2006-11-16, 16:34 | Link #202 |
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] |
2006-11-17, 04:39 | Link #203 | |
What? I am washed up!
|
Quote:
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 ^^ |
|
2007-10-14, 16:58 | Link #204 |
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? |
2007-10-14, 17:35 | Link #205 | |
makes no files now
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by martino; 2007-10-14 at 17:57. |
|
2007-10-14, 17:54 | Link #206 |
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. |
2007-10-14, 21:46 | Link #207 | |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2007-10-15, 00:23 | Link #211 | |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2007-10-15, 00:42 | Link #212 |
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? |
2007-10-15, 01:00 | Link #213 | |||
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
2007-10-15, 01:46 | Link #214 | |
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:
|
|
2007-10-15, 05:00 | Link #215 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2006
|
Quote:
|
|
2007-10-15, 07:36 | Link #216 | |||||
makes no files now
Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2007-10-15, 07:46 | Link #217 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2007-10-15, 11:07 | Link #219 | |||
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
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:
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:
Now it's up to you on what to do. Copy what others have done, or move forward. Open source beats hacked/closed Source! |
|||
2007-10-15, 11:35 | Link #220 | |
Ana-chan~
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|