VOBmerge

[AlecWest]

A while back, I submitted the tool VOBmerge for inclusion in the list of tools linkable from VideoHelp.com. And so far, it hasn't been added. So, I did my homework, read through the 31 thread references to the tool, finding only one "generic" negative comment (saying "quickie tools are crap"). All the other comments I saw, some by members who have been around here for some time, were positive. I've used it myself in three backup projects (one just yesterday) with complete success.

So ... the question. Is there something bad about VOBmerge that keeps it from being linked to from here? FWIW, here's the link to it:

http://medlem.spray.se/evilmastr/mainmenu.php?menu=6

[daamon]

No, it's probably just that Baldrick's busy and it's got overlooked...

Try sending him a PM linking to this thread and you'll probably get a response...

He's pretty good - eventually! (@ Baldrick - )

[AlecWest]

No, it's probably just that Baldrick's busy and it's got overlooked...

Understandable. I was just worried there might be some sort of problem with the utility that made it not worth the link. It's seems like a pretty handy tool to me, in some situations. I'll send a PM ... thanks.

[yoda313]

Hello,

If it's a simple merge with no editing you can do it in a dos window. I remember seeing it a few times in the forum. Just do vob1.vob+vob2.vob+vob3.vob megavob.vob. Then it will merge them.

Kevin

[AlecWest]

If it's a simple merge with no editing you can do it in a dos window. I remember seeing it a few times in the forum. Just do vob1.vob+vob2.vob+vob3.vob megavob.vob. Then it will merge them.

Kevin

I think someone was playing a joke on someone. I've tried stuff like that before. But, to make sure XP didn't learn a new trick my 98SE couldn't do, I tried it again. This is the result ... first trying it exactly as you mentioned it, secondly trying it with the "copy" command in front ... ending up with an error the first time and a 2k file the next:

[yoda313]

Hello,

Oh well....

Thanks for the input alec. Just passing on what I've heard here...

Kevin

[AlecWest]

Hello,

Oh well....

Thanks for the input alec. Just passing on what I've heard here...

Kevin

No problem. I wish it WAS that easy.

[edsmith77]

If not mistaken the default context for the dos copy routine is text. I just reconfirmed that the copy command does work.

Usage:
"copy /B file.1+file.2 output.3"

The /B is for a binary file copy.

[AlecWest]

"copy /B file.1+file.2 output.3"

The /B is for a binary file copy.

Thanks. Just tried it and it works. But (ahem) it might work too good. When using DOS copy in the past on text files, I noticed that it appears to keep the "end-of-file" markers. VOBmerge may deal with those differently. Encountering an end-of-file marker might cause a video to freeze. That would be a good experiment to try ... if it wasn't for one thing I noticed. I just did a DOS copy and a VOBmerge using two identical filesets. The VOBmerge process was faster.

P.S. One other thing. Using something like VOBmerge does have a plus. People can do some awfully bad things to their computers in DOS mode if they type in the wrong command. Lord knows I've made enough DOS mistakes in the past, hehehe. Once, I ... nah ... too terrible (and off topic).

[edsmith77]

Thats why you use the binary option when doing the copy asopposed to the text based copy version.

Notice I did not advocate using the DOS command line method. I just confirmed that you "could" do what was wanted via the DOS command and to clarify that it was possible.
Actually, I would be hard pressed to accept that the VOBMerge method you mentioned is faster. The DOS commands execute assembly code via the OS interrupt system directly. As opposed to system calls via an HOL which will when compiled do exactly the same thing, however there is usually some overhead code that comes along and has to be executed as well. It is however, possible that the HOL version ususes a larger dos buffer (>64K) for use in the copy. I do not think (or at least it has been many years since I did any ASM programming that the OS Dos calls are limited to a smaller buffer size and hence may take a few more call such that on a VERY large file the appearance of being slower is evident. Anyway, the DOS version does work, just remember to use the binary option.