EVE Search - When exactly did this trend start?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

My EVE

When exactly did this trend start?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.14 08:55:00 - [1] Most Eve movies used to be in the 100-200MB range, and could be half an hour long like that. Now, 20 minutes movies are 500 MB. Not all of us have 20000000000000x20000000000000 resolution with 5 TB of hard drive space.... Seriously, I used to love Eve movies, but ever since they started reaching these absurd sizes so they can be full quality at absurd resolutions I can't really have very many. Have I mentioned how long it takes to download? Yes, there are still occasional ones that are within reasonable size but most of the smaller ones are at least 200MB. Originally by: Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
Ask Unbeatable D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:01:00 - [2] Download CCCP codec pack w/Media Player Classic. Plays all .mkv vids without stuttering. I had problems in VLC because of high resolutions, but MP Classic saved me
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:10:00 - [3] Originally by: Ask Unbeatable Download CCCP codec pack w/Media Player Classic. Plays all .mkv vids without stuttering. I had problems in VLC because of high resolutions, but MP Classic saved me I can play MKV's already but it seems like a good portion of them aren't in MKV format. I do say thanks to you for running yours like that, 81MB is WAY more manageable. Originally by: Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:26:00 - [4] Agreed there's people using far too high bitrates atm and I generally don't download a vid if it's over 400meg (rare exceptions to that like Damige vids) 2 years ago most vids used to only be 1/4 the size they are now as people would only be encoding in 1MB .WMV and such. It looked horrible but it d/led quick and was fine back then cause everyone was used to it 150Mb for a half-hour video wasn't terribly uncommon. Nowadays a lot of people, probably on uberfast connections just seem to have forgotton about compression and I'm seeing far too many near-1GB .WMVs of vids that are only like, 25 mins long. Being that I'm still only on slow ADSL myself they take far too long to D/L for me to bother with and the end result is I don't watch your vid. When I encode vids I always do it by Bitrate-estimation, as that makes a lot more sense than a stupid Quality slider and allows you decent control over the filesize. From my experience even 1000k is perfectly watchable for most vids, at least when encoded to .MKV, though the quality-size balance is best IMO around 2000k. Where's Dark Shikari these days anyway? he needs to slap ppl about this - Infectious -
Kelron Queldine Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:32:00 - [5] More people getting faster computers and bigger screens means they are playing Eve, recording Fraps and encoding videos at higher resolutions. Faster internet connections means it's less of a problem to upload & download these larger files, for a lot of people. I'd much rather see high quality videos because obviously they look better and because it's not a problem for me to download them, but of course there is always people left with slower connections and computers. I don't understand why people keep using .wmv, though, when the .mkv videos are generally both higher quality and have smaller filesizes.
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:37:00 - [6] Edited by: Verx Interis on 14/08/2008 09:42:09 Edited by: Verx Interis on 14/08/2008 09:39:19 Originally by: Kelron Queldine More people getting faster computers and bigger screens means they are playing Eve, recording Fraps and encoding videos at higher resolutions. Faster internet connections means it's less of a problem to upload & download these larger files, for a lot of people. I'd much rather see high quality videos because obviously they look better and because it's not a problem for me to download them, but of course there is always people left with slower connections and computers. I don't understand why people keep using .wmv, though, when the .mkv videos are generally both higher quality and have smaller filesizes. I get that, but would it kill people to compress a second version at a smaller resolution with lower-ish quality? My screen only goes to 1280x1024, and plenty of videos are larger than that with no alternative. A bunch of extra size I have no use for. If you have the time to encode these 800 MB monoliths, encoding a lower quality 800x600 version can't be too hard. Really, the bottom line is that 2.7 Mbps is WAY more than you need for a 1024x786 video, or even a 1280x800 There's also the fact that at a certain point, you can add 2 Mbps extra and it won't do jack to improve the video quality, it's as high as it can reasonably get. Most of these videos