DVD Shrink replacement

TIMUH! · 2 Feb 2008 at 11:26

I've been using DVD shrink for years and its been ok. But I wondered what people would recommend that does the same job?

Ir if there is more than one utility that combined do the same thing in compressing the files for single layer DVD.

I've looked at the utilities thread but there is a huge list of options.

jbloggs · 2 Feb 2008 at 11:44

If DVD Shrink does what you wish it too do (ie. shrink a >4482MB DVD to <4482MB), is there any point in looking for anything else?

I have not come across any freeware utility as good as DVD Shrink for doing this.

SUPER "may" do this for you..

DVDFab Platinum does this but it is not free.

I'm sure somebody else may have suggestions...

swinnie · 2 Feb 2008 at 11:52

"if it ain't broke don't fix it"

If DVD Shrink does what you want it to do, or part of, then leave it.

DVD Shrink is brilliant!

SexyGreyFox · 2 Feb 2008 at 13:43

DVD Fab Platinum is superb.
If the files are on your hard drive thgen my favourite is DVD2One.

crazyDAJT · 2 Feb 2008 at 14:13

DVD Shrink is grate, i love the way it used NERO to compress and burn the DVD in one, just means you can just leave it, on my P4 it did take about 40 mins to do the compression, and about 25 to burn it.

haven't used it on my new rig yet. i think my overclocked Q6600 would get the job done a bit quicker, thats if it can use mutable cores... will give it a try when i get my ram back on monday.

SexyGreyFox · 2 Feb 2008 at 14:49

crazyDAJT said:
DVD Shrink is grate, i love the way it used NERO to compress and burn the DVD in one,

It doesn't use Nero for compressing.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 14:55

dmpoole said:
It doesn't use Nero for compressing.

indeed; DVD Shrink does all the hard work - Nero just burns it.

If DVD Shrink works for the DVDs you want to 'back up' (?) then there is nothing better. There are some newer DVDs which it doesn't work on nowadays though.

fini · 2 Feb 2008 at 14:59

/\ True, that's why I always run DVDs through Ripit4Me first (although there are supposed to be some DVDs it can't do either, but I've yet to find any).

swinnie · 2 Feb 2008 at 15:00

If there are any DVDs that won't rip for me I just take an image of the disc using Sonic. Works a treat.

crazyDAJT · 2 Feb 2008 at 16:12

dmpoole said:
It doesn't use Nero for compressing.

I do know this.

I just like the way you can just set it up, go to the pub and then come back and you have a nice backup.

kidloco · 2 Feb 2008 at 17:31

I use CloneDVD with AnyDVD, worth the small fee IMO

SexyGreyFox · 2 Feb 2008 at 17:54

There is an argument (and one that I've seen loads of times) that programmes that do the encoding straight from the disk are poorer quality than if you do it from the files on a hard drive.
In fact, try it with DVD Shrink.
Do one conversion that goes straight from a disk to the HD.
Do another where you first put the files on the HD and then convert from there.
In the days of P4's and AMD2800+ I can confirm that it was way better to convert off the HD but I haven't tried since I had a Q6600.

dirtydog · 2 Feb 2008 at 17:56

I can't see why it would possibly make a difference?

NathanE · 2 Feb 2008 at 18:03

dmpoole said:
There is an argument (and one that I've seen loads of times) that programmes that do the encoding straight from the disk are poorer quality than if you do it from the files on a hard drive.
In fact, try it with DVD Shrink.
Do one conversion that goes straight from a disk to the HD.
Do another where you first put the files on the HD and then convert from there.
In the days of P4's and AMD2800+ I can confirm that it was way better to convert off the HD but I haven't tried since I had a Q6600.

There is no difference. We are talking about digital technology here... a read request upon the CD drive is a read request. Whether it originates from Windows Explorer or Nero or DVD Shrink.

SexyGreyFox · 11 Feb 2008 at 21:03

NathanE said:
There is no difference. We are talking about digital technology here... a read request upon the CD drive is a read request. Whether it originates from Windows Explorer or Nero or DVD Shrink.

Lets go back four years (give or take).
One of the first free progs was DVD Shrink and my machine at the time was an AMD 2800+.
I can absolutely 100% verify that ripping to the HD first would give better results than ripping straight from the DVD and the VCD/DVD Help forums also confirmed it because thats where i got it from.
I must admit that since those days and with a Quad Core I haven't experimented because I still decrypt first and encode after because of my results 4+ years ago.

C4EVA · 11 Feb 2008 at 23:04

dmpoole said:
There is an argument (and one that I've seen loads of times) that programmes that do the encoding straight from the disk are poorer quality than if you do it from the files on a hard drive.
In fact, try it with DVD Shrink.
Do one conversion that goes straight from a disk to the HD.
Do another where you first put the files on the HD and then convert from there.
In the days of P4's and AMD2800+ I can confirm that it was way better to convert off the HD but I haven't tried since I had a Q6600.

Makes no difference what-so-ever too quality ...... period.
Also DVDShrink is a TRANScoder and not an encoder, hence the poor quality when required to compress a significant amount.

SexyGreyFox · 12 Feb 2008 at 13:27

C4EVA said:
Makes no difference what-so-ever too quality ...... period.
Also DVDShrink is a TRANScoder and not an encoder, hence the poor quality when required to compress a significant amount.

Woteva.

Going back 4+ years with a transcoder or encoder there was a difference in quality between straight off the HD or straight off the disk.
This is the reason I still do it now although I now concede that technology has now caught up.
If the VCD Help forums have old posts you will see that this was a main subject many moons ago.