Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem
A file as an MPEG would be huge. As far as I know, if it's MPEG, it's almost non-compressed (the compression is extremely low). MPEG is what DVDs use. For comparison, a standard DVD can fit about four 24-minute anime episodes to a disc (single layer). If you were to burn the episodes (XviD-encoded videos) as data to the disc, you would be able to fit anywhere from 20-26, depending on how well the episodes were encoded. With H.264, depending on the encoding settings and the video in question, you should be able to fit more.
|
An MPEG is certainly larger than DivX or whatnot, but it's not "almost non-compressed," by a long shot. The DVD spec maintains that the maximum bitrate allowed for MPEG-2 video is 9mbit/sec (that also include peaks in VBR streams, which basically everything is). Uncompressed RGB of the same size and frame-rate (720 x 480 @ 29.97 frames per second) is around 240mbit/sec. Big difference.
Now, the two may not look very different (perceptually) to your eye, but there is a large difference in compression.
EDIT: As a side note, that's uncompressed 4:4:4. Uncompressed 4:2:2 (the same color space as DVD and digital tape formats like DigiBeta and D1) is about 120mbit/s. Amazing what you can do by halving your color sampling, isn't it? Still though, that's a fair sight higher than DVD's 9mbit/s maximum.
EDIT 2: All of this is to point out that, quite frankly,
anyone bitching about file sizes at this point is pretty much a fucking lunatic. We're getting AMAZING quality relative to the size these files are. With the cost of storage decreasing constantly (in terms of both hard drives and recordable optical media) there's really no reason at all to bitch about a 174MB AVI file. Seriously.
EDIT 3: Also, transcoding from one lossy format to another
will never result in similar quality at the same filesize, much less a smaller filesize. Ever. It can only look worse. If you're trying to get the file smaller than the original, it can only look WORSE THAN THAT.