Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Fraps user

Last response: in Applications
Share
November 2, 2011 6:03:00 PM

So I just downloaded and started using the full version of Fraps and I have been playing around with it a bit, recording clips from Battlefield 3 and WoW but I have a couple of things I was wondering about.

First of all, being that Fraps produces uncompressed .avi files and I am recording in 1080p quality, the file sizes are huge. What are some of the best options for compression and editing out there? I would prefer a free solution, but im not adverse to buying superior software if warranted.

The second question I had was about the loop buffer length. Right now I am doing a 120 second loop, obviously dividing my video into 2 minute clips. Would it be better if I just set it to something outlandish like 600 second loop and just start and stop the video capture whenever I want? Are there any drawbacks to doing it this way?


I appreciate any input and advice you can give me!

More about : fraps user

November 3, 2011 11:25:22 AM

Virtual Dub is free and I use it a lot. It has limited support for file formats though uncompressed AVI is well supported. For encoding, look into either the XviD or H.264 codecs (you'll need VFW codecs, not an encoder program). I use H.264 myself for all of my current videos and it has the best quality. Trouble is, H.264 is slow for playback - my GeForce 7600 is unable to decompress 1920x1080 video at 29.97 fps fast enough resulting in the video playing back at a slower than normal speed (about half to 70%, depending on video complexity) with repeatedly skipping audio. XviD is faster for decompression, but colors aren't preserved as accurately. Whether Virtual Dub uses the video card or CPU for decompression, that I don't know.

As to the looping thing, I don't understand what you're referring to. I don't use fraps. Do you mean 2-minute segments? If so, then it doesn't matter what the size is. I've had 5-second segments being stitched together into a single massive video and I don't have problems. I've had a continuous 4-hour recording once or twice and don't have problems with that. Just make sure that the frame rates of the segments match exactly and you also have enough free disk space.
November 3, 2011 3:41:08 PM

I was reading a bit about Virtual Dub but didnt have a chance to download and try it out. If what I read is correct, it is the CPU that handles the decoding, which wont be a problem since I have mine OC to 4 GHz.

Yes, that loop buffer length determines the length of the clip segments. Thats good to know that combing the clips wont affect the quality, though I would like to know from someone who uses Fraps whether or not it would be better to use a long buffer length or if it is just personal preference.

I am going to have to buy another hard drive because of the size of the clips because as you say, I have to make sure I have enough space and with those uncompressed .avi files, those GB get sucked away very quickly.
Related resources
November 3, 2011 9:45:59 PM

I work with video quite often, both game play from my console systems, the game I'm making myself, and various activities on my computer. Thus, I know quite a bit about video processing. I just don't use fraps, only Virtual Dub. VD does appear to have hardware acceleration being available, though it doesn't appear to affect much.

When dealing with uncompressed video, hard drive write speed is also important. If you're recording 1920x1080 video at 29.97 fps, you'll need a hard drive that can sustain a writing speed of 186,437,376 bytes per second (177 MB/s) meaning that one minute of such video will hog up 11,186,242,560 bytes of disk space (10.418 GB). Uncompressed video is a serious space hog, but it uses the least amount of CPU. Light lossy compression with H.264 at quality 1 (the best possible), with "ultra fast" for the speed will significantly improve disk space usage, but it puts a big toll on the CPU, which may hurt your games' frame rates. With 1, you essentially can't tell the difference from the original with H.264 (though colors are slightly muted with XviD's best quality).

For reference, you will get quality loss if the video is initially compressed using a lossy codec like XviD or H.264 then compressed again using a lossy codec. You can minimize the quality loss by initially using a very high quality, only using a lower quality for the final output. When I record video of my own game for posting on YouTube, I record H.264 at quality 1, the best possible. If I have to stitch multiple video segments together, I save each segment, whenever possible, into a lossless format - lagarith and Huffyuv are good for this though H.264 has support for lossless compression. Regardless if I use 1 segment or 50, I use quality 12 for the final result. For posting on YouTube, I use 24.
November 4, 2011 11:37:20 AM

I use Super 2011. Its great! Just have to have all the codecs installed! :) 

Search softpedia for it!

