| User review:
|
I'm posting this after reading adverse comments about the relative merits of Shrink versus a certain encoder in another forum. I've been using various versions of Shrink for less than a year. It took me while to get the hang of it but now I'm perfectly able to make back-ups of dual-layer movies with full menu functionality, dual DTS/AC-3 5.1 channel surround, multiple audio commentaries and negligible loss of picture quality. To do that takes a lot of time and patience but it is worth the wait and up till now I haven't ended up with an interlaced main movie.
On one occasion I deliberately sacrificed a tiny bit of quality in order to maximize the bit rate during a deleted scene which I thought should never have been cut in the first place as it would have been the highlight of the movie.
Bit-rate is not the be-all and end-all of video quality. I've seen programmes encoded at high bit-rates that sucked and others encoded at low bit-rates that positively shone. I think the bias against Shrink is all down to snobbery. It wouldn't be so bad if back-up copies made by more expensive and complicated systems actually worked properly but in my experience they very seldom do. |
