Hi, I am searching for the fastest method to convert an AVI movie file to DVD and burn it with a menu. So far, I have used AVI2DVD and that took me 4 hours for the conversion alone, but I had put it so that it converts to the best quality. I was just wandering which method is the fastest and ends up with great quality?
I have been told that converting with WinAVI then burning with a burning program (I use Nero) is faster than Nero alone it does seem to cut two or three hours from the five or six for a direct Nero convert and burn but I have had mixed results. sometimes it works perfectly but more often there is a problem with the finished product even when everything claims it was good. also, I have heard that a P3 was the same as a P4 (or only slightly longer) in Nero my suggestion, buy a couple of bare bones used computers (one to three hundred each MAX) and use them to run the conversion and burn exclusively. you might have to buy a DVD burner but even double densety (DVD-9) are under $100 and often can be found with mail-in rebates that bring the price under $50 and for under a hundred dollars you can set up a network that each can share files (if you only have two computers and they already have lan capability [the 10/100 or 10/100/1000 is usual] then a ten dollar "nul modem" wire is all you need tell your computer dealer what you want to do and he will have the wire that exchanges pin number on two wires so thay can talk directly) (that wire looks the same as normal lan connections but will not work on a router/hub system... the router already makes the adjustments)
If you want the fastest speed abou convert avi to dvd,I suggest you try the winavi.That may help you more,it can complete a whole AVI movie conversion and burn it to DVD just in 1 hour.You can download a trial version to try: http://www.winavi.com/avi-to-dvd.htm
I bought WinAVI and it does convert in about two hours but then I need to burn it in another program (about one hour for nero to burn the file output by WinAVI) How can WinAVI do a direct burn? Are there settings to mak it take less time? ALSO: be careful that you have all the codecs you need to read input and write output formats. I was going two hours befor it said it couldn't do a conversion (from divx) until I installed DivX (and of course its codecs) NOTE: the trial only will convert half of your movie and it will have text Mid-Screen saying it is a demo
Yes,the right codecis very important. When convert to DVD,there are two mode for choose,one is quality another is video size.If you choose quality,you can select "lower", then select "speed" for preference. This is a way,and it depend on the original files too. ps:In the trial version,there really have a watermark in the middle of the video but it still can give you whole movie.
my point about the codec was: WinAVI doesn't check to see if the right codec is attached to the conversion, it just does the conversion (garbage in, garbage out)... although it did have the courtesy to say it didn't work(after two hours) it didn't say why. I only figured out later when I noticed anpother program say I didn't have the DivX codec. After searching for the codec and eventually DLing it with the DivX programs I tried the WinAVI conversion again and it worked. I am sure I have seen the "lower" and "speed" settings you have mentioned so I will try it the next time I do a conversion (too busy right now) as for the trial version... they might have a new trial version. I distenctly remember that I thought it silly they only did half of the movie because they allowed you to add the same file (movie) twice at the same time. half of two is the wanted one! besides, that so called "watermark" is so blatant and huge that you cannot really watch the movie anyway
I only use v7.1 and v7.6.If i want do avi conversion,it will tell me to install the codec(divx/xvid);if i convert to .rm,it will ask for rm codec.Without that the conversion can't be done,and after i installed them,it wouldn't give me message. For the other version,i don't know. For the watermark,they may just want to remind you to buy it time after time.
Ok, thanks guys, I might just try out this winavi program, looks good. One more question though, does the conversion have good quality when you play it on your DVD player?