probably have a wasted 400-800 Kbps. Besides, I use PvP videos for entertainment watching the basics of the fight, and often learning from them. I don't need to see every detail in order to do this. If it's a trailer, I'm fine with high quality. This is Eve would look worse at much lower detail. As for the MKV's, I also don't get that. Of the 11 videos I could easily find on the first page, 8 were only available in WMV, and only 3 provided MKV's, one of which the MKV didn't seem like much of an improvement. Originally by: Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.14 09:43:00 - [7] Originally by: Kelron Queldine I don't understand why people keep using .wmv, though, when the .mkv videos are generally both higher quality and have smaller filesizes. Laziness more than anything A lot of vid apps (Vegas, Premiere) will render+encode in a single step straight to .WMV, so people do that and think nothing more of it . Encoding to .MKV takes much longer as you have to first render the vid to lossless .AVI which can take up near 100GB in some cases Then use external apps which you've no idea how to use (or even find if you don't know where to look) to convert to .MKV. A lot of people just don't bother. - Infectious -
AlleyKat Gallente White-Noise	Posted - 2008.08.14 10:01:00 - [8] I have to agree with you Verx, in nearly every case there is absolutely no need to encode at very high resolutions. If you take a look at some of the vids out there, the resolutions are 900x600 but the actual footage originally would have been 1680x1050 or 1900x1200, and these vids are around the 80MB mark for roughly 5 minutes, but retain superb quality with high-btrates in WMV. The problem is not the codec or the bit-rate, it's that most people will not scale the footage down, as they think it will de-res the vid in some way, but the truth is you lose quality when you scale up, not down, as you are streching the footage. AK. EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS
Hungo Minmatar Warped Mining	Posted - 2008.08.14 10:41:00 - [9] Edited by: Hungo on 14/08/2008 10:42:59 Look mate ill put it blunty Some of us work and we upgrade our pc's, we get faster internet conenctions and make use of our money It is not our fault that you run windows 95 and have a dial up connection Stop *****ing just because god forbid you have to wait more than ten minutes for a download, god forbid you have to put yourself out to wait for something Ever heard of CD-R ? I have 49 CD's lasy count full of EVE vids Get over yourself to be quite honest
Darcha Dark Production Industries	Posted - 2008.08.14 11:36:00 - [10] I don't see the problem. A proper 250gb SATA2 HD nowadays is like 45 euro. If you cannot spare that amount of money, you shouldn't be able to afford EvE either. I got a measily 3Mbps inet connection for 20 euro a month or so, and I admit that it sometimes takes a few to download, but i much rather wait 20-30 mins for a good quality video then for one which hurts my eyes. So for me, 500mb / 375 kb/s (max speed which is easy obtainable from eve-files during off hours, Chribba FTW) = 22min 45sec. So at the risk of being rude, ur either lazy or cheap or can't stand it that u still play on a 13". ______________________________________ "There are NO bugs in EVE, just oversights" ----- Oveur and TomB, EvE fanfest 2006

sakana North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.14 12:21:00 - [11] I'd rather wait a bit longer and have a video thats nice to look at than download one thats crap quality.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.14 12:30:00 - [12] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 14/08/2008 12:30:51 Originally by: Darcha I don't see the problem. A proper 250gb SATA2 HD nowadays is like 45 euro. If you cannot spare that amount of money, you shouldn't be able to afford EvE either. I got a measily 3Mbps inet connection for 20 euro a month or so, and I admit that it sometimes takes a few to download, but i much rather wait 20-30 mins for a good quality video then for one which hurts my eyes. So for me, 500mb / 375 kb/s (max speed which is easy obtainable from eve-files during off hours, Chribba FTW) = 22min 45sec. So at the risk of being rude, ur either lazy or cheap or can't stand it that u still play on a 13". The problem is people are making vids which are 800mb which could look just as good at 400mb. Where I am in the UK I only get 1.5Mbit regardless of how much money I spend on my ISP so I have to choke my bandwidth for well over an hour to see some of the vids here. I have 2 500GB drives yet with all the crap I have on there I'm still finding myself running out of space. What I don't need is a bunch of poorly-compressed EVE vids taking up way more room than they need to for no actual noticeable gain in quality. (Vids will look crystal clear* at 3Mbit quality yet people are encoding at almost double that in some cases.)* If you absolutely INSIST on encoding in super-ultra-massive-perfect-omgwtfbbq quality then the least you could do is provide a second version with a more reasonable filesize. At the end of the day it dosen't matter how perfect the quality is if the file is too big, because a lot of people just won't watch it. - Infectious -