But i do admit that those giant files are a bit of a problem. Even with XFire its the same. I was doing some recording with FRAPS one single lap of my F1 2010 for Catalunya and a 16 sec lap turned out to be 2.4 GB! :( 
November 4, 2011 11:40:05 AM

ulillillia said:
I work with video quite often, both game play from my console systems, the game I'm making myself, and various activities on my computer. Thus, I know quite a bit about video processing. I just don't use fraps, only Virtual Dub. VD does appear to have hardware acceleration being available, though it doesn't appear to affect much.

When dealing with uncompressed video, hard drive write speed is also important. If you're recording 1920x1080 video at 29.97 fps, you'll need a hard drive that can sustain a writing speed of 186,437,376 bytes per second (177 MB/s) meaning that one minute of such video will hog up 11,186,242,560 bytes of disk space (10.418 GB). Uncompressed video is a serious space hog, but it uses the least amount of CPU. Light lossy compression with H.264 at quality 1 (the best possible), with "ultra fast" for the speed will significantly improve disk space usage, but it puts a big toll on the CPU, which may hurt your games' frame rates. With 1, you essentially can't tell the difference from the original with H.264 (though colors are slightly muted with XviD's best quality).

For reference, you will get quality loss if the video is initially compressed using a lossy codec like XviD or H.264 then compressed again using a lossy codec. You can minimize the quality loss by initially using a very high quality, only using a lower quality for the final output. When I record video of my own game for posting on YouTube, I record H.264 at quality 1, the best possible. If I have to stitch multiple video segments together, I save each segment, whenever possible, into a lossless format - lagarith and Huffyuv are good for this though H.264 has support for lossless compression. Regardless if I use 1 segment or 50, I use quality 12 for the final result. For posting on YouTube, I use 24.

Unfortunately... FRAPS does not have all these options. And FRAPS is mainly for recording game play. And since it uses the least amount of CPU, it is preferred for these applications as they have work simultaneously with the game.

But can you record game play with VirtualDub?
November 4, 2011 11:58:56 AM

I don't know if VD can record games. I don't play games on my computer except console games through my TV tuner and the game I'm making, of which I've been recording with Virtual Dub just fine. Then again, my own game isn't a decent test source as it's not a very demanding game since it could very well run on a GeForce 4200 or something just fine (10 generations behind). Video recording is a CPU-demanding task. Gaming is a GPU-demanding task. Thus, if you have a lot of cores and hyperthreading, recording with VD should be possible.

VD can also scale down the video resolution in real time as well so it puts less strain on the CPU, though this may have a negative effect on the game's performance, depending on whether or not the scaling down is done on the GPU or CPU. 1920x1200 reducing to 960x600 cuts the data rate by 75% and most details should still be easily readable.

Thus, you'll have to try it. I don't have any recent computer games that my system could run on so I can't test anything and my GeForce 7600 GT is far behind, unable to handle pretty much any of today's games. To do this, start Virtual Dub, go to "file" then "capture mode". Set the parameters so you get screen capture, set the custom format to the size that you intend on running your game at (1920x1200 if you intend on running your game at 1920x1200), and adjust the other settings like compression. Set the file to record to, hit "start capture", load or switch to your game, and begin recording. When done, view the AVI output. If you're getting dropped frames, try scaling down the video by enabling real time filters and the "resize" filter.
November 4, 2011 12:30:22 PM

I tried out VD last night and couldnt exactly figure out what to do with it. Then I downloaded H.264 and was able to easily use it. I have converted about 1/4 of my videos to .mp4...drops a 2 min video from 4 GB to 440 MB...totally worth it.

Now you were talking about stitching the clipped videos together...what program do you use for that?
November 4, 2011 12:50:54 PM

Virtual Dub can stitch segments together. To do that, you use the "append AVI segment" option (under the "file" menu). The frame rate and audio formats must exactly match though and this only works for AVI originals. If they don't, you'll need to save each video segment so they exactly match and then stitch them together. VD has a batch processing mode available; however, this is a feature I've otherwise never used. There are probably other programs that can merge multiple videos together into a single video that might work better than VD, especially best if it works when there's a frame rate mismatch (I've had VD in the past complain that 29.96704 is not the same as 29.96704 because the numerator and denominators were different (these are in the file header info in an AVI video.

