MKV to AVI without quality loss - for watching on DVD player

[mr-scarface]

I have a movie in mkv format which I want to watch on my DVD player. I used ConvertXtoDVD to convert this mkv file to DVD format. The resulting VIDEO_TS folder is 4.06GB while the original mkv file is 4.10GB. After comparing the quality between both, it becomes pretty obvious that ConvertXtoDVD re-encodes, and this has resulted in a pretty noticeable quality loss. The original mkv file looks a lot nicer than the DVD quality that it produced.

Now I've done some research and read that you can convert mkv to avi without re-encoding. This means that you won't lose any quality. However, can this resulting avi file be simply burnt onto a DVD and played on a dvd player? Or do you have to do something else like change it to XviD or something? It is currently x264.

Also, would the avi file exceed the original 4.10GB size? If so, you can simply have the movie on 2 dvd's can't you?


Thanks in advance.

[guns1inger]

No, you can't convert it to an avi without quality loss and play it on your DVD player.

If you have a bluray player or Xbox360 or PS3 you can re-package it for playback on these devices, usually without re-encoding.

If you have a DVD player that can play Xvid avi files then you will have to re-encode the video to fit the requirements. Generally this means

1. No wider than 720 pixels (I suspect your source is 720p, which is wider than 1200 pixels)

2. Less than 2000 kbps bitrate. Some will allow higher.

3. Qpel and GMC restrictions

4. No single file larger than 2GB

You could try converting it to DVD with FAVC, which uses a better encoder than ConvertXtoDVD, but you will still get a quality hit, as you will by converting to Xvid.

[mr-scarface]

Ok first thing, I do have an xbox 360. What advantage does this give me and what can I do?

Next thing - VLC player shows that the original MKV file is 1280 * 720. I then checked the video statistics for the resulting dvd and it shows 720 * 480, MPEG-2, 4.96Mbit/s.

Will this FAVC program be able to do better than ConvertXtoDVD did? I'm not too happy about the quality of the DVD.

[guns1inger]

It will probably do a better job, but you are comparing a HD original with an SD conversion - the SD will never be as good. There is simply no way around it.

If you have your 360 networked with your PC you can repackage the mkv as an mp4 and stream it to the Xbox to have it playback as an HD video. I don't know if you can burn the same file to a DVD and play it back form the internal drive - I suspect not.

[mr-scarface]

I don't have my xbox networked with my pc since they are on different floors. I heard there's a wireless solution but I doubt you'd be able to stream that much data wirelessly right?

Regarding the conversion, does the 720 x 480 that was produced seem a bit low? Or is that the standard for DVD format?

Let me ask you this, will I get a better final result if I convert mkv directly to dvd, OR if I convert mkv to avi (since this doesn't require re-encoding), and then re-encode to xvid avi. Which will produce a better picture quality?

I don't know if you can burn the same file to a DVD and play it back form the internal drive - I suspect not.

Anyone tried this? I'm willing to give it a shot if no one has. Please let me know.

[guns1inger]

720 x 480 is standard for an NTSC DVD.

You may get better quality from converting to XVD, although there is nothing to be gained by repackaging the mkv into an AVI, then converting it. Although it is possible to do this, it is not recommended for H264/AAC anyway. Convert straight to Xvid from the MKV. You will still have to resize to 720 x nnn for playback on a standard Xvid enabled DVD player.

I suspect that you will find the quality difference between a good DVD encoding and an Xvid encoding for standalone players to be pretty close in quality. If you push the bitrate on the Xvid to as high as your player will play, and are happy to split the file into as many parts as are needed, you might get something that is in the order of perhaps 10% better than the DVD source.

If you really want a quality DVD version of this HD file, you would be better off actually buying the DVD version, instead of downloading something you can't play, and badly converting it yourself.

[t0nee1]

Just set up a wireless network to the Xbox,and convert your video to mp4/h264,and stream with Tversity....
http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/stream_video_xbox_360_tversity.cfm

If you want DVD playback at high resolution,and your TV supports it, then extract contents>create .avs script>re-encode with HCEnc and keep 1280X720,set bitrate > import resulting .m2v file and original or modified audio in favorite authoring tool>new high res DVD......great quality..But keep in mind It's not standard NTSC DVD 720x480 , I play in HD Toshiba or PS3........

[majong]

Hi Guys,
Your problem RE: " MKV to AVI without quality loss - for watching on DVD player " has been solved.

Before I explain how it is done, let me tell you first that I tried just about every conceivable suggestion on the internet,
and none of them worked as I do not possess a Blue Ray DVD Player.

Now, here is what I did, then tested it on a DVD-RW and it worked .....

Convert your MKV file (eg. 3.2GB) to MPG, which equates to 8.9GB in size, which took roughly 8 hrs to do on my system.
( I used a program called " Wondershare Video Converter Ultimate " )

Next, I used hjsplit ... ( 1400 Megabytes ) which split it into 2 parts ... ( 4.4GB + 4.0GB )
Next, I used " Wondershare Video Converter Ultimate " to convert it to VOB ...
When done I, I used Nero to burn it to disc as Data Files and it worked on my DVD layer, with no loss, at least, hardly that I could notice with my poor eyesight at age 70.

