To elaborate further I have a video that was recorded in a lossless format but it's 691MBs, which would take years to upload to YouTube on my internet.
Is there a free (that won't have a watermark) video converter that'd convert it to XviD/another good quality and filesize codec?
ID:278364
 Aug 24 2010, 8:52 pm
|
|
|
Aug 24 2010, 9:13 pm
|
|
DivineTraveller
 |
SUPER.
|
Although it can be finicky and tricky to work with, I use MediaCoder. It generally suits my purposes. What I like about it is that I have the freedom to tell it which settings I want to use, instead of having to work with a commercial program's dumbed-down "low, medium, or high" settings like I'm ordering fast food. The tricky bit is not all settings always work as expected for all formats, and not all encoders or decoders are created equal.
Lummox JR | |
This thing... is freaking incredible. It retained the great video quality and good audio from going to lossless 691MB to only 50MB... One complaint and it's so minor: Took me awhile to find the D/L link <_<
| |
Yup. I used to tease people with 'you can have this program if you can find it - it's that good, and it's worth it'; they found it as useful and humourous, so it's all good.
| |
It's really quite amazing. I thought it fudged with the audio of my AVI but I played the original and it turns out CamStudio took the sounds of my controller as coming from the Speaker... S'all good though, it worked a miracle.
To be honest I was expecting a lmgtfy link. | |
Definitely an awesome program, I had it take a 500MB file and get it below 5MB. The final version even looks BETTER than the original. Crazy stuff.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
The final version even looks BETTER than the original. Crazy stuff. Could you expand a little bit on that Nadrew? To me that sounds like that would be impossible... | |
The dark bits got properly brighter without looking too bright. It looks crisper too and it appears to have removed a bit of the artifacting associated with quick movements.
| |
Nadrew wrote:
The dark bits got properly brighter without looking too bright. It looks crisper too and it appears to have removed a bit of the artifacting associated with quick movements. In other words, it adjusted the gamma and it properly de-interlaced the material, so that skip-frame interlacing didn't cause screen artifacts. This is something you can do with video editing software without drastically reducing the quality. Its a bit of a no-brainer that if you take a 600MB file and reduce it to 5MB, you've lost a lot of information. Its more of a testament to the fact that color grading video material is very, very important (And avoiding interlacing issues. See 100fps.com). Sorry, I know its sort of a side-track. But software isn't going to reduce file size and increase quality on that drastic of a scale, and saying it does will give the wrong impression entirely. | |
For videos recorded using low-quality cameras like a webcam it's an obvious increase in quality with a major decrease in file size. It's the only camera I have to try with and it's the only one I will ever have to try it on, if people are going to base their opinion on something I said then they deserve to be disappointed.
| |