Today's developer continues to live in a world of its own, stripping out from its very ordinary converter individual components which it then offers up as one-trick ponies at prices so over-the-top they defy belief. Today's single-purpose MP4 converter, at a hoped-for $56 retail, is a case in point.

Free MP4 converters abound. So do free video converters which manage every kind of input and output file format. And so, too, do paid-for full service video converters that are regularly offered by major software publishers on giveaway sites such as GOTD.

Dimo's cynical approach to marketing and seeming contempt for the intelligence of its target audience would be bad enough. But there's also the fact that its self-proclaimed expertise notwithstanding, it appears to know so little about the world of video that it's quoting Sony Vegas in today's promotional blurb, this despite the fact that Sony's lack of investment in that once renowned product meant it declined to the point where it was flogged off cheap to German developer Magix two years ago and is, effectively, no more.

If Dimo genuinely means business, it should take advantage of the excellent platform GOTD provides to all developers and promote the fully functioning software it publishes rather than extracting bits and pieces and pretending they're worth something. Until it does, its succession of one-trick ponies fools no-one.

MikeR  –  6 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+77)

Traducir

MikeR, couldn't agree more!! On their website, the $56 is crossed off and the price of $37.95 is listed, to make people think they're getting a bargain. Almost every tech vendor on the web tries to use this marketing subterfuge, including PC vendors with their ubiquitous "instant savings".

MikeR, couldn't agree more!! On their website, the $56 is crossed off and the price of $37.95 is listed, to make people think they're getting a bargain. Almost every tech vendor on the web tries to use this marketing subterfuge, including PC vendors with their ubiquitous "instant savings".
Save | Cancel

Phoe  –  6 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+11)

Traducir

This company had offered more converter's, most of them with one input-format.
Installation etc same as the others. Screen's also.
Something I do not understand.
A video with a higher resolution(4096) takes almost the same space as a file with lower resolution(640).
And the file with lower resolution as the original takes more space:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fub0kdvbscl7gdi/Eigenschappen.png
And the CPU has to work:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yhq5nmhtlnigh9b/Belasting.png
The originals, from the internet Free:
Water without sound: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/Ta5QBjJtmcKBqbb
Bird: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/ExsAa80ERy1z2Z0
Water 640: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/RV1l3YAFPHEjnkG
Bird 640: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/whCYwPUbPttHQAj
Water 4096: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/b852bGfCpjcF5uv
Bird 4096: https://ootjegotd.stackstorage.com/s/Nztla7rb03c7zEq

Ootje  –  6 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+11)

Traducir

Ootje,

"Something I do not understand.
A video with a higher resolution(4096) takes almost the same space as a file with lower resolution(640)."

The short answer is that's because they're encoded differently.

If you were using a 4k display, & took screen shots of video playing full size, the screenshot image file of a 4k video would be larger than the screenshot of 1080 video would be larger than 480 video and so on -- that's common sense since the 4k image would contain many more pixels [data] than the other 2 sizes. Logically the number of images [frames] per second also makes a difference in the size of a video file, since storing 10 images takes up less space than storing 30. This is what you'd expect. The actual file sizes you see however reflect different methods & amounts of video compression.

With video compression the efficiency of the method [codec] matters, as do the quality-related settings. The quality settings generally work similar to those same settings with MP3 audio files, in that the lower the quality, the more data that gets tossed out, & because of that, the lower the quality, the less the results match the original. Comparing different frame size videos encoded the same way gets a bit more complicated, since the bit rate that's set will vary, depending on how much data has to be moved from the file to the display, but generally a DVD encoded to AVC at original quality might be around 2GB, while the 1080p Blu-ray version might be around 25 - 35GB.

Ootje, <i>"Something I do not understand. A video with a higher resolution(4096) takes almost the same space as a file with lower resolution(640)."</i> The short answer is that's because they're encoded differently. If you were using a 4k display, & took screen shots of video playing full size, the screenshot image file of a 4k video would be larger than the screenshot of 1080 video would be larger than 480 video and so on -- that's common sense since the 4k image would contain many more pixels [data] than the other 2 sizes. Logically the number of images [frames] per second also makes a difference in the size of a video file, since storing 10 images takes up less space than storing 30. This is what you'd expect. The actual file sizes you see however reflect different methods & amounts of video compression. With video compression the efficiency of the method [codec] matters, as do the quality-related settings. The quality settings generally work similar to those same settings with MP3 audio files, in that the lower the quality, the more data that gets tossed out, & because of that, the lower the quality, the less the results match the original. Comparing different frame size videos encoded the same way gets a bit more complicated, since the bit rate that's set will vary, depending on how much data has to be moved from the file to the display, but generally a DVD encoded to AVC at original quality might be around 2GB, while the 1080p Blu-ray version might be around 25 - 35GB.
Save | Cancel

mike  –  6 years ago  –  ¿Te ha parecido útil este comentario? si | no (+8)

Traducir