VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Consider supporting us by disable adblocker or buy Replay Video Capture or PlayON and record Netflix!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Not sure if this should be in the ripping or converting forum so if it seems more appropriate elsewhere please feel free to move it.

    It seems there are as many formats for video as there are opinions so would appreciate some help. I have a large collection of commercial DVDs as well as a large collection of my own videos on DVD and would like to rip these and put them on a couple of NAS drives so they can be accessed from all of my TVs as well as my computers and mobile devices. Needless to say I don't want to lose any quality but want to minimize file size as much as possible and have the greatest compatibility between devices.

    I used TMPGE to author DVDs and tried using it to load video onto my hard drive but the older version creates an mpg file that is very large. I also have newer versions of the same program however it creates proprietary video files which are useless for my needs. I also tried Handbrake but it seems there are so many settings it doesnít seem like it is for the novice user. I purchased Aimersoft but of course there are many choices in it as well. avi mkv mp4 mov and on and on. I know my TV played avi files so tried it and then received an error message that it did not support that format which seemed odd as I played avi files before but then discovered for each of the above there are different encoding that can be used so again would appreciate knowing what should be used or what the advantage of one over the other is.

    I also from time to time capture streaming video and when I go to convert these the output file is always much larger that the source file which doesnít seem to make a lot of sense.

    In addition I often I would like to cut off a few seconds of video at the start or end of some of the videos I have which you can do in Aimersoft however again the output file size is much larger that the input file size even when the same format/encoding and resolution is exactly the same as well as the audio.

    I recently tried another program to rip programs to my hard drive but cannot recall the name of it. I believe the format was h265 but my TV would not play it so try converting it and again the file sizes were larger that the source and the longer the video plays the more out of sync the audio becomes while the original did not.

    So to sum up I would like to know what format I should use to accomplish what I want to do. Size of the file it is not the biggest concern but donít want to have them excessively large either, at least what is beyond what is needed to maintain the quality. Most or at least many of these are not HD anyway so the originals are not always the highest quality but donít want to lose what qualify they do have. I would like to know what I can use to edit the video, and it doesnít need to be a full fledged editor as most of the time it is just cutting a few seconds off of the beginning or end of the video and would prefer it if didnít have to re-encode the entire video.

    Thank you
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Needless to say I don't want to lose any quality but want to minimize file size as much as possible...
    No quality loss but minimal file size? You don't notice a contradiction there? It's one or the other but not both.

    I also from time to time capture streaming video and when I go to convert these the output file is always much larger that the source file which doesnít seem to make a lot of sense.
    The final filesize is determined by the bitrate set and only by the bitrate. If that bitrate is larger than that of the source, then the output file size will be larger.

    I believe the format was h265 but my TV would not play it
    That should point you in the right direction. You want the output format to be one that is compatible with all devices on which you intend to play them. You'll get more info about that from the user manuals than from here.

    I'd suggest you find out what your devices (televisions, tablets, phones, whatever) accept and have in common and then go for that. It might be MP4 with H264 video and AAC audio. Once you've determined that, then you can decide what programs can do it for you - cut the beginning and ends, set a bitrate and/or quality to make the filesize smaller without compromising quality too much. The program might be Handbrake (or, more likely, Vidcoder), if you learn to use it properly.

    ...and would prefer it if didnít have to re-encode the entire video.
    If MPG is okay with you, convert your DVDs to that (VOB2MPEG) and don't reencode at all. They'll be about the same size as your DVDs, and should play on the devices you have, although you'll have to test to be sure.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Needless to say I don't want to lose any quality but want to minimize file size as much as possible and have the greatest compatibility between devices.
    The only way to avoid loss of quality is to rip MPEG-2 files from your DVDs. They you'll get the size you get and the compatibility you get.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by JVRaines View Post
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Needless to say I don't want to lose any quality but want to minimize file size as much as possible and have the greatest compatibility between devices.
    The only way to avoid loss of quality is to rip MPEG-2 files from your DVDs. They you'll get the size you get and the compatibility you get.
    So all of the compression techniques they have developed over the years don't maintain the quality as at least some of them claim? What is the purpose of them then when they could simply lower the bitrate and achieve the same smaller file size?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    So all of the compression techniques they have developed over the years don't maintain the quality as at least some of them claim? What is the purpose of them then when they could simply lower the bitrate and achieve the same smaller file size?
    Lossy codecs are called lossy for a reason. They all lose quality when they compress video. The idea is to get as much compression as possible with the least loss of quality. So when you re-compress (with a lossy codec) an already compressed video you will always get more loss of quality. But it may be little enough that you don't care. Some lossy codecs from least compression at the top, to most compression at the bottom:

