Looking for a ultra compression software

[gil900]

Hello,
I have a file folder with files - avi, mkv, flv
And I want to compress all the videos.

I've done this before with the software Movavi Video Converter.
But I did it before I knew about the forum.
So I wanted to ask here what is the best way to cram as many videos without losing much quality?

I'm looking for a way to cram a lot of videos without me having to do it again and again for each video.. As it is in Movavi Video Converter.


Thanks for helpers!

[DB83]

From what I can see, Movavi Video Converter is a Mac program. So if you use a Mac you really should ask a question about Mac software on the dedicated Mac forum.

But I feel generous tonight so I will give you a general answer.

Your videos are already compressed. If you compress them further then you lose quality. It does not matter how much - only your eyes can judge that.

[gil900]

From what I can see, Movavi Video Converter is a Mac program. So if you use a Mac you really should ask a question about Mac software on the dedicated Mac forum.

But I feel generous tonight so I will give you a general answer.

Your videos are already compressed. If you compress them further then you lose quality. It does not matter how much - only your eyes can judge that.

http://download.cnet.com/Movavi-Video-Converter/3000-2194_4-10391460.html

I know but I have new videos that I want to compress them but this time the best way.

Not that I think the way I compress not a good way, but I believe this forum someone sure know compress better than me.

[davexnet]

One thing that's a factor, and something you haven't mentioned is whether you're prepared to lower the resolution.
If you do, you can decrease the bitrate quite a bit and get a watchable result.

For example, you can take a 1080p video and shrink it down to 480x272 and see great bitrate savings.

Even if you don't lower the resolution you may still be able to lower the bitrate, each video is different.
You have to look at it and trust your eyes - there's no magic answer.

[gil900]

One thing that's a factor, and something you haven't mentioned is whether you're prepared to lower the resolution.
If you do, you can decrease the bitrate quite a bit and get a watchable result.

For example, you can take a 1080p video and shrink it down to 480x272 and see great bitrate savings.

Even if you don't lower the resolution you may still be able to lower the bitrate, each video is different.
You have to look at it and trust your eyes - there's no magic answer.

this is what i did ..
So nothing new ..

[davexnet]

this is what i did ..
So nothing new ..

I captured a short clip from my capture card (over the air ATSC)
720p, 50Mb, 59.94 fps, 40 seconds.

Using StaxRip, resized it to 480x272 and reduced it to less than 3MB.
It still looks great (but it is small)

The whole thing is a compromise, you have to find the right balance.
file size = bitrate x running time.

[gil900]

For me - touch the resolution as touching fire.
I did not dare touch the resolution ..

When I said "nothing new" I meant that you said "there's no magic answer '

I wanted to get here a magic answer..

[Cornucopia]

You won't get one.


There are basic rules of physics, optics, math, etc., that you just can't ignore. The only things under your control is: what level of quality do you find acceptable, and what can you afford AFA storage size, pc efficiency/speed, etc. All other items are ones you have a "zero-sum-gain".

Scott

[AlanHK]

Hello,
I have a file folder with files - avi, mkv, flv
And I want to compress all the videos.

AVI files generally use Xvid.
MKV usually the more efficient H264 codec.

So you can get similar quality in about the half the size if you convert the Xvids to H264.

If you have multi channel audio, you can save on that by reducing it to stereo.

Otherwise, you have to reduce the video bitrate and thus quality.

[Hoser Rob]

For me - touch the resolution as touching fire.
I did not dare touch the resolution ..

When I said "nothing new" I meant that you said "there's no magic answer '

I wanted to get here a magic answer..

If there was some 'magic' program or simple technique everybody who regularly uses this forum would know about it and be using it already. In fact, it would be so popular that all converters would be doing it the same way too. I can tell you one thing for sure. There's not one reasonably knowledgeable person here using the program you mentioned.

It is true you can get significantly smaller files with h.264 encoding than with xvid. But you won't get that with one of those "one click" programs. You get that with programs that let you use all the h.264 options, and you're going to have to know how to use them.

If you don't, try handbrake. It's definitely available for macs. It has the best balance between ease of use and power of any encoder I've seen. And the documentation is excellent. Read it.

[jmac698]

But there are programs like this, except DVDShrink is the only one I know. It doesn't fully re-encode a video, but does something internally to the stream to reduce it further. And it is popular, fast, and with good quality. It only works for mpeg2 though.

There is also a broadcast standard specifically for re-encoding videos, it applies to mpeg-2 as well. It's concerned with doing a conversion in a way to maintain quality, I suppose the DVDShrink way.

There's also ad/logo-inserting software that re-encodes at a very low level, even parts of a screen, to maintain the original quality everywhere but the ad. This is possible by touching only certain macro-blocks.
It's not a consumer software though, it's probably bundled, or part of some broadcast hardware device.

I think it's quite likely that such software exists now for mpeg4, but it doesn't matter as it's for professional use only.

In other words, NO

[Cornucopia]

No, Dvdshrink transcodes by requantising in the dct domain. It avoids dct and inverse dct rounding errors, and by bypassing some steps, is somewhat faster. But it DOES lose quality. Broadcast hardware isn't really much better either, just faster (realtime).

Ad/bug insertion only works as well as it does because it only works on and affects a portion of the screen.

What i said earlier still holds true. Maintaing a level of quality in one area means making a compromise in other areas.

Scott

[jmac698]

And I agree with all that. He said "without losing much quality", and that's the best answer - requantization. I know it loses quality, it has to.

[Cornucopia]

@jmac698, yes, I believe you understand this axiom (and for you I was just trying to clarify exactly what those apps do) but I don't believe the OP does understand, with a thread title like "ultra compression".

These titles are ALREADY GREATLY COMPRESSED!
Example: An uncompressed 2 hour HD movie of 24bit * 1920 * 1080 * 24fps = 1.11Gbps = 1001GB!
Add simple audio (16bit * 48kHz * 2 ch = 1.46Mbps = 1.28GB) = ~1003GB.

A typical Blu-ray compressed title of this is ~35GB (assuming dual-layer, mostly movie, good quality encode). That's a compression ratio of 1003:35 or ~30:1! And that is using the efficient h.264 codec, at optimum settings, with high quality source material.

Sure, you can get similar quality if you make minor adjustments (35->30GB, etc), but going from ~35GB to 8GB is another 4.375:1 drop. Newbies assume that that's all there is to it, but we know that it's really NOW a ratio of 1003:8 or 125:1! Those 30:1 and 4.375:1 are multiplied. You can't go from 30:1 to 125:1 and NOT notice a major qualitative difference. So you are stuck with making compromises. There is no free lunch. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

(edit: We've had a rash of these kinds of threads here lately, and I think it just can't be stressed enough to newbies)

Scott