How do I share AMVs over 100MB in a-m-v.org??

CArnesen · Post by **CArnesen** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:22 pm

You could do a 2-pass Xvid encode and specify the file size you want during the second pass...

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:30 pm

CArnesen wrote:You could do a 2-pass Xvid encode and specify the file size you want during the second pass...

that will only affect the size of the video, not the audio

Lavondyss · Post by **Lavondyss** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:06 pm

lots of tips, thanks a ton guys!

I will have to read up on all these techniques.

I know that MP3 are about 10 times smaller than wav files. But Virtual Dub does not allow me to interlace MP3 into a video file. I read the "HELP" file in V-Dub but it doesn't really explain how to combine them.

I'm assuming that V-DUB uses the Faunhoffer(spelling) codec to essentially encode the wav into MPEG Layer 3 (MP3) audio while it compiles the AVI video. Going to go try that......

............After I fiddled around with it, I have successfully downsized the file to just under 50MB and still have the same video quality as before.

it's been a great learning experience and I'm sure I will have many more questions....that I'll have to answer for myself.

You guys are a fountain of knowledge. Thanks!

Now I suppose I'll have to re-upload the new file, but since a-m-v.org does not allow two of the same file. I suppose I'll have to speak with Phade?

OR, rename the file and upload it again and ask Phade to delete the first one. I don't want it to take up unnecessary diskspace.

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:54 pm

I would suggest you keep on practicing your encoding and reading up as much as you can about it. Go through a couple of different methods (Divx, Xvid, Mpeg, RM) and see how small of a file you can get without loosing much quallity. Also, keep playing with the audio until you fell completely certain that the quallity is as high as possible with a small size.

Contact Phade after you do this, to see about replacing the video you curently have ont he carrot. That way you won't get a new version up and find out a few days later that you could have done even more to make the file smaller, video clearer, etc.

Just be sure that the final version you want up on the site, really is the everything you want it to be.

P.S. Do not upload multiple copies of your files!!!!

EarthCurrent · Post by **EarthCurrent** » Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:57 pm

Happy 3000th post Jon! 8)

Tsukin · Post by **Tsukin** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:30 am

I know that MP3 are about 10 times smaller than wav files. But Virtual Dub does not allow me to interlace MP3 into a video file. I read the "HELP" file in V-Dub but it doesn't really explain how to combine them.

the word you are looking for is interleave, not interlace

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 6:23 am

This is useful... So this is an obvious question. People bitch about sound quality even when I use uncompressed WAVs - is using MP3s at this stage going to destroy sound quality, or is it another step of the process that makes them so awful to use?

Lavondyss · Post by **Lavondyss** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:25 am

I've been working with audio for quite some time now since I like music.
I got one of the first MP3 encoder that does it in DOS shell.

It only took 8hours to encode one 4minute song. PHEW!

when I re-coded my AMV using the MPEG Layer 3 it did not sound all that different to me. I also lowered the bitrate and sampling size and it still sounded dang good. Maybe peeps complain about the audio because they do not have proper codecs? I've been in that position before.

Virtual Dub did a great job compiling and it only took a minute more for encoding into mp3 as opposed to uncompressed wav. I couldn't tell the difference in sound quality. Maybe I have bad hearing...

...interleave, not interlace.....thanks tsukin

turboneko · Post by **turboneko** » Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:11 pm

SarahtheBoring wrote:is using MP3s at this stage going to destroy sound quality, or is it another step of the process that makes them so awful to use?

If somebody bitches at audio quality even if it is uncompressed then it might be that:

1) The source is not so good
2) The digital extraction had problems (most likely you'll hear clicks in the audio)
3) The audio was not digitally extracted, but aquired analogically

Speaking about MP3s... it is a lossy compression, so obviously you are going to lose something if you compress to MP3. Using higher bitrates (160, 192, 256, 320 Kb/sec) will help increasing the audio quality. A good encoder will help as well (LAME is excellent).

Hope this helps

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:13 am

Analogically? All I know is that I ripped them right from a CD at *checks* 48K/16bit/stereo, with no audible problems...and people still gave me, like, 8s and 9s on sound quality.

I mean, not that it's a huge problem, it's just that cripes, what does it take to make people happy? Having a band over to their house to personally perform the song for them? >_<

But I guess, if the alternative is a huge huge file (my last one was 80MB for a normal-length DivX video, because of the damn sound), it's worth having people complain about the sound.

Thanks.

AnimeMusicVideos.org

How do I share AMVs over 100MB in a-m-v.org??

head is spinning

no difference in audio