    MPEG 1
    MPEG 2
    MPEG4 Part 2 (Xvid, Divx)
    h.264 (AVC, MPEG 4 Part 10), VP8
    h.265 (HEVC)., VP9
    AV1

    As a general rule, the better the compression the longer it takes to compress and the more power it takes to decompress (to play).
    Last edited by jagabo; 20th Mar 2018 at 14:27.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    So all of the compression techniques they have developed over the years don't maintain the quality as at least some of them claim? What is the purpose of them then when they could simply lower the bitrate and achieve the same smaller file size?
    Lossy codecs are called lossy for a reason. They all lose quality when they compress video. The idea is to get as much compression as possible with the least loss of quality. So when you re-compress (with a lossy codec) an already compressed video you will always get more loss of quality. But it may be little enough that you don't care. Some lossy codecs from least compression at the top, to most compression at the bottom:

    MPEG 1
    MPEG 2
    MPEG4 Part 2 (Xvid, Divx)
    h.264 (AVC, MPEG 4 Part 10), VP8
    h.264 (HEVC)., VP9
    AV1

    As a general rule, the better the compression the longer it takes to compress and the more power it takes to decompress (to play).
    So what is considered the best balance between compression and the least quality loss? Does avi not use different codecs as well, if that is the right term? I am not all that conversant but I know I have some avi files that will play on my TV and some that will not so assumed there is more that one type of avi file.
    Thank you
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I am not all that conversant but I know I have some avi files that will play on my TV and some that will not so assumed there is more that one type of avi file.
    AVI is a container, not a format, not a codec.

    AVI: https://www.videohelp.com/glossary?A#AVI

    codec: https://www.videohelp.com/glossary?C#Codec
    - My sister Ann's brother
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    So all of the compression techniques they have developed over the years don't maintain the quality as at least some of them claim? What is the purpose of them then when they could simply lower the bitrate and achieve the same smaller file size?
    Lossy codecs are called lossy for a reason. They all lose quality when they compress video. The idea is to get as much compression as possible with the least loss of quality. So when you re-compress (with a lossy codec) an already compressed video you will always get more loss of quality. But it may be little enough that you don't care. Some lossy codecs from least compression at the top, to most compression at the bottom:

    MPEG 1
    MPEG 2
    MPEG4 Part 2 (Xvid, Divx)
    h.264 (AVC, MPEG 4 Part 10), VP8
    h.264 (HEVC)., VP9
    AV1

    As a general rule, the better the compression the longer it takes to compress and the more power it takes to decompress (to play).
    So what is considered the best balance between compression and the least quality loss? Does avi not use different codecs as well, if that is the right term? I am not all that conversant but I know I have some avi files that will play on my TV and some that will not so assumed there is more that one type of avi file.
    Thank you
    Yes, AVI is a container which can be used for a fair number of different audio and video codecs. A TV's built-in media player can only play some of the possible combinations.

    The post above mentions AV1. AV1 (A+V+the number one) is a codec, AOMedia Video 1. AV1, which is still under development, will be used with Opus audio in a future version of the WebM container.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    So what is considered the best balance between compression and the least quality loss?
    All the codecs I listed can deliver good quality. The issue is how small the resulting videos can get before quality loss becomes a problem. I gave the codecs in the order of increasing compression while retaining good quality. That is, to maintain quality, MPEG 1 will require the most bitrate, AV1 the least.

