2006-10-16, 04:26 | Link #81 | |||
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
The logic for creating a h.264 version with higher bitrate (and the same resolution) as the XviD version goes something like this: "The XviD version will suck anyway, so let's create a small, crap-quality version for the people who don't care or don't want to download a lot, and one high-quality version for the people who DO care about video quality." Quote:
THE AMOUNT OF BITRATE A GIVEN EPISODE REQUIRES TO LOOK GOOD HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO THE USUAL FIXED SIZES. <shameless boasting> Take a look at A-Keep&gg's later Night Head Genesis encodes, for example. 85 MB per ep, and still looks good. (Yes, really. Try comparing it to the previous 140 MB encodes and see if you spot any significant differences. Bonus points to any non-encoder who does.) Point: certain shows can be compressed into oblivion and back and still look good, others can't. I should also remind the honored forum populace of the old truth "crap in, crap out". A good encoder can rescue a crappy raw to some degree, but there are limits (and I assume this is what bayoab is getting at with his "filesize is not related to quality" comment).
__________________
|
|||
2006-10-16, 04:42 | Link #82 | ||
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
My RAW had h.264, size about 550mb Lu perry or whatever his name was, had also h.264 in his HD release more of an LQ.HD I'd say. |
||
2006-10-16, 04:46 | Link #83 | |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spain
|
Quote:
I think video resolution has bigger impact on CPU usage than filesize. And don't take the CPU clock rate seriously. An old sempron 2.4G may use 70% of CPU for playback, while a AMD64 3G may use <20% CPU for the same file. Another thing is the output method, I use renderless mode or OpenGL so it is slower. |
|
2006-10-16, 06:35 | Link #84 | |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Sample 2 (both 20 MB) 5000 frames from Maria-sama ga Miteru. Source is R2 DVD, exact same lossless was used. I used my usual high-quality settings for both XviD and x264. Same bitrate (850, a realistic value for a 175 MB ep with ~140-160kbps audio or so) was used for both. To me, at least, it's blatantly obvious which one is which, but try comparing them yourself. Don't cheat by looking at ffdshow's codec info window! Also note that this show compressess pretty well - XviD is slightly starved for bitrate in these samples, but not THAT much.
__________________
|
|
2006-10-16, 06:50 | Link #85 |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
booooo
keep it 640x480, 2nd... 704x400 (4:3 wtf?...dont do that). 3rd AVC is not the type of "x264" that i'd prefer or h.264 as the real name for the codec is Most encoders leave a trace on what you've used, I still and always will hate that one! update: Again XviD leaves just like jpg's do, artefacts...unless were talking about non-animation were the eye will be completly mistaken |
2006-10-16, 06:52 | Link #86 | |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Quote:
Spoiler for what to look for:
__________________
|
|
2006-10-16, 07:10 | Link #87 | |||
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Spoiler for response:
Quote:
2. mod16 > "perfect 16:9" Quote:
H.264 is not a codec. Neither is AVC, which is the MPEG name of the same standard. x264 IS a codec (or rather, it's an encoder only). Now, what the heck made you bring this up at all?
__________________
|
|||
2006-10-16, 07:15 | Link #88 | |
Part 8
IT Support
|
Quote:
Please, if you are going to write stream of conciousness, at least use real sentences . Onto your points:
|
|
2006-10-16, 08:20 | Link #89 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2006-10-16, 08:27 | Link #90 | ||
In exile
Join Date: May 2006
Location: There! Not there! There!
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Quote:
But yeah that's how I usually operate. I only do XviD for those who fear change or can't play H264 files (Old computer or no knowledge of codecs to play it back). I had the same problem with my old Celeron 950Mhz PC, but back then I had no clue what I was doing. Maybe CoreAVC could pull a miracle off. Will check those samples out when I get back from school...
__________________
|
||
2006-10-16, 09:21 | Link #92 | |
Panda Herder
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
|
Quote:
Code:
Changeset 588 Timestamp: 10/10/06 07:05:55 (1 week ago) Author: pengvado Message: no more decoder. it never worked anyway, and the presence of defunct code was confusing people. |
|
2006-10-16, 10:30 | Link #93 |
Away for good
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 36
|
Again XviD...less quality more crap. H.264/AVC better quality, less crap. Of course that XviD fails for it's both old and crappy encoding technique, but still... XviD is both faster and easier to encode. Even for a complete newbie, that uses Movie maker or something similar. But 95% of all, dont give a damn about oooh~ I can see some crap there and look there color is so.... Anyways XviD will stay here for about 5 more (or more!) years, you'll see. If we compare to how many people that are out there, that have faster than say 4mbit d/l. Then the majority is below that, so there.
