BatchCrunch

Built this because every online converter capped the upload, put the job in a queue, or wanted a subscription — for a folder of client screen recordings none of them worked. ffmpeg now compiles to WebAssembly and runs multithreaded in a tab, so BatchCrunch processes the whole folder on your own CPU. No upload, no account, one-time $19.

ffmpeg in WebAssembly with nothing leaving the tab is the selling point here, especially for anyone whose footage cannot legally go to a third party server.

Clean UI, love that it's one-time $19.

Best tool I have in the marketplace with 14 days free trial

very helpful for everyone

processing everything in the browser with zero uploads is a genuine privacy win. no file size limits because nothing leaves your machine is the kind of constraint removal that makes you wonder why every tool doesn't work this way. one-time $19 instead of a subscription is refreshing too

good but after check

Really smart concept! 🔥 Browser-based processing with zero uploads is a huge privacy win, and the one-time $19 pricing makes it even more appealing. Great tool for creators and teams! 👏

The "nothing uploaded" angle is the right call for this category — I went the same route with calculate.at (client-side calculators, no server round-trip for anything). The 3-files-free / $19-unlock split is a clean way to gate batch size without touching the no-upload promise. Curious how big a folder people actually throw at it before hitting the WASM/CPU ceiling on an average laptop?

processing everything in the browser with zero uploads is a genuine privacy win. no file size limits because nothing leaves your machine is the kind of constraint removal that makes you wonder why every tool doesn't work this way. one-time $19 instead of a subscription is refreshing too

The "nothing uploaded" angle is the right call for this category — I went the same route with calculate.at (client-side calculators, no server round-trip for anything). The 3-files-free / $19-unlock split is a clean way to gate batch size without touching the no-upload promise. Curious how big a folder people actually throw at it before hitting the WASM/CPU ceiling on an average laptop?

The "estimated output size before it runs" is the detail that stands out — normally you don't know the compressed size until you've actually encoded, so I'm curious whether that's a bitrate heuristic or a quick sample-encode under the hood. Also smart that it runs offline once the encoder is cached; for the NDA/medical use case you list, does it strip EXIF/location metadata from image exports by default, or is that a separate toggle?

Processing everything directly in the browser with zero uploads is a huge privacy win. No file size limits because nothing ever leaves your device—that kind of restriction-free approach makes you wonder why more tools aren’t built this way. And the one-time $19 payment instead of another subscription? Honestly, that’s refreshing.

Processing everything directly in the browser with zero uploads is a huge privacy win. No file size limits because nothing ever leaves your device—that kind of restriction-free approach makes you wonder why more tools aren’t built this way. And the one-time $19 payment instead of another subscription? Honestly, that’s refreshing.

Browser-only compress/resize with nothing uploaded is a strong trust story for agencies handling client media. Does the WebAssembly path stay usable on large multi-GB video, or do you recommend chunking workflows?

Processing everything in the browser with zero uploads is a huge win.

https://indihunt.in/ try thia also it have more fetureswith 1 month off free campains

The per-media recipe plus an output-size estimate before processing stands out for creator workflows. Keeping large client footage local also removes a real upload bottleneck. Can recipes be saved and reused across folders, and if a long WebAssembly encode is interrupted, is there any way to resume the remaining queue without reprocessing completed files?

worked fine just was bit surprised that the quality slider for video quality is 0-40 instead of 0-100%

Keeping ffmpeg in the tab is the same constraint as other browser-only media tools: no upload queue, but you pay for WASM warm-up and RAM. The per-file size estimate before the run is the piece most compressors skip — without it people just hammer quality until the file looks wrong. For an ecommerce watermark plus resize recipe, does the side-by-side preview show the watermark at output resolution, or at source size? That's usually where "looks fine in the tab" diverges from the exported JPEG.