    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Does avi not use different codecs as well, if that is the right term? I am not all that conversant but I know I have some avi files that will play on my TV and some that will not so assumed there is more that one type of avi file.
    AVI is a container like MP4, MOV, MKV, etc. Containers are logical organizations of audio and video, subtitles, etc data. That orgainization makes it easier for players to identify what's in the file. Most containers can contain a wide variety of codecs. Many players are limited to certain containers and do not support all codecs that may be found within.

    Note the the last codec in my list is AV1 (the last character is the number one, not the letter I). The AV1 spec has not been finalized and there is virtually no support for it yet.
    Last edited by jagabo; 19th Mar 2018 at 21:32.
    Quote Quote  
  10. that avi vs. av1 , that's gonna cause a mayhem if it gets widely used
    Quote Quote  
  11. Right now the best compromise is using h264 (AVC) for video in mp4 or mkv container. It can achieve decent compression with good quality and speed. h264 is also well supported by players

    If your player only supports .avi, you can get pretty good quality encodes especially if you're doing DVDs.
    You do however have to make sure
    1. that the encode is not "packed bitstream"
    2. the audio is CBR .mp3
    3. no GMC, no QPEL

    You could try XmediaRecode. It's free and has settings for different players. Encode a few small files and see if they play.

    Best bet though is h264 + aac audio in mkv container
    Last edited by blud7; 20th Mar 2018 at 13:20.
    Quote Quote  
  12. [QUOTE=jagabo;2515032]
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    ...

    MPEG 1
    MPEG 2
    MPEG4 Part 2 (Xvid, Divx)
    h.264 (AVC, MPEG 4 Part 10), VP8
    h.265 (HEVC)., VP9
    AV1

    ....
    Quote Quote  
  13. Oops, I'll fix that typo.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    [QUOTE=manono;2514929]
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Needless to say I don't want to lose any quality but want to minimize file size as much as possible...
    No quality loss but minimal file size? You don't notice a contradiction there? It's one or the other but not both.
    I hope this is not going to be to confusing and perhaps I should have removed my quotes you included in your replies but will leave it like this for now as I don't know how it will turn out. As mentioned in a post above I understood, and could be wrong, that improvements have been made in compression technology so it doesn't seem unreasonable that there may be a way to have a smaller file size while maintaining the quality. Even it not perhaps there is still a reasonable tradeoff as such. I don't know if some programs do a better job that others but would suspect so. Aimersoft says they convert with no quality loss but perhaps the file size stays the same or gets larger. If program X or codec X produces an output file that is 5gb with a bitrate of 5 and program or codec Y produces the same output and is 4gb with a bitrate of 4.9 then I would obviously be will trade a very small loss of quality for a 20% smaller file. Is there also not a lot of video that is variable bit rate as opposed to a fixed bit rate and if so how is the quality then determined or maintained?

    I also from time to time capture streaming video and when I go to convert these the output file is always much larger that the source file which doesnít seem to make a lot of sense.
    The final filesize is determined by the bitrate set and only by the bitrate. If that bitrate is larger than that of the source, then the output file size will be larger.
    So a video with a resolution of 720 and bitrate of 5 will be the same size as a video with a resolution of 1080 and a bitrate of 5? Again I am not contradicting or questioning you only looking for clarification.

    I believe the format was h265 but my TV would not play it
    That should point you in the right direction. You want the output format to be one that is compatible with all devices on which you intend to play them. You'll get more info about that from the user manuals than from here.

    I'd suggest you find out what your devices (televisions, tablets, phones, whatever) accept and have in common and then go for that. It might be MP4 with H264 video and AAC audio. Once you've determined that, then you can decide what programs can do it for you - cut the beginning and ends, set a bitrate and/or quality to make the filesize smaller without compromising quality too much. The program might be Handbrake (or, more likely, Vidcoder), if you learn to use it properly.
    That is the problem for someone that does not have in depth knowledge, using these programs "properly" as you mention is not an easy thing to do, and while it might be nice to have the time to learn all of the aspects necessary for me it is simply not feasible. I had hoped that a commercially available program would remove much of the need to have an in depth understanding in order to be able to use them. Aimersoft seems pretty straightforward but will post a couple of screen captures that will show the issues I am concerned about as I need to go right now.

