Talk:DVD ripper

Ad

This article mayhi smell like an ad, but there is a lot useful infomation, I've used this software and it is really something except the conversion speed a little slow. edit it to improve the article to be a good one. Bryantsinger 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an ad, for sure. "Ease of use" and so forth doesn't provide a neutral point of view. I'll try to fix some stuff. Useight 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect to find a definition of DVD Ripper here, not this ad?

AVS video converter - does actually rip dvds?

 I'm not sure avs video converter actually rips dvds? (Celicaman (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

No, it doesn't rip dvds, but it's too much work to delete it in all the fields. Props to all the wiki people who take the time to create these pages. (Dexterfan (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)) No, it can deal with the common video formats. As to rip dvds, i only know SnowFox DVD Ripper can do that task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.13.233.72 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved sections to their own articles

I moved the bits ayahoo yahoo yahoobout specific DVD rippers to their own articles and did some more cleaning up. Someone then undid that, which I undid again, assuming a misunderstyawee anding. It might look like vandalism, but the info was moved, to DVD Ripper and HandBrake. The article was a mess - not surprising there was a cleanup-tag (which, oddly, was not restored). I hope that clears it up. DirkvdM 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Add the definition about DVD Ripper.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the program or the type of program? The latter is there. You have added the entire article on the program DVD Ripper - notice the capitalisation and the fact that it is a separate article. DirkvdM 06:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what the guy says does make sense. It gives a very clear definition of DVD ripper with two good examples. This article is exactly what I want. Besides,DVD Ripper and DVD ripper are the same thing, so they should be redirected to the same page.

Oh, is that the problem? Surely, they are separate things. DVD Ripper is a specific program. The generic term is DVD ripper. In analogy with CD ripper. What generic term would you use? Oh, and could you please sign your postings? DirkvdM 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No reaction means consent? I'll restore the general article then. DirkvdM 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been redirected to DVD Ripper, DON'T REVERT/EDIT IT AGAIN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bryantsinger (talk • contribs) 02:36, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Would a comparison be better ?

This article is little more than a list and while it has some useful information it could be better presented (and hopefully expanded upon) in a table/comparison form where information about the individual features of each piece of software could be included. 213.40.104.233 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Particularly useful would be a table showing which programs were able to cope with various copy prevention schemes. --AC (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How about splitting by OS

Several of these apps aren't listed as being for any particlar OS. This means more work for the user who has to check that they are / aren't for their particular platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.210.240 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC) ←

Daniusoft spam

Spammer(s) have been adding links to a commercial product to this article. Several editors have found links to pages in the daniusofts.com domain and removed them. I removed the latest one and added spam warnings to the spammers talk pages.Teh dave (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mac DVDRipper Pro?

I cannot see this program in the listing. It's seemingly got a better track record as of late, compared to both RipIt and MacTheRipper. Someone's got the full story for this (Mac OS X) program?--Paracel63 (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, MacTheRipper or MTR 4.0 is the latest I've seen. The 'about' dialog box gives a date of 2009. Apparently you have to make a donation, keep your reference or transaction number. The instructions provided are not clear to the uninitiated. None-the-less, from what I've seen, MRT 4.0 is amoung the best. 174.114.92.59 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

MacTheRipper and Mac DVDRipper Pro are two separate programs. Mac DVDRipper Pro 3.0 has just been released, is easy to buy (compared to MacTheRipper), is often updated, and compares favorably to other rippers on the Mac platform. It has my vote, obviously. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.156.196 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Fortium/DVD Sequr column

