speed up the rip time

[Guest]

i have not tried ripping with the external drive, because i want to use it to burn with. isn't this the best way??
.

With a desk top yes with a laptop no.
That is why I suggested you use the external drive to rip.
As suggested use the external for both ripping and burning.
Less heat , less time , less stress on your laptop.

[signals]

i have not tried ripping with the external drive, because i want to use it to burn with. isn't this the best way??

Not necessarily, especially with a laptop. Even when you have optical drives as Source and Target, DVDFab still writes a temp file to your hard drive before burning. If the Source (reading) drive and the hard drive are on the same controller (as they often are on laptops) it can slow the process down dramatically. Try setting DVDFab to use an external hard drive for its temp file. The fastest laptop configuration that I have will read a single layer original disc in about 7-8 minutes, about 14-16 for a DL, but this can vary substantially even with brand new originals. The point being that there is probably nothing DVDFab can do about this. If you are burning discs in 5 minutes or less, your burn speed is set higher than what I would consider safe.

//EDIT// I agree with Gruñón about the heat and stress on laptops. Some of them do not manage this well. You have had some excellent advice from many of the forum staff, try some of the ideas.

[Dorrell]

Try setting DVDFab to use an external hard drive for its temp file. The fastest laptop configuration that I have will read a single layer original disc in about 7-8 minutes

in common settings - would i go to Temporary Directory to change this?

if not - where would i go to chage?

thanks

[maineman]

I'm not following...
Do you have an external hdd?
I thought we were talking about an external ODD (burner).

[Dorrell]

I'm not following...
Do you have an external hdd?
I thought we were talking about an external ODD (burner).

i have both - sorry i didn't say that earlier

[maineman]

No problem, my confusion not yours.
So in answer to your previous question, yes, that's right...just as signals described
Common Settings > General > change the Temporary Directory to your external hdd

You may still have better overall rips speeds by using your external ODD.
Typically, slimline burners are far less robust

[Dorrell]

No problem, my confusion not yours.
So in answer to your previous question, yes, that's right...just as signals described
Common Settings > General > change the Temporary Directory to your external hdd

awesome.

i'll try this tonight and report back.

thanks for everything. you all are saints.

[maineman]

awesome.

i'll try this tonight and report back.

thanks for everything. you all are saints.

"And shepards we shall be"...
From one of my all time favorite flicks...The Boondock Saints

[richmoral]

Mine takes about 15 minutes to 25 minutes to rip depending on how much compression is needed and I'm running on a AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core Processor at 1.80GHz with 4.00 GB of RAM. I'd say 25 minutes is about right. I don't see how others are saying it's any faster then that seeing as most movies require a good amount of compression to rip down to DVD5.

As for burning it takes about 15 minutes to burn and another 5 to 10 minutes to verify the burn using IMGburn. That's cause I burn at the slowest speed of 4x for better results.

[signals]

Dorrell
Don't try reading from a USB external optical drive with the temp file set to a USB hard drive. Same bottleneck problem. Try it using your internal optical drive first. If you want to try the external optical drive as a Source (read) drive, write the file to your internal hard drive or set the internal drive as the location for the temp file.

[Dorrell]

As for burning it takes about 15 minutes to burn and another 5 to 10 minutes to verify the burn using IMGburn.

should i be verifing my dvd's with ImgBurn?

i've never done this and they play fine.

[GregiBoy]

If they play fine, that is the best test.

[maineman]

Signals is exactly right.
I gave you some bum advice without thinking it through.
It would be good to know however, if your internal hdd and internal ODD are on the same controller.

[maineman]

Agree with GregiBoy.
You may be verifying and not realize it.
I believe Img verification is enabled by default.
A burn log will tell the tale if you look...or just look at your settings.

I disagree with richmoral. I don't doubt what he gets for times, but his times are not typical for many users.

Ripping time for me on my new build (Win7 Pro 64-bit with an i7core psu) is about 5-10 minutes depending on the compression and file size
This rip time was pretty similar on my old build which was an XP Pro desktop...plain, old P4, 3.0 GHz, nothing fancy.
The limiting factor re: ripping is the ODD, for most users.

Where the new rig really shines is with Mobile conversions. I've gone from about 50fps to 500 fps...a full 10-fold increase.
This is strictly cpu-based as I always rip to the hdd prior to conversions.

[DarthCopier]

Agree with GregiBoy.
You may be verifying and not realize it.
I believe Img verification is enabled by default.
A burn log will tell the tale if you look...or just look at your settings.

I disagree with richmoral. I don't doubt what he gets for times, but his times are not typical for many users.

Ripping time for me on my new build (Win7 Pro 64-bit with an i7core psu) is about 5-10 minutes depending on the compression and file size
This rip time was pretty similar on my old build which was an XP Pro desktop...plain, old P4, 3.0 GHz, nothing fancy.
The limiting factor re: ripping is the ODD, for most users.

Where the new rig really shines is with Mobile conversions. I've gone from about 50fps to 500 fps...a full 10-fold increase.
This is strictly cpu-based as I always rip to the hdd prior to conversions.

AND

Further to what Richmoral said, if he is burning at 4X, which he indicates is the slowest speed, he could be causing as many problems burning too slow as someone who burns too fast with cheap media...(but different results)

A good emulsion (as found on TY and Verbs), could be subject to 'overburn'... areas that should be burn free, dulled to the point of non-reflectivity by an extended burn on an adjacent area, resulting in mis-reads in a playback situation.

DC



P.S. I don't even want to think of what slow burns does to cheap media/emulsions...