Compression experiment

[setarip]

"I'm not refering to your original response. I'm refering to every other response since then. Since your initial response, every other response fits in with the 'nothing else better to do' catagory."

Just to set the record straight:

1) I didn't ask you, "what happened to the original dvd?"

2) I didn't raise the question of the rules of the forum (YOU did)

[LT. Columbo]

the maynard

"Why do you ask? It's funny how, out of everything that was posted here, data, ideas and pictures that this is the only thing that has peaked anyone's interests. What was posted has, in no way, violated the rules of this board, especially rule #6. Saying that I no longer have the original DVD is no different than saying "I downloaded a movie and want to know how to burn it to VCD."

So, to answer your question as to what happened to the original I just have to say that it's none of your concern"

thank you for making me laugh i needed that....really. you generated a novel here out of one sentence.....nobody here was out to get you. (well at least not me)

[ger@co]

To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "[He] doth protest too much, methinks."

Later.

[blutach]

Actually, an important and vital point here ger@co:

It was the LADY who protests too much

Regards

[blutach]

As for The Maynard, not being a mod, and seeing the thread is open, I will not, and believe I have no right to, comment. My understanding is that we if suspect piracy, we are to report the posts to the mods/admin and I have ceased questioning posters long ago.

So Maynard, what exactly is your point?

Regards

[ger@co]

Originally posted by blutach
It was the LADY who protests too much

Yes, indeed it was. That's why I said paraphrase and enclosed [He], as such, in square brackets to denote my alteration of the original quote.

Later.

[The Maynard]

OK. No more protestings. No more arguing. If I assumed an attitude that was not present then I appologize. It just seems that the same people that responded here are the same ones that seem to (at least to me) have a negative attitude to alot of posters here. I may just be imagining attitudes that are not intended. So let's get back to the original topic of this thread and that is: Finding a better way to make better looking compressed DVDs.

Again, sorry for the drama. Attitudes off.

[The Maynard]

I am in the proccess of doing this experiment on Star Wars Episode 2 and will post the results here again.

[setarip]

"So the final size of the Divx disc would be 3.22GB and the Shrink disc would be 4.46GB."

If, in fact, the two DVD "packages" are actually of IDENTICAL visual quality, this would simply indicate that you could/should have obtained the same results by using DVD Shrink to compress the ORIGINAL, commercial DVD to 3.22Gb...

[The Maynard]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking but because I'm not entirely positive on this I wanted to get one movie that would require ALOT of compression and then take some pics of a divx version and the shrink version just to see. Because, so far, I am noticing either the same or slightly better results using Divx.
Granted, it takes ALOT longer to do but I'm checking it out with Ep2 right now.

[The Maynard]

OK. Here are the pics of Episode 2. Once again, they are in BMP format and are slightly large in filesize. This is to ensure no further compression of the picture. It would be easier if you saved them on you computer so you could zoom in and see for yourself all the minor details of each picture to compare better.

So far this is what I've noticed. Divx is either the same, slightly better or slightly worse depending on the scene. I've noticed slightly richer colors and better detail in some pictures but in others I've noticed more blockiness. I've also noticed that where there is some blockiness in the Shrink version that those blocks are too smoothed over in the Divx version, giving the impression of being blured.

Overall, I think Setarip may be right in his last statement that the Divx results would probably be equal to Shrink if Shrink was made to compress down to the same file size as Divx.

This was a pretty decent experiment even though the results kinda go against what I originally thought. Better to be proven wrong than to not be proven right. Shrink does an excellent job on its own but in the long run I guess it's up to the individual to decide what would be better for them.

So here are the pics.

[The Maynard]

Here are some more pics.

[The Maynard]

AAANND a couple more.

[The Maynard]

The main thing that I've noticed is that on small points of light Divx smooths them out ALOT compared to Shrink. But these are little points of light that are too small to notice the difference to begin with. That's the whole point of Divx and any compression really: To remove useless things that you wouldn't even notice anyway.

[setarip]

"Overall, I think Setarip may be right in his last statement that the Divx results would probably be equal to Shrink if Shrink was made to compress down to the same file size as Divx."

Glad to hear that ;>}