As there is an article for Fortium, but not DVD Sequr, I will have to revert this column header until the article for DVD Sequr is written. Further, the claimed change of DVDFab to supporting Forium is accompanied by a reference, within which I cannot find any listing of 'Fortium', 'Patronius', 'Sequr', 'Extended Copy Protection', 'XCP', 'Planet', or even 'First 4 Internet', thus it seems that this claim is not substantiated by the given reference, so rather than adding the template:, I will instead revert this change as well, unless the cited reference is updated to contain {cite web | url = <url> | title = <title> | quote = <Insert quoted text which verifies DVDFab's support for Fortium here>}. Since the reasoning for the claim that RipIt cannot support any ARccOS Protection is based on only one case, I will switch this to 'Partial', and add a reference to support my claim.--Lent1999 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I should probably clarify the first sentence of my previous statement. The Fortium Technologies article claims that Fortium is the company that invented the DRM technology called DVD Sequr. If the tech is notable, then the company should also be notable (perhaps both should only ever be mentioned in the same article as Rovi Corporation mentions RipGuard & Analog copy protection). Whether this one tech, DVD Sequr, is the only tech to come out of Fortium, or not, either way, then Fortium should be the umbrella term for this, or any and all DRM techs to come out of Fortium, as is the case with Macrovision. However if DVD Sequr should get it's own article, then it may become seperate, as is the case with ARccOS. I should also point out that since most if not all of the listed rippers do not define if they support either RipGuard or ACP or both, then this column probably should not be split into two.--Lent1999 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, agreed. I will try to get substantial reference for DVD Fab and Fortium. Bj.stafford (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"https" links in article rather than "http" links

I see that many of the links in the footnotes for this article specify "https" instead of what should probably be "http". In my version of Firefox, when I follow those links, I get the sensible warning that "This Connection is Untrusted ...". Is there any good reason to use "https" instead of "http"? If not, I'll be happy to fix the links to use "http" instead.

W.F.Galway (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

handbrake

Any chance handbrake could be added to this list? It seems absent... Rogerdpack (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

handprake is not a real dvd ripper. you cant copy the content of a dvd to your hdd. you just can transcode it to a videofile.

just a quote from the projects faq-page: "First off, you should know that HandBrake is not a DVD ripper." or "If you are encoding a disc, rip it to Hard Disk first with 3rd party software." from Handbrake FAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.209.67 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite that fact, it is one of the most commonly used ripping programs (and can rip from DVD quite well, for example in mac with VLC installed). Rogerdpack (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DVD Shrink and CloneDVD aren't rippers either, and you have them on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

makemkv

Makemkv would make a good addition, perhaps? Rogerdpack (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RipIt

Reference 43 ( http://thelittleappfactory.com/ripit/notes/ ) is a 404.... Fedorant (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading

The article claims that these programs make lossless backups but many of the listed programs transcode the data and do not perform a raw backup of the data. 72.235.201.4 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This article makes a distinction between rippers than convert DVD video to compressed MP4 formats, and rippers used in the TV and film industries that can create exact duplicates of the original video (presumably using lossless compression, as the article uses the phrase "higher quality compressed video"). The paragraph presents no examples for either case. When you click on each of the links in the See Also section, none of the links provide a clear answer as to which programs are the ones that supposedly create broadcast-quality identical duplicates of DVD video. Can someone knowledgeable in this area, include a few examples in the main paragraph? Telemedia Episode Engine? Adobe Encore, Media Encoder, or something else in the Adobe Creative Cloud lineup? Sorenson Squeeze? (These are what popped up when I did a quick web search for "professional broadcast-quality ripper".) The link to "List of DVD authoring applications" shows categories for Professional studio software and Professional corporate software. Are these the ones that can rip losslessly? My simple question that this article doesn't answer: Which ripper(s) can rip losslessly? N3362 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DVDsmith

Any chance DVDsmith could be added to this list? Wammes Waggel (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mangling references

I just corrected two references that were mangled by three separate problems. First, the anon editor adding the references misunderstood the concept of the "name" attribute in the <ref> element. Instead of adding a useful nickname, s/he merely copied the entire text referenced, wiki markup and all, into the name. Amazingly, this itself didn't cause the reference to blow up, at least in my browser. But it did give heart-attacks to two separate automated markup cleanup efforts([1], [2]), each of which mangled the references in their own way. While the mangling was directly the fault of the automated attempts, it arose from an abuse of the ref-name attribute that probably shouldn't have worked anyway. (And we really need these automated patrols to address the problems of several million articles.)

The lesson here: In <ref name="NAME">, NAME should be something simple yet unique to the article. It defeats the reuse purpose if it's inscrutable, even ignoring the mayhem potential of including markup inside a wiki/HTML attribute. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)