    My TV plays most formats or codecs with the exception of the h265 I mentioned above and MSMPEGV3, these are two that I have found that will not play on my TV, other than that it seems everything pretty much plays.

    ...and would prefer it if didnít have to re-encode the entire video.
    If MPG is okay with you, convert your DVDs to that (VOB2MPEG) and don't reencode at all. They'll be about the same size as your DVDs, and should play on the devices you have, although you'll have to test to be sure.
    I would prefer if I could edit some from the start and end without re-encoding so even if mpg was okay I would still like to be able to trim the video without re-encoding.

    I am sorry I have not replied earlier but have had a sick family member so have not been here much. I had replied to a few of the other posts but as yours was longer and discussed more areas I just didn't take the time until now. I know at least some of the issues have been discussed above but as you took the time to reply wanted to reply to you.

    Thank you
    Last edited by jackdup; 15th Apr 2018 at 23:11.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    ...so it doesn't seem unreasonable that there may be a way to have a smaller file size while maintaining the quality.
    Once again, encoding to a lossy codec mean ... loss ... of quality. Degradation. You may or may not notice it, but it's there. Lossless is possible, yes, but the file sizes are enormous.

    So a video with a resolution of 720 and bitrate of 5 will be the same size as a video with a resolution of 1080 and a bitrate of 5?
    Yes. Filesize is entirely dependent on bitrate. Resolution doesn't figure in at all.

    I would prefer if I could edit some from the start and end without re-encoding so even if mpg was okay I would still like to be able to trim the video without re-encoding.
    Easy. Open the DVD VOBs all at once in MPG2Cut2, trim from the beginning and end, and then it'll save the rest as MPG. No reencoding;no loss of quality.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    So a video with a resolution of 720 and bitrate of 5 will be the same size as a video with a resolution of 1080 and a bitrate of 5?
    It's the literal definition of bitrate:

    Code:
    bit rate = size / duration
    where size (of the stream) is expressed in bits (bytes * 8), and duration is the running time in seconds.

    Of course, the file size is the sum of the size of all streams contained in the file, plus a little overhead for the container itself. Overhead is usually on the order of 1 percent, except for transport streams (.TS, .MTS, M2TS, etc.) which have more redundancy and run about 5 percent.

    It's like miles per gallon and cars. If two cars get the same MPG (rate) they will go the same number of miles (size) on a gallon of gas, regardless of the other properties of the cars.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    ...so it doesn't seem unreasonable that there may be a way to have a smaller file size while maintaining the quality.
    Once again, encoding to a lossy codec mean ... loss ... of quality. Degradation. You may or may not notice it, but it's there. Lossless is possible, yes, but the file sizes are enormous.

    So a video with a resolution of 720 and bitrate of 5 will be the same size as a video with a resolution of 1080 and a bitrate of 5?
    Yes. Filesize is entirely dependent on bitrate. Resolution doesn't figure in at all.

    I would prefer if I could edit some from the start and end without re-encoding so even if mpg was okay I would still like to be able to trim the video without re-encoding.
    Easy. Open the DVD VOBs all at once in MPG2Cut2, trim from the beginning and end, and then it'll save the rest as MPG. No reencoding;no loss of quality.
    Thanks again for the additional information. Will the MPG2Cut2 allow trimming of other codecs as well as I do have a fair amount of videos that have been ripped to my HD already and would like to trim at least some of these. While it is nice to be able to maintain the quality of all the videos sometimes a slight loss of quality may be worth the tradeoff in size, especially when I have the original DVDs. I don't want to lose half the quality to reduce the file size by 10% but if I can reduce file size by 20-30% or more and only have a slight loss of quality, which as you mention, may be imperceivable, than I would be happy with that. Of course family videos I would like to keep as high a quality as possible.

