Today's GOTD is Video to Picture Converter. The good news is that it's almost portable, adding one folder to My Documents, & the program's folder itself - it only uses the registry for an uninstall key. The bad news is that I have no idea what anyone would recommend it for.
It will take snapshots of your video, but so will many players, & they'll often do a better job of it because they tend to use features to make your video look better. If you've got standard broadcast &/or DVD video at 720 x 480 or 576, many players will also display -- & capture -- the correct aspect ratio by altering the frame size displayed. If you capture a 720 x 480 or 576 frame at 720 x 480 or 576, most times that aspect will be off & the picture's width shrunken or stretched. Widescreen [16:9] video only makes the problem much worse.
It will do animated GIF files, but not as well as dedicated apps that will not repeat anything that stays the same in the video frame -- that keeps these GIFs small in file size. It will convert video to a folder full of still images, but it's hard to get the full frame rate out of it accurately -- if you edit those stills, batch or otherwise, put them back into a video file, it won't sync with the audio, and might not play smoothly, without glitches all the way through. Creating stills from video, & putting them back into a video file, is something the free VirtualDub is great at, though you may need to use the free AviSynth to import your video in the 1st place.
As someone noted in the download page comments, Video to Picture Converter is virtually identical to the WonderFox software of the same name -- not 100% identical, but very, very close.
-------
One of the comments talks about the color temperature of lighting & camera white balance, though he may not know it. He was hoping to use the GOTD's tinting FX to correct a white balance problem with his video -- I think maybe it makes for an interesting aside...
Indoor lighting has temperatures -- warm = reddish -- cold = blueish. We often don't notice -- cameras will. A temperature around 6500 is closer to daylight, though many [most?] bulbs labeled daylight have a temp around 5000-5500. Daylight is more accurate when you're editing pictures or video, but since most people grew up with warmer lighting, it makes many folks uncomfortable when a room's lit that way. In fact, an awful lot of camera equipment purposely warms colors, & people generally find the results more pleasing.
White balance is the setting for digital cameras & images that determines what is white. Everything we see is interpreted by our brains so that seems easy -- we have no trouble picking out white [or near white] at all. Camera sensors do have trouble with this. And if/when they pick the wrong color for white, of course every color in your images will be shifted, sometimes quite a lot. When there's no white in the scene, things get even uglier.
Better cameras [video & still] let you set the white balance manually while pointing them at a pure white card -- a piece of blank paper can work in a pinch, but it won't be pure white & things will still be a little off. If you have a cheaper camera, like the gentleman who posted the comment, maybe the best you can do is shoot an image or a few frames of a white source, so you at least have some frame of reference when later you do any editing -- you'll know what pure white looked like in that lighting, can adjust the picture so it's white, and then you can apply the same adjustment to everything else.
The main goal in that comment was to remove the reddish color cast from the video he shot. That color cast wasn't a tint, but rather the result of all colors being shifted because of A) the color temp where it was shot, & B) the white balance being incorrect. Since you can't go back in time to change the lighting, you try to correct the white balance. A better camera saves images as raw, meaning all the data's there, but a cheaper camera or many [most?] video cameras won't do that -- the result is a picture that's already processed, meaning data has been thrown out, and that's data you need. When you then adjust the white balance in editing software you'll have varying degrees of success -- sometimes it will work well, and sometimes it won't, depending on the data available, the colors in the scene, & the temp of the lighting in the picture. Trying to tackle the problem you see, in this case a reddish tint, using regular color controls in your editing software can be quite iffy -- for best results you'd have to shift every color, & without using a white balance control or adjustment that can be quite difficult, even if/when you had all the original sensor data.
The easiest way around this whole mess is to correct the lighting a bit when you originally shoot the photos or video. A fill flash or light helps, a Lot. There are all sorts of inexpensive flash diffusers or bounce light attachments you can make or buy for your camera designed to fill the area with light having a more correct temperature. Or you can use an inexpensive daylight bulb or two in small lamps you can carry with you -- you can for example buy cheap clamp-on lights with a bell shaped reflector. You can also use those inexpensive reflective shades people put in their parked cars behind the windshield to keep them cooler in the summer -- one light pointed at that reflects a nice, soft fill. The reason to use a daylight bulb BTW is to counter the temp of the room lighting -- if it's overly warm & dim you'll get an orange cast that the blue from the daylight lamp will bring into a more normal temperature lighting.