That was a quick nuke!

Claims CCE was used. Anyone know why it was nuked already? Makes you wonder if it is a legit nuke...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

That was a fast and firm nuke... I'm not even bothering checking this one out...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Are these guys serious? Who propers with using DVDShrink?? Geeze.. Nuked on every site... Thought it was a joke at first, kinda funny how MPT trying to act like they know what their saying hehe.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

maybe shinbet will do a real proper next using dvd shrink as well lol

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

i don't know why any group would use dvdshrink, if cce is too hard for them to learn then at least use dvdrebuilder with cce rather than use dvdshrink cause dvdrb have one click mode feature also and if their excuse is they can't install dvdrb correctlly with all those direction then download the dvdrb easy setup that install everything and set it all up for them too, then they could just do 3 click and done.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I know I'll get bitch slapped hard for this, but this release is actually better than the BHP.

First, I downloaded the samples. I checked out the DVD-9, BHP and MPT comparison. The BHP was not good. The DVD-9 was pretty good (they used that odd senior citizen dancing/sex scene, which has lots going on). The bitrate of the original DVD-9 sample was hitting 6-8mbit/sec, BHP was mid 3-4mbit/sec and MPT was 4-5mbit/sec. I wish MPT used the exact same clip for each of the samples.

MPTs had much less artifacting around the edges and looked better (far from perfect though), which was my main complaint with the BHP version.

So, then I got the release (thinking that MPT only did a decent job on the sample), but it looked still better than the BHP release.

Now, the retail doesn't look too good to begin with, but MPT is not a bad representation of the retail.

Math came out correct too (3,984,525,312bytes for the main movie, which is approx. the 4004kbit/sec + 448kbit for the 5.1 sound). But math could have been made up to give the appearance of CCE.

Interlacing? I didn't see it in the BHP copy, so I dunno where to look. Other than the menu, which is "interlace city" on both releases.

Extras were all ripped excepted for the extended scenes (a full 600megs of it). No commentary track on this either.

Was this DVDShrink?! I dunno. Looks way too good for that. But it was mentioned above. I estimate the orig video at a high 5 gigs or low 6gigs. Which would make this around a 65-70% DVD Shrink. Which would look like puke (to my eyes that is).

I am still skeptical of MPT, but this release was pretty good. I could have done without the extra scenes, but oh well.

Technically this release wasn't needed though. The BHP did look crappy, but that's no reason to release a proper. Should have been internal. Personally I hate the politics of that though. Looking forward to the ShinBet *REAL ACTUAL SUPER PROPER PROPER* release

What this does come down to is, you like extras, keep the BHP. You like video quality (I can't believe I am typing this), give the MPT a shot.

Anyone else check this release out? I'm interested what other people thought.

WHOOPs. Forgot to vote...

Video 8/10 - The retail doesn't look too good (super ass grainy... Looks like it was filmed in the early 90's), and this ain't too bad compared to the retail. Better than BHP to my eyes.

DVD-R 9/10 - Nice to see less extras and an extra 700kbit/sec on the video. MPT or not, this wasn't bad. Only thing left IMO is the interlacing (wherever that is)...

Last edited by porco556 on 04-01-2005 at 01:02 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Oh, and I got that DVDInfoPro 3.55 proggy and here is the info I got from the MPT. Not sure what it means just yet (the "Derrow UDF/ISO"). Hopefully somebody knows I did this through a mounted image, do I need to burn it to get the actual info?

Media code/Manufacturer ID N/A Pressed DVD
Format Type UDF 1.02
Volume Name MEET_THE_FOCKERS
Application id Derrow UDF/ISO Applicat
Implementation id Derrow UDF/ISO Library
Recording Date/Time (mm/dd/yyyy) 3/30/2005 13:35:03

::EDIT::
OK, so searching around. Derrow is DVDXCopy. Can be used for re-authoring menus, or re-doing entire releases (including video recodes)... Hmm... Never used DVDXCopy myself.

Last edited by porco556 on 03-31-2005 at 11:16 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'll keep the CCE one, u go ahead and keep your DVDXCopy rls porco556

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

DVDXCopy is one of the first 1 clickers as far as I know. I feel dirty saying that I've actually used it before..... but it was when I first got my burner and I didn't know any better . I don't know why anyone would use it for anything, but you could probably get better results shrinking video by sticking a DVD in a bag and squeezing it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshNya
I'll keep the CCE one, u go ahead and keep your DVDXCopy rls porco556

---

Last edited by porco556 on 04-01-2005 at 03:54 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I dont think you can image and remaster a whole DVD in IFOEdit, but you can in DVDXCopy. Besides, u know if it was actually CCE then imgtool would have been used.... Stop trying to make excuses for a one-click group. Thought u of all people would be the last to kiss MPT butt. :/

(When in rome, i suppose...)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshNya
I dont think you can image and remaster a whole DVD in IFOEdit, but you can in DVDXCopy. Besides, u know if it was actually CCE then imgtool would have been used.... Stop trying to make excuses for a one-click group. Thought u of all people would be the last to kiss MPT butt. :/

(When in rome, i suppose...)

---

True enough. I sure do not like one-click programs myself and never have I used them once (except for experimenting). I just find it hard to believe that DVDXCopy did produce that video. I'm a CCE guy to the end, but this wasn't bad (pretty good actually).