Given the 4 GB size of your segments, I'm suspecting that fraps is splitting segments so that they are compatible with FAT32 file systems (which have a 4 GB file size limit). I've recorded single videos that go far more than 4 GB, even over 200 GB a few times.

You must be using a very high quality for only a 10:1 compression ratio. Of course, the quality you use is entirely your decision. I can only give recommendations.
November 4, 2011 1:07:42 PM

dalmvern said:
I tried out VD last night and couldnt exactly figure out what to do with it. Then I downloaded H.264 and was able to easily use it. I have converted about 1/4 of my videos to .mp4...drops a 2 min video from 4 GB to 440 MB...totally worth it.

Now you were talking about stitching the clipped videos together...what program do you use for that?

Even i found VD a bit complicated to use! Its good for experts. But for part timers like me... Super is the way to go. Its just plain simple point and click!

BTW... which car is it that you are in?? :) 
November 4, 2011 1:19:12 PM

The problem with Super, from my experiences, is that it won't go above 8000 Kbps, and for HD video, that's horrible quality. The fact it's always on top of everything and you can't disable "always on top" only makes it more annoying to use.
November 4, 2011 1:31:14 PM

I dont know about that! As i am just a part timer! All i do is just make game videos using FRAPS, compress it with Super and upload on youtube and that too occasionally!

And i think the newer version of Super has that "Always on top" option!
November 4, 2011 1:42:45 PM

I don't know what version of Super that I had, it was one of 14 programs I tried to solve my M2TS problem and the 8000 Kbps bit rate limit was horrible. There was a higher bit rate option available, but the program glitched, changing it to a lower value. For 1920x1200 video at 29.97 fps, you shouldn't go much below 16,000 Kbps because the video will look rather pixilated due to lossy compression artifacts. I'd recommend at least 24,000 Kbps. Also, always use a variable bit rate, never constant. You'll get much better quality for the same bit rate. For future editing, the higher, the better, to a certain point.

However, for very basic video editing (no frame deletion, just nothing more than compression), then Super would be better than Virtual Dub. However, if you want to get into more advanced video editing, such as fixing the audio stream's alignment with the video, cropping the video so that only the parts you're interested in are kept, and other such things, you'll need actual video editing software for that, of which VD is quite decent for. VD does take some time to get used to. I've used it for years so I have a lot of experience with it.
November 4, 2011 1:47:21 PM

The first time i opened VD i got completely lost with the menu options and the terms used! Not to mention i still am! :) 

Whatever you say... i will take a look at VD when i go home today! I have it lying around somewhere.

Since we are on it... I have FLV video (downloaded from youtube at 480p)... It doesn't play on the WMP! Which would be the best format to convert it to using VD?

I will start learning today!! :) 
November 4, 2011 2:13:58 PM

Virtual Dub, as far as I'm aware, can't open FLV. FLV is "FLash Video". Thus, you'll need something that can convert FLV to something else.

Early on, like version 1.5, Virtual Dub was rather complex and confusing. Version 1.9.11, the version I have, is much better as far as usage goes. The only issue is when it comes to working with audio in VD. For this, I just extract the audio track and make the edits in Audacity instead then take the output from Audacity and import it back into VD. This is how I add my narration to my YouTube videos as the narration track is a separate recording. The H.264 codec is the best for pretty much everything. It preserves colors accurately, provides a very good compression ratio, and it also great flexibility for settings. The only downside is that it's more demanding for decompression. For 480p, you won't have playback problems. That only starts becoming an issue when you get into the 1440x900 size and larger. Then again, I have a very dated video card which could cause a lot of the playback speed problems I have.
November 4, 2011 2:17:54 PM

I have lots MPEG music videos of the size of 60MB/70MB. Any way VD can do it nice and quick and reduce size. Would love to have them AVI and less size with the exact video quality!
November 4, 2011 2:26:11 PM

VD does support MPEG files. If they are an MPEG-2 stream, however, you'll need a plug-in before VD will open them. You can certainly open and edit them them VD. That's what I've done with my TV tuner's videos when I recorded game play (I'm going with uncompressed video with my TV tuner as 8000 Kbps, the highest it goes, is not good enough (for 720x480 at 29.97 fps).

