AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > Fansub Groups

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-11-16, 16:31   Link #201
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 26
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Quote:
Originally Posted by [darkfire] View Post
I found 140mb is good enough for my encode of Negima. Maybe I could have gone less. The xvid I made was 220mb and it still has blocking and doesn't look quite as good as the h.264
Some stats files would be nice... I'm finding this rather hard to believe, especially for Negima!?
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-16, 16:34   Link #202
dj_tjerk
Ana-chan~
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
I guess the information that is lost during the process of transcoding from one source to whatever you want is not equivalent to what the human eye can distinguish, especially when you use filters. There may be information lost, but you can 'deceive' the eye (removing errors, making lines sharper blabla) and make it look better than it did.

[offtopic]
You're kinda active these days Uchikatsu :P
[/offtopic]
dj_tjerk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-17, 04:39   Link #203
SirCanealot
What? I am washed up!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London, England
Age: 29
Send a message via MSN to SirCanealot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
So, if you mean that a source which leads to a good xvid encode in 175 doesn't gain much with a 233 h264-encode, you have a point. But there are enough examples where 175 xvid is borderline - and there, 233 h264 may be perfectly justified.


That's one of my problems with people right now: they don't seem to realise that different sources require different filesizes, and it really annoys me. I admit that 175 megs is sort of a sweetspot between quality and filesize, but most of my stuff done now (with all of my one series I'm encoding slowly right now ^^) is simply with a "233 meg limit". I mean, with a "233 meg limit" you can pool bits for later episodes that need them. Case in point, episode 4 = 205 megs, episode 6 = 250 (or whatever the maths were).

Although, to be honest, I think I'll try and do the next series I encode in pure H.264, with maybe an XVid version coming later if need be. I'm holding on to my XVid far too harshly, and I really haven't learnt that much about H.264 yet... I don't know how or when to push it, and how much I can push it by... Need to catch up ^^
__________________
SirCanealot
And they shall know no fear....
SirCanealot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 16:58   Link #204
fordprefect
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Question about H.264 file sizes

Hi, I'm relatively new to playing H.264 files, but I've noticed that most of the H.264 releases are larger in filesize than their XviD counterparts. It pretty much makes burning a 26-episode series on one DVD impossible.

I've seen a lot of the H.264 encodes at HD resolutions, while most XviD encodes are done at smaller resolutions to save on space. But if the H.264 spec was designed to capture information at lower bitrates, then intuitively, shouldn't most encodes be comparable in size to the XviD versions, even at higher resolutions?

For comparison, I see most XviD files (704x396) are around 170-180 MB, while H.264 files (1280x720) are in excess of 240 MB. I can understand that 720p is a lot more pixels to encode than 480p, but for my edification, is 240 MB really the "best" that H.264 can compress, or are these encodes quite liberal with their bitrates?
fordprefect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 17:35   Link #205
martino
makes no files now
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordprefect View Post
For comparison, I see most XviD files (704x396) are around 170-180 MB, while H.264 files (1280x720) are in excess of 240 MB. I can understand that 720p is a lot more pixels to encode than 480p, but for my edification, is 240 MB really the "best" that H.264 can compress, or are these encodes quite liberal with their bitrates?
Try encoding 1280x720 using XviD to get ~233MB and you'll get something like this:
http://www.kalifa-chan.com/images/Gu..._00-01_005.png
As opposed to what h264 would look at the roughly same filesize (bitrate in more precise terms):
http://www.kalifa-chan.com/images/Gu..._00-01_005.png
(note: Encodes were produced by different people and and also at different bitrates, but it demonstrates the case well, different raw source too I guess).
And note for the second one that there is still some blocking (I assume it was not on the source and was caused due to the codec not having enough bitrate to allocate for such a high motion scene).

Also, I don't want to nitpick or anything, but you can try taking a look yourself at some 1280x720 h264 encodes that were done at 175MB and you'll see they are horribly blurred and scrapped of detail. I won't be pointing with my finger, they're not so hard to find...

