[Oreo]

I want to copy my DVD's onto a USB stick to watch on my Aspire One, but im having trouble finding free applications with no virus's that will first convert and then get it down to under 7.5GB (my USB sticks capacity).

Any help would be appreciated. I did look at DVD decrypter but it seemed a) quite complicated and then b) 'decrypted' into several seperate .vob files, i then was stuck on what to do.

Ideally they need to be .mov because i know the aspire one will play that, but im guessing it will play most common formats.

[MikeFuryXP]

VideoHelp.com - Forum, Guides, Tools and hardware lists
Start with avs converter and go from there and do "NOT" use winavi video converter it's been **** since version 7.1 and the company has not gotten their act together ever since that version.
The above website is awsome for video help they have a more expertise field in video making, DVD authoring and production.

[carnageX]

http://www.tech-forums.net/pc/f12/re...-tasks-176402/

Section for ripping.

Rip the DVD's to DivX AVI and then install K-Lite codec pack to play every file under the sun.

[EricB]

Originally Posted by MadMikeXP

VideoHelp.com - Forum, Guides, Tools and hardware lists
Start with avs converter and go from there and do "NOT" use winavi video converter it's been **** since version 7.1 and the company has not gotten their act together ever since that version.
The above website is awsome for video help they have a more expertise field in video making, DVD authoring and production.

I take offense to that since I was once of their top guys from 2001-2003 (4) when copying dvd wasn't such a simple process. I wrote plenty of guides for them. around that time, I got tired of the thousands of email that I was receiving and dvdshrink came out too.

I promptly cussed baldrick out because I told him to stop giving everybody my email and he kept doing it (it was more complicated than that. I cussed this other guy grumm out too about something else) and dvdshrink made it a very simple process they any joe could do it, so I wasn't need as much. so I stop messing with the site

oreo. use. dvdfab decryptor, autogk, nero recode to rip and shrink it, then just copy and paste it over. it will take a lot of time if you directly convert it over on the drive

everything is very simple now. you don't need to go there, you can come here

[CalcProgrammer1]

I use DVD:Rip in Linux, awesome app that does full ripping, transcoding, etc. I always use XviD at 1500 or so kbps (unless I'm converting for PDA, then I go smaller, usually can get movies to 700MB by playing around with bitrates). If you have Linux it's definitely a no brainer, as for Windows, I don't rip in Windows for exactly that reason, I downloaded a ripping app one time and hacked it, but even then it was horrible and couldn't make out half of my DVD's right.

Also make absolutely sure to choose the right frame rate for your video, as if the source is 24fps and you encode at 29, you'll get a very choppy, not smooth video. The same happens if you encode a 29fps source at 24fps.

[EricB]

I'm not in argumentative mood these days around here so I didn't even bother to correct this the first time around.

but if you keep swearing by stuff, then maybe you need to know the truth.


here in the US dvd are 29fps. US dvd goes by the NTSC standard which is 29. the pal standard is 25 fps. now shrinking a movie with that low fps can make low resolution movies look better because it is low resolution. but that's it

if you encode with a hardware encoder (like those from OSprey, Canopus, quartet gli and opticast. they cost thousand of dollars, but you can find them on ebay from 30.00-250.00 bucks) instead using the cpu (even the cheaper cards from real magic ,ati, haupage and nvidia will suffice)
, the quality will always be great and not choppy while keeping a small size.



now these are somebody's else word's not mine if you need proof

What is DVD?

PAL

Video:
Up to 9.8 Mbps* (9800 kbps*) MPEG2 video
Up to 1.856 Mbps (1856 kbps) MPEG1 video
720 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Full-D1)
704 x 576 pixels MPEG2
352 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Half-D1, same as the CVD Standard)
352 x 288 pixels MPEG2
352 x 288 pixels MPEG1 (Same as the VCD Standard)
25 fps*
16:9 Anamorphic (only supported by 720x576)

NTSC (NTSC Film)

Video:
Up to 9.8 Mbps* (9800 kbps*) MPEG2 video
Up to 1.856 Mbps (1856 kbps) MPEG1 video
720 x 480 pixels MPEG2 (Called Full-D1)
704 x 480 pixels MPEG2
352 x 480 pixels MPEG2 (Called Half-D1, same as the CVD Standard)
352 x 240 pixels MPEG2
352 x 240 pixels MPEG1 (Same as the VCD Standard)
29,97 fps*
23,976 fps with 3:2 pulldown = 29,97 playback fps (NTSC Film, this is only supported by MPEG2 video)
16:9 Anamorphic (only supported by 720x480)

24 fps? that's what they show at the movies

30 Frames per Second vs. 60 Frames per Second - 1

Movies
I have seen film students write in to columns about how anything over 24 fps is wasted. Why 24 fps? Movies in theaters run at 24 fps. They seem pretty smooth to me, so why would we need more? Well, let's take a look at movies from the eyes' perspective. First off, you are sitting in a dark movie theater and the projector is flashing a really bright light on a highly reflective screen. What does this do? Have you ever had a doctor flash a bright light in your eye to look at your retina? Most of us have. What happens? A thing called "afterimage". When the doctor turns off the bright light, you see an afterimage of the light (and it is not real comfortable). Movie theaters do the same thing. The light reflected off the screen is much brighter than the theater surroundings. You get an afterimage of the screen after the frame is passed on, so the next frame change is not as noticable.
Screen refresh is also a very important factor in this equation. Unlike a television or a computer monitor, the movie theater screen is refreshed all at once (the entire frame is instantly projected and not drawn line for line horizontally as in a TV or monitor). So every frame is projected in its entirety all at once. This then leads back to afterimage due to the large neurotransmitter release in the retina.
Perhaps the most important factor in the theater is the artifact known as "motion blur". Motion blur is the main reason why movies can be shown at 24 fps, therefore saving Hollywood money by not having to make the film any longer than possible (30 fps for a full feature film would be approximately 20% longer than a film shown at 24 fps, that turns out to be a lot of money). What motion blur does is give the impression of more intervening frames between the two actual frames. If you stop a movie during a high action scene with lots of movement, the scene that you will see will have a lot of blur, and any person or thing will be almost unrecognizable with highly blury detail. When it is played at full 24 fps, things again look good and sharp. The human eye is used to motion blur (later on that phenomena) so the movie looks fine and sharp.

