What's better than AGK now days?

[rabidjade]

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!

[Adub]

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.

[rabidjade]

Originally Posted by Merlin7777

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?

[dat720]

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.

[RunningSkittle]

Dont forget about MPC-HC.

Originally Posted by dat720

...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.

[dat720]

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.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by dat720

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?

[rabidjade]

So what is wrong with h264? I might be going that route. This thread had some good comments on it.

[CWR03]

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.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by CWR03

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

Originally Posted by rabidjade

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...

[dat720]

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.

[flebber]

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.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by dat720

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 ...

[dat720]

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.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by dat720

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.

[dat720]

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....

[rabidjade]

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.