• 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
  On 26/01/2013 at 15:25, DaDude said:

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
  On 28/01/2013 at 02:34, BudMan said:

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?

  On 28/01/2013 at 03:41, Ambroos said:

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.

  On 28/01/2013 at 03:19, -Himanshu- said:

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
  On 28/01/2013 at 13:25, Ambroos said:

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

    • Nice! My $100 refurbished iPad 8 that I bought last year for a small project (and still runs like new cuz it's been mostly in storage the past several months) will get this v26 upgrade. I'm definitely gonna scope out OS26 on this device before upgrading my also-supported refurbished iPhone SE 3rd Gen (only got it for the 5G UW support).
    • Hello, The separate discussion about VLC has been moved to its own thread at  Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • Hello, I am guessing this is the result of using a third-party tweaking tool instead of changing things within Windows settings. Windows 11 has a decent set of configuration options for the display, but they tend to be scattered throughout the operating system due to fragmentation of product ownership/inconsistent standards being applied by Microsoft. There are a few places in Windows 11 where you can modify the various display settings in order to get them to your liking: Under Settings → System → Display you can stroll down to the Scale & layout section and change the Scale and Display resolution settings to whatever you prefer.  For the Scale option, you can click on the text box to choose between the various pre-populated settings.  If none of those are exactly what you are looking for, click on the caret ("") caret to open the Custom scaling setting (also available under Settings → Display → Custom scaling).  I would recommend this as an option of last resort as this can cause display issues in various programs. I strongly recommend using the screen's native Display resolution here; it should show up as the "(Recommended)" resolution.  If it does not, you may need to install your monitor's profile information file (basically, a device driver for your monitor) to get the correct setting. Another place to look at making changes to fonts is under Accessiblity → Text size.  There is a slider bar for changing the text size from 100% to 225% there. You can try making changes to the ClearType settings.  It's a little bit finer-grained than the others, but it may make the text easier to view on the display.  Run the ClearType Text Tuner (filename: CTTUNE.EXE) and go through the wizard. You may want to do this several times under different lighting conditions or times of the day to figure out what works best for you overall. Lastly, you may want to look into using a dedicated assistive screen technology program from a third-party.  Microsoft provides a Screen Magnifier and a Narrator for text-to-speech, but they provide only basic functionality, and you may find that a third-party program works a lot better.  The pros of this is that third-party assistive technology programs tend to work quite well under Windows; Microsoft has historically worked closely with third-party developers of assistive technologies.  The cons of this are that such tools tend to be on the expensive side, since they are often sold to schools, businesses, or paid for by insurance companies, not individuals. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • Totally agree with you. I think people, especially on tech sites, need to realize that they’re the minority. Microsoft isn’t going to waste time on things that, in the big picture, don’t matter to the majority.
    • I think a lot of people here are too young to even remember Aqua.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Rookie
      CHUNWEI went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Enthusiast
      the420kid went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      NeoToad777 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Week One Done
      VicByrd earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      267
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      257
    4. 4
      Edouard
      203
    5. 5
      snowy owl
      178
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!