TV, Video Tape, and DVD
TV's run at a refresh rate of 60 Hz. This is not bad for viewing due to the distance we usually sit from the TV, and the size of the phosphors on your average set and the distance between phosphors (between .39 for a high end one, to .5 and higher for cheaper models). This is actually quite big and fuzzy for most of us, but as long as we are not doing any kind of productivity software (such as word processing) and just watching movies at least 6 feet from the TV, that is just fine.
Now TV transmissions, video tape, and DVD play at 30 fps. The increase from movies is due mostly to the environment that the TV is watched in. It is usually quite a bit brighter than in a movie theater, and most importantly a TV does not do a full screen refresh, rather each frame is drawn line by line horizontally by an electron gun hitting the phosphors in the screen. So basically each frame is drawn twice by the TV (60 refreshes per second, 30 frames per second). Now because the frame rate is * the refresh, transitions between frames go a lot smoother than if you had say a 72 Hz refresh and a movie playing at 30 fps. Don't ask me why, it is due to wave behavior, which is higher level physics, and I can't go into that without making this a 30 page paper. Needless to say, the physics behind this make video and DVD look very smooth.
Motion blur again is a very important part to making videos look seamless. With motion blur, those two refreshes per frame give the impression of two frames to our eyes. This makes a really well encoded DVD look absolutely incredible. Another factor to consider is that neither movies or videos dip in frame rate when it comes to complex scenes. With no frame rate drops, the action is again seamless.

[CalcProgrammer1]

DVD's aren't all at a single set FPS... They can be 29.97 (usually assumed 30fps) or 23.976 (usually considered 24fps). Films are recorded for theaters at 24 frames per second, while television is 30 (29.97). Encoders for recording an analog signal will vary on how they reproduce and adjust frame timings, as you said, hardware encoders will perform much better than software ones.

I wasn't referring to recording an analog signal, though, I was referring to transcoding a DVD into a video file. It's digital-digital with no signal capture, so having to do things in realtime isn't an issue. What I'm saying is if I try to transcode a DVD that is 24fps to a video file at 29.97, the resulting video file will have issues, usually unbalanced playback (really quick action, pause, really quick action, pause, etc, the speed shifts rather than staying constant). Same happens with going from 29.97 to 24, but you drop frames and the motion gets choppy.

There may be other DVD ripping apps that can better manage time scaling to change fps without messing up speed, but they probably cost money (and a large amount at that) so I just prefer making sure I encode at the right settings. I'm encoding some files right now actually...

[EricB]

Originally Posted by CalcProgrammer1

DVD's aren't all at a single set FPS... They can be 29.97 (usually assumed 30fps) or 23.976 (usually considered 24fps). Films are recorded for theaters at 24 frames per second, while television is 30 (29.97). Encoders for recording an analog signal will vary on how they reproduce and adjust frame timings, as you said, hardware encoders will perform much better than software ones.

I wasn't referring to recording an analog signal, though, I was referring to transcoding a DVD into a video file. It's digital-digital with no signal capture, so having to do things in realtime isn't an issue. What I'm saying is if I try to transcode a DVD that is 24fps to a video file at 29.97, the resulting video file will have issues, usually unbalanced playback (really quick action, pause, really quick action, pause, etc, the speed shifts rather than staying constant). Same happens with going from 29.97 to 24, but you drop frames and the motion gets choppy.

There may be other DVD ripping apps that can better manage time scaling to change fps without messing up speed, but they probably cost money (and a large amount at that) so I just prefer making sure I encode at the right settings. I'm encoding some files right now actually...

I see that a lot of new cinema movies are now encoded that way progressively including blue ray and hd dvd. their existence is mainly the reason why they went to to 24 fps. so while my statement was true 6-7 years ago when I was into dvd editing deeply, it seem that your statement is true now.

my bag. I guess that you are right. I need to update myself with the new technologies. I apologize

on a side note

a comparison of hardware and software encoding

http://www.digital-rapids.com/Products_DemoRoom.html
http://www.enseo.com/PDFs/QuartetGLi.pdf

oreo quiktime pro should convert avi to mov. I'm thinking that mp4 could work too

[MikeFuryXP]

woah player, I'm not your enemy eric b.......
The only reason why I put videohelp.com on there because they are decent and 80% of the people there are easily to get along with.
The only few people I got very ****ed off at was gunslinger and I was man enough to call a truce with him before I broke out into a flame war with him over there.
They "DO" have the resources over their to help people with very complicated video stuff and then some, you may not like the place because of your past history with baldrick, but don't bash the place like it's pure H*** over there when it isn't.
I'm not going to fight you on this subject in this topic, let's just drop it and try to help this guy out with whatever he needs.

Last Eric, you have my respect but don't jump down my throat about any other boards or sites that may have some problems or issues.

[Oreo]

Thanks all.


Eric, i am trying DVDFab, i have chosen the mobile generic option and the output as avi.xvid.mp3, is this the one to use ? I will then convert the resulting avi file to mov hopefully.