• 0

Is there a free software that can join Mpeg-2 videos without re-encoding?


Question

I use a DVD recorder to record shows from TV and I'm trying to edit out the commercials. I have many softwares that can snip out parts of the video and I use it to snip out the parts of the videos that I want and I would like to piece it together to make it commercial-free.

So let's say I record an episode of a TV show and the half-hour show goes something like this...

Beginning

Commercial Break

Middle

Commercial Break

End

So, I have many softwares that will clip the parts that I want. So, I clip the parts that I want, i.e. Beginning, Middle and End, because I don't want the commercials. However, I have three separate clips (Beg, Mid, End) and would now like to simply piece them together without re-encoding since it results in quality loss. I have tried many softwares, such as Mpeg2Cut2, and many of these softwares just screw up the video. It does a horrendous job! It will not piece together a video without causing any sort of weird side effect.

I don't understand. It's a simple thing.... I just want to join these mpeg videos together and make it one mpeg video! That's it!!

Is there any free software out there than can perform this simple thing without any problems?

Thanks!

Recommended Posts

  • 0

When rippers know what they're doing the quality loss is minimal. Nowadays things like episodes of the simpsons are being packed into MP4 files of less than 100MB yet they're superior quality to the old 170MB odd AVI files. Blu Rays are nice, but I the quality of the vast majority of HD rips to be perfectly fine.

  • 0

http://www.freemake.com/free_video_converter/

This is all you need to do all of your steps and you can keep the file format the same. Not sure if it re-encodes though but virtual dub can do that for you if your really into it,

  • 0

So to my point of keeping up with the current standards ;)

http://www.itu.int/n...es/2013/01.aspx

---

New video codec to ease pressure on global networks

Successor to award-winning standard to unleash new innovation

Geneva, 25 January 2013 ? A new video coding standard building on the PrimeTime Emmy award winning ITU-T H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC was agreed by ITU members today.

The new codec will considerably ease the burden on global networks where, by some estimates, video accounts for more than half of bandwidth use. The new standard, known informally as ?High Efficiency Video Coding? (HEVC) will need only half the bit rate of its predecessor, ITU-T H.264 / MPEG-4 Part 10 ?Advanced Video Coding? (AVC), which currently accounts for over 80 per cent of all web video. HEVC will unleash a new phase of innovation in video production spanning the whole ICT spectrum, from mobile devices through to Ultra-High Definition TV.

---

They have just approved h265, but you want to stay with h262 don't you ;) But if your about quality?? The new 265 includes 8k UHD, I would think you would be all over that ****? ;) 8192x4320, how is that going to compare to your 720x480 DVD format or maybe your using pal 720x576?

  • 0

I'm at a complete loss on how you think there is no quality loss. Any type of digital to digital conversion results in quality loss. It may be an unnoticeable, faint quality loss, but it's there. Even when studios take a film and convert it to DVD (or Blu-ray, for that matter), there is quality loss during the conversion. They try to do things in the best way possible during the transfer process to minimize the quality loss as best as they can, but the quality loss is there.

If you want to talk about no quality loss on h264, then the film needs to be transferred from the original negatives, not from the DVD.

Here's what I'm trying to say...

A film transferred to h264 could look just as good as DVDs (mpeg 2). I'm not denying that.

But a film transferred to Film, then to Mpeg2 and transferred AGAIN to h264.... then h264 will look worse than the mpeg file. I'm not saying h264 is worse than Mpeg2. I'm saying the conversion from film to digital and then to digital AGAIN is what results in the quality loss. Heck, even taking an Mpeg 2 file and re-encoding it to Mpeg 2 results in quality loss, which is my main reason for starting this thread which has now gone insanely off-topic thanks to a certain troll that I will not mention by name.

  • 0

Don't know if this will work or was suggested but free today only on the Giveawayoftheday.com site.

Boilsoft Video Joiner

http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/video-joiner/

Since it is free, worth a try perhaps - nothing to lose if not (as long as you worked with a copy of your source files).

  • 0

We are talking DVD quality here -- it LOOKS LIKE CRAP in the first place ;) And your worried about quality loss??? Your out of your mind :rolleyes:

  • 0

Apparently you guys don't care about quality loss, but I do. Even if it's just a little, I don't like it. That's one of the reasons why I'd rather buy a movie on Blu-ray and why I upgrade some of my DVD movies to Blu-ray. I want to watch my movies and shows in the best quality I can.

And my friend, if you're insisting that DVD is out and h264 is in, you're wrong. BLU-RAY is the new thing!! And as far as I'm concerned, all Blu-ray players play DVDs. So as long as Blu-ray players are around, then my DVDs are playable.

