want to convert vob to mkv

[perfection]

Please tell me the best converter quality wise that can do this conversion
Is there an option of a superfast converter too?
On an average how long would a 2.5 hr movie take to convert? (I know itr depends ion my CPU and GPU etc - just a ballpark figure

[Baldrick]

Makemkv. No reconversion. Best quality.

But I guess you want to shrink it also?

[yoda313]

But I guess you want to shrink it also?

Probably.

Doesn't ripbot264 support mkv output? You can reencode to a smaller file size with ripbot264.

On an average how long would a 2.5 hr movie take to convert?

Is this high def or standard def video?

Do you have a single core, dual, quad or higher cpu? Do you have a cuda enabled video card and will you use it with a cuda supported encoder?

Those are the determining factors in determining speed of the encoding job. As well as how many passes you'll do during the encode and if any filtering is applied.

You can do it in an hour or less and up to 12 hours or more depending on the source content and the power of your processor.

Edit - you do know that by compressing the video you'll be losing quality right? How much depends on the codec used and whether or not you stay high def or downconvert and your personal tolerance to video quality in general. In other words what looks good to one person can look horrible to another. Just don't expect to keep it exactly the same when you're compressing.

[Hoser Rob]

I'd assume you want smaller files too ... otherwise you may as well just keep the ripped vob folder on your hard drive and play that. That's why I think paying for makemkv sounds ridiculous.

There ain't no magic 'superfast' converter. There are settings that are faster than others. All those converters out there that offer fast encodes just use only the fastest settings.

But the fast settings give you terrible quality. Avi's made with high quality settings are better than mkvs using the fastest mode. I saw a 720p mkv encode of a bluray rip last week that was worse than one I could have made from a dvd.

For a start try handbrake using high profile (very important) in constant quality mode set to 18-20 for a dvd rip. Without getting into the advanced settings I'd guess about 45 minutes on my i3. It's not easy to say what you'd be happy with. Any conversion will lose quality.

But if you want best quality in the smallest size you need to tweak the advanced settings. They're complex, and there's no way to simplify them all that much. There's no general rule because different video needs different tweaks.

But that'll greatly increase encoding time. Just getting started with tweaked settings will triple it. It gets much worse.

I've made some really good encodes of some of my dvds using a lot of the advanced settings but on my i3 they took almost 6 hours for a 2 hour movie.

BTW gpu speed isn't worth considering for encoding. There are some encoders that use GPU acceleration but they don't give you good quality.

[jman98]

You can have fast or you can have best quality but you can't have both.

If you let your conversions run while you sleep, are away at work, etc. you may not care how long they take if you like the quality you get.

I'm going to restate what Hoser Rob said in a more blunt way. If you are seriously considering using a GPU to do this then you don't care at all about quality or you don't understand what you are doing.

[perfection]

Thank you all

[hello_hello]

It probably doesn't matter too much which encoder GUI you use. Pretty much all current encoder GUIs will encode using the x264 encoder, although some programs are updated far more regularly than others. Personally, I use MeGUI.

MeGUI, along with pretty much any other decent encoder GUI, will allow you to configure the x264 encoder. x264 has it's own speed presets. More often than not I simply use the medium (default) speed preset although if I'm not in a hurry and want to reduce the file size a bit I'll use one of the slower presets. You don't want to be fiddling with advanced x264 settings unless you really know what you're doing. I always use quality based, single pass encoding. The final file size will vary according to how hard to original video is to compress. The default quality setting (CRF value) of 20 will give you quite good results. The lower the CRF value the better the quality and the larger the file size.

[Hoser Rob]

I suggested handbrake largely because it's easier for newbies. The other decent ones I know of assume you know something about h.264. Which I seriously doubt the OP does.

I also use handbrake because I can't find any other decent ones that don't need 3rd party codecs/filters. You shouldn't do that with windows 7 ... it specifically says that in Microsoft tech support.

If anyone knows of one that works better than handbrake and doesn't require nero or other extra crap I'd be happy to hear about it.

Especially since I find handbrake doesn't do quite as good a job as it should at lower bit rates.

[jagabo]

You can have fast or you can have best quality but you can't have both.

You can have fast and high quality. What you can't have is fast, high quality, and the smallest file size.

[vidyarathne]

I suggested handbrake largely because it's easier for newbies. The other decent ones I know of assume you know something about h.264. Which I seriously doubt the OP does.

I also use handbrake because I can't find any other decent ones that don't need 3rd party codecs/filters. You shouldn't do that with windows 7 ... it specifically says that in Microsoft tech support.

If anyone knows of one that works better than handbrake and doesn't require nero or other extra crap I'd be happy to hear about it.

Especially since I find handbrake doesn't do quite as good a job as it should at lower bit rates.

hello, you mean handbrake tool is not good to use in windows 7 ?
i noticed that when i use it my CPU usage always shows 100%. is that bad ?

[Hoser Rob]

hello, you mean handbrake tool is not good to use in windows 7 ?
i noticed that when i use it my CPU usage always shows 100%. is that bad ?

I said the opposite. It works fine in win7.

I don't know what hardware you're using but it's not unusual for a video encoder to max out the CPU.

[hello_hello]

Unless it's getting too hot, you actually want an encoder to max out CPU usage as much as possible. The less effectively the CPU is used, the longer encoding will take.

MeGUI doesn't require you to know anything about configuring x264's advanced options. By default when opening the x264 configuration you can adjust the quality (or file size), pick a tuning, an AVC level, an x264 speed preset, and if necessary a target playback device which will configure the appropriate x264 options automatically. None of the advanced x264 settings are even exposed to the user unless you check the box telling MeGUI to reveal them.

As far as I know DirectShow filters are the problem with Win7, and while MeGUI is capable of using them it generally doesn't. It indexes video using ffms or dgindex like many other encoder GUIs and AVISynth for frame serving (along with all the usual AVISynth plugins).

Yes, Handbrake is probably easier for newbies but I don't particularly like it. Personal preference I guess. I do often read/view the MeGUI thread over at doom9 and I'm pretty confident as an XP user I'm well in the minority. Far more MeGUI users seem to be happily running it on Windows 7. If you check for updates using the development server, MeGUI and/or one of it's components seems to be updated at least weekly. It's very well maintained.

PS I'm definitely not saying you shouldn't use Handbrake. To a certain extent an x264 encoder GUI is an x264 encoder GUI, they all encode using the x264 encoder, although the version MeGUI uses is generally updated as soon as a new one is available. Last time was about a month ago.

PPS This is probably the tool you'd require for changing the merit of DirectShow filters using Windows 7. https://www.videohelp.com/tools/Preferred-Filter-Tweaker
Personally I think if Microsoft say you shouldn't use it or use third party codecs with Windows 7 then they have their own agenda which isn't necessarily to benefit you. Maybe they want to speed up the demise of DirectShow which they plan to eventually remove from Windows in preference to Media Foundation, or maybe they'd just prefer you to do as you're told.