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 2006-10-21, 23:41   Link #181
RaistlinMajere
Now in MHD!
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Never more than 175MB/24min ep if you ask me
__________________
RaistlinMajere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-22, 06:09   Link #182
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
Anyone who is using a standard 640x480 or like 704x400 raw at 175mb with Xvid and then making a 233mb H264 with the same raw, is either a bad encoder if they think they need it that large, or wasting filespace for no reason.
Well, I'm one of these bad encoders then. See the TYPE-MOON show from a few months ago, which was pretty much bitstarved in the 183-megs xvid version. Here, especially in those episodes with alot of hi-motion, there was a noticeable difference between the 183- and 233-meg versions in h264 (I made occasional unreleased test encodes in the lower bitrate to see for myself). Much less ringing, and much less susceptible to artifacting in the darker background parts.

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.

Quote:
(Reminiscent of the HQ/SHQ fansub files years ago which were released as bloated 250-300mb files, yet looked the same as ones I could do at 175mb)
If you mean that there were examples of unnecessarily bloated files which could have been achieved at lesser bitrates too - fine, of course. Nevertheless there were enough (e.g DVD) sources which you could NOT do at 175 in a quality which reached 250-300 meg encodes. It all depends on the filtering of the sources anyway, and 175 h264 puts constraints especially on sharpness and dark background dithering which could NOT be addressed in a universally satisfying way. Especially in the x264 versions from a year ago.

Last edited by Mentar; 2006-10-22 at 06:10. Reason: Explanation for the 183-h264-encodes
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-22, 21:26   Link #183
JediNight
キズランダム
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
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 exactly what I meant. If the Xvid encode looks good/great at 175mb already, there isn't a reason to make the H264 233mb using the same raw ... you would already be gaining against the Xvid theoretically, just by keeping the same size.

The HQ/SHQ comment was referring then to the H264 233mb encodes of my above statement.
JediNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-22, 22:49   Link #184
DryFire
Panda Herder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
If the Xvid encode looks good/great at 175mb already, there isn't a reason to make the H264 233mb using the same raw .
The point is, most 175MB xvid encodes are simply acceptable.
DryFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 06:32   Link #185
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 28
A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:
Code:
avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow!
x264 [info]: slice I:208   Avg QP:13.12  size: 264990:00:00
x264 [info]: slice P:7694  Avg QP:15.03  size:  5922
x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04  size:   708
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  6.2%  6.3%  3.0%  P16..4: 37.7%  7.2%  3.9%  0.3%  0.2%    skip:35.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.1%  0.1%  0.1%  B16..8: 10.7%  0.4%  0.9%  direct: 1.0%  skip:86.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform  intra:39.9%  inter:58.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:96.0%  temporal:4.0%
x264 [info]: ref P  74.7% 11.6%  5.3%  1.9%  1.5%  1.0%  1.0%  0.5%  0.5%  0.4%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.3%  0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B  82.4%  9.6%  3.0%  1.4%  0.8%  0.7%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.2%  0.2%  0.1%  0.1%  0.2%
x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1

encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s
I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 07:16   Link #186
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:
Spoiler:

I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".
I'm curious of 2 things: What codec was the raw encoded in? (and original size) and What filters did you use?
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 09:26   Link #187
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:
Code:
avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow!
x264 [info]: slice I:208   Avg QP:13.12  size: 264990:00:00
x264 [info]: slice P:7694  Avg QP:15.03  size:  5922
x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04  size:   708
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  6.2%  6.3%  3.0%  P16..4: 37.7%  7.2%  3.9%  0.3%  0.2%    skip:35.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.1%  0.1%  0.1%  B16..8: 10.7%  0.4%  0.9%  direct: 1.0%  skip:86.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform  intra:39.9%  inter:58.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:96.0%  temporal:4.0%
x264 [info]: ref P  74.7% 11.6%  5.3%  1.9%  1.5%  1.0%  1.0%  0.5%  0.5%  0.4%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.3%  0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B  82.4%  9.6%  3.0%  1.4%  0.8%  0.7%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.2%  0.2%  0.1%  0.1%  0.2%
x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1

encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s
I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".
Jesus christ! Does anything happen in that episode at all?

On the other hand, how low can you go? \o/ I'd be interested to see how small it would be at say an average QP of 18-20.
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 09:31   Link #188
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1 View Post
Jesus christ! Does anything happen in that episode at all?