So, if you want to "get with the times," then ditch h254 and buy Blu-ray instead. :rolleyes:

You do know that Blu-ray actually uses h264 as video codec, right? It's just usually at a very high bitrate. If we're talking shady downloads you'll notice that, depending on where you get it, a movie can range from 700MB for a recode to 40GB for a direct copy of the Blu-ray. But both are h264. Just encode at high enough quality and you won't have any quality loss.

So if you want to "get with the times", just convert everything into h264. It's been the most important codec out there for a while and it will remain the most important codec for the next few years too. And then we'll switch to HEVC (h265).

  • 0

We are talking DVD quality here -- it LOOKS LIKE CRAP in the first place ;) And your worried about quality loss??? Your out of your mind :rolleyes:

Sigh! You don't get it, don't you? Yes, DVD has quality loss. So, why push the quality loss even further by making another conversion??

I do find it funny how you tell me that I waste my time authoring DVDs, yet you have no problem telling me to waste my time converting my HUNDREDS of DVDs into h264. Do you realize how time consuming that will be? Why bother wasting the time converting my DVD collection when there are still plenty of DVDs in the market and will still be some available within the next several years?

You do know that Blu-ray actually uses h264 as video codec, right? It's just usually at a very high bitrate. If we're talking shady downloads you'll notice that, depending on where you get it, a movie can range from 700MB for a recode to 40GB for a direct copy of the Blu-ray. But both are h264. Just encode at high enough quality and you won't have any quality loss.

So if you want to "get with the times", just convert everything into h264. It's been the most important codec out there for a while and it will remain the most important codec for the next few years too. And then we'll switch to HEVC (h265).

Another sigh!! You also don't get it. Blu-ray is transferred directly from film. You guys are asking me to convert a DVD, which already has enough quality loss as it is, and further degrade the quality by making another conversion. Blu-ray movies are not ripped DVD movies. They are brand new transfers done directly from film.

Won't using high enough bitrate while using h264 result in no quality loss? :s

MINIMAL quality loss. Saying "no" quality loss is pushing it and is factually incorrect.

You guys must get commission on these media player sales. You guys are just too pushy. I'm simply asking for an Mpeg joiner software and this has turned into a "buy a media player" thread. What the hell??

  • 0

Well, if you even had a minimal technical understanding of how MPEG2 (and most other video codecs) works you'd know that you can't just join two video files without either converting it or getting image errors. Not every frame is stored entirely, you have keyframes every X frames, all the other frames are differential. They only contain information about what changed with regards to the previous frame. Now if you just cut and paste video files together you'll start getting differentials for the wrong keyframes, causing horrible image errors. It is impossible to fix without at least minimal re-encoding because of limitations in MPEG2.

You should have a look at this guide: http://ffmpeg.org/trac/ffmpeg/wiki/x264EncodingGuide

Basically it means that if you convert using Handbrake with Constant Quality (instead of constant bitrate etc) and you put it high enough you will achieve lossless conversion. I don't know if you know lossless, but it means there will not be any quality loss at all. What you do with those files afterwards is your call, but converting them back to MPEG2 would indeed reduce the quality, especially since MPEG2 is just vastly inferior to h264.

And seriously, you think that if you record something from your TV to a DVD recorder the quality is so good you'll notice any difference? What input does your DVD recorder take, SCART? We are here trying to help you achieve something in the best possible way since you can't do it. When we explain why it doesn't work the way you want and we offer you pretty good alternatives you get rude and act as if we're idiots not understanding you. We do understand you, but if you refuse to at least look into the reasons why we're telling you what we're telling you then we can't really help you.

  • 0

Well, if you even had a minimal technical understanding of how MPEG2 (and most other video codecs) works you'd know that you can't just join two video files without either converting it or getting image errors.

-snip-

When we explain why it doesn't work the way you want and we offer you pretty good alternatives you get rude and act as if we're idiots not understanding you. We do understand you, but if you refuse to at least look into the reasons why we're telling you what we're telling you then we can't really help you.

Actually, nobody here ever told me it was impossible. People gave me the impression that it was possible but that you guys refuse to help me because my method is too "old school."

Now you're making sense and I apologize for coming off rude.

  • 0

I just want to share the good news that I finally bought a media player and so far, I'm liking it. However, I do find it a bit odd how people here criticize me for not having one, yet when I finally give in and ask a question about a particular media player on THIS thread, there are zero responses. Anyways, I decided to buy it anyway since the reviews at Amazon were positive overall. I only had the player for a day, but so far, I'm very happy with it. Now, I can watch my MP4 and DivX videos on my TV. I have a lot of digital videos that have remained unwatched because sitting in front of a desk watching on a computer is not something I prefer to do.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!