    If all of the newer codecs result in loss of quality what is the purpose of them? If all they really do is reduce the bit rate than could you not simply reduce the bitrate of an MPG file to achieve a smaller files size if that is what the other codecs essentially do? From what I have read or seen in a TV documentary I understood that the newer codecs have found ways to keep the quality and reduce file size and at least one way they do that is to not save every detail of every frame, only the ones that change so if you have the same sky or background or other static objects in 10,000 frames it would take less size to keep that information that keeping the entire contents of every frame. Again perhaps I am completely misunderstanding but this does seem logical but again I am no expert so appreciate your feedback or comments.

    Below is a little experimentation I tried and perhaps you can explain. I have a DVD that I am going to import or rip to my hard drive in Aimersoft as I already have that program installed. As you can see by the screen capture it will use MKV format, h264 codec and for the audio AAC. The source file is 4.7gb and the output file will be 1.3gb and Aimersoft claims there is no quality loss but that seems hard to believe.

    I will post in a separate post below converting the same movie to a different format using Aimersoft. I am using a separate post to avoid confusion for the screen captures.

    Would converting an MPG to an H264 reduce the file size by reducing the bit rate? I would assume so given your previous posts.

    It turns out after converting it the file size was actually 590 mb instead of the 1.3gb originally estimated by the program.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	CONVERSION 1.JPG
Views:	10
Size:	26.3 KB
ID:	45196  

    Last edited by jackdup; 16th Apr 2018 at 14:10.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Will the MPG2Cut2 allow trimming of other codecs as well...
    No. Depending on the codecs used, most can be trimmed at GOP boundaries using other editors. Even MPEG2Cut2 won't do frame-accurate cuts, but cut on the GOP boundaries, roughly every half a second at most. Smart editors can trim by frames with reencoding only done between the cut and the next GOP boundary.

    If all they really do is reduce the bit rate than could you not simply reduce the bitrate of an MPG file to achieve a smaller files size if that is what the other codecs essentially do?
    Newer and more efficient codecs can output quality similar to that of MPEG-2, but using lower bitrates, resulting in smaller filesizes for the same quality.

    The source file is 4.7gb and the output file will be 1.3gb and Aimersoft claims there is no quality loss but that seems hard to believe.
    If that's what they said, then they are liars.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I was going to convert that same movie that I had previously ripped to my hard drive and you can see the source size and output size. I was going to say I am not sure what I used to rip it but given the size of the output file I mentioned above I assume it probably was Aimersoft. The codec screen capture was taken from VLC to show the codec used on the source file was h264 - mpeg 4 and the audio is AAC. The second screen capture is from Aimersoft and shows the output will be mkv-h264-AAC. The source file is 549mb and the output file will be 3.2gb. Perhaps this file was ripped with something else I really can't remember.

    If I now take the file I just ripped from the DVD above and load it to convert it keeps the same file size unlike above where it would increase the output size substantially. Converting from an mpeg4-h264 to mkv-h264 increases file size substantially which doesn't seem to make any sense.
    Image Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	CODEC.JPG
Views:	8
Size:	35.1 KB
ID:	45197  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	CODEC 2.JPG
Views:	9
Size:	33.8 KB
ID:	45198  

    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Will the MPG2Cut2 allow trimming of other codecs as well...
    No. Depending on the codecs used, most can be trimmed at GOP boundaries using other editors. Even MPEG2Cut2 won't do frame-accurate cuts, but cut on the GOP boundaries, roughly every half a second at most. Smart editors can trim by frames with reencoding only done between the cut and the next GOP boundary.

    If all they really do is reduce the bit rate than could you not simply reduce the bitrate of an MPG file to achieve a smaller files size if that is what the other codecs essentially do?
    Newer and more efficient codecs can output quality similar to that of MPEG-2, but using lower bitrates, resulting in smaller filesizes for the same quality.

