Why are h.264 files so big?

[NoSanninWa]

Originally Posted by Uchikatsu

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.

We had plenty of examples of smaller filesized h264 back on page 1.

There are also plenty of h264 encodes on AnimeSuki that aren't marked as such, simply because there aren't any XviD versions to contrast them to. We only list the codec when it is necessary to explain why there are two different versions of the same episode. For example, everything that Arienai has released since Pretty Cure has been high quality 140MB h264 encodes.

[Medalist]

I suppose so, but this really dispute over why but I believe that all encoders would want to take advantage of h.264 to do that as to what they can already do.

[ffdshow]

Originally Posted by Lambda

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.

Ep14/15 is smaller because XviD say it's done there and didn't need more.

It is a all newbies effort in order to sub Simoun. I am a newbie as well and didn't know much. So, the x264 in earlier is not better than late episodes' xvid. The latest episodes are also VFR so, it is better animated.

The quality is limited by the raw sources, codecs and size, but it is decided by encoder's ability as well. I tried to do my best but I need better skills.

Note that most efforts are spent in the TL/QC/edit process, we use different speech to give life and personalities, and it takes many drafts until it's done. I hope that the so-so encode quality won't stop you from watching Simoun.

[Ronbo]

I not opposed to h.264 encodes, but I feel that they should still be listed as h.264 encodes even when that’s the only encoding method being used by any particular fan-sub group! Not designating them as such, or simply listing them as “HQ” tends to confuse me and I’m sure others as well. Previously HQ encodes simply meant that a higher resolution was being used instead of a standard resolution. For example HD 16:9 vs. SD 4:3.
I am currently re-encoding several h.264 files into a more user friendly format. By user friendly I mean; Not because I can’t watch them, but because I like to have files that will play back on devices other that just my computer.
Since this topic is about the size of h.264 encodes, I’d like to point out that the size of my re-encodes tend to be smaller than or equal to the h.264 encodes that I have been re-encoding and I haven’t noticed any significant drop in video or audio quality. This may be due in part to re-encoding them using the same parameters and to the setup I use for playback but none the less it works for me.
In any case what harm does it do to label an h.264 encode as an h.264 release?

[Sylf]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

In any case what harm does it do to label an h.264 encode as an h.264 release?

If groups wants to tag their files as such, that's fine. But for AnimeSuki to figure out the codecs used on each and all files that they list, that's beyond being reasonable.

[checkers]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

This may be due in part to re-encoding them using the same parameters and to the setup I use for playback but none the less it works for me.
In any case what harm does it do to label an h.264 encode as an h.264 release?

I'm all for better naming, but the AR of files is not something I think is neccessary. Codecs would be helpful, and a resolution specifier if HD, but I see little beyond that that's required.

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by Sylf

If groups wants to tag their files as such, that's fine. But for AnimeSuki to figure out the codecs used on each and all files that they list, that's beyond being reasonable.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I wouldn't expect AnimeSuki or any other torrent lister to go through each and every torrent just to label them as h.264 or not. But I think that it would take little effort for the creator of said torrent to do so.

[Lambda]

Originally Posted by ffdshow

Note that most efforts are spent in the TL/QC/edit process, we use different speech to give life and personalities, and it takes many drafts until it's done. I hope that the so-so encode quality won't stop you from watching Simoun.

Quite right too! The subtitles are by far the most important element of a fansub. In any case, I'd quite happily watch 30Mb RM's of Simoun if that was all there was, shows of this quality don't come along often.

[Maniac]

smaller filesize = lower quality regardless of the codec.

larger filesize (up to the original raw size) = probably higher quality regardless of the codec.

any pc that can play h264 should have the file storage space to store larger files.

Filesizes should be getting larger, not smaller. $100 will buy you a 400 GB HDD nowadays. DVD's cost about $0.10 per disc. DVD burners cost $30. Enough with the small filesizes (anything under 200 MB, especially anything under 170 MB)

[Shounen]

Remember most encoders usually blurr like hell, so if your arent watching "it" in fullscreen or on some 90" screen that you wouldent really notice. Unless your some HD freak like me.
(the typical XviD versions)

Keeping XviD and the h.264 version at the same file sizes without writing any info on the file, or for those which dosent really know how or were to view the "file info", wouldent really notice any difference. I'm talking about the typical fanboy now, the s.k commoners -.-. So for those fansubers out there if really wanna save more time on encodes, then dont deal with h.264 unless you really want too. People are still satisfied with XviD, so keep it like that. And saving a tiny 20-30mb wont help you that much

[complich8]

Originally Posted by Maniac

any pc that can play h264 should have the file storage space to store larger files.

My pc can play h264, but only has a 40 gig disk. I dump all my data to my local fileserver though, which is a little bigger. Still, the point stands, you can still buy a brand new system from dell, apple, hp with 60-80 gigs, and in the case of apple, most system components aren't user-serviceable on most systems -- including the disk.

Filesizes should be getting larger, not smaller. $100 will buy you a 400 GB HDD nowadays. DVD's cost about $0.10 per disc. DVD burners cost $30. Enough with the small filesizes (anything under 200 MB, especially anything under 170 MB)

Originally Posted by Shounen

And saving a tiny 20-30mb wont help you that much

It's pretty unsatisfying when you go to burn a 26-ep series on dvd, and have to spill the last episode or two to a cd (or worse, the last 4-6 eps to a second dvd). Makes things messy in the binder/on the spindle, and feels like a poor utilization of media. Live hard drives are more flexible, but come with an associated maintenance cost (about $0.50/mo per disk in power costs for an idle drive). Not to mention that hard drives die fairly quickly (with an average life of about 3-4 years). Replacement costs are a bitch, and redundancy is even more of one.