AlleyKat Gallente White-Noise	Posted - 2008.08.14 12:47:00 - [13] Originally by: sakana I'd rather wait a bit longer and have a video thats nice to look at than download one thats crap quality. As I said - reducing the resolution does not reduce the quality to a point. 50% of the original size should be fine, so taking a 1920x1200 down to 900x600 and therefore reducing the file size is good for everyone, and does not degenerate the vid. And as for what people use, I would take a look at the Valve/Steam survey here and you'll see the resolution of monitors being used is largely in the sub-1280 region. So, all the high-resolution videos out there are wasted for those who cannot view something nearly twice the size of their monitor and this in turn is a waste of Chribbas bandwidth. There is of course the rendering time on the part of the video maker - cutting down render time by and amount must be a good thing, and to render out something in 900x600 will take less time than 1920x1200. And if anyone wants a good example of high-resolution footage which has been reduced, take a look at these examples: Linkage Linkage Linkage AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS
Denion Latrocinium	Posted - 2008.08.14 13:00:00 - [14] Originally by: AlleyKat And if anyone wants a good example of high-resolution footage which has been reduced, take a look at these examples: Linkage Linkage Linkage All these videos have on thing in common which allows you to reduce the resolution; no UI-footage at all. If you take 1920x1200 frapsed video and make it 1280x720 for example, UI isn't that readable anymore. IMO, if there's UI shown, it should be readable. But as you said, if there's no UI you can scale the original video down alot and preserve same quality.
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.14 17:53:00 - [15] Edited by: Verx Interis on 14/08/2008 17:53:00 Originally by: Hungo Edited by: Hungo on 14/08/2008 10:42:59 Look mate ill put it blunty Some of us work and we upgrade our pc's, we get faster internet conenctions and make use of our money It is not our fault that you run windows 95 and have a dial up connection Stop ***ing just because god forbid you have to wait more than ten minutes for a download, god forbid you have to put yourself out to wait for something Ever heard of CD-R ? I have 49 CD's lasy count full of EVE vids Get over yourself to be quite honest I knew I would get at least on response like this so. First off, not all of us have that kind of money. Then, if we did have it, we have more important things to spend it on. Second, it's not waiting over ten minuets. I set an eve video to download before I go to sleep when I want one. My internet is perfectly fast enough for every online game I've played (including this one, everyone will lag in a 200v200 fight), but there is no need for the files to be this big. Whether or not I have $4000 to spend on a fancy computer and 60 a month to get a hyper fast internet connection is out of the question. Originally by:** Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
AlleyKat Gallente White-Noise	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:09:00 - [16] Originally by: Denion Originally by: AlleyKat And if anyone wants a good example of high-resolution footage which has been reduced, take a look at these examples: Linkage Linkage Linkage All these videos have on thing in common which allows you to reduce the resolution; no UI-footage at all. If you take 1920x1200 frapsed video and make it 1280x720 for example, UI isn't that readable anymore. IMO, if there's UI shown, it should be readable. But as you said, if there's no UI you can scale the original video down alot and preserve same quality. Point taken - and it falls back to the video maker and their own style as to whether they prefer static shots of EVE-Footage, or whether they decide to move the focus of the shot around as in This film. This keeps excellent quality of the UI/Text, and only shows what is necessary to the action, which is what a good editor must do. In many cases, using the whole of the screen is not required, just the same as using all of your fraps files and packing it all into one movie is not always necessary. It's down to personal choice, and I believe a little bit of down scaling (25-35%) would not do any harm to anyone, but would help Chribba out and increase the chances that people will download your film. AK EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS
Gneeznow Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:13:00 - [17] I suck at encoding, I always have and always will, and each time I try to learn how to encode better it ends up with my PC being locked into an encode cycle for 24 hours or so or me getting frustrated because of the 10 million things that can / will go wrong when dealing with all the different codecs and all the different conflicts that compression / editing programs have with each other, Thats my excuse anyway, I've better things to be doing with my time than becoming an expert in compression for the sake of a 30% reduction in file size at the cost of a lot of stress and days upon days of fiddling with shoddy home made compression programs and trying to find tutorials that speak english etc etc
AlleyKat Gallente White-Noise	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Verx Interis First off, not all of us have that kind of money. Then, if we did have it, we have more important things to spend it on. Nothing is more important. EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:40:00 - [19] Originally by: AlleyKat Originally by: Verx Interis First off, not all of us have that kind of money. Then, if we did have it, we have more important things to spend it on. Nothing is more important. Of course, I'd rather buy GTC's than food for the month Originally by: Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
Prometheus Exenthal Holy Church Of Garmonism	Posted - 2008.08.14 19:41:00 - [20] I think lots of people are just dumping their videos into whatever format without tweaking the bitrate. ie: a blank video @ 3412094821094kbps - FRIGANK

2Bad4Ux2 Heretic Militia	Posted - 2008.08.15 00:04:00 - [21] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Originally by: Kelron Queldine I don't understand why people keep using .wmv, though, when the .mkv videos are generally both higher quality and have smaller filesizes. Laziness more than anything A lot of vid apps (Vegas, Premiere) will render+encode in a single step straight to .WMV, so people do that and think nothing more of it . Encoding to .MKV takes much longer as you have to first render the vid to lossless .AVI which can take up near 100GB in some cases Then use external apps which you've no idea how to use (or even find if you don't know where to look) to convert to .MKV. A lot of people just don't bother. Sometimes It just doesn't work.. sometimes.. h.264 is ignorant.. sometimes, pc's oddly remove avisynth for some unknown reason, and then the error screen on h.264 flashes so quick you think it's just a problem with the render. (These can happen too, the latter in my case). Now you don't have to encode to a raw AVI to go to mkv which takes a huge harddrive space.. All 3 of my first movies were rendered out as wmv's from vegas to 800mb's ish, then plopped directly into h.264 and rendered out with same quality at 30% of the HDD usage, 250mb-300mb. The last movie I made, is being compressed as I type and hopefully the version will work. This is going from Adobe premier, 5 test renders, to finally going with lagarith lossless codec to keep it raw avi, but compressed to only absord 40gigs rather than 200 in raw avi, plopped into Vegas who's wmv codec is not toilet paper quality like premiere's, to now h.264 encoding. All in all I've been rendering- re-rendering, compressing, re-compressing for 1 week straight now. Some people understand it.. others will not. ------- W2A! How Cruel Stickin' It X2
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.15 00:43:00 - [22] Yes H.264 gave me a lot of probs at first also. I rendered straight to Huffy .AVI and then after about 5 hours of test renders in StaxRip finally figured out how to encode to .MKV Problem I found was H.264 in two-pass mode would stutter like crazy when there wasn't much happening. A bit of text on a black empty BG blurring out would be missed completely because all but like 3 frames were skipped Rendering in one-pass mode seemed to fix that, but the overall quality was lower at the end... shrugs Still better than .WMV though - Infectious -
2Bad4Ux2 Heretic Militia	Posted - 2008.08.15 01:55:00 - [23] Biggest prob I have with encoding which is my main frustration is my new quad core, when it goes idol (and its set not to) I lose everything OS and all, only the picture background exists.. no task mgr, no windows bar, no icons. Techs think it's teh upgraded motherboard Asus p5k SE, and the 32-bit xp OS. Telling me to upgrade to vista 64bit will "hopefully solve the problem" If it doesn't i'll still have the problem and just a more expensive OS shot down the tubes. Point of this ramble is that after 1 hour, it went idol. Forgot to play a DVD in the player which is only thing that stops it as far as I can tell . So 45% done..and it's gone. Been re-compressing now for another hour.. at 35% if it doesn't go idol again and lose it. This has happened like 5 or 6 times during my initial export from premiere as well. To give people an idea of some probs with encoding and how frustrating/boring/time consuming...and how much of a tear your hair out experience it can be for some. ------- W2A! How Cruel Stickin' It X2
