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 2006-10-15, 22:33   Link #61
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
Okay, All encodes, but we can go h.264 specific are high-filesized because they meet or above the limit. Explaining: Encoders and the group in general each have a set point of quality for said content to be acceptable and overall respectable. The Encoder uses this in consideration and encodes as he/she sees neccessary to meet or be above this standard be it the filesize of 110mb, 140mb, 170mb, 175mb, 180mb, 225mb, 233mb anything. It is encoded high because Encoder and Group in question believe that size is good to meet their standard on a respectable encode and thus why it's used.
Other encoders watching other fansubs notice the filesize and quality if it meets their standard. And if they see as such is at that or above standard they may further use it in the future. Not saying they are copying but they are comparing and contrasting what meets that of a good encode. And if they see it as such they may use it as such.
So in theory encoding at high filesizes with high filesizes or low filesizes can be seen as either a trend or what's at an agreeance to be good.
Medalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 22:37   Link #62
Gunboat Diplomat
Honey Flash!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaistlinMajere View Post
I do 138MB H.264 releases already, and my upcoming stuff will be 110 or so.
That is unusually small... I'd be interested in seeing how the quality turned out for those...
Gunboat Diplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 22:42   Link #63
RaistlinMajere
Now in MHD!
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quite decent, given that I've already seen the QC encode, considering I did it.
__________________
RaistlinMajere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 22:42   Link #64
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
It was a gedanken. A hypothetical situation to prove a point with the message recipient. The stipulation was that if he could not tell the difference between the image quality of two files. The hypothetical allows the statement to be true and it was this truth to which Bot1 responded. The point is that file size is always a consideration. There is no flaw in this argument. Ineed, as a trained mathematician, you would be hard-pressed to find flaws in my arguments...
A hypothesis! Or a educated guess. Still no testing of this hypothesis has been presented has it? I haven't seen any pics or sample files to prove your hypothesis. So again there's no argument to something that has no backing except a person saying it.

A trained mathematician... oh... I apologize then. If you're a trained mathematician you must be more intelligent than I. And that makes any argument I make pointless. I bow before your greatness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
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...
If I have time I'll construct some test files and show some pics of the differences. But really it would be better if someone else does so since any thing I submit is subject to accusations of being altered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
So people on your own fansubbing team feel that file size is a serious consideration. You should consider that...
Not as serious as you think. I meant it as if I went to extreme levels.

/me points to the 250MB line.

Filesize of 250MB is not really within the regular releasing sizes by my peers is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
You sound as if we are giving you some kind of directive. We (at least, I) am not. I'm merely seeking to understand the motivation behind this decision and I have.
Yes and I gave my reasoning. But for some reason you guys seem to be acting as if I'm hurting all the viewers of my files. You have used the term "we" many times to say as if everyone is looking for smaller files and I'm ignoring them. So far I've only seen two people back this claim up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
Do you approach the other aspects of your life with the same animosity?
No but I do approach stubborn people who can't get the idea that they don't represent everyone in this way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
I assume you're responding to Farix, specifically. If you are somehow referring to me, I would have to take serious issue with this claim...
Yes that post was more aimed toward Farix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
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...
Personal attacks FTW?
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 22:42   Link #65
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
Anything is possible?
Medalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:03   Link #66
naka
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
how hard is it to encode with constant quants?

all you 'quality' people are stabbing yourself by chaining yourself to all these so called 'pre-established-arbituary-sizes-so-that-it's-easier-for-CD-storage'

now come on, if you like your quality, give the all around constant quality treatment across all episodes

high motion episodes, more bits per frame, higher file sizes
low motion episodes, less bits per frame, lower file sizes
brighter episodes, more bits
darker episodes, less bits

Wannabe Fansubs did that on their school rumble season 2

now why can't you 'quality' people who so called don't wanna bleed you own eyes with crappy encodes with low file sizes do the same as them and give all the bits the episode deserves?

if you are encoding the same episodes from the same serie at the same resolution all across then obviously resolution is not a factor in the difference on compressibility

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uchikatsu
You can't really stop that naka (and i can tell your a ( it rhymes with Screecher) )
do you really need to add in personal attacks in your posts?
naka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:10   Link #67
bayoab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farix View Post
Remember, the reasons that the average XviD's filesize was established at ~170MB was a compromise between quality and manageable filesize.
There was another reason:
4x 170 < 700
26 x 170 < 4.43gb
All these sizes are near multiples of 700 or 4.4 gb for a reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
We don't "do it" because we can do so much better with h.264. Really, I don't understand why RMVB is so popular in some circles. They could increase the image quality whlie maintaining those diminutive file sizes simply by switching to h.264.
h.264 cannot obtain the quality that rmvb can at low bitrates. RMVB looks far superior at those file sizes. (<100mb).