Edit: If I knew the lengths of your videos, resolution, and the file size, I can work out the bit rate and determine recommended quality settings. In general, quality 3 with XviD is decent and quality 12 with H.264 is even better for a slightly bigger file size.
November 4, 2011 3:20:50 PM

All were downloaded from P2P's, Torrents and a bunch of other places. Most have different resolution/encoding everything... So cant say out of the blue! I can post one file details and you let me know.

Ok... Here's one Metallica video that i have:

General
Complete name : G:\Videos\English\Metallica\Metallica - Enter Sandman.mpeg
Format : CDXA/MPEG-PS
File size : 56.1 MiB
Duration : 5mn 32s
Overall bit rate : 1 415 Kbps

Video
ID : 224 (0xE0)
Format : MPEG Video
Format version : Version 1
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Default
Duration : 5mn 32s
Bit rate : 1 126 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 1 152 Kbps
Width : 352 pixels
Height : 240 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 4:3
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Standard : NTSC
Color space : YUV
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Compression mode : Lossy
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.445
Stream size : 44.6 MiB (80%)

Audio
ID : 192 (0xC0)
Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 2
Duration : 5mn 32s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 224 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 44.1 KHz
Compression mode : Lossy
Delay relative to video : -67ms
Stream size : 8.87 MiB (16%)

November 4, 2011 4:12:34 PM

To stitch together multiple segments, they must have the following:

1. The frame size must be identical. In your example, you can only stitch together other videos of the size 352x240 pixels. Should there be a mismatch, you'll need to resize the videos so that they do match. To do that, simply use a lossless compression codec or quality 1 for H.264 and reencode all videos, including this one, to the size of the largest video. I would advise against upscaling the videos, just add black borders around them.

2. The frame rates must match. The match means the numerator and denominator must be identical. If not, you'll need to change this and this isn't as easy to do when you've got some at 29.97 fps and others at 24. I think there was a filter that does this, but I've never used it.

3. The compression codec must be the same. A video compressed via XviD (MPEG-4) is not the same as one compressed via H.264 or Indeo. Fixing this involves recompressing all of your videos, including the example case, into the same format (I prefer lossless initially).

4. The audio format must be the same. This includes the sampling rate, bit depth, and channel count. VD has decent controls for adjusting these, fortunately (the more advanced stuff such as speed changes or merging 2 audio tracks into one are best done in Audacity as VD is rather confusing here).

5. The audio compression format must be the same. Audio encoded uncompressed won't work with one encoded as MP3, OGG, or AAC. You'll need to convert these.

For best results, combine all mismatches into a single operation. Thus, if you frequently have resolution and codec mismatches, set the resolution so that it's always the same for each video and reencode these into a lossless format. For quicker import when done, be sure that, when you reencode, you append a number at the end and keep the same first part. For example, name your first file "Metallica 01.avi", your second as "Metallica 02.avi", and so forth. If you have more than 99 segments, use 3 digits such as "Metallica 003.avi". I don't know how Virtual Dub treats files without leading zeros as I haven't tried it. This has been my standard since even as far back as 2001.

The program you're using is reporting the wrong aspect ratio. 352x240 is actually a 22:15 ratio, closer to 3:2 than 4:3. This part, however, doesn't matter. It's only the frame size that does.
November 4, 2011 4:25:56 PM

I used something called MediaInfo. I just did a "Save as AVI" and the video turned out to be 2.41 GB! :p 

I will take a look at all the info that you gave and put it all together! Thanks for the advice!
November 4, 2011 4:44:33 PM

2.41 GB? Did you set the compression? To do that, go to the "video" menu then choose "compression". Choose the compression codec you want (they're listed alphabetically). When you choose a codec, you should note the restrictions (these aren't always reliable for the width and height restrictions - use a multiple of 16 on both axes for best results (352 and 240 are both multiples of 16 so you have no problems there). You can also configure the codec by clicking the "configure" button. I don't know if the quality has to match but I doubt it as long as the codec remains the same. Let me know if you run into any problems.
November 7, 2011 6:51:29 AM

No i didn't i will do it today and try out.

By the way... we really hijacked the OP's thread! :D 
November 7, 2011 11:46:07 AM

Nah you didnt hijack it, as I said im new to this stuff so I have very little input, but im going to read through everything you guys have been posting. I am actually really glad both of you are discussing this stuff!

