2006-10-15, 20:55 | Link #41 | ||
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that if the quality of the previous encodings were good enough, and they must have been since they were released that way (they could have been better quality if that were warranted), then releasing future episodes with the same quality should be okay, too. Doesn't this make sense? Now, this thread started with fansubbers who made dual releases and I understand that they're going for what they were already doing plus the high quality version for the connoisseurs. However, if you're going to out-right deprecate the old codec for h.264 then why on God's green Earth would you increase the file size too? |
||
2006-10-15, 21:03 | Link #42 | |||
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry but some of us like quality. So we aim for quality. Cause I don't like when my eyes bleed from bad videos... :/
__________________
|
|||
2006-10-15, 21:03 | Link #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
The OP has a point. As I've said multiple times. All the encoders claim that it produces better compression, then why aren't we explicitly seeing this better compression? Instead they produce a "high quality" encode that is larger and more CPU intensive and has a higher resolution for something which did not have this higher resolution to begin with. Then again, is it really higher quality?
I'd love to see someone attempt the following experiment: Grab a random scene from some random show or grab a raw from one of those 5 minute shows, but nothing where either codec clearly has an advantage over the other. Encode both scenes with the same target size relative to a 175mb encode with no special features*. Then release them with the XVID one labeled H.264 and vice versa. Let's see how many people still claim the true H.264 one is better quality. *No special features = nothing that will give away which is the xvid encode just from attempting to decode it like b-frames. |
2006-10-15, 21:15 | Link #45 | |||||
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, ask yourself this: When you do a single release, why do you go for "a middle ground?" Why not just "aim for best quality?" |
|||||
2006-10-15, 21:25 | Link #46 |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
You said "appears". Now depending on your eyes it could look exactly the same or you can notice differences. Some of us can notice those differences. Unless you have some reference file you can point to (Where there's a large difference in size but no difference in quality) then that argument is flawed. Since it's only an opinion at that point.
Why I go for a middle ground you ask? Well simple... my group usually makes me do so. In the end it's hard to convince a leader of a group that for the single release the size will be 250MB. I usually try not to let other staff members influence what I do in an encode but I do bend slightly. (Once they start asking for stupid stuff like H264 in AVI I freak out). Anyway to end this pitiful debate. I'll say this... For my encodes, I decide filesize. I decide the codecs I use. I decided the container I use. I don't change that for the viewers. I may change for my fellow staff but not for the viewers. If you don't like it... well I suggest taking some time to learn a bit and start encoding for fansub groups yourself. Then you can release 90MB encodes all you want. And no I don't pick high filesizes out of nowhere and plan it just to hurt people who have less space on HDD or a crappy connection. I do it (After testing compressibility) cause it's the most pleasing to my eyes and to hopefully my viewers as well. I aim to give them the best product possible. Not the smallest product possible.
__________________
Last edited by Harukalover; 2006-10-15 at 21:26. Reason: Forgot something... |
2006-10-15, 21:32 | Link #47 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2006-10-15, 21:36 | Link #48 | |||||
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Anyway, it might no be so bad if we used h.264 at those file sizes. I would have to check the image quality at that bitrate to really say... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
2006-10-15, 21:38 | Link #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Quote:
Remember, the reasons that the average XviD's filesize was established at ~170MB was a compromise between quality and manageable filesize. Just because AVC has entered the scene doesn't mean that the reasons for the compromise mysteriously go away and no longer apply. Now if a group would like to release an alternate HD sub for the quality freaks, that's one thing. But the compromise regarding SD encoding should remain enforce. Last edited by Farix; 2006-10-15 at 21:51. Reason: reduce quote, cleanup grammar, add additional comments |
|
2006-10-15, 21:51 | Link #51 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
While bandwidth is increasingly available to more users the load on available bandwidth is also growing and, according to my (and many other) ISP(s), the load is growing faster than available bandwidth. Storage capabilities are growing but I don't think it's growing faster than available media. There's much more to download now than before so, again, size is becoming more of an issue as time goes on, not less... |
|
2006-10-15, 22:03 | Link #54 | |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
/me sighs...
You guys act as if there are laws to what a filesize should be. (Remember there's no payments or job specifications in fansubbing, it's for fun) Encoder picks filesize. Don't like it then don't download or encode it yourself. No reason to go further into a pointless debate. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Harukalover; 2006-10-15 at 22:09. Reason: Missed something... |
|
2006-10-15, 22:08 | Link #55 | |
Panda Herder
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
|
Quote:
Also if you gain more quality per mb, increasing the filesizes may be more meaningful. |
|
2006-10-15, 22:21 | Link #58 |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
You can't really stop that naka (and i can tell your a ( it rhymes with Screecher) ) But Color and resolution play a rhole in how the quality is no matter what you do...take the color black ...it's easy to see the boxes in it because it's a stand alone color that is being filtered w/ colored pixels ...let's put it like this...It's not constant quality because the world isn't perfect.
|
2006-10-15, 22:25 | Link #59 | |||
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
As to the plausibility of two size differing files without noticeable quality differences, you really don't think you can construct one? Take XviD, h.264, and your choice from a world of videos. I think you will see how to find two similarly looking files of different sizes... Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2006-10-15, 22:33 | Link #60 | |
Honey Flash!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 49
|
Quote:
By the way, here's a piece of adive that might help your blood pressure. If you don't like a debate then don't enter into it... Personally, I would understand (and love it) if the h.264 encodings where HD but, sadly, many of them are not. Certainly, not any of the ones that I have seen... |
|
|
|