Stranger Than Fiction

[rolling56]

Originally Posted by Whisperer

I appreciate your point ... that removing extras and tracks will make a backup of a smaller size. But few releases, even "movie only" will really fit down to 4.38 GB in size and still be 100% uncompressed. Most movies are larger in data size.

Also, (again appreciating your way of doing it), I don't want to remove anything. I love DTS sound on my home system, but want to keep Dolby too so it plays in my Saturn Outlook. And I want the Director's Commentary included. I hate & don't watch all the previews of coming attractions but my girlfriend likes them on the backups. So I do my backups 1:1. Point being everyone wants different things from their backups.

Including Shrink and CloneDVD lovers who what to compress their backups onto one disk.

There is no right or wrong method ... or bad way or good way. And there is no single "best and only" program capable of doing everything. God bless freedom of choice.

You do what you want and i do what i want to the disc

[Patriot Ron]

I keep seeing replys telling people to use Clone DVD with Any DVD to get this movie.. Yet I use these two items and everytime I get an error unable to read video files , parameter is incorrect... if I go to details it says : File 0 E:/VIDEO_TS/VIDEO_TS.IFO 87

both AnyDVD and DVD Clone are up to date 6.1.2.5 and 2.9.0.3... I have used these two products for months and use the same media I always use with over 600 disc done.. Besides how can anyone blame blanks when it doesnt even get to the point of using blanks. Its not reading the DVD.

Did I miss something??

[Webslinger]

Originally Posted by Patriot Ron

Did I miss something??

Yes. Your original disc is bad.

[ibglowin]

Got it to back up using AnyDVD/CloneDVD (no surprise there).

From what I read it will back up with Shrink if you want to run it through FixVTS or the latest Beta version of Vobblanker.

Your choice guys, pick your weapons......

[Webslinger]

Please read http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=885 fully

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by G-Omaha

I believe that you didn't read my initial post as I did indicate that I have purchased that product, as well as most of the other stuff sold by SlySoft. I also indicated that Shrink will not run on the "Stuff" generated by Clone.

I have very few "free" stuff that I use, and limit these to those choice pieces of software that are "Priceless"....

Quality - not price is the goal. Now speed is the seconday goal as Ripit4Me + Associated utilities (including Shrink) will provide the quality; however, takes a long time to execute.

I use dvd shrink allot to compress a clonedvd 9 image in deep analysis mode all the time. So there is no problem there.

Originally Posted by Whisperer

Ok, we know that Shrink can't handle new structural protections correct? But many like Shrink for it's "deep analysis" superior compression quality. Understandable right? But Slysoft can't continue divert resources to be responsible for supporting orphan software that is not updated? Understandable right? AnyDVD's main purpose is to decrypt CSS encryptions and they have no intention of "bloating" it up to include full ripping functions. It is a tiny driver, not a ripping program. The ability to unscramble purposely authored, messed up titleset structural protections is dealing with a different form of protection than CSS decryption. Unscrabbling structural protections is the job of the ripping program. But Shrink users have a cult-love for their product and want to keep using their beloved Shrink without being chastized for their desires. All true facts and valid opinions, right?

So both sides accept the issues as they are and use the tools that you do have at your disposal to get the job done. No more fighting kids!!

I would like to know if everyone is on the same page here. Since Shrink can't rip it and CloneDVD can, have we all tried using CloneDVD to deselect the undesired elements off of the original and then ripping an ISO Image with CloneDVD2 set to "DL +/-R" mode and then using Shrink to process that ISO and compress it to a SL disk?

Now for my (.02) opinion, why are all you guys compressing? That is so five years ago! DVD media, both SL and DL is so cheap now, why don't you just split your DVD's onto two SL disks or burn your backups onto DL media?

Best regards,
Whisperer

Well said.

[oldjoe]

Originally Posted by Whisperer

Now for my (.02) opinion, why are all you guys compressing? That is so five years ago! DVD media, both SL and DL is so cheap now, why don't you just split your DVD's onto two SL disks or burn your backups onto DL media?

I haven't seen any D/L media anywhere close to the price that I can get S/L media (Less than $.40 per disc). I don't split too two discs because I can compress to one disc economically and with excellent playback quality.

[Clams]

Same here... I (personally) don't want menus and trailers and ads and garbage anyway.

Most movies fit on a S/L disk with little or no compression. And I get mine on sale for < $.25 a disk.

-W

[Webslinger]

The demand for lower blank media prices has also pushed an increase of inferior quality media onto the consumer. This includes Verbatim +R DL now being made in India (lower prices . . . the verdict is out still if this also means lower quality media in this specific case).

Fuji, by the way, at one time had its media made by Taiyo Yuden. Then Taiyo Yuden started to dump the stuff it saw unfit to sell itself onto Fuji. And now Fuji doesn't sell anything worth using.

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/s...3&postcount=21

[Whisperer]

Originally Posted by oldjoe

I haven't seen any D/L media anywhere close to the price that I can get S/L media (Less than $.40 per disc). I don't split too two discs because I can compress to one disc economically and with excellent playback quality.

Yah, I can appreciate that point of view. I have a bit of a different idea of what economical means. For me .60 each for SL TYs or Verbs and 1.89 each for DL Verbs (both US$) is not very much to ensure the longer term protection of my library of originals. And it is peanuts compared to what I spend on the originals I buy ... and also the cost to pleasure ratio of the high resolution playback home entertainment system I bought. I don't like loosing viewing quality due to compression. I probably wouldn't even notice the quality loss if I played it on a regular TV or the player in my Saturn.

Best regards,
Whisperer