Also, in general, despite what some posters seem to think, there is no corrolation between increased size and increased quality.
bayoab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:19   Link #68
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab View Post
Also, in general, despite what some posters seem to think, there is no corrolation between increased size and increased quality.
Yes I should back that as well since I'm not too sure whether any of my other posts were vague on that matter.

A filesize doesn't say anything about quality. Every video compresses differently. Some compress at really good quality at 140MB. While some need 230MB to reach that level of quality. All depends on the show's animation, amount of high motion scenes, any noise in video, sharpening, etc...
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:25   Link #69
Gunboat Diplomat
Honey Flash!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 40
Okay, here's my attempt at an example to give this whole thread a bit of context. Unfortunately, these two images are from two different fansubbers but I still think it has some probative value. It's also a little hard to tell image quality of movies from a sample of stills but I specifically chose a high motion scene with large artifacting to bring out each codec's weakneses. Now, truth be told, this is more of a strobing scene than a fast motion one but I have personally found strobes to be problematic for compression. It's as if the codecs don't look farther than the last frame to calculate frame differences, although someone who knows more can correct me on this...



Now, I think there's little doubt which one represents the better image quality. One is done with h.264 while the other was done in XviD. The question is whether one is twice the file size better than the other? Is it? ...because that's the difference we're looking at!

Are your eyes bleeding yet?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the mere change to h.264 will get rid of the softness of the XviD image at the (relatively low) cost of the low detail background. I have noticed h.264 being very good at allocating information across a single frame...
Gunboat Diplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:35   Link #70
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
I can see that the top pic is the XviD encode. Look in upper left corner. You should be able to see a lot of blocking there. The H264 (Bottom pic) is a bit better looking. Still some blocking and might not be the best settings used in encode. Could you tell me the reference files used?

The H264 one and the XviD one. I'll further investigate after a download of them.

On another note... why the comparison between XviD and H264?

/me didn't know this threads point was to compare XviD and H264. You're better off comparing two versions of the same show with different H264 encodes that have a large size difference between each other.
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:45   Link #71
Gunboat Diplomat
Honey Flash!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Age: 40
The XviD file is from the SD Project while the h.264 is from Toriyama's World.


I was going to respond to many of these posts later but I'll address this now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harukalover View Post
Personal attacks FTW?
I hardly call a suggestion that you stay away from arguments that upset you an insult. If that's how you view the world then I'm beginning to see where your enmity comes from.

For the record, I will never attack anyone. There's no point...
Gunboat Diplomat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-15, 23:58   Link #72
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
I hardly call a suggestion that you stay away from arguments that upset you an insult. If that's how you view the world then I'm beginning to see where your enmity comes from.

For the record, I will never attack anyone. There's no point...
I suggest you stay away from trying to debate something you don't prepare evidence to back up.

Listen this is what happened. You asked why encoders use a larger filesize in H264 encodes instead of using lower filesizes. I explained that encoders pick based on there own preferences. But you continued to go on that this is somehow wrong to do. You gave no reasoning except that "we" all want lower filesizes.

You haven't proved that quality is no different between the supposed low filesizes and high filesizes of the same encode. (Though this is difficult to prove since nobody really does two H264 releases with different filesizes)

So after having no evidence whatsoever and only one other person supporting you, you are still acting as if encoding at a large filesize with H264 is foolish and is not using the codec rightfully.

At this point it's easy to see that you're just acting stubbornly. I apologize for acting annoyed with you. But I felt that maybe it would get it into your head that it's just based on the encoders preference and the video's compressability. And that there is no "evil" in encoding with an a large output as the outcome.
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 00:05   Link #73
DryFire
Panda Herder
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naka View Post
how hard is it to encode with constant quants?
I direct you here: http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...318#post688318
DryFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 00:08   Link #74
Karnot
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
i also i know for a fact that an athlon 2200+ (whice in most cases would be slower then a 3 ghz p4) can decode 720p with coreavc
You obviously lie.
Karnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 00:34   Link #75
checkers
Part 8
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Australia
Age: 26
Send a message via MSN to checkers
To whoever suggested Real Video was better at low filesizes (I can't seem to find the post and I'm feeling lazy) - go look in the h264 thread on ~page 16. Hopefully the two videos with information I posted there (now taken down, but I will rehost if you want) will be enough to sway your mind.

