2006-10-15, 14:33 | Link #1 |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Why are h.264 files so big?
So far, without exception, I've found that fansubs that are released in both AVI and h.264 formats make the h.264 version (much) larger than the AVI counterpart. Why is that?
I would have thought that they would use h.264's higher compression efficiency to make a smaller file size of similar quality but this doesn't appear to be the case and I don't understand why. Can someone explain this to me? Thank you... |
2006-10-15, 14:49 | Link #3 | |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
/me points to Ryoumi's H264/XviD releases. Personally this is how I work. If a series I'm working on is only getting an H264 release. I aim for compression and smaller filesize. But if the series is getting dual release (XviD in AVI/MKV and H264 in MKV/MP4) I will always aim for compression and smaller filesize with the XviD release. And make the H264 release as big as I believe is needed for the best reasonable sized quality.
__________________
|
|
2006-10-15, 15:00 | Link #4 |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
Because h264 at 233mb is way better quality w/ avisynth if the encoder knows what 'he/she' is doing.
Thus this short brief table --------------------------------------XVID @ 170mb /avg. with avg fansub is = 730-850 bitrate --------------------------------------h264 @ 170mb /avg. with avg fansub is = 1080 bitrate about so h264 at 233mb would be---around 1600 bitrate + filtering in said theory But i base this off of a 23minute 14 second episode of anime with awarpsharp and convolution3d in h264 using b-frames as references on spatial and Exhaustive Search and RDO. But it depends..they are big because it results in more quality as said...though in some cases not true *cough* Power2all *cough* h264 *cough* in *cough* avi *cough* thinks * cough * mp4 *cough * was audio format *cough* |
2006-10-15, 15:19 | Link #6 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Obviously, you are releasing an XviD version for the late adopters. This leaves the h.264 version for the people who are up-to-date with their technology. So, why the discrepancy in quality? It would seem to me that you would make a release of a suitable quality and make two versions of it, one for late adopters and the other for everyone else. If an extra high quality release is desired, you can release a third version in h.264. If people want quality, they will obviously pay for it (in terms of technology). The asymmetry just doesn't make sense to me. Again, if you want to release a smaller file size version, you can make it even smaller by using h.264... |
|
2006-10-15, 15:24 | Link #7 |
翻訳家わなびぃ
Fansubber
|
There are exceptions. Plenty of them. The last one I remember clearly is Eclipse's Pumpkin Scissors - both at 170 or 175mb range.
The reason why so many h.264 releases are larger in size is because it's bigger in size. No, I'm not pointing out the obvious >.>; Those are video with higher resolution. 1280x720 = 921600 pixels 704x400 = 281600 pixels The larger video has more than 3 times as many pixels to show. And the file needs to carry that much info. That's why those files are much bigger. |
2006-10-15, 15:25 | Link #8 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
I don't think too many people would have to upgrade their computers. While h.264 is much more computationally expensive than anything else, it'll still take a very old computer to choke on it at SD resolutions. As long as you're not doing anything else while watching the movie a five year old computer should still be able to handle it. Without any experimentation, I would guess a P3 800 or so should be good enough... |
|
2006-10-15, 15:25 | Link #9 | ||
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
XviD is more for those who fear change or can't play H264. I aim for same size that they are used to with XviD (175MB). With H264 most downloading it are looking for the best quality so I aim for best quality with it. I have no care about what size I output to by doing so. (Unless it gets into insane sizes like 500MB for a 23 minute episode)
__________________
|
||
2006-10-15, 15:32 | Link #10 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
I would actually understand this file size discrepancy if h.264 were used to deliver HD content while the other was used for SD but this doesn't appear to be the case! While I can't say for certain 'cause I didn't download both versions (I can't afford the bandwidth, which may account for my preference for smaller file sizes) I did download the h.264 out of curiosity and found it to be at SD resoultion. I would be shocked if the other version was of an even smaller resolution... |
|
2006-10-15, 15:34 | Link #11 | |
Thread Killer
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-10-15, 15:43 | Link #12 | |
Just call me Ojisan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: U.K. Hampshire
|
Quote:
Some examples. Fansub no Tameni - The Third h264 - 150Mb XviD - 170Mb Your Mom - Yoake mae yori ruriiro na h264 - 140Mb XviD - 175Mb KissSub - Innocent Venus h264 - 165Mb XviD - 225Mb and the list goes on, KazeNoKoeFansubs, Yoroshiku, etc. Yes, are a number of groups who release larger h264 than XviD but there are also a number of groups who release smaller h264 files (just as there are groups who release the same size h264 and XviD files). |
|
2006-10-15, 15:46 | Link #13 |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
Well it works best with a better and more Recent computer thus it's suggested. And overall I'd think that's why h.264 is able to provide high quality...You gotta give to get. And for a computer to process the encode requires some process power. But my 3.6ghz Plays h.264 without any problem what so ever be it not stopping and stuff like that in video. But high file size for h.264 is just an accustomed thing and is kind of hard to get out of since most are use to it and it works.
|
2006-10-15, 15:55 | Link #14 | ||
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
You could also aim for image quality "that they are used to" but I understand, now, that some fansubbers really are going for a dichotomy of a reasonable quality anybody-can-play version and a high quality large-filesize newest-codec version for, what is hopefully, a reasonably large audience... |
||
2006-10-15, 15:58 | Link #15 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-10-15, 16:02 | Link #16 |
Just call me Ojisan
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: U.K. Hampshire
|
Yes, but it makes your thread rather pointless since the size of the file doesn't really have anything to do with it being h264 or XviD. Take a look at the front page of AnimeSuki and you will find groups releasing larger, similar or smaller versions of h264 compared to XviD.
|
2006-10-15, 16:04 | Link #17 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
It just seems funny to me that a more powerful codec would be used to make a larger movie file. Sort of like a more powerful engine being used to make a slower car... |
|
2006-10-15, 16:09 | Link #18 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
One would think that file size has nothing to do with the choice of compression so imagine my surprise when I found that every release I had seen, without exception (until now, thank you), made the h.264 version the larger file. It wasn't even HD, either! Hence, the creation of this thread... |
|
2006-10-15, 16:10 | Link #19 | |||
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Harukalover; 2006-10-15 at 16:11. Reason: Misread something |
|||
|
|