A good and reasonably cheap wmv encoder?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hello everyone,

I need to create wmv clips using avi (DV) files as the source material.
Right now I'm using Windows Media Encoder, which is pretty good, easy to
use, as well as free. But I'd really like to reduce the file size a bit
without sacrificing the picture quality. So I'd be interested in software
that's even more efficient than Windows Media Encoder. I can't afford to
spend a lot on software, especially since I can already do the job using
WME. Any ideas? Thanks.

Francois

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Are you using WME 9?
I don't think there's anything better than that version. I find it better that any other codec I've used including QT, Divx, older
WME versions, etc.

"François Arsenault" <francoisa@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:dwLEd.24183$TN6.735307@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I need to create wmv clips using avi (DV) files as the source material.
> Right now I'm using Windows Media Encoder, which is pretty good, easy to
> use, as well as free. But I'd really like to reduce the file size a bit
> without sacrificing the picture quality. So I'd be interested in software
> that's even more efficient than Windows Media Encoder. I can't afford to
> spend a lot on software, especially since I can already do the job using
> WME. Any ideas? Thanks.
>
> Francois
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"François Arsenault" wrote ...
> I need to create wmv clips using avi (DV) files as the
> source material. Right now I'm using Windows Media
> Encoder, which is pretty good, easy to use, as well as free.
> But I'd really like to reduce the file size a bit without
> sacrificing the picture quality. So I'd be interested in software
> that's even more efficient than Windows Media Encoder.
> I can't afford to spend a lot on software, especially since I
> can already do the job using WME. Any ideas? Thanks.

1) I'm reasonably certain that Microsoft is the exclusive source
of WME and distributor of the WMA and WMV codecs
WME is the only WMV encoding application available.
(Unless you count some apps that use the WME codec as an
internal option, like Adobe Premiere. etc. etc.) But whether
you use Microsoft's standalone application, or the WMV
codec inside another program, Microsoft is the only source
of WMV encoding and decoding (at least that I've encountered.)

2) WME is free. You can't get much more "reasonably cheap"

3) There is a wide range of options for amount of audio and
video compression. It supports everything from semi-moving
postage-stamp images up through nearly broadcast-quality.
Can't imagine that you would want something not already
available in WMV?

4) Many of think that WMV equals or even exceeds any of the
other currently available distribution codecs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"N Hamilton" <no_spamham@no_spamnc.rr.com> wrote:

> Are you using WME 9?

Yes I am.

> I don't think there's anything better than that version. I find it better
that any other codec
> I've used including QT, Divx, older WME versions, etc.

Oh, alright then. I can't really complain about WME. I was just curious to
know if there was something even better, in case I could improve my clips.
I'll just continue using. Thanks.

Francois

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> 1) I'm reasonably certain that Microsoft is the exclusive source
> of WME and distributor of the WMA and WMV codecs
> WME is the only WMV encoding application available.
> (Unless you count some apps that use the WME codec as an
> internal option, like Adobe Premiere. etc. etc.) But whether
> you use Microsoft's standalone application, or the WMV
> codec inside another program, Microsoft is the only source
> of WMV encoding and decoding (at least that I've encountered.)

Ok, that pretty much answers my question. Thanks.

> 2) WME is free. You can't get much more "reasonably cheap"

Indeed. That certainly made it my first choice for experimenting with wmv
encoding. Now that I know that there aren't really any alternatives, I'll
just continue using it as my regular encoding program. Fine by me.

> 3) There is a wide range of options for amount of audio and
> video compression. It supports everything from semi-moving
> postage-stamp images up through nearly broadcast-quality.
> Can't imagine that you would want something not already
> available in WMV?

I'm very impressed with the software's versatility, and the quality is quite
good at very reasonably bit rates. I just wondered if there was even more
powerful wmv encoding software out there. I mean, just because something is
already good doesn't mean one can't try to find something even better. Just
wanted to learn about other options, that's all.

> 4) Many of think that WMV equals or even exceeds any of the
> other currently available distribution codecs.

Well, I'm aware of some people who actually dislike WMV very much, but many
of those are Mac users or Microsoft haters, so they may be a bit biased. I'm
not a fan of Microsoft myself, but the wmv format suits me just fine, and
I'm quite pleased with WME.

Thank you for your reply!

Francois

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"François Arsenault" wrote ...
> Well, I'm aware of some people who actually dislike
> WMV very much, but many of those are Mac users or
> Microsoft haters, so they may be a bit biased. I'm not a
> fan of Microsoft myself, but the wmv format suits me
> just fine, and I'm quite pleased with WME.

Quicktime Pro (or whatever its called) is the next best thing
to free. I believe it is <$50US Its not bad, particularly if most
of your audience are Mac users.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> Quicktime Pro (or whatever its called) is the next best thing
> to free. I believe it is <$50US Its not bad, particularly if most
> of your audience are Mac users.

Making clips that are easily usable by Mac users would indeed be convenient.
But my customers are mostly PC users. I'm not very familiar with Quicktime
overall. Would QTPro it give me a level of quality comparable to Windows
Media Encoder for the same file size or less? Because my priority right now
is a reasonable file size for a fairly high level of quality. At the moment
it's more important to me that Mac compatibility.

Francois

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Françcois Arsenault" <francoisa@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tccGd.40558$b64.1373998@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>
>> Quicktime Pro (or whatever its called) is the next best thing
>> to free. I believe it is <$50US Its not bad, particularly if most
>> of your audience are Mac users.
>
> Making clips that are easily usable by Mac users would indeed be
> convenient.
> But my customers are mostly PC users. I'm not very familiar with
> Quicktime
> overall. Would QTPro it give me a level of quality comparable to
> Windows
> Media Encoder for the same file size or less? Because my priority
> right now
> is a reasonable file size for a fairly high level of quality. At the
> moment
> it's more important to me that Mac compatibility.

If your customers are mostly PC users, I'd forget about QT
altogether. Windows Media Player is availble for Mac,
and many claim that WMV is superior to QT anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

> If your customers are mostly PC users, I'd forget about QT
> altogether. Windows Media Player is availble for Mac,
> and many claim that WMV is superior to QT anyway.

Well, there are Mac users that are interested in my work, and even though
there is a Mac version for WMP, Mac users don't seem to like it very much.
But I do have a much easier time handling WMV files. It's a format that
suits me very well. I'm sorry to make things harder for Mac customers, but I
guess I can't please everybody.

Francois