Your Typical Compression

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:55 am

RamonesFan2020204 wrote:I don't care. I like my videos at 720 x 480

Hope you don't mean that that's the final resolution. 720x480, without pixel aspect ratio correction and viewed on square-pixel computer monitors, doesn't provide a correct aspect ratio for ...well, anything common.

Streicher wrote:Somehow I can already imagine all the future 70+ MB h.264 encodes... >_>

Heck, I'm doing that now. Granted, it's for high-definition material, but.

With all the excuses like, "I didn't know how to make it smaller.", "I wanted the best picture possible (from that crappy fansub/RAW source)" and "Everybody has broadband, why should I make it smaller?"

Those people will be told what they're doing wrong. They will then reject any advice and fail to provide solid evidence that they actually followed the prescribed advice. They will also omit any useful description of their input video, since that obviously doesn't matter.

(note: that's sarcasm; input video, above all else, matters. just making sure we can get that straight. Oh, and does this pattern sound familiar?)

However, these sorts of actions haven't slowed adoption of XviD, so I don't really see a reason to worry about it in the future.

The anime-leechers made the transmission from Divx to xvid. They will do it to h.264 if they have something they really want to see. Then they will look themselves or whine until it they can play it.

Or they'll leave 1s on star scales, thinking that Quicktime 7 is actually suitable for H.264 playback. ("Apple told me so!")

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Thu May 04, 2006 1:59 am

Streicher wrote:With all the excuses like, "I didn't know how to make it smaller.", "I wanted the best picture possible (from that crappy fansub/RAW source)" and "Everybody has broadband, why should I make it smaller?"

Well, to be serious...

x264, at least, seems like it acts pretty intelligently even if you don't specify a ton of options.

Chibi war · Post by **Chibi war** » Thu May 04, 2006 2:18 am

@ trythil: Actually, first time that I did encounter H264 a long time ago, I downloaded the newest quicktime to play XD

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Thu May 04, 2006 2:45 am

Chibi war wrote:@ trythil: Actually, first time that I did encounter H264 a long time ago, I downloaded the newest quicktime to play XD

Actually, re-reading up on this, it looks like Quicktime 7 might just work. Maybe I've just had bad information on what H.264 profiles it supported.

Streicher · Post by **Streicher** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:03 pm

@RamonesFan2020204
Wow, I can't believe somebody could be so ignorant of the fact that most other people manage to get good results with Xvid. (Other amvs, fansubs, RAWs and DVD-Rips for example

)
Yet you build up your little fantasy of your encoding being completely flawless and blame it simply on the codec.
If your video resolution turned out differently it should be a dead giveaway that something got seriously messed up.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if you simply forgot to compress your audio.

@trythil
HD sources are good reason to need higher bitrates.^^ But if HD itself is really needed is a whole different topic. Imho the differences are to marginal to keep a huge part of computers from beeing able to play it back.

@DJ_Izumi
Because that bitrate simply is not needed in most cases.

With a 70 MB encode for a 3,5 minute long song you use a 2600+ kbit/s bitrate. Bitrates that high will oversaturate most standard resolution videos. Furthermore you need more CPU-power to play high bitrates back because of CABAC.
Of course everybody wants their amv to look as nice as possible, but for internet distribution one should pause for a moment and think what is more sensible for internet distribution.

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Thu May 04, 2006 5:05 pm

Uhh... Video bitrate really has next to no signifigant effect on the CPU necessary to decode the video... If any at all. o_O

Purge · Post by **Purge** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:53 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:Uhh... Video bitrate really has next to no signifigant effect on the CPU necessary to decode the video... If any at all. o_O

so then why do 8000+ K bits/second HD WMV encodes lag on my PC

DJ_Izumi · Post by **DJ_Izumi** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:54 pm

Because resolution has a serious effect on CPU demand? More blocks to decode. 1080p vs 480p, big fucking difference.

Willen · Post by **Willen** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:15 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:Because resolution has a serious effect on CPU demand? More blocks to decode. 1080p vs 480p, big fucking difference.

x2 + GPU powah (sometimes).

Purge · Post by **Purge** » Thu May 04, 2006 11:22 pm

DJ_Izumi wrote:Because resolution has a serious effect on CPU demand? More blocks to decode. 1080p vs 480p, big fucking difference.

that makes sense now - i remember downloading an wmv file at that resolution where the bitrate was signicantly lower and it still lagged. Thanks for the info.