FESTERS PLACE

Yesterday i came across this handy website, Thought it might be handy for some of you guys, Was just a thought. http://www.mediaconverter.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting idea but I don't really see any need for it. You can easily do it yourself and it would prob be quicker. Maybe it's for the tech illiterates?
And on the right they advertise "better video quality". That's just not possible.

"better video quality" is more than possible if it the statement relates to their standard conversion. If what you get back is a smaller resolution, lower bitrate and reduced fps and a premium account gives you DVD resolution, high bitrates at standard fps then hey presto you have "better video quality".

Clicking the link does indeed tell you why its better:
Higher bitrates for a sharp output quality. See the difference

.genetix wrote:Yesterday i came across this handy website, Thought it might be handy for some of you guys, Was just a thought. http://www.mediaconverter.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thats nearly as handy as looking in Festers underpants and finding a spotted dick (yes its peachy) , a book on ghonnorhea, or a chicken pie!

But I don't think you'd find Dharma's bra (HELL NO!)

But I don't think you'd find Dharma's bra (HELL NO!)

Perish the thought but wasn't there a rumour that above mentioned item could be found in Fester's underpants?

hahaha why yes there is a spotted dick (yes its indeed very peachy) , a book on gonorrhea, and a chicken pie! but i looked hard and the rumor is not true Dharma's bra is not in my underwear..

Chicken Pie!

But how can you get better quality from a fixed source?
Any conversion from one lossy format to another is always worse than you started with. Whether or not it is very noticeable depends on the quality you started with and the sophistication of the software. But lower quality it is.

It looks like they limit the conversion for free accounts so that they are fairly crap quality. But the better conversion should still be of a lower quality than the original.

When something gets encoded it runs through a process that only takes certain information from the file to reproduce it close to the original but with a smaller file size. Each different format uses different equations that will remover different pieces to other formats.

Eg:
Take a basic file: Convert it into two different lossy formats: Each format omits different chunks depending on the algorithms they use. They both view fine because there is enough data for software to fill in the blanks. Or the missing data is not noticeable because our eyes and ears can't tell the difference.
But if we try to convert from one lossy to another the missing data creates massive holes in the new file that the viewing software can't fill in. Try it yourself. Get a .wav or .flac song and convert it to 128kb mp3 and mwa. Listen to both. Then convert both new files into the other's format and listen again.

Yep, I agree but your initial post declared it wasn't possible to have better quality but as I said they aren't professing to better the original. They are only stating they are bettering the free conversion not its source.