Definition of "best" is rather vague in this context. Does it mean "highest possible quality" or "smallest filesize possible with acceptable quality"?. Of course it depends on the source as to how well something is compressible, however if we count ~20MB for audio, you are left with something like 210MB for video, which is usually a bitrate around 1200kbps (for a usual 24 minute episode). Personally I worked with three 720p sources up to date, and going below 1100kbps (without causing blurring and loss of detail) has proven to be quite problematic. So my personal answer would be "that's as best as you can go while not cutting down too much on quality and not having a big sized file". Next step higher and you're on 350MB (if we take the so called "filesize standards" into account). Guess what wins here?


EDIT: Still in quite a few cases you will see h264 and XviD encodes at the roughly same filesize, however in most cases they both have the same resolution. In some cases the h264 encode will be smaller, usually 140MB (seems to be used fairly often) as opposed to 175MB. This is where you can observe that h264 does compress better, but feel free to do your own comparisons and decide.
__________________
"Light and shadow don't battle each other, because they're two sides of the same coin"

Last edited by martino; 2007-10-14 at 17:57.
martino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 17:54   Link #206
fordprefect
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Thanks for the quick and informative response!

Since I've only just started watching H.264 encodes, most of which are at actual HD resolution, I'm only now noticing the subtle imperfections you mentioned at bitrates lower than 1000 kpbs or so.
fordprefect is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 21:46   Link #207
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by martino View Post
Also, I don't want to nitpick or anything, but you can try taking a look yourself at some 1280x720 h264 encodes that were done at 175MB and you'll see they are horribly blurred and scrapped of detail. I won't be pointing with my finger, they're not so hard to find...
People still and probably never will master H264, as it's still in beta. Some still haven't learned how to properly encode divx/xvid/wm9 (probably the hardest one of them all) and I mean by using the right filters for the specific source. If your not familiar with avs then don't bother.

I still prefer YV12 above anything lossless I got space, and once again the original caps had a much larger filesize (with a higher bitrate of course). These caps here weren't made for you that have very low space (Can anyone define "low space" Please!?)

Again "we" cap TV streams that ARE made to be viewed on a PC, and this means TV>Harddrive>PC Monitor Output.

Depending on what "media player" you use (software that is). They usually have a type of filtering for example MPC has one for DVDs, it doesn't really "filter" em, but it removes that extra brightness added when using a software based media player compared to a hardware based one.

You can if you want, remove this "add" when encoding to a source more suitable for a PC, or you can just let the media player (software in this case) do it's work. This might save you from using a filter that might remove one type of "noise" which in some cases, adds "another" one. And this one is usually a blurred or extra sharp or (you name it) "add" (filter in this case), that comes with your "noise remover".

Remember this: Re-encoding an already capped & cleaned up source might give you a worser result (almost everytime in fansubbing cases), unless the original capper forgot to remove mpeg deblocking or similar things.

You're just a fan watching fansubs. You don't need to interfere with that which falls beyond your knowledge.
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 22:11   Link #208
X207
Gamyūsa
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
would a smaller file size (140mb) in a h264 mean that its better video quality even if the avi format is 171mb ie night wizard ep 2 by ashes-anisubs?
__________________
X207 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 22:14   Link #209
edogawaconan
LOL?
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indonesia
Send a message via MSN to edogawaconan Send a message via Yahoo to edogawaconan
Quote:
Originally Posted by X207 View Post
would a smaller file size (140mb) in a h264 mean that its better video quality even if the avi format is 171mb ie night wizard ep 2 by ashes-anisubs?
depends on the settings, yes (or at least same)
__________________
edogawaconan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-14, 23:25   Link #210
Potatochobit
Certified Organic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
its a crime to use h264 in LQ. honestly, whats the point? if you want to save file size or go easy on the CPU use xvid.
__________________
*Retired*
Potatochobit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 00:23   Link #211
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
its a crime to use h264 in LQ. honestly, whats the point? if you want to save file size or go easy on the CPU use xvid.
One of the main reasons for H264 was to save up space, therefor it looks better at lower bitrates compared to XviD.

BTW, space has nothing to do with CPU, just cuz h264 eats more out of your CPU it doesn't mean that it takes more space. If you want "HQ" then use WMV9.

