2006-10-18, 10:42 | Link #161 | |||||||||||
SharpenerOfTheBoxcutter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: where Grudge is Greatest, Rancour Endless and Malice Eternal(at school^^;;)
|
Quote:
It still doesn't change the fact that you are failing by comparing filesize when there's difference in codecs, encoders/settings/filters, raws etc. Quote:
As in "this may not be always true"? Whether that statement of his fails in general or not still doesn't make yours any less misleading. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All we have to look at is what you admit here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Different codecs, different encoders/settings/filters, different raws etc." = Of course they are not the same. Good job once again stating something obvious. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
2006-10-18, 16:59 | Link #162 | |||||
Fansubber Emeritus
|
Ahh, multi-quote. Such a neat feature. and damn, this post spooled out pretty far .
Quote:
You must have eaten something psychotropic if those are the only possibilities you're thinking of. I was on the tangent of "larger filesizes become inconvenient for more people" ... which somewhat transcends "why are people encoding large h.264 files". Regardless of the sort of data, accumulation happens. I've got the same problem at work, except that it's all simulation data, analysis results, code, etc instead of fansubs and tv-rips and other miscellaneous recreational files. We recently grew our storage capacity from 500GB to ~2TB (all of it hotswap scsi on hardware raid5), and that's only going to last another year or two at the current growth rate. I'm hoping at that point that we've got a fast enough data growth rate to justify a larger-scale solution, like an xserve-raid. Quote:
Money's key in the filesize discussion though. Dual layer media are what, 4-10x the price of single-layer? Average retail prices seem to be about $1-$1.50/disk, versus ~$0.20 for a single-layer. A $20 spindle of single-layer dvd-r media stores ~450 gb, versus $130-$150 (*) for a 400gb hard drive (not to mention operating costs -- an idle disk costs about $0.50/mo to power, an idle binder of dvds costs $0.00 to store indefinitely). Between all that, the most economic data storage right now is pretty clearly burned dvds ... kicks the crap outta burned CDs, LTO tapes, hard drives of all varieties. That said, I'm a huge fan of "good enough" for fansubs. I love seeing watchably good-looking releases at 140-150 megs. If "good enough" to your group is 233 megs, or 350, or whatever, that's fine, but if "good enough" happens to overlap with my own convenience, I'm very happy with that. As far as "buying real" ... yeah, I do that too, for stuff I really like, when I've got the money. But, like I daresay everyone else here, I also consume media that I haven't purchased and have no intention of purchasing. For that matter, "buying real" doesn't get you HD, and anime DVD publishers have yet to announce support for some given high-def spec (either blu-ray or hd-dvd), and are probably going to wait several years to see if one or the other becomes a compelling alternative or universal players become the norm, so if you're really picky about quality right now you'd be downloading 720p h264-mkv fansubs anyway, where they exist. *: all price points based on 2 minutes of looking at newegg. Quote:
Community inertia is a given. Practices will slowly shift, as network effect and a body of understanding and expertise arises around the newest generation. You see it happening already ... it used to be really uncommon for h264 to be used at all. Now it's fairly normal, more people are picking it up and fighting through it, writing tools and scripts to use it better, all of which creates value in migrating that wasn't there before. Eventually, that value will probably become critically compelling. I heartily endorse "better quality, same filesize" idea though (I loved it when I noticed those high-def AF-F/Y-F Kemonozume releases were damned near exactly the same size as the standard-def xvids ones and looked compellingly better to me). But more than that, since it's somewhat an anarchic community, there's no use bitching excessively if someone isn't doing something the way you'd prefer it, since there's no way to enforce your will on others in this environment (except for gentle persuasion). Quote:
Quote:
Static and hissing on an audio signal are good examples of extra, unwanted information. It's there, and you're better off losing it. (of course, you already know that, but I'm not sure the person you're replying to gets that distinction ) |
|||||
2006-10-18, 17:55 | Link #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Personally i can't comprehend why people buy a new harddrives instead of deleting accumulated data. Sure, my 80GB drive's always full, too, but whenever i need space i just go looking what i haven't used in a while and it goes. The few GBs of data i really cherish are safely backed up to DVD. While 80GB may not be much compared to other drives, it actually is enough to hold hundreds of hours of music and dozens of hours of video, even if it's those [irony]huge[/irony] HQ HD h.264 files. Plenty to temporarily store what i download until it has been watched.
|
2006-10-18, 18:42 | Link #164 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the primary point was that codec matters a lot when it comes to size. The regardless of codec was completely incorrect even if modified by perhaps. Quote:
Quote:
The second one does not say anything at all either. The files look exactly the same at 150mb and 170mb, but they are blocky in higher action areas. Some of the files even refuse to compress that far down. The first point on the curve for Gash Bell is on average at 170mb of video and the second point is at 215mb of video. The only difference between those two sizes depends on the amount of action in the episode. On some episodes, they look exactly the same, on some, there is still minor artifacting on the action scenes at 170mb. Once you cross 215mb of video, they look the same to 99% of people. Of course changing codecs from Xvid changes this. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, looking at a true in general statement and finding every single technicality just to make an arguement is what is known as a troll. I eat trolls for lunch. (i.e I had way too much fun writing this post ) |
||||||
2006-10-18, 22:03 | Link #165 |
Fansubber Emeritus
|
You have your data lifestyle and habits, I have mine. It's wrongheaded to think that what's adequate for your needs is adequate for everyone's, or that there's no good justification for more than you yourself have. But that's way out in thread-derailment land, so I'll keep my reasons and usage patterns to myself.
