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 2006-10-18, 10:42   Link #161
Arimfe
SharpenerOfTheBoxcutter
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: where Grudge is Greatest, Rancour Endless and Malice Eternal(at school^^;;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
See the OP on page 1... this thread is ABOUT EXACTLY THAT.
Quote:
> Why are h.264 files so big?
Comparing 175mb xvid files and their h.264 counterparts.
Orly rly? Good job figuring out the OP on page 1.
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:
Originally Posted by bayoab
here is the original one that started this. (And he wasn't the first, we already had this conversation back on page 3 or 4.)
Did you read he wrote "probably"?
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:
Originally Posted by bayoab
And you extrapolated it to mean something entirely different.
Sure, keep pour out misleading failings and blame others for reading it "the wrong way". Way to go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Beside, it is simple to make a larger file with worse quality (without special filtering). I have seen it done many times.
What can be done to make something worse is completely irrelevant. Not that I would trust what you deem good/bad anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
File size has nothing to do with quality
This still fails as much as ever as a general statement.

All we have to look at is what you admit here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Considering that it matters with that kind of size difference[100 vs 500], you picking the codec would be unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Certain series (ex: some episodes of Gash Bell), don't start looking decent till 190mb in XviD
By these statements, your "File size has nothing to do with quality" fails, and remains as nothing but a misleading statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
You might want to take a look at the Death Note comparison to see how stupid and bizzare encoders can be. (Note the divx3 one and the 90mb xvid one there.) Hell look at the variation in all the 175mb ones. They are the same file size and they all clearly aren't the same!
Orly? they not the same? Do we really need a deep annalysis for why they are not the same?
"Different codecs, different encoders/settings/filters, different raws etc." = Of course they are not the same. Good job once again stating something obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
I didn't prove it wrong at all
Yes you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
I proved it absolutely correct in how I meant it. I proved how you were extrapolating it to mean something completely different was wrong.
There we have it. You trying to put forth a misleading statement as absolute truth, and blame people when they read it in its misleading parts.
Arimfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-18, 16:59   Link #162
complich8
Fansubber Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to complich8
Ahh, multi-quote. Such a neat feature. and damn, this post spooled out pretty far .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
True true, but if and I mean if you would say have over 1tb of space. Then you wouldent really think: oh im running out of space or something like that. As I read what you wrote, you've either ripped your own "legally" bought dvd's or you either (which makes me feel like i've eaten musrooms with white dots ..*cough*) you've downloaded Xvid versions and encoded them to a rather...h.264 stored em in an mkv container i assume. Or you've downloaded "dvdrips" and (which probly already are h.264's) and burned them on your dvd's (singel/dual, whatever.)
I have over 1TB of space. The reason you accumulate that much space is that you keep acquiring data without eliminating it, thus you keep running out of space. Up until I started dumping marginally-wanted data to dvds and deleting marginally-unwanted data, I had accumulated about 1.35TB of live data, and was faced with the decision: drop $200 on a suitably large disk to expand the fileserver even further, or drop <$100 on a burner and a big stack of dvds. Now I'm down to 765GB, and have another ~200GB burnoff lined up in the fairly near future. At some point, I plan on having a small enough data set that I can fit it on a single economical disk.

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:
If you really dont care about quality that much, then why not stay with low low-lq XviD versions than h.264's? And if you really want that high bs quality, then why not buy real (not counting fansubs(tv caps) dvd's? or keeping em, say an 26ep long serie on 2 singel or 1 dual dvd?

But if it's about money, than i can understand you.
Of course you can also do what you're doing atm.
Again, the filesize argument supersedes the codec argument. Good luck finding a lot of completed series (ie: ready for burning on dvds) that have been released in h264... it's only been in mainstream use for a little more than a full season now.

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:
Originally Posted by Zero1 View Post
It's pointless arguing over filesizes, simply because of the fact of how diverse and stubbon the scene has become.

You have your regular fansubbers (and perhaps some old schoolers), who will simply do things as they have always done. Work in general with TV rips and aim for the same sort of quality they have trundled along with for such a long time, but since the encoder is more efficient, they can lower filesizes and keep the same quality. ...

It's funny how of the people voicing their opinions, few are suggesting the comprimise of "Better quality, same filesize".
In a sense you're right, it's pointless because no matter what happens everyone will still do what they want. But by discussing it in the open, some people might consider viewpoints they wouldn't have before. A lot of encoders, left to their own devices (and their own core2 duo boxes with latest-gen everything, fiber to the home and 1080p-compatible lcds ... all two of you :-p) very quickly degenerate into pure technocrats and forget about considerations like "who's going to be playing it back" or "what are they going to do with the data after they've watched it".

