DVD Rebuilder v Nero Recode at Low Compression

[MrE_H]

Hi guys,

Apologies if this has been asked before. I have a dvd and after removing some stuff with VobBlanker Nero Recode says that it is compressing to 90%. Is it still worth using Rebuilder and CCE or is the quality difference really only noticable at higher compression.

Also is there a definative guide to the quantization, GOP and advanced settings that are the best ones to use. Seems to be a lot of contradictory information around.

Cheers

Mr E

[blutach]

90% and it is not a big deal. What's the average bit rate of the video? If it's gunna be above 3500kbps go ahead and use Recode.

Regards

[MrE_H]

I believe the bitrate of the main movie is around 3900kbs so I think Recode will be the one.

I have another DVD to do and that gets around 60% in recode so I will use rebuilder for that.

Cheers

Mr E

[UncasMS]

i agree with blu

with a high bitrate recode/shrink may be a good idea as they are faster and i wont say their quality would be unacceptable

[MrE_H]

Cool - thanks guys. I will try Rebuilder with my other DVD but recode this one.

[blutach]

There's a neat little tool called Videocalc to check your bitrate - get it here.

Regards

[MrE_H]

Thanks for the help guys. Did it in Recode last night and looks cool.

That bitrate calculator is great blutach as I have a couple of XVid videos to convert. I did start to write my own in C# but would rather trust someone elses maths than my own

Cheers

[BR7]

I agree Recode 2 does a great job I am very impressed by it IMO you get an even better picture if you set it to Max Sharp these are some of my results keep in mind the compression was at 60%

[blutach]

@Mr E_H



Regards

[apfraats]

If youre happy with the results don't bother about the tool, but there one big difference between recode/shrink and DVD-RB that schould be taken into consideration.

Shrink/recode doens't do real encoding, it just merely makes the bitrate lower by leaving out information over the whole stream.

So if you compress to about 60% every part of the stream get's down to 60% bitrate of the original.

DVD-RB however, does a real encode if you use a real encoder, so it's bitrate distribution is not linear to the original, but depending on the demands of the scene played. This is calles VBR and will adjust the remaining bitrate to the demands of the scene just in encode.

If there is a lot of action, DVD-RB will adjust the bitrates to almost reach the original. If there are scenes that are more static it will lower bitrates a lot, so the average will be the same.

So DVD-RB takes in account the nature of the source stream.

Both SHRINK and RECODE will not. If they cut down to 70%, they cut every part of the bitstream down to 70%.

In high demanding high motion scenes this will definetely result in blockiness pictures, if the source hasn't some kind of overrated bitrates used, which in most cases isn't happening.

This will not say the result is always bad, but sure it will say that DVD-RB will try to get the best out of it, adjusting the bitrate to the demands of the scene.

If you have a source that already has VBR with little overhead, even cutting down 20% can result in blockiness pictures in these scenes if you use a transcoder like SHRINK or RECODE.

If quality is youre absolute first goal, use DVD-RB.

If speed is important to you, use SHRINK, but quality can suffer much more.

It's Time for Quality, or Quality for Time, the choice is yours...

[nwg]

I have used both DVD-RB and Shrink from the very first day they came out. On average, I find that most DVD's with up to 30% compression (70% in Shrink) will be very similar for quality in both Shrink and DVD-RB ouput. Therefore, I only use DVD-RB when I have compression of at least 40%.

There are some exceptions from time to time where the Shrink and DVD-RB will be similar at 50% because the average bitrate is very high to start with. The Rock R2 is a good example of this. I did a backup with both DD 5.1 and DTS 5.1 with 50% compression and I cannot tell the difference between the two. This is on a 80" widscreen image as well.

I think the quality of Shrink and Recode is very similar most of the time so, I prefer to use Shrink. Recode is about 20% faster though.

[jeo]

so it's bitrate distribution is not linear to the original, but depending on the demands of the scene played...

some months ago i read that dvd-rb encode cell by cell(somewhere in doom9(over the rainbow)) and don't know if still working in this way in the new versions.
if still encoding cell by cell,i can imagine one big cell with low actions and another short cell with extreme actions.
excuse me all to ask because i never test dvd-rb:
encoding cell by cell give good result??

[UncasMS]

it still works like this and it still provides excellent quality

[jeo]

it still works like this and it still provides excellent quality

i can trust but could be better encoding the whole cells together and not one by one???
i think because:

i can imagine one big cell with low actions and another short cell with extreme actions.

why not if encoding the whole cells for better distribuitions(VBR)?
take a look here if you don't understood what i mean: http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...2&postcount=19

please explain me why, i need to understand.
thanks.

[UncasMS]

please explain me why

explain what?