Secondly, comparing two encodes from different groups is fruitless. It's not even certain if they used the same raw, let alone know anything about how to encode them. To the OP: you seem to have gotten caught up in the idea that h264 means lower filesizes. It doesn't. It means higher compression, ceritus paribus. That can either mean smaller filesizes or higher quality (well, it could mean both as well I guess).
So now you have the question you started with, "why choose higher quality over compression?". To generalise, "why do the encoders value one property of an encoded file over another?". The answer, of course, is "because they do". Since this answer has so far failed to be taken at face value, with the endless repitition of "ok, but why?", I offer this:
"just as movie buffs have higher standards for what constitutes an 'enjoyable' film than your average punter, so do encoders have higher standards for the quality of their encode. Just as length & accessibility of a film are small deterrents for movie goers, filesize is simply an inconvenient technical limitation getting in the way of a 'better' encode for encoders. It's not something that becomes important when you are looking at files that are both relatively small (compared to 350mb scene TV rips) and absolutely small (compared to 700mb+ movies and hard drive sizes these days).
That's what I think the reason is anyway - if you are looking for some more windmills to tilt at I can suggest either groupthink or group polarisation - both of those are probably valid complaints against the encoder 'community'.
checkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 01:14   Link #76
Mentar
Sore wa himitsu desu!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnot View Post
You obviously lie.
Now, now. With CoreAVC even my little 1.6 GHz Pentium M laptop can decode LuPerry's 1280x720 Sumomomo Momomo with ease, averaging at 70-80% CPU.

Gunboat Diplomacy: Most of your comments have one weakness: Amost all groups I know which offer a "big" h.264 encode _also_ offer a smaller XviD compatibility encode at the same time. And those groups who use h.264 exclusively tend to release small in the first place. So, people who for some reason prioritize "small" over "better quality" are not left out in the cold.

Also, with all due respect, just 1-2 screenshots will not prove or even just indicate anything whether or not the higher bitrate will be justified. Higher bitrate enables the encoder to filter the frames differently - sharper, less smoothing, more details. This is what's often misunderstood by non-encoders, the codec alone doesn't make the major difference (though it accentuates it), the bitrate enables the _encoder_ to create something better.

Now it's fine if YOU for YOURSELF decide that the differences are too small to warrant the big download. In this case, get the smaller encodes. However, there are a significant number of people (in my experience at least 10% of the fans and growing) who disagree with you and insist on the bigger releases. Ask yourself, would it be right for you (whose priorities have been met before) to request that these people get screwed over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Also, in general, despite what some posters seem to think, there is no corrolation between increased size and increased quality.
Dang, all those codec developments and optimizations to save bits and bitrate in the past years have all been in vain ... bayoab, please leave the technical talk to people who actually have any knowledge about this issue. This ignorant statement disqualifies you from any meaningful discussion on this subject.

The constant quant issue: Here, I repeat what was discussed indepth in the main thread about h.246. I want to dissuade people from using constant quant or constant quality, because the produced result is _always_ inferior to a proper multipass encode. Therefore, if you insist on preserving a "constant quality", make a CQ-encode to determine the right filesize, and THEN multipass on it - that way you at least don't lose quality unnecessarily.
Mentar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 02:37   Link #77
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harukalover View Post
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).
Or.. It's cuz they dont know about other "decoders" or actually know about "were" to download theys, and how to install, set etc.

Both the XviD codec, and the AVI container are all but old. If people dont accept the new codecs or new *cough* new mkv *cough* not so really new *cough* I'd say OGMv2 *cough*, they will stay and fall behind. Then after that will those: Help me, I cant play your releases. I use vlc or wmp, \(".")/
What is mp4? Isn't that like an mp3 file, an "music" file you know?

As far as I can say, there's about just as you can watch how many leechers there are at any torrent. 30 "users" download's h.264's in mkv's, hopefully... and 300 users download XviD's in AVI's.
So the majority stil uses XviD which is sad but true.

We've come far with the Interweb. Both with speed and security (n-not!)
So As i've seen there still many people in the west that uses DSL/ADSL or modem, 56k whatever...Theys are those that normally downloads XviD releases cuz of the small file size i guess. Then we have those new but also old groups which releases XviD versions of about 233mb.

150-179mb vs 233mb? +50 wont get you at that awsome bitrate/quality but the quality itself at all, will improve(say better color). But then again keeping the "audio" part at what is it...128 kbps? 160-192 or more if used by the mp3 should have been an standard alraady for those XviD releases 128 vs 160? the sizes arent that far from eachother but you can hear the difference trust me.
192 kbps for an say 24min long episode should be around 30-34mb -> 160kbps, 24-28mb and 128kbps..dont even wanna know. May be an hack, say mono to stereo or similar, just keep the size of the file small enough.


