AVI, MP3, MPG? Which one is the best?

Hi,

I'm taking advantage of this topic because I need some clarifications.

I have a DVD, I am using FairUse Wizard 2, and I want to encode it in the best way possible and with the best quality. There are 2 videos that are one hour long and one that is 12 minutes long.

I have encoded the 2 one-hour videos using the x264 codec for video and AC3 192kb/s.

Do you think this is the best possible combination? (I set the size to 700MB even though I don't mind if it's larger)

Second to last question please, is x264 codec + MP3 320kb/s not better?

Finally, with a question that seems logical to me but I would like a definitive answer, it is not possible to get HD content from a DVD, right? A clip on a DVD can never be uploaded to YouTube (or elsewhere) with better quality than 320p, or am I mistaken?

Thank you!

Hi
encoding is a destructive action, if your video is of good quality from the start you can
encode it with very little loss (I would even say without loss) if your video is of "bad"
quality you won’t be able to work miracles
for encoding your videos if your video is 2h12m encoding it to 700MB is feasible
but you have to use some tricks. to achieve something good, 1400MB would be I think
more suitable
for x264 it’s better to set the audio to aac at 128k or 192 if size is not an issue
for the choice of encoder there is no good or bad one, it mostly depends on what you make of it
for YouTube I upload videos in 1440x1080 it’s worth what it’s worth, to watch on YouTube 320p is fine, but for full-screen viewing uh sorry but
anyway if you want to encode in x264 I recommend the Xbox 360 profile at 1500k for SD (resolution 720x576) and 2500k to maybe 3000k for a resolution of 1440x1080 for example
cheers (say hi to Ziggourat by the way)

To answer you, I only have the free version of this software, so I can only obtain files up to 700 MB maximum.
In MP4 or MKV, I believe with FU, the x264 codec goes without saying, as for the audio it's up to you, AC3 (Dolby Digital) or MP3. Without having looked closely, the advantage of AC3 is that you can have multiple channels in the case of 5.1 for example, whereas with MP3 you would only have stereo at most. No idea if FU allows it or not.
However, the size of AC3 is heavier than that of MP3, which is compressed, and therefore in the 700 MB file, this comes at the expense of the video stream.
The best compromise in MP3 is 128 Kbps, which also takes up less space, but if you want to do it in MP3 192 or 320 Kbps and that suits you, I have no objection.

There is no "better combination," only the result matters, if it works for you then that's perfect ;-)

FairUse is a good software, I used it to convert my DVD videos to XviD because it is simple and the result is satisfactory. The only complaint I could have made about it back when I was on XP was its relative slowness. This comes from the fact that it encodes in two passes. Note that I haven't tried it since I got my new computer which is much more powerful. So I will do it to see, thank you for this suggestion ;)

Now, I would rather use software like MediaCoder for example, which uses CUDA but you also need to have an nVidia graphics card for that.

As for getting HD content from a DVD, it indeed seems difficult but not impossible from a theoretical and even practical point of view. So I would reply that yes, it's logical but not unfeasible. I'm having fun, for testing by making M2TS files from small files retrieved from YouTube or elsewhere. Let's just say it's a complete mess ^^

In a DVD video, the codec used is MPEG-2 with a bitrate varying between about 4500 Kbps and 9000 Kbps to round it off. The image dimensions are 720x576 in PAL.
In HD, the bitrate is much higher (up to 24 Mbps for example in VC-1, the codec for WMV files) and the resolution is also generally higher.
But you can very well convert your film to MP4/MKV, with a suitable resolution respecting the aspect (16/9 or 4/3). For example, you set 720x405 (or 608x342 or 512x288 and so on) roughly, and the 16/9 ratio is present; the shape of the image will be identical to what you would have in 1920x1080 or 1280x720.
However, going beyond that, even if it's feasible, in my opinion, presents no interest since you won't get a better visual rendering compared to the original film anyway. And since everything depends on it....

I'm telling you all this from memory, I haven't checked the possibilities that FairUse offers, which I will be eager to test again to see.

Thank you for your response, ziggurat. So, is AVI better than MPG? But an AVI video takes up more space on the computer, right?
And I was told that MPG can't be played everywhere. Is that true?

Thank you very much gej62 and ziggourat for your answers and clarifications that help me understand certain aspects of the world of video that I have neglected for a very (too?) long time... ;)

In that case, AVI will suit you perfectly!

Thank you very much chico200987