question about converting rmvb video file to avi video

[jimdagys]

I would like to convert rmvb to avi with the minimum loss. (Sometimes I am confused about the term "converting" and "re-encoding".) I know video re-encoding always has loss and that good video re-encoding of a movie takes 8 hours or more to do so. However, does "converting" also have loss? I want to look at several ways of converting rmvb to avi. I found
Xilisoft RM Converter as one option. Will that have any loss? I already have a software called "Total Video Converter" and the help file says it will convert rmvb to avi. However I don't know if the software will actually do this and I don't know about the converting quality. Is anyone familiar with this software (Total Video Converter)? How does it compare to "Xilisoft RM Converter" in terms of converting rmvb to avi quality? Of course, I want the best quality conversion.
I know there is another way (free, but more complicated) to do this conversion (rmvb to avi) using VirtualDubMod.
See http://www.jakeludington.com/dv_hacks/20051210_how_to_convert_rmvb.html
for information that I found on the web.
However, I want to investigate the simple ways before I tackle the more complicated way to do this conversion. Thank you for any information on this topic.

[redwudz]

Unfortunately RMVB is one of the harder formats to convert as Real doesn't really want you to do that, so they're not much help. RMVB is considered a 'final' format. Not made to be converted or edited.

Re-encoding=encoding=converting. Just different terms with the same meaning. Any time you re-encode or encode, or simpler, change the format, there is some loss. How much depends on how much you compress the encoded video. RMVB is very highly compressed to start, so when you encode it to a different format, with a lower compression, it will need to end up much larger to preserve what quality you have.

Just as a side note, 'transcoding' often means keeping the same format, as in DVD Shrink which does that by 'removing' parts of a MPEG file that you may not miss. Different than 'encoding'.

Also the name, 'RMVB' means 'Variable Bitrate'. If the audio and video both are variable, it makes it difficult for an encoder to 'read' the format. RMVB also means keeping the audio/video sync is much more difficult.

The encoder programs you mention work as well as most out there.

Usually the best quality conversion is the 'hard way'. The all in one converters do what they can, but less control of the encoding process usually means compromises that lower quality.

Try the different methods, simpler to complex and experiment a little. Most times I just leave RMVB as it is and use a software program for playback. Others may have better suggestions. Good luck.

[jimdagys]

Thank you for the reply. I always want the videos to be in avi format because I uses DVD Flick to make the final DVD.
Also I posted something about Online Youtube Converters, but didn't get any response. I will post it again here. I wonder if you have any ideas about this topic:
I am where Youtube is blocked. (Many websites like blogs, etc are blocked here. One can usually get around this problem by using a proxy, such as www.zend2.com, however, after trying many different proxies, I found that the proxies don't allow the Youtube streaming video protocol to go through.)
I wanted to get a few videos from Youtube and put them on my hard drive. After reading on this site, I found various free online Youtube online recorders/converters. I found that these online recorders/converters bypass the need for a proxy, so I can easily get the Youtube videos recorded on my hard drive as standard avi files. My question is about the comparison of 2 of these recorders. One that I tested is
http://vixy.net/
and the other is http://www.zamzar.com
I used both of them to record a short Youtube video. (By the way, fortunately I can get the urls for the Youtube videos in Google Video. That info is blocked on Youtube via proxy.) The vixy converter did the job much faster and the final file size was about one fourth as big as the zamar converter, which took three times as long to get the final result. About the image quality difference between the 2 converters, I am not sure. I am curious why the file size is so different between the 2 converters. I am wondering if someone can test both of the converters (on the same video file) and tell me which one do you think has a better image quality. I also found that the vixy converter did not work reliably on videos that are longer than 1 minute, but the zamar converter did a good job on videos that were 5 minutes long.

[Krispy Kritter]

I would have to say to just use whichever converter works best for you. Quality is subjective, and the source material (YouTube flv files) isn't very high quality anyway. Just choose/keep whichever one looks best to you. If they look the same, keep the smaller one.

Aside from that, you can open each file in Gspot. Gspot will give you the technical details of each file, such as resolution, bitrate, and which codec is used. The size difference is likely codec related.

Even with all of the file information, quality is still subjective and boils down to what looks good to you.

[EatMoreChickens]

I use several programs and have gotten pretty good results. I use EOplayer to extract the audio as a wav and then use TMPGenc Xpress 4.0 to convert. I convert mostly tv series and the results are better then the vcd quality and slightly below dvd quality at 512x384. Other ppl promote WinAVI as a alternative. good luck!

[redwudz]

jimdagys, sorry, I know next to nothing about YouTube. You can post the question in Newbie / General discussions and maybe get some responses.