[DryFire]

Originally Posted by Shounen

Remember most encoders usually blurr like hell

Ummm.... no? Most encoders make fun of the encoders who blur like hell.

Keeping XviD and the h.264 version at the same file sizes without writing any info on the file, or for those which dosent really know how or were to view the "file info"

Most people mark the video codec (at the very least), even in single releases.

People are still satisfied with XviD, so keep it like that. And saving a tiny 20-30mb wont help you that much

You call your self an "HD freak" and are still satisfied with xvid? I guess you're not a HQ freak.

And 20-30MB can be a world of difference for distro and PQ.

[Shounen]

Originally Posted by complich8

It's pretty unsatisfying when you go to burn a 26-ep series on dvd, and have to spill the last episode or two to a cd (or worse, the last 4-6 eps to a second dvd). Makes things messy in the binder/on the spindle, and feels like a poor utilization of media. Live hard drives are more flexible, but come with an associated maintenance cost (about $0.50/mo per disk in power costs for an idle drive). Not to mention that hard drives die fairly quickly (with an average life of about 3-4 years). Replacement costs are a bitch, and redundancy is even more of one.

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.)

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.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Maniac

smaller filesize = lower quality regardless of the codec.

larger filesize (up to the original raw size) = probably higher quality regardless of the codec.

Congratulations on making a circular argument which has already been dubunked earlier in this thread. File size has nothing to do with quality. The codec DOES matter too.

[Starks]

This forum is full of nothing but sophists...

[RaistlinMajere]

Filesize (well, bitrate) does affect quality to a point. Codec also matters, as does the compressability of that specific source, etc... Filesize is not a valid comparison, like Group A's Show X at 175MB looks better than Group B's Show Y at 140MB due to the 35MB difference, etc.

[Shounen]

Originally Posted by DryFire

Ummm.... no? Most encoders make fun of the encoders who blur like hell.

Again there are some and I mean some that usually take that really low bitrate and blur so that people would or wouldent notice those irritating so called "jpg artefacts"

Originally Posted by DryFire

Most people mark the video codec (at the very least), even in single releases.

I've seen alot of releases that just says dvdrip/tv cap and the crc, and maybe if it contains any sub or what codec for the audio was used (possibly the fps also)

Originally Posted by DryFire

You call your self an "HD freak" and are still satisfied with xvid? I guess you're not a HQ freak.

I never said that I liked XviD. I'm just saying what other poeple should use, those that arent really into the HQ/HD stuff should go by.

update:

Originally Posted by RaistlinMajere

Filesize is not a valid comparison, like Group A's Show X at 175MB looks better than Group B's Show Y at 140MB due to the 35MB difference, etc.

Those that watch fansubs (As i assume that this is what you were marking) compare 2 groups, one release their version 1day/12hrs after after that show has been aired (with "medium quaility"). 3 days after, Group B comes out with thier version, with possibly higher quailty, or not...Leechers usually tend to get the fastest release asap. So if the first version was good enough, people will tend to get that one only. I did in fact download StaticSubs:Mai otome once, both HQ and the LQ one. well you could easily see the difference, Tho both were XviD if i remember correctly. 175mb~ vs 233mb~ was easy to figure out that the 233 would have better quality (bitrate etc!!!) due to the bigger file size, or that it came from an alternative source with better quaility due to that the HQ version came after the LQ one.

So depending on the source, alot can make difference.

[Arimfe]

Originally Posted by bayoab

File size has nothing to do with quality.

I think you are the one to be congratulated.

If your failings were to be true, then why don't we see any fansubs at 20MB or under?

Higher video bitrate(filesize) allows for higher video quality. Why is this difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by RaistlinMajere

Filesize is not a valid comparison, like Group A's Show X at 175MB looks better than Group B's Show Y at 140MB due to the 35MB difference, etc.

Yes yes, between different groups, there are things like different codecs, different encoders/settings/filters, different raws etc. And they would make such a superficial comparison pointless.

But then this topic deals with why some groups make filesize big when they can make them small instead.
At this point, a comparison in filesize isn't pointless. With same codecs, same encoders/settings/filters, same raws, it should be obvious which one has the advantage, a 100 MB encode or a 200 MB encode.

[Shounen]

Originally Posted by Arimfe

But then this topic deals with why some groups make filesize big when they can make them small instead.

Again some groups make their XviD and h.264 by the almost the same size. Which means that...either they want their fans/lecchers to "upgrade" to h.264 or they want to work with the XviD first and bring out the h.264 one for those: Ooooo I want High quailty fansubs.

So why make it smaller when we can keep at the same size, but with even better quailty. Than making the file smaller and having the same quaility as the XviD version.

offtopic:
So why dont they embeed the subs too, in their h.264 releases -.-
"And some do, some dont"

[Harukalover]

Originally Posted by Shounen

offtopic:
So why dont they embeed the subs too, in their h.264 releases -.-
"And some do, some dont"

Probably because they usually use MKV for there H264 releases and AVI for XviD. MKV supports softsubs so they take advantage of it. (And softsubs are superior to hardsubs at least in my opinion) Technically they should probably just do XviD in MKV and H264 in MKV as well if they are willing to do softsubs. Perhaps they don't because of fear of leechers being afraid of MKV's.

Though there could be a second reason. I tried to get a group of mine to convert to MKV only for it's release format. I was quickly shot down by the founder cause she wouldn't be able to directly burn it for her DVD player if it was in MKV only.