H A
asked on
Does 'Windows Movie Maker' do 'Native MPEG Editing' or does it 're-encode' the videos?
Hello,
I'm trying to choose between these two programs:
- Windows Movie Maker
- VideoReDo (http://www.videoredo.com/en/ProductTVS.htm)
VideoReDo is $95.99 and 'Windows Movie Maker' is free. The reason why I'm leaning towards VideoReDo is, because it uses 'Native MPEG Editing'. Does Windows Movie Maker also use 'Native MPEG Editing' or does it 're-encode' each video after editing?
Here's a quote from VideoReDo's website:
"Why is Native MPEG editing important to you? MPEG is a highly compressed format. Most full-featured video editors like Premiere, Ulead, Avid, and Pinnacle convert MPEG files into uncompressed video for editing and then re-encode it when saving the edits. The result is that it can take hours to save your video rather than just minutes as it does with VideoReDo. More importantly, each recoding results in a reduction of quality. With VideoReDo's perfected smart rendering technology you can edit again and again without degrading any of your precious videos."
Many thanks in advance,
HA
I'm trying to choose between these two programs:
- Windows Movie Maker
- VideoReDo (http://www.videoredo.com/en/ProductTVS.htm)
VideoReDo is $95.99 and 'Windows Movie Maker' is free. The reason why I'm leaning towards VideoReDo is, because it uses 'Native MPEG Editing'. Does Windows Movie Maker also use 'Native MPEG Editing' or does it 're-encode' each video after editing?
Here's a quote from VideoReDo's website:
"Why is Native MPEG editing important to you? MPEG is a highly compressed format. Most full-featured video editors like Premiere, Ulead, Avid, and Pinnacle convert MPEG files into uncompressed video for editing and then re-encode it when saving the edits. The result is that it can take hours to save your video rather than just minutes as it does with VideoReDo. More importantly, each recoding results in a reduction of quality. With VideoReDo's perfected smart rendering technology you can edit again and again without degrading any of your precious videos."
Many thanks in advance,
HA
Windows Movie Maker reencodes the video.
VideoReDo can cut without reencoding, but sometimes the resulting videofiles can be unplayable on some videoplayers. So I would advise you to test if the final videos are playable in your environment before doing all your work in VideoReDo.
/Tobias
VideoReDo can cut without reencoding, but sometimes the resulting videofiles can be unplayable on some videoplayers. So I would advise you to test if the final videos are playable in your environment before doing all your work in VideoReDo.
/Tobias
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
@MERETE:
Thanks for your reply! I wouldn't buy the $95.99 version for H.264 support, but for features like
- Subtitle Support
- Preserve multiple audio streams
http://www.videoredo.com/en/Compare.htm
I wouldn't want to loose all the subtitles or multiple audio streams.
@Tobias:
Thanks for your reply! At the moment I'm mainly concerned with staying as close to the 'original' quality as possible (and keeping as many of the original features as possible). Even if I edit the same video several times (the pixels becoming more and more visible after each re-encode). I assume that if I buy a player in the future that cannot read a specific file format (or file), that I can 'batch-convert' 20 or more videos in one go to play on just about any player.
Is my assumption correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong! With my limited knowledge it seems that VideoReDo is the better option as I:
- stay very close to the original picture quality
- and should I buy a player (or TV) that can't read those files then I can always convert the videos at that point in time (I think I've seen video converters that convert entire batches at a time).
Many thanks in advance,
HA
Thanks for your reply! I wouldn't buy the $95.99 version for H.264 support, but for features like
- Subtitle Support
- Preserve multiple audio streams
http://www.videoredo.com/en/Compare.htm
I wouldn't want to loose all the subtitles or multiple audio streams.
@Tobias:
Thanks for your reply! At the moment I'm mainly concerned with staying as close to the 'original' quality as possible (and keeping as many of the original features as possible). Even if I edit the same video several times (the pixels becoming more and more visible after each re-encode). I assume that if I buy a player in the future that cannot read a specific file format (or file), that I can 'batch-convert' 20 or more videos in one go to play on just about any player.