I live Sweden, and we got about 9mil people. About 3mil got more 10mbit or faster. And yes comparing to say US, you guys got how many millions? But still, so many still have dsl or some have still have modems *cough*. So we download high quality stuff mhm.. yes. Remember DivX.3 was used before, after that came XviD, tho WMV3 was also used in some cases, /me points at KAA' A friend of mine got a 2.6G 32bit, tho he has like what 56k or something. He dosent know a s*** about codecs. he even uses VLC. I think since he had problems with both the MKV/Mp4 container, which is why he dosent download fansubs with that container (or with the h.264 codec) at all. 99% of all people still like's AVI and XviD.. user friendly and all that. update: I once gave my friends some dvdrips of love hina back in 2003, simple XviD in an Avi, embeeded subs (SSA) they liked it. (this was never released in public ) Next time I brought them Love Hina Again. Tho this time it was h.264 (or x264 you name it) in mkv's, OGG Vorbis as sound. That's when the problems came up. I cant play them, no sound what to do~. That's when it came...dont give "funny" things to people that you know. Explaining on what to do would take to long so. So this is why leechers want the easy found, easy get version. Keep it XviD (easiest decoder to find on the web) MP3 who wouldent be able to play theys? And finally AVI (created back in 1992 i presume?) No chance that they wouldent be able to play theys, unless they some other OS. Last edited by Shounen; 2006-10-16 at 10:45. |
2006-10-16, 11:01 | Link #95 |
Give them the What For!
Fansubber
|
Well for Megami-Animes zegapain we did both h264 and xvid. Here are the file size specs
Xvid: 226mb h264: 230mb Now that right there makes it look like the h264 was bigger, but in reality the xvid was bigger. The h264 release had a higher resolution (480) and a higher bitrate audio. Xvid was had the standard size (704x396). Xvid: Video: ~204mb Audio: ~22mb 128kbs MP# h264 Video: ~197mb Audio: ~33mb 192kbs AAC Now is the h264 video really bigger then the xvid one. At a glance id did look that way. But what was bigger was actully the audio. This may not be normal of fansubs but not all h264 doesnt always mean bigger files. You have to look at all the aspects about what could make the file bigger.
__________________
|
2006-10-16, 16:02 | Link #96 | |||
Weapon of Mass Discussion
Fansubber
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, USA
|
Quote:
Well I started out by viewing sample 1. I skipped around a bit since MariMite without sound is rather Meh, but I thought that the video quality was quite nice. Then I put on sample 2 and immediately said, "Yuck!" There you have it, the response of a "normal leecher" is yuck. Okay, I wouldn't have minded the video quality as much if I hadn't just been watching sample 1, but the response is still valid. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2006-10-16, 16:02 | Link #97 |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
Well there seems to be many answers to this and yet "some" of us are getting on to comparing h264 and why the files using that codec are so big...[darkfire]'s post being meaningful but what was the point? It didn't answer anything or ask or discuss the sole topic. And technically there really "ISN't" an answer to this question because:
----: 1. Different encoders may have different styles and choices ----: 2. Why not they be big? ----: 3. A satisfying file size varies upon different people (and i mean everyone outside of encoders) ----: 4. If the job is done correctly at that so point, say 233mb, then why ask if it's good. ----: 5. I suppose that since high-filesize does job why take chances on multiple encodes by trying to go lower ( way lower ) ----: 6. H.264 as explained I believe in this thread has some reason to be placed at high file sizes: ----: 7. More widespread? Because the filesize does "somewhat" decide quality (but i won't go further into that) ----: 8. I assume h264 files at that size are pleasing to you, no? So then why ask? ----: 9. Did I mention why not? ----: 10. Average Analysis: h264 on avg has about a third greater bitrate at 170mb then XVID...so why not push the limits further? |
2006-10-16, 17:16 | Link #98 | ||
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by TheFluff; 2006-10-16 at 17:39. |
||
2006-10-16, 18:31 | Link #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Age: 45
|
I've been mostly watching 233Mb h264 encodes of Simoun, but in a couple of cases the Xvid versions have been significantly smaller than the h264s, so I've got them instead. Now, when I watched one of them, I remember at the start, being used it being in a larger file and done with a better codec, noting that it wasn't nearly such good quality. But a minute later I'd completely forgotten about this and I was just enjoying the show in the usual way. It made absolutely no difference to my viewing experience.
I think it's difficult to figure out how good an encode actually is, simply because the very process of wondering how good it is changes the way you look at it. The only way you can really tell that something is a meaningful imperfection is if you notice it even when you're not looking for it. Personally, I've never found a 170Mb Xvid encode with meaningful imperfections, by which I mean anything which detracts from my enjoyment when actually watching the episode. I'd like to see more <150Mb h264 encodes, myself. |
2006-10-16, 18:56 | Link #100 |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
Yes point, but some people like to take quality seriously and nothing is wrong with the XVID it's just H.264 known for high quality is downloaded and watched though I don't see why since well...(that's whole other story)
I would love to see smaller filesized h264 but someone has to set a trend that the quality is worth it. |
|
|