Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > General > Newbies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26th November 2008, 21:33   #1  |  Link
rabidjade
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32
What's better than AGK now days?

I've been reading the new threads for a bit but it seems overwhelming. I've been using AGK for a few years now and now my friend is trying to steer me towards DVD Catalyst 3. I use DVDFab 5 Free to decrypt my DVD's. My target is to make 2GB movies (a size number I picked a long time ago) that play on native WMP11 and WMP 10 Mobile.

So what are the new ways of doing this the easiest way? I prefer something that acts like AGK although it is a little limiting in what the output is. Is DVD Catalyst 360 a good program to use for conversions? I saw screen shots and didn't care for the fact you couldn't just convert a DVD to a straight video files without having to tweak it with time consuming trial and error testing.

Also what is the preferred codec/file type to convert to for Windows Media Players? Thanks!

Last edited by rabidjade; 27th November 2008 at 08:23. Reason: correct the app name
rabidjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2008, 21:49   #2  |  Link
Adub
Fighting spam with a fish
 
Adub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,687
Truth be told, WMP is a terrible media player. However, if you are absolutely set on it, and you want your files to play right out 'o the box, then your best bet is to use the VC-1 codec. Because of this, you may want to look into AutoMKV, as it supports VC-1, and supports profiles so you only "tweak" once.

Oh, and I have never even heard of DVD Catalyst 3.
__________________
FAQs:Bond's AVC/H.264 FAQ
Site:Adubvideo
Adub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2008, 08:22   #3  |  Link
rabidjade
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlin7777 View Post
Truth be told, WMP is a terrible media player. However, if you are absolutely set on it, and you want your files to play right out 'o the box, then your best bet is to use the VC-1 codec. Because of this, you may want to look into AutoMKV, as it supports VC-1, and supports profiles so you only "tweak" once.

Oh, and I have never even heard of DVD Catalyst 3.
Sorry, its DVD Catalyst 360.

I prefer to stay as native as possible on my main rig plus WMP Mobile 10 is the only one on my smart phone. I just feel no need to run a separate media player for videos when I use WMP 11 for everything else.

What is the preferred media player and converter combo that people tend to use on her now days?
rabidjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2008, 08:56   #4  |  Link
dat720
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 870
VLC/MPlayer..... as Media Players, both don't need *installed* codecs they have their own, and both play just about anything, and both are Open Source, Cross Platform, and are ever evolving to suit modern media, not simply getting prettier like WMP, i lean towards mplayer as it also has its own encoding package (mencoder) and if mplayer can play it then mencoder can encode it, that and i also run a mixed bag of linux and windows here, so having the same package available on all systems is just perfect.

Microsoft are trying to keep people using their formats.... ever wondered why WMP won't play Divx/Xvid out of the box?

For conversion if you want a point and click interface AVIDemux is good, it is also cross platform aswell.
dat720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2008, 10:35   #5  |  Link
RunningSkittle
Skittle
 
RunningSkittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 539
Dont forget about MPC-HC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dat720 View Post
...Microsoft are trying to keep people using their formats.... ever wondered why WMP won't play Divx/Xvid out of the box?...
Windows 7 plays them out of the box.
RunningSkittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2008, 12:31   #6  |  Link
dat720
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 870
Yes but Windows 7 is not yet a main stream or even final OS.....

WMP 9 10 and 11 we're all released after the divx codec was, yet none of them support it without a 3rd party decoder.....

Microsoft don't even have the codec in their online codec library for WMP to automaticly download.
dat720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2008, 02:14   #7  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat720 View Post
Yes but Windows 7 is not yet a main stream or even final OS.....

WMP 9 10 and 11 we're all released after the divx codec was, yet none of them support it without a 3rd party decoder.....

Microsoft don't even have the codec in their online codec library for WMP to automaticly download.
Because Microsoft doesn't want people to use DivX, but their own WMV format

Obviously they finally realized that many people don't use the crappy format that is forced on them, but the format the actually gives good results.

I still wonder what H.264 decoder they'll use for Windows 7. Will they license an existing one or develop their own?
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2008, 09:14   #8  |  Link
rabidjade
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32
So what is wrong with h264? I might be going that route. This thread had some good comments on it.
rabidjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2008, 09:15   #9  |  Link
CWR03
Custom User Title
 
CWR03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat720
Microsoft don't even have the codec in their online codec library for WMP to automaticly download.
Microsoft would probably have to pay a license fee to add DivX support.
CWR03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2008, 16:11   #10  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWR03 View Post
Microsoft would probably have to pay a license fee to add DivX support.
They could simply point the user to the DivX web-site, so the user can download the free DivX version.
Or to the Xvid web-site, or to the ffdshow-tryouts web-site, or ...

There are enough options that don't cost them any fees, but they obviously didn't want to

Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidjade View Post
So what is wrong with h264? I might be going that route. This thread had some good comments on it.
Nothing is "wrong" with h.264. Given that you are using a good encoder (like x264), then h.264 should be the format that gives the "best" results for a fixed filesize...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 28th November 2008 at 16:14.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2008, 01:36   #11  |  Link
dat720
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 870
The only thing *wrong* with h264 is its encoding time is significantly longer, it is a more advanced codec and requires more power to encode.... but thats the price you pay for better quality.
dat720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2008, 03:13   #12  |  Link
flebber
Practising Schemer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 791
Why not just continue using dvdfab and then encode with automen http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=127298 a review here http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/1...deo-converter/

Both are simple and effective.
flebber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2008, 12:10   #13  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat720 View Post
The only thing *wrong* with h264 is its encoding time is significantly longer
No, that is not correct. You can't say "H.264 takes longer to encode than MPEG-4 ASP", because it depens on the individual encoder implementation!

For example x264 can be very fast when using "fast" settings. It can be at least as fast as Xvid. If you are using "slow" settings, you can't complain about the encoding time

And I think x264 always beats Xvid in "encoding time per quality". Last but not least: x264 scales very well on multiple cores, while Xvid's multi-threading isn't efficient.

IMO encoding speed is not an argument against H.264 ...
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 29th November 2008 at 12:15.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th November 2008, 23:40   #14  |  Link
dat720
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 870
Thats what i was getting at.... i put wrong in " cos its not really a problem....

CPU's will only get faster and more powerful and encoding times will rise dramaticly.

I still find that even with a quad core utilising 100% of each core h264 (with the high quality options i use) is slower than xvid on a single core.
dat720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2008, 01:59   #15  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dat720 View Post
I still find that even with a quad core utilising 100% of each core h264 (with the high quality options i use) is slower than xvid on a single core.
...and delivers much better quality at the same bitrate. x264 using settings that give Xvid-like speed will still deliver better quality than Xvid

And once we get a "real" GPU encoder - one that isn't a marketing gimmick - encoding speed for H.264 will be even faster.
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊

Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 30th November 2008 at 02:05.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th November 2008, 02:50   #16  |  Link
dat720
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 870
And when that time comes ill drop some decent money on a good GPU, instead of this so so 8500GT

PS time doesnt bother me, which is why i use the high quality settings with h264, as long as it looks good i can sacrifice time....
dat720 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2008, 08:50   #17  |  Link
rabidjade
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 32
CPU time isn't a concern for me, most converting happens when I'm in bed or work. Trying DVD Catalyst 3.7 out converting to h264_5.1 720x416px (full screen for a test). Takes about 1:30 with 2 passes.
rabidjade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.