Is my assumption correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong! With my limited knowledge it seems that VideoReDo is the better option as I:
- stay very close to the original picture quality
- and should I buy a player (or TV) that can't read those files then I can always convert the videos at that point in time (I think I've seen video converters that convert entire batches at a time).
Many thanks in advance,
HA
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks to both of you for your help!
@TOBIAS: I really thought that VideoReDo would be the best product for me as it doesn't reencode like most programs (maintaining a picture quality that comes very close to the original). Considering that it 'outputs' a 'minimally' altered MPEG-file, I was certain that these files would be readable by most players in the future. But even if they're not readable by a player, ... I would have thought that one of those 'conversion-programs' out there must surely be able to convert them to any 'standard' that arises in the future.
But now I'm not so sure any more. Which program would YOU use in my situation? My goal is simply that I want to save my videos in a format that:
- is as close to the original as possible (maintaining as many features as possible)
- and that is common enough that at least a few conversion programs will 'keep supporting' it in the future.
The only thing I'm trying to avoid is, ... that in 10 years time all the work I do today will be worthless because I can't find a conversion program that can handle the file format that I have chosen today (e.g. VideoReDo). In other words I would have to spend lots of time to edit all those videos again, ... just because I didn't choose the right editing program (and file-format) today. This is what I am trying to avoid. I'm willing to spend money, ... but I don't want to go through all the work of editing my videos just to be able to watch them for a few years and then having to delete them.
Many thanks in advance and sorry for being such a novice when it comes to video editing,
HA
@TOBIAS: I really thought that VideoReDo would be the best product for me as it doesn't reencode like most programs (maintaining a picture quality that comes very close to the original). Considering that it 'outputs' a 'minimally' altered MPEG-file, I was certain that these files would be readable by most players in the future. But even if they're not readable by a player, ... I would have thought that one of those 'conversion-programs' out there must surely be able to convert them to any 'standard' that arises in the future.
But now I'm not so sure any more. Which program would YOU use in my situation? My goal is simply that I want to save my videos in a format that:
- is as close to the original as possible (maintaining as many features as possible)
- and that is common enough that at least a few conversion programs will 'keep supporting' it in the future.
The only thing I'm trying to avoid is, ... that in 10 years time all the work I do today will be worthless because I can't find a conversion program that can handle the file format that I have chosen today (e.g. VideoReDo). In other words I would have to spend lots of time to edit all those videos again, ... just because I didn't choose the right editing program (and file-format) today. This is what I am trying to avoid. I'm willing to spend money, ... but I don't want to go through all the work of editing my videos just to be able to watch them for a few years and then having to delete them.
Many thanks in advance and sorry for being such a novice when it comes to video editing,
HA
Thanks for the points!
I would use ffmpeg to convert the video files. But this is a Linux command line tool, so I can understand if this doesn't fit your needs! But if using Windows I'd try AVS Video Converter.
ref: http://download.cnet.com/AVS-Video-Converter/3000-2194_4-10629027.html
/Tobias
I would use ffmpeg to convert the video files. But this is a Linux command line tool, so I can understand if this doesn't fit your needs! But if using Windows I'd try AVS Video Converter.
ref: http://download.cnet.com/AVS-Video-Converter/3000-2194_4-10629027.html
/Tobias
ASKER
Thanks Tobias!
Here's the link to 'hopefully' my last question in regards to VideoReDo:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28520546/Is-there-a-realistic-chance-that-I-won't-be-able-to-view-my-VideoReDo-files-in-10-years-time-Just-because-I-can't-find-a-'video-converter'-that-can-convert-these-files.html
I would be very interested to get your opinion on it.
Many thanks,
HA
Here's the link to 'hopefully' my last question in regards to VideoReDo:
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/28520546/Is-there-a-realistic-chance-that-I-won't-be-able-to-view-my-VideoReDo-files-in-10-years-time-Just-because-I-can't-find-a-'video-converter'-that-can-convert-these-files.html
I would be very interested to get your opinion on it.
Many thanks,
HA
You do need to install a codec pack.
It re-encodes HA.
But the quality is very good.
Once you cut your video go to save movie for
Here you highlight numerous options and each provides the output size and Video scale
I always choose for high def display this will be better than you have but will be in mpeg4