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:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post
Just wondering if anybody else downloaded and played this file what their PC spiked at?
55% is about right for me too -- 100% of one side of the hyperthreaded cpu. Average was around 80% of one side. I played it back with the default cccp playback filters in windows media player 9 on my northwood 2.4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylf View Post
... So, even if the source maeterial comes from DVD, there are possibilities that we can make it look "better" with proper filtering etc...
Yeah, there's a big difference between "loss of information" and "loss of extraneous information". Some data is unwanted, and filtering removes that. Encoding loses information wholesale, but if that information is unwanted then you're better off without it.

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 )
__________________
complich8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-18, 17:55   Link #163
emptyeighty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8 View Post
I have over 1TB of space. The reason you accumulate that much space is that you keep acquiring data without eliminating it, thus you keep running out of space.
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.
emptyeighty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-18, 18:42   Link #164
bayoab
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arimfe View Post
Orly rly? Good job figuring out the OP on page 1.
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.
You are posting in this thread too and thefore you are failing as well. By your logic, as are all the other posters who are comparing them (i.e. the entire thread). You are the only person in this thread who believes its stupid to compare different encodes.

Quote:
Did you read he wrote "probably"?
As in "this may not be always true"?
And that does not change what he said regardless. You are just drawing on technicalities at this point because you got nothing.

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:
Whether that statement of his fails in general or not still doesn't make yours any less misleading. Sure, keep pour out misleading failings and blame others for reading it "the wrong way". Way to go.
Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it. I think you are the only one who wasn't intelligent enough to comprehend it or ignore it as being overly general.

Quote:
This still fails as much as ever as a general statement.

By these statements, your "File size has nothing to do with quality" fails, and remains as nothing but a misleading statement.
And you are as dense as ever as you are unable to comprehend it. The first statement does not even come close to proving you right as you are comparing different codecs. (Oh wait, didn't you say it was a failure to compare them? Is that hypocratic fair-weather trolling I detect?)
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:
Orly? they not the same? Do we really need a deep annalysis for why they are not the same?
"Different codecs, different encoders/settings/filters, different raws etc." = Of course they are not the same. Good job once again stating something obvious.
Good job one again proving my point EXACTLY. They are all the same size, and they are NOT the same. You are the one only who thinks its stupid to compare encodes and yet you refuse to do it unless its something where you can't possibly look like an idiot. (i.e. The "encoding challange" which was impossible for you to lose if you decide the rules. Now, if I decided them, I could make it absolutely impossible for you to win too.)

Quote:
There we have it. You trying to put forth a misleading statement as absolute truth, and blame people when they read it in its misleading parts.
Except my statement was truth as you have proved for me and as I have clarified. Of course I am not comparing 50mb encodes and 1gb encodes of the same file codec. While it may have been overly general, of course I blame you for misreading it. You are the only one who didn't understand it and continues to make a point of that. Now you should return home before dark, I suspect the village wants its idiot back.

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 )
bayoab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-18, 22:03   Link #165
complich8
Fansubber Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to complich8
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptyeighty View Post
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.
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.
__________________
complich8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-19, 07:44   Link #166
TougeSil80
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.
__________________
So long.
TougeSil80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-19, 07:48   Link #167
Arimfe
SharpenerOfTheBoxcutter
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: where Grudge is Greatest, Rancour Endless and Malice Eternal(at school^^;;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
You are posting in this thread too and thefore you are failing as well.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
By your logic, as are all the other posters who are comparing them (i.e. the entire thread).
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
You are the only person in this thread who believes its stupid to compare different encodes.
And No. You still fail to notice the distinction between comparing filsize when there's difference in codecs, encoders/settings/filters, raws etc.
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:
Originally Posted by bayoab
And that does not change what he said regardless. You are just drawing on technicalities at this point because you got nothing.

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.
Maybe you missed his point somewhere? As in "regardless of the codec" = "no codecs exempt from rule"
Then your Primary point is pointless.

