Quality vs. Compression

This forum is for the general discussion of Anime Music Videos.

Postby Flint the Dwarf » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:47 pm

IcyCloud wrote:10 MB/sec is usually what I aim for.

:shock:
Kusoyaro: We don't need a leader. We need to SHUT UP. Make what you want to make, don't make you what you don't want to make. If neither of those applies to you, then you need to SHUT UP MORE.
User avatar
Flint the Dwarf
 
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Ashland, WI

Postby Ileia » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:48 pm

IcyCloud wrote:10 MB/min rather. Posting when in need of sleep + no edit button = typoed.


Ha! That's the second time so far in this thread. I think if we get 5 we get a prize.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Postby .:SR:. » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:58 pm

aielI_Ileia wrote:
IcyCloud wrote:10 MB/min rather. Posting when in need of sleep + no edit button = typoed.


Ha! That's the second time so far in this thread. I think if we get 5 we get a prize.

10 MB/sec is usually what I aim for.
User avatar
.:SR:.
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Location: Mexico

Postby Arigatomina » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:00 am

I aim for the 10mb/minute footage and 5mb for audio. If a video is short I'll ease up and let it go as high as it likes so long as it stays beneath a 50mb cut-off.

Personally, if I download an inflated video (usually huge because of the resolution, the easiest thing to fix), I expect not only perfect capture quality, but excellent content as well. It's not just download time, it's file size on my harddrive. I rarely burn grossly inflated videos to cd, so I avoid downloading them unless I know the creator *will* deliver that perfect quality and content to match the inflated ego (rightfully inflated in that case).

For videos that are huge because of mistakes, it's another story.

dj_ultima_the_great wrote:Of course, I use Windows Movie Maker II, so there goes my credibility.

Grrrr... :evil:
User avatar
Arigatomina
 
Joined: 03 Apr 2003

Postby Eek-1 » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:56 am

I split my video to small pieces - fast motion & low motion, bright ones & dark ones. Then I compress each one with different ratios & filters while trying to maintain the quality. After that I join them back.
User avatar
Eek-1
 
Joined: 22 Jun 2002
Location: Crown Hill
Status: Financially troubled

Postby Keeper of Hellfire » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:00 am

For my first vid I tried to get as small a possible and was proud to get a 3:16 min vid at around 18MB, including the audio. The quality of course isn't that good.

Now I make calculations on the amount of raw data. I use the formula "resolution x 24(bit RGB color depth) x fps". For example, a 512 x 384 vid at 24 fps gives 108 MBit/s raw data. With MPEG4 codecs like DivX or XviD a compression around factor 100 is possible without remarkable quality loss. In this case my first attempt would be 1 MBit/s. Depending on how it comes out, I would try up to factor 150 or down to factor 75.

For the audio compression I'd never go below 128 kBps MPEG3. For Rock/Pop, 160 kBps is enough. If I one day should decide to do something to classical symphonic music, I'd encode it with 320 kBps.

I'm thinking about making small resolution versions for dial up users too. But i have to find a place where I can host it. :?
User avatar
Keeper of Hellfire
 
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: Germany

Postby Sephiroth » Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:40 am

I keep things resonably down i guess id be more of a quality nut then a file size nut. Ether way this is a hobby that i enjoy.
User avatar
Sephiroth
 
Joined: 19 Dec 2000
Location: California

Postby Infinity Squared » Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:57 am

Meh... one of my incentives for downloading videos nowadays seems to be towards a bigger file size (rather than the small one that many people seem to value more)...

Yeah, well, I have bandwidth to spare, so I figure, why not make use of it... we all know that downloading here is a gamble in terms of entertainment factor, but why degrade the experience further by not going for the bigger sized (and hopefully at least better quality) videos when you can anyway.

I'm a stickler for quality... as others have said here, I make more than one render for my videos... one that will fall under the limits in the org, and one or two others for my own personal viewing pleasure and perhaps for the convention scene.
Image
User avatar
Infinity Squared
Mr. Poopy Pants
 
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: Australia
Status: Shutting Down

Postby WhereNext » Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:03 am

Keeper of Hellfire wrote:For the audio compression I'd never go below 128 kBps MPEG3. For Rock/Pop, 160 kBps is enough. If I one day should decide to do something to classical symphonic music, I'd encode it with 320 kBps.

320 kbps isn't really necessary, even for classical music. You can go down to 256kbps and the only frequency loss you get are typically frequencies the human ear has lost, considering they say by age 12 the hearing frequency range drops from 20 Hz- 20KHz, to 20 Hz- 16/17 KHz. And more often than not, you can drop your mp3 down to 192 kbps and not be able to hear the difference, plus there are tricks you can do to your audio to compensate for frequency loss so you can still get that full sound out of a smaller bitrate mp3(like EQs to boost the frequencies lost in the encode, normalize, and compression).

As far as my encodes go, i like to try and stay between 10-15 MB/min depending on what the video calls for, and 128-192 kbps Mp3 for the audio.
User avatar
WhereNext
 
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Location: Indpls, IN

Postby inthesto » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:05 am

I just go for XviD first-pass because I'm a lazy asshole.
User avatar
inthesto
Beef Basket
 
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
Location: PARTIES
Status: PARTIES

Postby FoxJones » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:39 am

Aiming for perfect visual quality is a disease.

I suck at encoding so my AMVs will still be bloated and look bad.
Image
User avatar
FoxJones
The foxiest!
 
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Location: Lieto, Finland

Postby Jnzk » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:09 am

FoxJones wrote:Aiming for perfect visual quality is a disease.

/me kills FoxJones

If I have to choose, I always take quality over filesize. Internet connections are getting faster all the time, but if you upload a crappy looking version it will circulate the net forever.
User avatar
Jnzk
Artsy Bastid
 
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Finland

Postby Flint the Dwarf » Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:16 pm

Janzki wrote:Internet connections are getting faster all the time

Grr...
Kusoyaro: We don't need a leader. We need to SHUT UP. Make what you want to make, don't make you what you don't want to make. If neither of those applies to you, then you need to SHUT UP MORE.
User avatar
Flint the Dwarf
 
Joined: 16 Jan 2002
Location: Ashland, WI

Postby ANTDrakko » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:18 pm

Beowulf wrote:
Zarxrax wrote:I always want my videos to look good. Size is always a secondary concern for me.

Perhaps a few people on a slow connection might have to wait a little longer for a nice quality video to download, but crappy video quality is crappy for everyone.



~Seen
ANTDrakko
 
Joined: 03 Mar 2002
Location: Vineland, NJ

Postby Kalium » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:22 pm

Flint the Dwarf wrote:
Janzki wrote:Internet connections are getting faster all the time

Grr...

In a technical sense, he's right. Not his fault, or ours, if you're stuck on dial-up.
User avatar
Kalium
Sir Bugsalot
 
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Location: Plymouth, Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to General AMV

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest