I wanted to add this because of the reminder about adding Direct Show filters.
SuperEasy Video Booster isn't bad software, but Engelmann uses the HDX4 code libraries, which because they include Direct Show filters are registered with Windows. Unless you have a lot of critical Direct Show stuff already installed that's probably not a big deal -- it may be a plus, as they gotten some good ratings. If you have a lot of video software with critical installed DS filters that you must have working however, there's always a chance of conflicts. Windows can mix & match the DS filters it uses for whatever task, so it might use this file from company X together with this one from company Y. If the 2 work well together no problems -- if they don't whatever uses them won't work. In this case it's not too difficult to disable the HDX4 stuff should it cause any problems -- just rename or move or remove them from the Common Files folder. I've never used Engelmann software myself simply because I'm too lazy -- I've got other software already that does the same stuff so I didn't see any reason to take the risk, no matter how easy it is to fix problems, *If* there were any problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectShow
Basically what Video Booster does is similar to their photo enhancing software, making the video you shot look better the same way their other apps make your photos look better. You could do better yourself, but this way there's little work or knowledge involved. Alternatives include many of the convertors that have been on GOTD, the free editor Shotcut, any of the video editors sold retail, and VirtualDub &/or AviSynth. The *old fashioned* way still works too, converting video frames to still images & batch processing those before you recombine them to a new video file.
Do note that the lower quality of video compared to photos means that you won't be able to achieve the same results you're used to with your photos [assuming you're not shooting 4k :) ]. And do note that the process of editing & re-encoding will definitely cause some quality loss on it's own -- that's unavoidable. Better colors aren't worth it if the resulting video's too low quality to watch, so use the highest quality source video possible & test to make sure it is worth the bother. Video color correction itself is involved enough that it can be a separate field rather than just something handled during editing, e.g. many [most?] movies are sent to a separate facility where they create the entire look & feel.
That generational quality loss seems to have sparked a few comments on the download page -- the lower the original quality, the more severe the effects of re-encoding, regardless anything else. Editing the contents of the video, in this case applying whatever filtering to make the video look better, can amplify the amount of quality loss. That's because something like sharpening everything in the frame means sharpening the bad along with the good. Developers can try to minimize that sort of thing, but that does not always work as they might wish with every video, nor does it work flawlessly.
Some other comments, IMHO anyway, may point out the wisdom of the Chinese devs who've had offers on GOTD... The average video convertors have all been self-contained, meaning they work regardless what you have or haven't installed. Otherwise you get into the rat's nest that is video compatibility in Windows. Lots of folks I think use something like the VLC player [also self contained], so they're unaware that their particular Windows installation cannot handle that same video very well natively, or perhaps it can't handle it at all.
I mean that to say that if you want to try SuperEasy Video Booster I don't think you should be scared off by some of the negative reports in the comments, but rather try it for yourself on your hardware in your Windows using your video. Now it may or may not work great, but the complaints I read could be caused by the source video, &/or influenced, maybe heavily, by whatever else was or wasn't installed, so I don't think that they're a fair, universally accurate measure of the software. OTOH I don't think SuperEasy Video Booster is special enough to warrant a lot of words on how to try to tailor your system to running it.
----
On a bit of a separate note, Karl, in the comments posted a familiar refrain -- my new file is waaaayyyy bigger. In case it's useful to anyone...
"The file size increases from 38 MB to 101 MB, with an date rate increase from 1300 kbits/s (original) to 4000 kbits/s, audio bitrate remains the same."
Karl, the size of a video file depends on 1) the size of the video frame, 2) the method of video compression, & 3) the bit rate. The frame size is the most obvious -- more pixels take more space to store. You can think of the bit rate as the *relative* amount of video compression -- to make a file smaller, and to make the streaming of the video [from storage to reading to decoding to display] take less bandwidth you increase the video compression levels. The format or method of video compression can be more efficient at storage or less. At the top of the scale are [near] lossless formats that store data for each frame, where video files can be quite large [especially for HD, easily in the hundreds of GB]. Their advantage is the video is highly editable and little data has been lost during encoding. AVC/H.264 is the most common efficient format today -- it stores relatively few complete frames, only recording what changes from one frame to the next in between those complete frames, & it also relies on pre & post processing to increase visual quality [why HD AVC often uses (depending on processor may require) some assist from graphics hardware for playback]. Unlike lossless formats it Is Not designed for editing or re-encoding, though both are of course possible.
Windows Media Video was one of the earliest, if not The earliest, mpg4 [mp4] codec [COmpressor/DECompressor], capable of anything from highly compressed video with very few full frames [I've seen video with just one key frame], to hardly compressed all keyframe video more suitable for editing. While I know you didn't do it for this purpose, moving to a less compressed video file as you did during your testing is normally only of use if you plan on more editing or processing -- encoding causes data loss, but encoding to a much less compressed file, e.g. using a [near] lossless codec minimizes that loss, while making future editing & processing easier. [I say *near* lossless because even when a codec saves the full data for every frame, there is at least a very small bit of data lost during encoding. It's referred to as generational loss.]