In my defense, I was encoding white noise for a good part of that video. Considering that, I think I did quite well. I'd also like to point out that 73 MB videos aren't what I usually end up putting out there: most of my videos have much more reasonable sizes.SarahtheBoring wrote: trythil, your "commoner" encode of your last video - for which I wouldn't have to get an entirely new computer, or whatever - was 73 MB. Great though it was and all, are you really the person to be preaching about small filesize? ;P
There is...however, in my case, 73 MB was (unfortunately) the closest I could get to it. I'd gladly explain everything I did -- there's two weeks' worth of filtering and compression stories I could tell -- but I don't think they belong here. If you're interested, send me a PM.SarahtheBoring wrote: And is there a compromise between 99 MB videos and having to get new computers / run Linux on a toaster / compile new codecs ourselves every 3 hours to stay on the bleeding edge / whatever?
That may be part of it, and perhaps that's something that needs to be more strongly emphasized in EADFAG. I don't see how that excuses laziness, though: you can have extremely high quality without really bloating size; you just need to be willing to work at it.flint_the_dwarf wrote: No, it's not even lazy people. It's people wanting their video to look the best possible.
It's not hard to add one more line to an avs script lowering the resolution or to lower the bitrate in vdub. All these editors on cable don't think download times. They think, "well I'm allowed 100 mb, so I should use it all." I'd say that some people view the 100 mb limit as a guide of sorts. Meaning that if your video isn't near 100 mb, maybe you did something wrong.