And at least he isn't pathethic enough to maintain and defend a faulty statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Nobody else seemed to have a problem with it.
Why don't you give us your address? We'll send you nice pairs of reading glasses. After you get them you can go back reading page 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
The first statement does not even come close to proving you right as you are comparing different codecs.
No no and no again. That was not to prove any of my statements right. That was to prove your statement wrong. As in "you say something, mean something else" and then "refusing statement to be wrong, even after you yourself saying something that contradicts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
The files look exactly the same at 150mb and 170mb, but they are blocky in higher action areas.
Oh that made me laugh.
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:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Some of the files even refuse to compress that far down.
WOW, an intelligent sentient file which can refuse encoder settings O_o
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:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Good job one again proving my point EXACTLY. They are all the same size, and they are NOT the same.
Did it occur to you that you point is irrelevant?
Do you realize now why it is irrelevant? If not, then go back read first part of my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
You are the one only who thinks its stupid to compare encodes
No, I don't think it's stupid to compare encodes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
yet you refuse to do it unless its something where you can't possibly look like an idiot. (i.e. The "encoding challange" which was impossible for you to lose if you decide the rules. Now, if I decided them, I could make it absolutely impossible for you to win too.)
I haven't refused any sort of challenge in this thread yet. The fact that you now again admit there are cases where your 100 MB encode would lose to my 500 MB encode again proves your old misleading statement "File size has nothing to do with quality" wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Except my statement was truth as you have proved for me and as I have clarified.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Of course I am not comparing 50mb encodes and 1gb encodes of the same file codec.
Of course you aren't, because that would just prove your misleading statement wrong once more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
While it may have been overly general, of course I blame you for misreading it. You are the only one who didn't understand it and continues to make a point of that.
Oh, so we are nearing a compromise here? MAY have been overly general? It's plain wrong and misleading is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
I eat trolls for lunch.
I guess it's true what they say, you become what you eat.

Last edited by Arimfe; 2006-10-19 at 08:51.
Arimfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-19, 14:10   Link #168
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8 View Post
Good luck finding a lot of completed series (ie: ready for burning on dvds) that have been released in h264... it's only been in mainstream use for a little more than a full season now.
Again I have my own releases in h.264 with the size of ~150mb, which is composed of: fully completed series and ova's and other live thingies.

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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8 View Post
it's only been in mainstream use for a little more than a full season now.
Again are you talking about s.k "fansubs" or raws (dvd rips/tv caps)?
__________________


Last edited by Shounen; 2006-10-19 at 14:28.
Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-19, 19:25   Link #169
complich8
Fansubber Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to complich8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
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).
I was doing what you're suggesting 4 years ago, and now I've got more old disks than I want to manage. Sure, I can spend MORE money to replace them, but I've already paid for the space, why the hell should I pay for it again?

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.
__________________
complich8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-20, 06:25   Link #170
Shounen
Away for good
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8 View Post
I was doing what you're suggesting 4 years ago, and now I've got more old disks than I want to manage. Sure, I can spend MORE money to replace them, but I've already paid for the space, why the hell should I pay for it again?

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.
As said that I could buy new ones. Not that I can. And in your "situation" I can understand you.... Me wonders how you are an retired AonE staff member (from 5 years ago I guess) and still goes to college..hmm...
__________________

Shounen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-20, 09:39   Link #171
lordblazer
Radical Dreamer
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shounen View Post
As said that I could buy new ones. Not that I can. And in your "situation" I can understand you.... Me wonders how you are an retired AonE staff member (from 5 years ago I guess) and still goes to college..hmm...
I hope you do know there is a wide number of reasons.

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.
lordblazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 16:15   Link #172
complich8
Fansubber Emeritus
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rockville, MD
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to complich8
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.
__________________
complich8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 20:59   Link #173
JediNight
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)
JediNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:02   Link #174
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
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.
/me sighs

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.
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:13   Link #175
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
This thread being an Open-Ended Question and an Open-Ended Discussion meaning there are endless possibilities to how far this can go there is no right answer to any of this.
Medalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:25   Link #176
JediNight
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.
JediNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:45   Link #177
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
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.
Over time it's been set that 175MB is the projected size for an XviD encode to be at the very least decent. That doesn't mean it's enough size for a show to look good. The H264 encode ends up having to use a larger filesize to reach a high video quality. What's so hard to understand about that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
Different shows/episodes having different levels of action, etc. is for another discussion.
No it's part of the discussion. How well a show can be compressed is one of the main reasons for varying filesizes.
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:47   Link #178
JediNight
キズランダム
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Then you are intentionally sabotaging your Xvid encodes if it requires a larger filesize to look how it should and you are giving it less. 175mb is just a general guideline -- if you need more, use more. Let the DVD burners squirm ;p
JediNight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:49   Link #179
Harukalover
In exile
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediNight View Post
Then you are intentionally sabotaging your Xvid encodes if it requires a larger filesize to look how it should and you are giving it less. 175mb is just a general guideline -- if you need more, use more. Let the DVD burners squirm ;p
Again as I said before, I encode XviD for those who fear change or can't take the large filesize. Not my fault they don't want to switch to H264.

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.
__________________
"Brainpower without willpower is no power."
Harukalover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2006-10-21, 22:52   Link #180
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
But see why would people fear such a dramatic change. Thus people use the "trend" to keep the status and balance in the Encoded world.
Medalist 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 00:33.


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