170mb at 128kbps is still an standard. And as long as it's "watchable" people will of course watch n d/l to. As long if they arent any high ress/quality freaks, like me.

Played Sumomomo momomo last night at 1280x720, 3000 br, size was about 500mb~. /me got an amd..2200/3200+ (fairly an 2.0ghz i'd say?) or how you count it. GF4, 1024mb RAM. No problem playing it at all infact I'm actually amazed that it is playable.
Now I'm waiting for my x64, 3.2...

Again some people cant even watch "movies" with 60 or 120fps (119..) get a better decoder I say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat View Post
CoreAVC is an advanced multi-threaded h.264 codec which is not freely available...
Unless you like to "download" illegal stuff.

Then we have those nuts, which think that they can be updated with the weekly aired series. Ha..ha..say those naruto fans (no offence) Now I'm taking the old air time, Aired around 3.00pm? AonE & ANBU could bring it out around 9.00-12.00pm, which is about 99% true if i remember it correctly. some episodes laters...Ooooo lisenced (*o*)..ANBU dies..AonE stil ther but slow...oh look A-H (Anime-Heaven?) sorry i missed the old name, but anyways dattebayo comes up with there speedy yet lq versions, about 1.00am-3.00am stil same timezone*... So no!, fansub watchers you ar not updated you almost 1 day late and why brag that you saw the bla bla before anyone els? there is something that we or some define as raw's (which means no subs and usually alot better quality/ress, if dont look at were saiyaman got their old caps "for example". Caps often comes out.. yes! even like 1 hour after the air time or usually 2-5hours after. Shuffle fans.. I saw the last episode about 2-3weeks before you! Same with D.C.S.S (Da Capo.Second.Story) came out by Shinsen like 2months after the last ep had been aired..so sad for those fansub watchers. Altho i dont feel like bragging that saw it before you.

Most encoders use's vrf and vbr why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab View Post
There was another reason:
4x 170 < 700
26 x 170 < 4.43gb
All these sizes are near multiples of 700 or 4.4 gb for a reason.
So true. 1 out of 10000 ppl plays there stuff from an pc to their "external" screen cuz perhaps that screen/monitor have better contrast etc. Other uses their dvd players/xbox's or other gizmos to watch theys. But ofcourse the majoity still watces em from their favorite PC.

Remember most encoders blurr and i mean +++blurr+++ like hell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentar View Post
Now, now. With CoreAVC even my little 1.6 GHz Pentium M laptop can decode LuPerry's 1280x720 Sumomomo Momomo with ease, averaging at 70-80% CPU.
Again i d/l and watched that to just for fun. Size 225mb was it? His XviD at 704x396 was at 170mb or so. and the bitrate for HD was under 2000 with 24fps. So no real HD without any extreme fps here no.

EDIT:typos
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 03:02   Link #78
Karnot
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Now, now. With CoreAVC even my little 1.6 GHz Pentium M laptop can decode LuPerry's 1280x720 Sumomomo Momomo with ease, averaging at 70-80% CPU.
Absolute bull, UNLESS you have a hardware h.264 decoding graphics card.

Quote:
Played Sumomomo momomo last night at 1280x720, 3000 br, size was about 500mb~. /me got an amd..2200/3200+ (fairly an 2.0ghz i'd say?) or how you count it. GF4, 1024mb RAM. No problem playing it at all infact I'm actually amazed that it is playable.
Well, duh, its DivX !
Karnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 03:49   Link #79
Schneizel
fanatical racism moe
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 27
Quote:
Absolute bull, UNLESS you have a hardware h.264 decoding graphics card.
My old 1.8ghz AMD was able to play 720p Roots with CoreAVC...

Quote:
Well, duh, its DivX !
If it's was LuPerry's sub of it, then it was h264. Unless he put wrong labels on the file names...
__________________
aka koda aka miasmacloud
schneizel.com
Schneizel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-16, 04:17   Link #80
emptyeighty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karnot View Post
Absolute bull, UNLESS you have a hardware h.264 decoding graphics card.
Absolutely not. 720p plays on my 1.7GHz P-M without any problems, even with ffdshow. And since CoreAVC doesn't have any GPU support at all it can't be hardware decoded. Hence your claim is absolute bull.
emptyeighty 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 02:43.


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