    The source file is 4.7gb and the output file will be 1.3gb and Aimersoft claims there is no quality loss but that seems hard to believe.
    If that's what they said, then they are liars.
    Thanks again for your reply and not sure if you saw my second post above? I am not understanding how converting a DVD Video to mkv would reduce the file size from 4.7gb to 590 mb and then converting the same movie from mp4 to mkv would result it an increase in size from 549 mb to 3.2 gb.

    If you wanted to rip video from a DVD to a hard drive and were willing to trade a bit of quality for file size would you agree with what was suggested above which was using mkv - h264 and AAC? If so what program would you suggest that would not require extensive knowledge to properly setup the program and additionally what program would you suggest to trim the converted video? I guess I could rip it to mpg and use the editor you suggest and then do the conversion to a newer codec to reduce file size while maintaining a quality at least close to the original.

    One other question I often see h264 and x264 referred to, what is the difference.
    Thank you again.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I am not understanding how converting a DVD Video to mkv would reduce the file size from 4.7gb to 590 mb and then converting the same movie from mp4 to mkv would result it an increase in size from 549 mb to 3.2 gb.
    The process of converting from one codec to another involves first decompressing the source video, then giving those uncompressed frames to the new codec for compression. Regarding your example: in the first case a lower bitrate than the DVD source was specified -- so the mkv output was smaller. In the second case a higher bitrate than the mp4 source was specified, so the output mkv was larger.


    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I often see h264 and x264 referred to, what is the difference.
    h.264 is a specification for video compression. x264 is a specific implementation of that specification.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I am not understanding how converting a DVD Video to mkv would reduce the file size from 4.7gb to 590 mb and then converting the same movie from mp4 to mkv would result it an increase in size from 549 mb to 3.2 gb.
    The process of converting from one codec to another involves first decompressing the source video, then giving those uncompressed frames to the new codec for compression. Regarding your example: in the first case a lower bitrate than the DVD source was specified -- so the mkv output was smaller. In the second case a higher bitrate than the mp4 source was specified, so the output mkv was larger.


    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I often see h264 and x264 referred to, what is the difference.
    h.264 is a specification for video compression. x264 is a specific implementation of that specification.
    Where do you see the lower and higher bit rates I the two conversion samples I posted? I did not set any bitrates at all and as it showed the same resolution I assumed it would use the same bit rate. It seems the only options once a codec is chosen is in the lower right where you can either select high quality or small file and in both cases high quality was chosen so assume that would keep the bit rate. Maybe not the same bit rate of the original source but the same bit rate for the output I both examples.

    Thank you
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Where do you see the lower and higher bit rates I the two conversion samples I posted?
    In the file sizes.

    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I did not set any bitrates at all and as it showed the same resolution I assumed it would use the same bit rate.
    You assume incorrectly.

    Bitrate can be specified directly by setting a bitrate, or indirectly by setting a quality level, rate factor, etc.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Search Comp PM
    QUOTE=jagabo;2517499]
    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    Where do you see the lower and higher bit rates I the two conversion samples I posted?
    In the file sizes.

    Originally Posted by jackdup View Post
    I did not set any bitrates at all and as it showed the same resolution I assumed it would use the same bit rate.
    You assume incorrectly.

    Bitrate can be specified directly by setting a bitrate, or indirectly by setting a quality level, rate factor, etc.[/QUOTE]

    I guess the part that is confusing is all I did was leave mkv selected and high quality selected and one time it randomly chooses to output a file that is 590 mb from a 4.7 gb source and the very next file it randomly changes the bitrate so the output is 3.2 gb from a 540 mb source file without me changing anything? I hadn't even closed and reopened the programs between loading the files to convert.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Then maybe you should think about using a different program, one that's a little bit more transparent about what it's doing. I, for one, would never even think about using an encoder that gives you a choice of 'High Quality' as a setting. You want something that will allow you to set either a bitrate or a CRF (or similar) quality setting.

    Maybe such programs are for people that want the easiest and most automatic experience possible, without having to make too many choices or knowing anything at all about video encoding. Is that you? It shouldn't be, if you're serious about your video conversion hobby. If this is a one-time thing, then maybe it'll serve its purpose.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads