ripping DVDs to hard disk with Converter

[Richard Adams]

tried it with unprotected DVD films but the results are so low quality with low framerates and much pixilation making a wmv file.

It only captured 466MB from a 3.5GB DVD. I can copy the disk onto another disk but I wanted a copy in my computer library.

Can anyone suggest how not to lose quality? I have plenty of space.

thanks in advance
Richard

[stream-recorder.com]

Try to convert using h.264 video codec

[Richard Adams]

Thanks I'll try.

Richard A

[Richard Adams]

tried h.264 best quality and high quality.

uses 100% of processor power with progress bar going up to 4%

Then processor use goes to 0% and Replay Converter remains at 4% on the progress bar.

So I tried other filetypes like mp4 and flv but quality massively downgrades to my original wmv. So my question remains - how can the original DVD quality be maintained when ripping to Hard Disk? Surely the whole point and advantage of "digital" is the picture can be identical 0=0 and 1=1

Any help much appreciated.

[stream-recorder.com]

I've ripped lots of DVDs using xvid (MPEG-4) and x264 (h.264) video codecs. I like both codecs. The former is supported by more hardware players and is less resource intensive, while the latter gives better quality for the same target file size.

IMHO if you plan to leave the 720x576 or 720x480 frame size, then you need to use a bit-rate of 2000 kbps or even higher. Some videos have lots of fast movements, so need a higher bit-rate, while others need a lower bit-rate. Just take a small video and make some tests to find out what codec and bitrate works best for you.

I usually resize videos to 640x480 or something like that. This allows to use lower bitrate while getting good quality. I underestimated this in my first rips.

p.s. Replay Converter allows to use custom frame size as well as custom bitrate.

[Jeff Lenney]

I've ripped lots of DVDs using xvid (MPEG-4) and x264 (h.264) video codecs. I like both codecs. The former is supported by more hardware players and is less resource intensive, while the latter gives better quality for the same target file size.

IMHO if you plan to leave the 720x576 or 720x480 frame size, then you need to use a bit-rate of 2000 kbps or even higher. Some videos have lots of fast movements, so need a higher bit-rate, while others need a lower bit-rate. Just take a small video and make some tests to find out what codec and bitrate works best for you.

I usually resize videos to 640x480 or something like that. This allows to use lower bitrate while getting good quality. I underestimated this in my first rips.

p.s. Replay Converter allow to use custom frame size as well as custom bitrate.

I generally use mpeg-4 and h.264 myself. I don't know if I really have a favorite, they both work fine for me.

[Montgomery]

I've ripped lots of DVDs using xvid (MPEG-4) and x264 (h.264) video codecs. I like both codecs. The former is supported by more hardware players and is less resource intensive, while the latter gives better quality for the same target file size.

IMHO if you plan to leave the 720x576 or 720x480 frame size, then you need to use a bit-rate of 2000 kbps or even higher. Some videos have lots of fast movements, so need a higher bit-rate, while others need a lower bit-rate. Just take a small video and make some tests to find out what codec and bitrate works best for you.

I usually resize videos to 640x480 or something like that. This allows to use lower bitrate while getting good quality. I underestimated this in my first rips.

p.s. Replay Converter allows to use custom frame size as well as custom bitrate.

You are spot-on. I like to retain DVD quality and in order to do so at larger sizes you need 2k-2500 bit rate. I was very disappointed when I tried using Replay Converter and had to spend additional money to buy Open DVD ripper to retain size and quality. I'm hoping someday Replay Converter will be able to adjust that because I have enjoyed everything else in the suite.

Montgomery

[juanlfm]

This thread is a year old. No need to continue I think.