I think so. If you are as finniky as classic music high brows you might be able to detect differences but if you like the AVI then you should like the DVD but if you don't like the quality of the AVI then just remember the computer data adage: Garbage in, Garbage out
it is supposed to but all P3s are slower than my P4 (3.2Gh)and there are P3 users that claim their conversions take the same time as mine Since Nero takes so long anyway just give it a (cheap) box of it's own there are "ABC" switches that will allow you to share the same monitor that will save you if you don't need the best monitor on your main box (the cost to allow a six year old box to use a brand new LCD super=duper-whatever monitor, might negate the savings if you need to buy a special adaptor to connect your new monitor, as well as the ABC switch, and many used boxes come with a monitor anyway)
illastic1...rendering video files is the most CPU and memory intensive thing your computer will likely ever do. The CPU usually runs at 100%, where a word processor does 1%. The CPU, memory, and HDD should all be matched, as any one of these can bottleneck things. Generally speaking, one should have at least 512 MB of RAM and a 7200 RPM HDD. Use the fastest processor you can afford. I don't want to sound too technical here, but, your page file/virtual memory on your HDD should be set to 4000 MB. The default setting will fragment files all over the place, and will end up slowing things down. This can even result in a bad burn if you don't defrag before hand.
I never thought about how a fragged file would slow access due to search time. although I might suggest moving (or safer: copy and delete) a file to a different disk, known to have large areas free. a true defrag can take hours on a large drive with little free space. where move (or copy) THAT GOES TO A DIFFERENT DRIVE (or partition on same drive) will put the file in sequential order. Even if it still has some fragments, the access time will be much better since the fragments will be in a logical order instead of helter-skelter A couple of questions though, the virtual memory you are talking about, that's the OS settings not an internal setting of the program (set in Windows options not Nero) right? the 4000M? should it be 9000 or even 10000 if we expect to do DVD-9s? how would this be set? (if in OS, then need windows, mac and a Linux versions way, or if in program, what do we look for to find the settings... those options settings have so many tabs it is crazy) what do you mean by matching the HDD, CPU and memory? doesn't the box maker do (did) that already? doesn't the buffer memory built into the HDD smooth out problems with access times? and doesn't the underburn protection settings (on some HDDs) also prevent burn problems?
qazwiz...those are some good questions. They are a little off topic, and I want to be careful to not hijack this thread. I will try to be brief. First, that's an excellent point about transferring files from HDD to HDD! It is a lot faster than defragging. Page file: I use W2k, but XP is about the same. Go to My Computer>>Properties>>Advanced tab>> the Performance Options button>>the Change button>>and enter 4000 for Initial and Max. This is 4 GB, and close to the max that can be used. Matching Components: Box makers use different stratgies...and they must therefore charge for what they sell. People look at price, so many system builders use general purpose components to keep the price down. This often means a 5800 rmp HDD, not a 7200...which would allow faster file transfers. A 7200 rpm can improve performance/speed dramatically. Bad burns: Yes, HDD and burner buffers certainly help, as well as the burner software. However, if a slower CPU system with minumum RAM has hardware components with minimum buffers...it could be a problem with a highly fragmented file on a full HDD.
ok so the "matching" isn't so much that the cpu matches the hard drive (or real memory though that does help)as much as they all match the job they need to do... in the case of video authoring, that means as fast as possible and enough memory to prevent excess virtual paging. It is my understanding that Game machines (like Alienware) meet these needs though they might have items unneeded for video authoring, high range audio cards and 3-D mrendering come to mind, but the extras might be minimal enough that a compairison would be a good idea for those buying a system. and a Video capture card may not be required, when there is another way to import the video files (many cameras now come with USB conectability for video transfer and even real time capture One last question: Does "Over Clocking" help? (I have heard of machines that speed up the internal clock of systems. (to squeeze out a better performance))
Ah yes...overclocking helps a lot. For instance on one machine I have a P2.4 running at 3.2. I encode a movie with DVD-RB CCE in 25% less time. Above the 3.2 it becomes unstable, meaning the system crashes under load. OC'g can go from simple to complex depending on the mobo specs and BIOS setup. Some mobos don't have an oc'g feature, some only allow CPU oc'g, and some even allow the more complex RAM settings...where one has to have the right kind of RAM. And, with these high end mobos, procs and memory, the last step to squeeze out more speed for rendering is a proper hard drive. When it comes to video crunching, new game machines aren't going to have any problems. Generally speaking, most machines sold within the last 2 or 3 years won't have a prob with rendering...whereas 6 years ago there were only a handful of personal machines that had the CPU power.