|
2006-10-19, 07:44 | Link #166 |
I have enough, I'm gone.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Video quality is overrated. 170mb H264 is fine for most shows, unless you have HDTV raws, you're not going to see the difference between 170mb-200mb H264 encodes. I would rather save HD space than wasting it on some minimal video quality gain.
|
2006-10-19, 07:48 | Link #167 | |||||||||||||||
SharpenerOfTheBoxcutter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: where Grudge is Greatest, Rancour Endless and Malice Eternal(at school^^;;)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and when there's No difference in codecs, encoders/settings/filters, raws etc. (which this topic is about, a given h264 encode which could have been different in filesize) Quote:
Then your Primary point is pointless. And at least he isn't pathethic enough to maintain and defend a faulty statement. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't it troubling for you that your "look exactly the same" isn't the same as everybody else's "look exactly the same"? Quote:
Where do you get that kind of file? Ebay? Nomatter how much you try to revise your two curves for Gash Bell, it doesn't do anything because you are still proving your own faulty statement wrong. Quote:
Do you realize now why it is irrelevant? If not, then go back read first part of my post. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Arimfe; 2006-10-19 at 08:51. |
|||||||||||||||
2006-10-19, 14:10 | Link #168 | |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
And dont try and compare prizes here. HDD's were alot expensive before (for me atleast). But now I could go and buy one 500gb hd every month. And keeping track on things on my hdd's, is alot easier than checking out my cases that are full with dvd's/cd's. But again this goes and comes for every person on were they want to store there data on (dvd's or hdd's). And again this aint, and I dont care about money that much. If you do this cuz of money problems fine. If not, then I dont care anyway. And the thing about dvd's lasts longer than hdd's is true. But I dont care. cuz when an hdd gets old. I go out and buy a new one, that has twice or more space than the last one for the same (or less) amount of cash. So I replace the old ones. And if I have to spend (more) money on that fine. After all, we live in the 21th century now ^_^. Things tends to get cheaper if we compare to were only a small amout of the earths population had pc's @ home. Of course the "PC" is new and old (in one way~). ...Cant wait for those perscoms (pc's) like Chi~ (^_^)b editv2: Again are you talking about s.k "fansubs" or raws (dvd rips/tv caps)? Last edited by Shounen; 2006-10-19 at 14:28. |
|
2006-10-19, 19:25 | Link #169 | |
Fansubber Emeritus
|
Quote:
Well, buying dvds to burn it to, I'm paying for it again regardless. But I'm paying less than 1/7th of the price of new disks. You may live in a world in which money is no object. I'm a college student with no parental support who isn't on financial aid, and I pay for my existence working a job at which I'm paid hourly. Money is an object, and quite a compelling one. |
|
2006-10-20, 06:25 | Link #170 | |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-10-20, 09:39 | Link #171 | |
Radical Dreamer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
1)He could've been in the military beforehand, nd was stationed in Japan, and he just got back, and he has done his service thus he gets his college education paid for. 2)He can be a graduate student. 3) He can still be undergrad. Sorry to do this to you but you shouldn't sit there and think every thing is suspicisious if they don't do what they are supposedly expected to do. |
|
2006-10-21, 16:15 | Link #172 |
Fansubber Emeritus
|
8 year plan: 2 majors and a minor. I went part-time so I could hold a roughly full-time job to pay for everything, when my financial reserves ran out. I'm currently 4 classes away from graduation, including the two I'm taking this semester.
None of this has anything to do with the thread at all. |
2006-10-21, 20:59 | Link #173 |
キズランダム
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
The only time I really see larger H264 sizes is because they are usually using an HD raw. If you are using a traditionally sized raw with Xvid though, you generally aren't losing much if any quality at all between them.
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. (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) |
2006-10-21, 22:02 | Link #174 | |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
How many times does it have to be said that shows/videos compress differently from each other? To get that same standard of quality in x264 on 1 show might take a filesize of 175MB while another might require 240MB. Try CRF values in x264 on different videos and you'll see compression differences.
__________________
|
|
2006-10-21, 22:25 | Link #176 |
キズランダム
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Harukalover: I thought it was rather assumed that you weren't intentionally sabotaging the quality on the Xvid encode when also releasing an H264. If the Xvid encode is released at 175mb and looks good, then by the nature of H264 being a superior compression codec to Xvid, you should be able to achieve better or at least equal quality from the same raw at the same size...
What is so hard to understand about that? You are trying to pick an argument out of something that wasn't part of my statement. Different shows/episodes having different levels of action, etc. is for another discussion. |
2006-10-21, 22:45 | Link #177 | |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
No it's part of the discussion. How well a show can be compressed is one of the main reasons for varying filesizes.
__________________
|
|
2006-10-21, 22:49 | Link #179 | |
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Also if a show looks extremely awful at XviD 175MB I would probably redo it at a higher filesize anyway. But I've never came across that problem yet.
__________________
|
|
|
|