Cheers, and I hope that I have been of some use as a newbie on your great forum.

[manono]

Cheers, and I hope that I have been of some use as a newbie on your great forum.

You haven't.

[sanlyn]

I used Nero to burn it to disc as Data Files and it worked on my DVD layer, with no loss, at least, hardly that I could notice with my poor eyesight at age 70.

At least you made an effort, but let's face it: your eyesight is apparently worse than you think. I would advise against your recommendation. It's like sending a full-sized SUV through a car crusher to make it fit under your kitchen sink. The car fits, but I wouldn't want to be its owner.

Nevertheless, enjoy.

[majong]

To manono and sanlyn .....

it's such a shame to see that you 2 guys have not been brought up well, but merely dragged up.

When one makes an effort, no matter what the age, the least one can do is say " Thank You "

I dare to wonder what our planet would be like under your rule and guidance.
Shot to smittherings, and that would be the end of our civilization.

You don't have to take anyones advice, just go along your merry old way and live like miserable jerks.
Afterall, you can't help being yourselves, a pair of scumbags.

[sanlyn]

The comments aren't personal, majong. The point made is that we wouldn't recommend doing what you did. We are saying that the methods used are not technically advisable. There are better ways of doing it, at least one of which was recommended if I read earlier posts correctly.

[manono]

When one makes an effort, no matter what the age, the least one can do is say " Thank You "

Age has nothing to do with it. You dredged up a five year old thread that was better left buried to add something completely irrelevant to that thread and which was poor advice to boot. And, apparently, you signed up here to do just that.

[majong]

To manono and sanlyn .....

I'm sure that there must be a better way than the method I used.

The fact is that I tried all the conceivable methods suggested by others, and it simply did not work for me, and I did not leave them any wise crack remarks.

The idea of being here on the Forum is to help everyone, no matter what their age or how stupid the methods suggested.

I posted what worked for me, even though at the time I thought that there must be a more simplified way.

You point me to a good method, and I would certainly put it to the test, and place my comments here when done.

[majong]

You are absolutely right in your comments. Top marks.

If you really want a quality DVD version of this HD file, you would be better off actually buying the DVD version, instead of downloading something you can't play, and badly converting it yourself.

[sanlyn]

The question posed by the O.P. (the Original Post) was: "KV to AVI without quality loss - for watching on DVD player". In the first place, the O.P. didn't offer enough information about the HD source, so some of the recommendations were guesswork to begin with. 1280x720 HD video comes in different standard structures and frame rates, none of which were mentioned other than the original frame size. In any case, there are a couple of answers to that question that can't be refuted:

(a) It is not possible to re-encode a previously encoded video "without quality loss".
(b) It is not possible to downsample and change file structure from HD to DVD "without quality loss".
(d) It's not possible using any of the software mentioned in this thread to avoid quality loss, and in some cases that quality loss would be severe.

Specifically, you claim that "it worked on my DVD layer, with no loss, at least, hardly that I could notice with my poor eyesight at age 70". That you claim to not notice unavoidable quality loss is an opinion that you are welcome to; no one contests that you don't "notice" the unavoidable and severe quality loss which would result from the methods and software you used -- methods and software that no experienced video hobbyist would recommend -- is not arguable. Whether one has good eyesight, or is blind as a salamander, or has 20/20 vision, or how expert your own vision is. is a point you introduced yourself. The fact is, no one could submit video to what you did without inflicting damage onto the final result.

If you care to pursue this on a more objective basis, you are welcome to submit short samples of both your original source and your final output -- which you should have done in the first place as proof of concept, and which the O.P. neglected to do as well. That would be a far better way to get real-world analyses of the problem and far more specific commentary. Otherwise, if what you're giving us is strictly your opinion about what you see or don't see, then my opinion is that you don't see so well. This opinion has nothing to do with you as a person, likely a good, hard working, salt of the earth type as far as I know. But given a small chunk of what you offered, I could find plenty wrong with it -- along with many members here with more advanced experience than I have, and even with my eyes being older than yours.

[majong]

I hear what you say.
I do not profess to be a video hobbyist by any strecth of the imagination.
All I sought was help, and none provided worked for me.
Hence, I put forward my method which worked for me.

methods and software that no experienced video hobbyist would recommend. Good or bad eyesight aside, no one could submit video to what you did without inflicting damage onto the final result, whether they "notice" it or not.

[sanlyn]

You're welcome to hang around and pick up some tips. Be careful -- once you get into it, this hobby can be addictive.

[manono]

All I sought was help...

Not here you didn't.

...and none provided worked for me.

Provided where? In the first sentence of the first reply to the original post of this thread, gunslinger provided the answer. Then the question might become "How can I convert from such-and-such to such-and-such while losing as little quality as possible?" If a poster says what he has and says what he wants to convert it to (and maybe provides a sample) many here would be very happy to suggest ways to accomplish it. You did none of that, but only provided an inferior answer to a question that had never been asked.

[sanlyn]

For any video project members need more information to work with. It's almost always a good idea to post a short video sample of the unprocessed source, either here or at a file sharing site. Otherwise, we can only make wild guesses about what you need, and those are always incomplete or way off track.