I'll bite

[locoeng]

We could do two of them anyway

[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

[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
________
Montana Dispensaries

[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 .
________
Portable Vaporier Review

[elizerrojas]

Hi Chewy,

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!

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.