A better free video converter than the paid ones

From their site

Read more here http://www.videotovideo.org/ and here http://www.snapfiles.com/get/vv.html

On my i3 2.3GHz CPU and 4GB of RAM laptop,this is the fastest video converter i've ever tried and the quality is awesome.I've made a test with VideotoVideo Converter and:FormatFactory,Ann Free Video Converter,Aiseesoft Total Video Converter,Video Converter factory HD and Wondershare Video Converter Pro.Converted a 5.27 min flv video to XviD (640x480 and 2000kb/sec) and VtoV converter was by far the winner with 44 seconds.And it has many features that even the paid ones doesn't have.

 

Thanks for info...I'm using Format Factory so we will test that new and see results

 

the "tools" looks like to have a few more features than many other converters too...will give it a look...I normally use Wondershare Video Editor but it is bad about joining videos out of sync

I also see this :

 

Yep,there is a portable version too,but i'm using the normal version because it has some more features for the subtitles.

 

Avidemux, Kdenlive ...
Mrk

 

Thanks for posting this up JoeBlack.

I've been using ConvertXtoDVD3 for awhile now,so it's kinda fun to compare other similiar programs.

I tried VideotoVideo Converter tonight,worked well.I was curious,can you change the look of the screen which displays "Play"?

 

You're welcome guys.Boost,the look of what screen,i don't get it.

 

How it looks against HandBrake?

 

When its finished being burned etc,you place the dvd into the dvd player and the first screen you see on the TV is a background that looks like fire with the word play,is there a way to change the background image?

 

Well,never used this feature and i really don't know.In Options is nothing related to this,so i guess not.

Don't like it,uses to much CPU.Around 80-90% whilst VideoToVideo around 30-35%.

 

Well,after messing around with Videotovideo,I've decided I still prefer ConvertXtoDVD.

 

I have it and still use it too,because VideotoVideo doesn't have this feature.So i use them both.

 

Handbrake encodes to x264, which is far superior to xvid. Takes more time to encode, but the result is superior. For the same size gives superior quality or gives smaller size for the same quality. XVid is now obsolete.

 

Video to Video Converter also encodes to x264

 

I rarely copy anything anymore, but I rip a lot to watch later using my WD Live. I'm lazy and like a simple GUI for this. I've tried them all at one time or another and I like Magic DVD Ripper. I think it's about $35 but the simplicity and constant maintenance and updates keep up with technology. I've used it for 6 or 7 years.

Also, Fuzzfas is right - make the move to h.264 and get higher quality with smaller files.

 

Handbrake meant to use all your CPU, to do as much processing as fast as possible to finish as soon as possible. I would be wary of what shortcuts* VideoToVideo is doing quality wise to be able to run at a low CPU usage and fast.

If you visit the various AV forums and sites, you will see that Handbrake is very highly praised and also comes out frequently as the best or very close when it comes to quality vs file size comparisons against free or commercial alternatives.

Its worth noting that you can tune Handbrake for far faster conversions, been a while since I did any, but a number of built in profiles are provided.

*I'm not saying VideoToVideo is bad when I say shortcuts, as it does appear intentionally to be fast using xvid as default which does not offer the same quality (but faster encoding) as x264 can (though Handbrake can be tuned down to be pretty much same quality/performance as xvid).

Cheers, Nick

 

Yep,PaulBB is right.

 

Not valid from my point of view. I want to use all my CPU power when encoding ( even GPU if it's possible because I have "some" CUDA cores which are doing nothing beside gaming).
TBH time is not a factor for me, first comes quality then size. I have plenty of time...

Thx anyway for pointing at a new program.

 

Ah good, i didn't know that. I was refering to the fact that OP was talking about Xvid.

x264 should be the same speed for the same settings. If one is faster, probably uses less quality settings. Honestly i 'd pick Handbrake or Vidcoderx64 (even better) for x264 every day over anything else, because it's the easiest GUI for x264, while allowing you full customization of options and it's extremely optimized for multicores.