And by the way hell, im in a 2001 Chevy Silverado Z71.
November 7, 2011 12:44:29 PM

dalmvern said:
And by the way hell, im in a 2001 Chevy Silverado Z71.

Cool! I would love to own one of those!
November 7, 2011 1:32:36 PM

Yeah, it has been good to me. My dad bought it new in 2001 after I bought a Camaro, but when I went to college in New York, a car like a Camaro didnt make sense so I asked my dad to trade cars with me and he agreed. Now I have 230,000 miles on it and it still runs like a champ.

As of yet I still havent downloaded and copied Super 2011, I had a busy weekend this weekend that started with my company's building being set ablaze, but I will check it out. As I said I have been using H.264 to compress my videos, but im keeping the originals so I can play around with them some more.

I went ahead and deleted half of the videos that I took because when I built my computer I was not planning on video editing so i skimped on storage. When I get paid at the end of this week I will probably order a new HDD from Newegg, probably another 1 TB and that will be strictly my video editing drive. Ulil, I know you were saying how the hard drive is important for video editing, which of these drives do you think is best?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I know the Seagate is SATA III 6.0 Gb/s, but I also know that an HDD can barely saturate a SATA II connection so im not worried about that at all.
November 7, 2011 4:16:57 PM

If you're going with uncompressed or lossless compressed video, then write speed and capacity is important to consider. If you're planning on real time recording with high quality lossy H.264, then write speed or capacity doesn't matter much, the CPU does.

SATA III is compatible with SATA II and SATA I, if I recall. If you don't have a SATA III-compatible motherboard, you just won't be able to take advantage of SATA III's features.

The first hard drive you have listed is the exact one I have dedicated for videos and so far, I haven't had any problems with it. It reads and writes at about 130 MB per second through tests I've done at the beginning of this hard drive (it'll get slower as the drive gets more and more filled). This was done in the form of memory dumps which is pretty close to what uncompressed video recording is. A memory dump is basically loading a large amount of data (several dozen MB to a few hundred MB) into RAM then writing this all to the hard drive several times, noting how long it takes to save. This is without a RAID setup. If you get 2 of these and set them up for RAID 0, you could practically double the already high write speed. I've never used RAID in any form so I can't really answer much on that front.

To determine the speed you'll need, it's only a matter of knowing what video size and frame rate you'll be recording at - it's just multiplying... large numbers. The formula is quite easy: "VideoWidth*VideoHeight*FrameRate*3". For 1920x1080 video at 29.97 fps, you'll need a sustained data rate of 186,437,376 bytes per second. If the hard drive can't keep up, null frames are inserted which may cause slightly jerky video. This is where lossless video compression comes in which typically halves that, but that comes at a cost as it increases the workload on the CPU.

The others I don't have experience with. Given the reviews, I would stay away from that third one. The second one doesn't look too bad. The first one (the one I have), is only SATA II. The second is SATA III. So basically, it's a toss up between the first 2.
November 7, 2011 4:26:52 PM

Yeah like I said, im not worried on whether it is SATA III or not, my mobo is compatible and I am running a SATA III SSD, but it will be connected with a SATA cable to a SATA II port...if I do happen to get a SATA III HDD, I will probably hook it to my other SATA III port, but there will really be no benefit because I dont think any of these drives will saturate the 300 Gb/s transfer rate of even SATA II.

Also, I do not plan on doing any kind of RAID setup so that is basically out of the questions as well, though it is good to know that it would almost double the speed.
November 7, 2011 5:05:33 PM

SATA II is 3 Gb/s (3 gigabits per second, or 375 MB/s). That's the supposed theoretical limit of the interface. The first hard drive you've listed still works fine with SATA I's speeds (1.5 Gb/s or 187.5 MB/s). I don't know if RAID affects these speed limits though. If I remember, there's a jumper on the hard drive that controls whether it'll be in SATA I, SATA II, or SATA III mode.

Either way, if you have any questions about Virtual Dub, there's a good chance I'll be able to answer them. When I finish making the scenery for world 2 in my game, likely by the end of this week, I'll likely record a video on how I use and set up VD to record my games with, if that helps any. I wouldn't know if it'll be of any use to you, as a more flexible alternative than Fraps.
November 7, 2011 5:27:43 PM

Yeah I know the SATA speeds are set and RAID wont affect that, but I didnt know that using RAID 0 would double the read/write speeds of the drives that are in RAID (im just assuming 2 identical drives in the RAID). To be honest, I dont know much about RAID and it kinda scares me so like I said, I wont be doing it.

