[Arimfe]

Originally Posted by bayoab

See the OP on page 1... this thread is ABOUT EXACTLY THAT.

Comparing 175mb xvid files and their h.264 counterparts.

Orly rly? Good job figuring out the OP on page 1.
It still doesn't change the fact that you are failing by comparing filesize when there's difference in codecs, encoders/settings/filters, raws etc.

Originally Posted by bayoab

here is the original one that started this. (And he wasn't the first, we already had this conversation back on page 3 or 4.)

Did you read he wrote "probably"?
As in "this may not be always true"?
Whether that statement of his fails in general or not still doesn't make yours any less misleading.

Originally Posted by bayoab

And you extrapolated it to mean something entirely different.

Sure, keep pour out misleading failings and blame others for reading it "the wrong way". Way to go.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Beside, it is simple to make a larger file with worse quality (without special filtering). I have seen it done many times.

What can be done to make something worse is completely irrelevant. Not that I would trust what you deem good/bad anyway.

Originally Posted by bayoab

File size has nothing to do with quality

This still fails as much as ever as a general statement.

All we have to look at is what you admit here:

Originally Posted by bayoab

Considering that it matters with that kind of size difference[100 vs 500], you picking the codec would be unfair.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Certain series (ex: some episodes of Gash Bell), don't start looking decent till 190mb in XviD

By these statements, your "File size has nothing to do with quality" fails, and remains as nothing but a misleading statement.

Originally Posted by bayoab

You might want to take a look at the Death Note comparison to see how stupid and bizzare encoders can be. (Note the divx3 one and the 90mb xvid one there.) Hell look at the variation in all the 175mb ones. They are the same file size and they all clearly aren't the same!

Orly? they not the same? Do we really need a deep annalysis for why they are not the same?
"Different codecs, different encoders/settings/filters, different raws etc." = Of course they are not the same. Good job once again stating something obvious.

Originally Posted by bayoab

I didn't prove it wrong at all

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by bayoab

I proved it absolutely correct in how I meant it. I proved how you were extrapolating it to mean something completely different was wrong.

There we have it. You trying to put forth a misleading statement as absolute truth, and blame people when they read it in its misleading parts.