Take a laptop for example, you got a core2/P4 but only a 120gb harddrive, and one episode for me is between 300-500mb.
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 00:42   Link #212
Potatochobit
Certified Organic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
perhaps, however, a higher Quality H264 video file will be larger than a Low Quality H264.

the purpose of using xvid is so that everyone can play the video, or do you disagree?

so why do you need to release the same show in 2 codecs that everyone can play? shouldnt you pick one to cater to the higher end users also?
__________________
*Retired*
Potatochobit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 01:00   Link #213
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
perhaps, however, a higher Quality H264 video file will be larger than a Low Quality H264.
YOU DON'T SAY!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
the purpose of using xvid is so that everyone can play the video, or do you disagree?
Wrong, XviD still lives cuz of backboners that haven't followed the the so called "evolution "were they still sit with PCs that have hardware that dates back to 2000 or sooner. WMV3 existed well before XviD. I used and so did others, however "most" people still enjoyed VHS back at that time. Or perhaps.. didn't have broadband nor modems nor "Internet".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatochobit View Post
so why do you need to release the same show in 2 codecs that everyone can play? shouldnt you pick one to cater to the higher end users also?
Cuz some wants HQ and some "wants" LQ. And some thinks that either is fine nor doesn't notice any difference, and some still views the s.k HQ, but not in fullscreen and cuz of that he/she doesn't see any difference. This is why....

The "majority" is people from the US and we know that well. The "majority" still have low end PCs and this is were the thing comes in.
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 01:46   Link #214
Potatochobit
Certified Organic
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
So you are saying WMV3 is as good as xvid? I cannot agree with that.

a 5 to 6 year old computer is not exactly the stone age. it would be about the age it should be replaced. only college kids and techies should be expected to upgrade their computer every two years. I can understand how you would think like that though since your young and grew up in the home PC era.
I should point out that windows XP is very much alive, even more than the newer vista. also Pentium IV's have been around for years and are still doing a good job. dual and quad core processors are nice, but they are not needed to word process or surf the web, which is what most people use their home PC's for.

so your view on 'evolution' may not fit everyone's ideal. Last I checked most houses use a DVD player. probably one in a hundred thousand people use HD or blueray (this an exaggeration obviously). Xvid and Divx are very much alive, my friend. just not in retail stores.

Quote:
Cuz some wants HQ and some "wants" LQ. And some thinks that either is fine nor doesn't notice any difference, and some still views the s.k HQ, but not in fullscreen and cuz of that he/she doesn't see any difference. This is why....
you didnt actually answer the question and this statement is saying you also think H264 should be considered HQ which means that you agree, H264 should be used for HQ
__________________
*Retired*
Potatochobit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 05:00   Link #215
Karnot
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
its a crime to use h264 in LQ. honestly, whats the point?
Uhm, i say whats the point to encode anime in HD ? No, seriously, whats the point ? Actual movie material i can understand, it does give better picture, level of detail proportionate to the resolution up to the point where you see skin pores, etc. But whats the point with the anime, eh ? Its LINES with COLOR FILLS !!! It doesnt matter how big resolution you have - level of detail will stay the same. So why bother in the first place ?
Karnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 07:36   Link #216
martino
makes no files now
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
People still and probably never will master H264, as it's still in beta. Some still haven't learned how to properly encode divx/xvid/wm9 (probably the hardest one of them all) and I mean by using the right filters for the specific source. If your not familiar with avs then don't bother.
Since when was h264 still beta? Would it be a "beta" if companies were widely using it for their products? I doubt it, it'd be like "Here's the beta of some antibiotics" and would be widely in production (God knows what it could do to some fragile human body. Even better, why not make it alpha?). That would never happen. Only what gets throughly tested goes forward to be used in mass production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
I still prefer YV12 above anything lossless I got space, and once again the original caps had a much larger filesize (with a higher bitrate of course). These caps here weren't made for you that have very low space (Can anyone define "low space" Please!?)
You're not making sense here... :V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
One of the main reasons for H264 was to save up space, therefor it looks better at lower bitrates compared to XviD.
So the reason for evolution of a codec is just to save space? No, I think it is to improve whatever that is possible and use advancing technology to its best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
BTW, space has nothing to do with CPU, just cuz h264 eats more out of your CPU it doesn't mean that it takes more space. If you want "HQ" then use WMV9.
If you mean that WMV9 is better than h264 at compression, then you're wrong. WMV9 is on par with XviD, roughly. h264 stands above in the ladder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnot View Post
Uhm, i say whats the point to encode anime in HD ? No, seriously, whats the point ? Actual movie material i can understand, it does give better picture, level of detail proportionate to the resolution up to the point where you see skin pores, etc. But whats the point with the anime, eh ? Its LINES with COLOR FILLS !!! It doesnt matter how big resolution you have - level of detail will stay the same. So why bother in the first place ?
There is a very big point to it, because if it was mastered in HD resolution then you do have that detail along with nice thin lines. I mean for God's sake... Are you blind? Go and do a comparison before you actually write something as stupid as this...
__________________
"Light and shadow don't battle each other, because they're two sides of the same coin"
martino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 07:46   Link #217
jpwong
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by martino View Post
So the reason for evolution of a codec is just to save space? No, I think it is to improve whatever that is possible and use advancing technology to its best.
I think the reference is to the fact that so many groups were touting the whole "H2.64 will let us release smaller files at the same quality as XVID or superior quality at the same size" back when the files first started comming out.