Definitely if you record that video I would love to see it, just so I have some alternatives. Now that I have been playing with it for a while, actually recording the video is not a problem, its just going to be editing/encoding the videos that I need to figure out now.
November 7, 2011 6:32:01 PM

This Wikipedia article explains the basics of RAID setups. RAID isn't entirely bad, it depends on what level you're using. RAID 0 is more risky (if one drive fails, you'll lose your data), but it roughly doubles the data rate. RAID 1 is the opposite (if one drive fails, you won't lose your data) and is the most secure from what I can tell. The other 5 levels are hard to understand.

As to the video showing how I record with VD, that'll be a while. Once I get another Disgaea 2 video recorded, I may make a video explaining how I go about processing it - merging my vocal track with the game's original audio, cropping, and other such things. It'll be quite a while before I return to Disgaea 2 though. The Disgaea 2 case, however, is more related to your needs. Unlike recording a computer game, I'm recording a console game via TV tuner and processing this output accordingly. The actual processing of the recorded videos, however, is essentially the same.
November 7, 2011 6:52:02 PM

Great, well as I am a pretty quick learner, I am sure that by the time you get your video finished I will have a pretty good workflow using Fraps/VD/Super or whatever I end up using it, but I would definitely like to see other methods of doing it.
November 11, 2011 9:28:08 AM

I've got the video now explaining how I use Virtual Dub for screen capture. Perhaps you could somehow adapt this for games?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETxGj7ll7xg

This narrated video explains not only how to capture video with Virtual Dub, but also edit (to a limited extent) and encode videos. Hopefully you'll find this of great use.
November 11, 2011 9:35:47 AM

Ok... Good that you are back. I just had a question. I installed XVid Codec, chose the compression as to use XVid and my AVI video turned out to be 127MB! :( 

I chose "Single Pass" i think.
November 11, 2011 10:15:20 AM

Did you configure the settings for the codec? The video I posted shows the configuring of the codec. File size itself doesn't matter. It's the video's complexity, video resolution, and total frames that determines the file size in the end. Single pass is lower quality than 2-pass, but it's significantly slower, to the point that it's not worth doing. XviD is well-known. I strongly recommend not using the bit rate value. Instead, use the quantizer method. I used quality 3 for my archival videos, 6 to 8 for the YouTube equivalent. Videos are big so you can expect large file sizes. Storing image data, especially thousands of such images, is not particularly efficient, especially when compared to audio.
November 11, 2011 12:00:05 PM

Oooops... Missed the video link. Will take a look and try again. I will give 2-Pass a try. I would let it run. Coz my PC is downloading all night long. So i do have spare time. :) 
November 12, 2011 6:31:49 AM

dalmvern said:
I tried out VD last night and couldnt exactly figure out what to do with it. Then I downloaded H.264 and was able to easily use it. I have converted about 1/4 of my videos to .mp4...drops a 2 min video from 4 GB to 440 MB...totally worth it.

Now you were talking about stitching the clipped videos together...what program do you use for that?

Hi there,

U can use HandBrake to convert .mp4 videos to smaller size. http://handbrake.fr/


440MB is big waste of space, as u need only 35 - 50MB/2min files to have a great quality. Just select b
December 1, 2011 4:31:43 AM

nikorr said:
Hi there,

U can use HandBrake to convert .mp4 videos to smaller size. http://handbrake.fr/


440MB is big waste of space, as u need only 35 - 50MB/2min files to have a great quality. Just select b



I agree 100%, I also use Fraps with a number of editors/encoders as nikorr has been helping me lately with Handbrake, I'd take his advice. It came in really handy for me when I created a new video for upload to youtube, the quality just came out insane lol not to mention the file size in the end was almost less then 200MBs after starting from 9.0GBs *Fraps AVI's*.

Here's that video for reference to give you an idea of how well handbrake works. Note that I took this from 3 AVI's to WMV then to MP4, then uploaded it to youtube, which is notorious for ruining good quality video's lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiDUwFlVWWc
!