On the other hand, how low can you go? \o/ I'd be interested to see how small it would be at say an average QP of 18-20.
In that case the video track might be smaller than the audio...
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 09:39   Link #189
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 30
What a shame that not everything is as "lol compression" as this. One has to wonder if the average source we encode now will compress like this in a few years with H.265.
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 10:02   Link #190
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarkboy View Post
I'm curious of 2 things: What codec was the raw encoded in? (and original size) and What filters did you use?
The original raw was okeidokiTL's DivX 6.25 one. I don't remember exactly how big it was, but most likely somewhere between 150 and 180 MB. Not much filtering was used, the exact chain looked like this:
Code:
source()

removegrain(mode=1)
temporalsoften(3,3,5,15,2)
hqdn3d(2)
aa(edge=true)

Crop(4,2,-4,-2)
Lanczos4Resize(704,400)
"aa(edge=true)" is a sangnom-based antialias script, somewhat like the well-known AAA(), but with an added (optional) edge masking parameter so it only gets applied to actual edges.

I'd say the compressibility is mostly because 90% of the show is about the two brothers standing around and looking angstily at stuff. :>
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 11:07   Link #191
el
Slave to the D:
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 30
Raw used was oki's NIGHT HEAD GENESIS 10 (BS-Nippon 704x396 DivX625).avi at 145 MB (153,018,368 bytes)
el is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 11:16   Link #192
Sylf
翻訳家わなびぃ
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to Sylf Send a message via Yahoo to Sylf
^^; that original file size already shows how compressible that episode is. Thx for that info.
Sylf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 12:14   Link #193
RaistlinMajere
Now in MHD!
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Fluff, that's "not much filtering"? I often run a lot of filters myself, but HQDN3d is a pretty heavy duty denoiser.
__________________
RaistlinMajere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 12:28   Link #194
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinMajere View Post
I often run a lot of filters myself, but HQDN3d is a pretty heavy duty denoiser.
... at strength 2? I wouldn't say so. It's great at removing fluctuations without killing detail, at least at low strengths (at >=4 or so it's much less nice in that regard, but I still like it a lot for general noise removal).
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 13:03   Link #195
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 26
Well then, semms that I have alot of tests to make then ^^

I'll post something nice when I have something to come with ^.-
say something under 100mb...
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 17:00   Link #196
DryFire
Panda Herder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
I'd say the compressibility is mostly because 90% of the show is about the two brothers standing around and looking angstily at stuff. :>
You mean at eachother?

I wouldn't consider hqdn3d(2) more then mild for most tv sources.
DryFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-23, 17:26   Link #197
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 26
EDITv3:
Mooooooo!
__________________


Last edited by Shounen; 2006-10-31 at 22:04.
Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-16, 09:27   Link #198
ScR3WiEuS
My E-Penis > Your E-Penis
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Age: 29
what i'm gonna say is maybe redundant, but the general level of replies (like always) is so low, that i won't bother reading the previous posts.

i think you can distinguish different cases.

- Good source ( for example DVD or decent HD sources ):
I would go for quality. that means, if people usually encode DVD/HDTV
sources at higher filesizes, for example 233meg, i would make the h264
encode bigger than the Xvid, so we can squeeze as much detail
out of the source as we can. Because if you want an xvid at the same quality,
you would need a larger filesize for Xvid than for h264.

- Decent source ( some digital TV sources etc. ):
I would encode at about the same filesize. Or bigger h264.

- Shitty source ( usually bad TV sources ):
Considering the fact that you can't really get any considerable advantage
from encoding at larger filesizes, go for the smaller size. H264 might be an awesome codec if used correctly, but it can't do magic, it can't save a shitty source.


This is however only true if, like me, you value quality over filesize.
__________________
penis, lol
ScR3WiEuS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-16, 10:24   Link #199
[darkfire]
Give them the What For!
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cave of Evil- Invite Only
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to [darkfire] Send a message via Yahoo to [darkfire] Send a message via Skype™ to [darkfire]
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
__________________
"Lepers, women are Lepers" - Sheriff of Nottingham
[darkfire] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-11-16, 14:08   Link #200
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
I type(say) it once and I'll say it again, the encode will never be the equivalent of the source...even if you filter it up a lot and use h.264 it still will lose somewhere along the video. You can only manipulate with what you have. By gaining quality somewhere(if ever) you'll lose somewhere to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by [darkfire
]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
That's totally bipolar and by that I mean to great polar extremes.
Medalist 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 21:53.


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