And yes, the evolution of codecs is to save space among other things IMO. If it weren't, there really wouldn't be much point in making a new codec. Would people really use a new codec for anime releases if it made the filesize twice as big for the same quality? It would have to feature something pretty spiffy to make up for that type of inefficiency.
jpwong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 11:02   Link #218
edogawaconan
LOL?
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indonesia
Send a message via MSN to edogawaconan Send a message via Yahoo to edogawaconan
Quote:
Originally Posted by martino View Post
So the reason for evolution of a codec is just to save space? No, I think it is to improve whatever that is possible and use advancing technology to its best.
It still means to save space in the end... (since we're only talking about video here)
__________________
edogawaconan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 11:07   Link #219
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpwong View Post
Would people really use a new codec for anime releases if it made the filesize twice as big for the same quality? It would have to feature something pretty spiffy to make up for that type of inefficiency.
Correct. But this is were the whole idea fails....

Some still tend to hug these sizes 170-179mb or 222-233mb etc. That's the problem. Why can't they just encode until they see that it fits their "needs"? That's what QC also was about but got quicly dropped due to people still didnt have that "fast" CPU back then and time. I still hug my P4 it does it's job but it's just for a server now were it works minimally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martino
Since when was h264 still beta? Would it be a "beta" if companies were widely using it for their products? I doubt it, it'd be like "Here's the beta of some antibiotics" and would be widely in production (God knows what it could do to some fragile human body. Even better, why not make it alpha?). That would never happen. Only what gets throughly tested goes forward to be used in mass production.
Because H264 is Open Source!. It does it's job way better than XviD if you don't play along with Avs and probably use your own encoder (mencoder anyone?) instead of <insert your favorite command line encoder here>. Remember, were playing with with TV Streams or similar sources. Companies have their "source". They can almost always get a better result than just using XviD, if they use any profiles, even better!

And remember, they play with lossless sources and we don't, we play along with a cappers source, unless he releases a .TS rip.

Again just cuz some (if not alot) stash their stuff on CD/DVDs it doesn't mean that you should still hug to this "US standardization". Yes you heard me, and they still release 700mb Movies and it's 2007... almost 2008... 1 tb harddrives costs less than 200 gb hardrives if you look back at 2002 were 1Tb didn't even exist officially... People have copied this and I know that it's here in Europe aswell, Some parts of Asia does it also, But why can't you just leave the CD/DVD era? Fansubs can always be found once more. And If you only watch them once why stash them? If you plan to buy the R1 ugly as hell DVDs then it would be pointless.. But then again stashing them on a harddrives would be the same except that it was the general idea to watch them from your hardrive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martino
You're not making sense here... :V
If you didn't know.... You can also encode h264 into lossless.

Now it's up to you on what to do. Copy what others have done, or move forward.

Open source beats hacked/closed Source!
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-10-15, 11:35   Link #220
dj_tjerk
Ana-chan~
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
Correct. But this is were the whole idea fails....

Because H264 is Open Source!.
Little correction there.. H.264 is nothing more than a standard.. x264 (one of many h.264 encoders) however is open source. And iirc, xvid is also open source (though it's more like an illegal improved copy of divx?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
Open source beats hacked/closed Source!
And you're wrong again, partially anyway. x264 didn't win every test in MSU's video codec comparison. And i also remember something about coreavc (closed source) being a way faster decoder than libavcodec, though I use the latter ever since I found out about weird blocking in coreavc's decoded material.
dj_tjerk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.