Yuki Li Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.15 03:43:00 - [24] Let's not have too big a hissy fit over the fact that Eve players who've just spent quite some time gathering & editing fraps, and putting a video together aren't experts at encoding video. So now to release an eve video you need; 1. Awesome footage, a given, otherwise the video is boring 2. Be frapsing at a decent enough resolution for the viewer not to be distracted by poor quality 3. Be an expert at encoding too Making a good video takes time, effort, and at least some experience in the program you're using - video editing can be lengthly and frustrating. Stop whining about amateur videos, either download them, enjoy them, and either store or delete, or don't download them. These people aren't paid to make videos, they're not obligated to make videos, and they're certainly not obligated to cater to the size of your hard drive. Website Recruiting
Verx Interis Amarr Aurora Security Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.15 07:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Yuki Li Let's not have too big a hissy fit over the fact that Eve players who've just spent quite some time gathering & editing fraps, and putting a video together aren't experts at encoding video. So now to release an eve video you need; 1. Awesome footage, a given, otherwise the video is boring 2. Be frapsing at a decent enough resolution for the viewer not to be distracted by poor quality 3. Be an expert at encoding too Making a good video takes time, effort, and at least some experience in the program you're using - video editing can be lengthly and frustrating. Stop whining about amateur videos, either download them, enjoy them, and either store or delete, or don't download them. These people aren't paid to make videos, they're not obligated to make videos, and they're certainly not obligated to cater to the size of your hard drive. I never said you had to be an expert. There's a difference between asking for absolute perfect efficiency and not asking for twice the filesize than is really necessary. The main point I'm saying is that it won't kill them to do a second encoding at a lower res/bandwidth. You don't need to be an expert at video encoding to do that. Originally by: Rawr Cristina (dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)
taylor04 Caldari Digital assassins	Posted - 2008.08.15 14:08:00 - [26] Originally by: Gneeznow I suck at encoding, I always have and always will, and each time I try to learn how to encode better it ends up with my PC being locked into an encode cycle for 24 hours or so or me getting frustrated because of the 10 million things that can / will go wrong when dealing with all the different codecs and all the different conflicts that compression / editing programs have with each other, Thats my excuse anyway, I've better things to be doing with my time than becoming an expert in compression for the sake of a 30% reduction in file size at the cost of a lot of stress and days upon days of fiddling with shoddy home made compression programs and trying to find tutorials that speak english etc etc signd tbh what is it everyone says ?? 'adapt' or die
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.15 14:32:00 - [27] Originally by: taylor04 what is it everyone says ?? 'adapt' or die Yeah, i'll adapt by not watching your videos cause of the obscene filesize - Infectious -
taylor04 Caldari Digital assassins	Posted - 2008.08.15 16:04:00 - [28] your loss... ;)
Halkin Locus Solus	Posted - 2008.08.15 23:02:00 - [29] Edited by: Halkin on 15/08/2008 23:05:10 because people make use of the the hardware available, i wouldnt be able to play sexy bioshock and crysis etc if we al ran around with crappy machines edit: as for large vids if it took me more than 20 mins to dl i prolly wouldnt bother, as it stands a lot of ppl can dl them in quick time. its hardly their fault you have a shit connecttion Originally by: Elise Randolph Everybody wins when trolls get trolled.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.08.16 00:55:00 - [30] Originally by: Halkin its hardly their fault you have a shit connecttion shrugs EVE-Files dosen't download at full-speed always even on my connection, so It can't do for everyone else. I've waited well over 3 hours downloading some vids even At the end of the day, going .MKV will only cost you a few extra hours at most, but can cut filesize in half. the .MKV version of my last vid is 75MB smaller than the .WMV and is much higher quality. It has been downloaded approx 1,000 times so far That's 75 gigs of downloading that people didn't have to do - Infectious -

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.