But after a stiff drink, I'm retiring from this defence I must have enjoyed the movie more the second time and let some stuff by. Can't believe I wasted 9 gigs on both these releases, and then comes another $4 to rent it in a couple weeks God... This DVD-R stuff is becoming an illness for me... I do this 4-10 times a week (everything that comes out at Blockbuster), pretty much every release that comes out (ie: download, erase, rent in a week or two, rip) Not to mention, I pretty much camp out on this site, even at work during the day. Maybe I should get banned off this site. That may solve some issues.

Worse part is, I can't believe I defended MPT hahaha... I'm registering into a loony bin tomorrow

Last edited by porco556 on 04-01-2005 at 05:26 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

DvdXcopy is far supperior to Dvdshrink, and is what i setup for my idiot friends that rent alot.

quote:

---

.. I do this 4-10 times a week (everything that comes out at Blockbuster), pretty much every release that comes out (ie: download, erase, rent in a week or two, rip)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I have no idea about DVD X Copy, but if this is a DVDXCopy then im ditching CCE from now on.

This looks much better than the BHP release, and i personally feel DVDR's should be propered on Quality, lets have more choices.

There seems to be a snobbery with CCE on here, and it has nothing to do with Quality.

8/9/7

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redemption1980
I have no idea about DVD X Copy, but if this is a DVDXCopy then im ditching CCE from now on.

This looks much better than the BHP release, and i personally feel DVDR's should be propered on Quality, lets have more choices.

There seems to be a snobbery with CCE on here, and it has nothing to do with Quality.

8/9/7

---

I dunno if it is snobbery as much as CCE has been a) a standard for a long time and it's hard to accept anything new, and b) it has been tried, tested and true to many different tests over the past 2 years.

Things to think about in these releases are, the BHP release was around 3250kbit/sec, while this one (MPT) has an extra approx. 750kbit/sec on the video. This one does look better, but until a version done with CCE at 4004kbit/sec is done, it is hard to say which is better. I believe that the CCE would prevail (not snobby, just my opinion from experience).

I also do agree this version looks better than the BHP one (as I ranted above). But some might disagree and like the slightly sharper image on the BHP release (at the expense of the artifacting around the edges).

Honestly, this release should have been 4600kbit/sec CCE without the damn extended scenes. I watched it once with those scenes, the video on my TV goes from 16:9 to 4:3 with black bars. So stupid. Where is the American Wedding style extended scenes (keep forgetting what it's called... Sub streaming angles or something. both versions in the same VOB set).

I also kept the MPT one for now, but I wouldn't be too hasty on getting rid of CCE just because one release.

HaLiKuS, I too am going to recommend to my friends this DVDXCopy instead of Shrink. And I went outside for lunch The cheap showingness of nature (and tall buildings) however still can't compete with the VCDQ forums j/k...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

here's the info taken from the 3 different sample files, for all those who want to kno...i can get results for the movie from the dvdr's if needed, but not the dvd9...

BHP's sample
peak bt- 5626
avg bt- 3777
Num. of picture read: 2174
Nom. bitrate: 9352000 Bit/Sec
VBV buffer size: 112
Field topfirst: Yes
Variable GOP pattern: NOT FOUND

MPTDVD's sample
peak bt- 5890
avg bt- 4220
um. of picture read: 2633
Nom. bitrate: 9800000 Bit/Sec
VBV buffer size: 112
Field topfirst: No
Variable GOP pattern: FOUND

DVD9's
peak bt- 8492
avg bt- 5322
Num. of picture read: 1630
Nom. bitrate: 9800000 Bit/Sec
VBV buffer size: 112
Field topfirst: No
Variable GOP pattern: FOUND
-----------------------------
Details constant of all 3 files:

Stream type: MPEG-2 MP@ML VBR
Resolution: 720*480
Aspect ratio: 16:9 Generic
Framerate: 29.97
Constrained param. flag: No
Chroma format: 4:2:0
DCT precision: 10
Pic. structure: Frame
DCT type: Frame
Quantscale: Nonlinear
Scan type: ZigZag
Frame type: Progressive
Scene change detection: FOUND

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

porco556, I agree that CCE is the best way to re-encode a DVD down, and should be used by the groups on all release's. im just finishing off a 9Pass on the Extras Disc of Oldboy, and it looks damn near identical even though it had to be compressed down to about 60% of the original size, something no Transcoder could manage at the quality im used too.

My gripe is people assuming what release will be better without even looking at them first, this looks better, whether CCE was used or not, i personally believe it was though, but i agree this should of been a movie only encode, i love extras myself, but believe movie should be priority.

Thanks for the Info grouch

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

As was briefly stated earlier, the fundamental difference between CCE and all the other 1 click programs is that CCE actually re-encodes the video, it doesn't just transcode it. Because of this, there's no way that DVDXCopy or DVDShrink or whatever could come close to it in quality. And as for DVDXCopy being better than DVDShrink, in my experience, DVDShrink with Deep Analysis and "high quality adaptive error compensation" yields better results than DVDXCopy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

anyone know wtf this is. Meet.The.Fockers.2004.NTSC.R1.DVDR.KORSUB-DvdXCopy

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridingonthemeto
anyone know wtf this is. Meet.The.Fockers.2004.NTSC.R1.DVDR.KORSUB-DvdXCopy

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged