)
I tested the engine lots of times with heavy compression, testing the result on a 42" plasma screen, and I was always quite happy with the result (with the best quality engine that is, not with the fast mode) ... and yes, I am picky on image quality!

I am worried about that 8 to 9 minutes? how can the quality be that high that fast?

I have a HD 60" screen quality means a lot to me 8 minutes means nothing to me. What do you consider high quality? Do you have screen shot comparisons?
Thanks:toast:

[locoeng]

I posted a link to the comparisons here (http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=535874&postcount=5) Carla...please disregard the encoding quality pics....the link shows both encoders and transcoders as a comparison and I know they are in two separate classes, but the results of the different transcoders can still be seen there side by side. That was my original intent of posting the link, but no one seemed to catch it.

[evdberg]

I am worried about that 8 to 9 minutes? how can the quality be that high that fast?

The iMac has a dual core processor, and DVD2one is using them both.

I have a HD 60" screen quality means a lot to me 8 minutes means nothing to me. What do you consider high quality?


HD-DVD? :-) For DVD2one I was happy with the result if I would not see noticeable (distracting) artifacts on my screen from normal viewing distance. Some people play 'spot the artifact', and they will always see something ...


@locoeng: interesting comparison, especially the one with Frodo ...

[locoeng]

I thought it was a good comparison...even though I think most thought I was trying to compare apples to oranges. You still get to see the transcoders side by side.

[Jack Lurker]

I use D2O for some movies and get a perfectly good picture with no apparent quality loss with compression levels around 60 - 65% on my 38". It's always a preference thing in my book, some people will stick to Nero/Shrink no matter what and others will try alternatives. My weapon of choice is Rebuilder but sometimes time is a factor so I will go with D2O and am perfectly happy with the output.

[elizerrojas]

just did "Black Snake Moan" with dvd2one V. 2.1.3, i did the whole disc, left the movie soundtrack only and english subs. the actual compression was 43%, i see no difference between the original and the copy in my 36 inch TV. maybe with a larger TV i would, don't know. it took dvd2one about 25 minutes. 43% compression is very high in my view, dvd2one handle it just fine.

[photo_angel2004]

I posted a link to the comparisons here (http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=535874&postcount=5) Carla...please disregard the encoding quality pics....the link shows both encoders and transcoders as a comparison and I know they are in two separate classes, but the results of the different transcoders can still be seen there side by side. That was my original intent of posting the link, but no one seemed to catch it.

Looks like I may have to play with this one a bit.
and thanks for the link to the link LOL.:)

@evdberg,
Thanks for the info:)

[locoeng]

You are very welcome Carla

[NightTran]

is dvd2one is really that good less then one hour and creat good quality?

Thanks

[elizerrojas]

is dvd2one is really that good less then one hour and creat good quality?

Thanks


What?

[Chewy]

a translation,
is dvd2one really that good that it can do a heavy compression is less than an hour without losing quality?

to test and use the trial version simply chose a video of less than 2 hours and then set your target
size to custom, say you have 5 gigs of video and 300 megs of audio

target size of 4.3 would be 80%

3.3 would be ~60%

2.8 would be ~50%

I reduced a 4.2 gig set of files to 3 gigs this morning in a similar test, only took 5 1/2 minutes with my
lame OC'd xp mobile(@2200)

[Chewy]

I pushed it a little further with a higher quality set of files
1hr 35 min at 4.2 gigs

3.9gigs video x .6

after adding back the audio I set size to 2700 MB
using a system that 50% faster it took a little over 7 minutes

other programs would take an hour

I really could not tell any difference in this ~60% compression, maybe a slight fuzziness on faster motion video

[elizerrojas]

So, it seems that we finally have a program that achieves both, speed while producing quality output as that of (or near to)shrink and recode2.

[Chewy]

my next test will be to lower ouptut size to 2200MB
that should be equivalent to 54% compression from my original test of the whole video which was 3 hrs long

I expect to see a dramatic increase in time with some video degradation
My original test with the other program took over 2 hours for high quality
output

[locoeng]

I batch encoded season two of Deadwood...the first disc was only 29% compression, full disc only removed foreign audio and subs and kept menus etc. Didn't check the other discs, but they each had more content (extra episode each disc). It took and hour to do all four discs...I will burn the results onto discs tonight and check the quality.

[Chewy]

well test 2 is complete, dvd2one only took 7 and 1/2 minutes to compress the 4.2 gig original to 2.3 gigs and the output showed very little degradation in quality, I then tested the other program with the same output size and no extra quality settings, it took 8 1/2 minutes and the output was unacceptable.

I hate to be a doubting thomas here but seeing is believing, loco's link didn't really show me enough detail to see any significant differences.

:thumbs_up:bowing::clap:

[photo_angel2004]

well test 2 is complete, dvd2one only took 7 and 1/2 minutes to compress the 4.2 gig original to 2.3 gigs and the output showed very little degradation in quality, I then tested the other program with the same output size and no extra quality settings, it took 8 1/2 minutes and the output was unacceptable.

I hate to be a doubting thomas here but seeing is believing, loco's link didn't really show me enough detail to see any significant differences.

:thumbs_up:bowing::clap:



Good morning chewy,

Have you tested this with a larger file size yet?

I may have to give this a try with a 4 hour flick and see how it does with time and quality.
:toast:

[locoeng]

Maybe we could get our own screen capture comparison thread going here..

[Chewy]

it's not going to make any difference what size file set you start with, the trial is limited to 2 hours of video tho

all I was trying to do a perform a test anyone could duplicate before buying the registered version

4 hours is overdoing it tho, even a full encoder would drop the ball

3 hours is pushing the programs limits

loco, I wouldn't suggest that

[photo_angel2004]

it's not going to make any difference what size file set you start with, the trial is limited to 2 hours of video thoall I was trying to do a perform a test anyone could duplicate before buying the registered version

4 hours is overdoing it tho, even a full encoder would drop the ball

3 hours is pushing the programs limits

loco, I wouldn't suggest that

Thanks for that info chewy,

Looks like I wont be trying that anytime soon, If I cant try it with what I want it for then the FREE trial is 100% useless. good to know now I wont bother downloading the free trial after all.
I will stick with what I have for the time being.:toast::p:toast:

[locoeng]

We could do two of them anyway :D

[Chewy]

If I cant try it with what I want

you seem to be missing the point about testing with the trial

to test a 4 hour vid just start with 2 hours of it and compress to 2300 MB

[photo_angel2004]

you seem to be missing the point about testing with the trial

to test a 4 hour vid just start with 2 hours of it and compress to 2300 MB

you have a point there, just seems like too much messing around I will think on it. LOL

I guess I am so spoiled with freeware that the thought of paying is .... not normal anymore. LOL

:toast::p:toast:

[Chewy]

you would have to justify the expense in time saved, I wish I had been using the program earlier, I have split way too many projects up

the 5.1 sound kills you when you get above 3 hours of video

[photo_angel2004]

you would have to justify the expense in time saved, I wish I had been using the program earlier, I have split way too many projects up

the 5.1 sound kills you when you get above 3 hours of video


Do explaine please?

[locoeng]

Because it is so big...

[Chewy]

well I just tested a 3 1/2 hr video set, the sound is 700+ MB that won't compress

the program reads 43% video compression

I changed from default best quality/auto(medium) to best quality/high and it's added a few minutes to the total time

considering the time was 14 minutes vs 2-3 hours with other programs and the output was only slightly degraded I would consider even this extreme test a success

[photo_angel2004]

What I ment was is it just this program that kills the 5.1 with longer video?

All of my discs over 2 hours all have 5.1 with no problems.

But I have not used this one yet.

[jwo62]

What I ment was is it just this program that kills the 5.1 with longer video?

All of my discs over 2 hours all have 5.1 with no problems.

But I have not used this one yet.


he means the size of the audio takes up a lot of valuable space ;)

[Chewy]

my tests with ~50% compression with fast settings and the other program showed noticable blurring and were slightly slower to boot

I would only compare transcoders

[jwo62]

it's not going to make any difference what size file set you start with, the trial is limited to 2 hours of video tho

all I was trying to do a perform a test anyone could duplicate before buying the registered version

4 hours is overdoing it tho, even a full encoder would drop the ball

3 hours is pushing the programs limits


the most extreme test I did with D2o was joining the fellowship ext.ed. discs.
I removed all but the main audio track.

it had obviuos macro blocks in dark scenes ,but it was watchable. especially on my 5 inch portable dvd player .

[elizerrojas]

Hi Chewy,:mornin:

Q: So are you comparing D2O with DVDRB!?!?

I did ran a test between D2O and DVD? and set my Compression at 50% ... Times were the same ... and I only noticed a "Coloring" difference ... where D2O shows closer to Original Video and DVD? was a lot "Warmer" color ... kind of difference that you see between a print picture on Kodak (Warmer) or Fuji (Cooler) film ... if you know what I mean.

But nonetheless ... with D2O still means "double" the work.

Thanks,
G! :smile:

Do explain again please. what are you saying. dvd2one double the work? by the way, we are comparing transcoders only. Rebuilder, with a encoder, no question will produce better picture quality but at "hours of work" price.

[blutach]

Macroblocks in dark scenes where bitrates drop below 2500 are a fact of life. They need to be encoded very carefully.

Of course, most times, the dark video in the movie is encoded at a high enough BR and low quant so the blockiness is not apparent. But in the credits, you can often see it easily. The question is, how much does it matter if a black piece of video in the credits has macroblocks?

Regards

[locoeng]

I typically turn off the movie when the credits start rolling anyway...unless I'm looking for an unknown actor. :D