| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saraah Leeown
   |
Posted - 2008.10.06 12:29:00 -
[1]
Seriously, why don't people use the divx codec and virtualdub to turn their 400+mb 16 min clip into a much more palatable 40 mb clip?
Downloading eve videos is always a hit and miss affair, some are awesome, some are just crap. It'd be nice to not have to use so much data just to find out.
It'd only take a couple of mins to encode the video, so many people already have the divx codec (and if not people can download it for free in less time than it takes to download an eve video) and it usually cuts file size down to 10-15% of the original size with practically no loss in quality.
|
Saraah Leeown
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 12:29:00 -
[2]
Seriously, why don't people use the divx codec and virtualdub to turn their 400+mb 16 min clip into a much more palatable 40 mb clip?
Downloading eve videos is always a hit and miss affair, some are awesome, some are just crap. It'd be nice to not have to use so much data just to find out.
It'd only take a couple of mins to encode the video, so many people already have the divx codec (and if not people can download it for free in less time than it takes to download an eve video) and it usually cuts file size down to 10-15% of the original size with practically no loss in quality.
|
civari
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 12:41:00 -
[3]
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
Videos |
civari
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 12:41:00 -
[4]
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
Videos |
Saraah Leeown
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 13:08:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: civari
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
Have you actually watched anything encoded in divx?
I have full length (2 hour) movies which are around 700mb and still better quality than most (if not all) of these eve videos.
I notice some people are encoding into .mkv files, which I guess is a start.
|
Saraah Leeown
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 13:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: civari
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
Have you actually watched anything encoded in divx?
I have full length (2 hour) movies which are around 700mb and still better quality than most (if not all) of these eve videos.
I notice some people are encoding into .mkv files, which I guess is a start.
|
Greme
Amarr
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 13:41:00 -
[7]
I am confused as to what you mean. Every single video I have downloaded in the past 3 years has been encoded in some way. Usually in WMV or h.264.
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:38:00 -
[8]
For me it's always been a matter of understanding / convenience.
By the time I've 'found' a video software program that actually works, managed to decide what footage to use, slammed my head into the keyboard long enough to get the software to do roughly what I want it to, chased down the music for it and then waited as the program craps out the export product I'm sleep deprived, bored, frustrated and sick of not using my computer for anything else.
Then I've got to sort through a stupid number of encoding software options, none of which ever work in 64bit Vista and never has documentation to this fact, all referencing language and terms I'm at best unfamilar with. Then, after selecting 50 options for encoding which I only know to do from some video tutorial uploaded two years ago using a different OS, different version of fraps and a different encoding program, I wait HOURS as my machine encodes the video, often requiring absurd amounts of hardrive space.
If this doesn't fail, which it always does, the video comes out in some ****-poor quality/size combination while taking up MORE space than the raw export did while simulatenously being unreadable by any normal video software. At this point I have the option of encoding it again, for equally pro results, or uploading the project that I've been working on for dozens of hours. Either of which will take HOURS of cpu time but one of which will allow me to forget about the thing for at least another month.
I've found video making to be painful to learn with encoding being the worst step by far.
|
Prometheus Exenthal
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:58:00 -
[9]
MKV > DivX.
My only concern is people who encode their movies without adjusting bitrates.
-
FRIGANK |
civari
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:19:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Saraah Leeown
Originally by: civari
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
Have you actually watched anything encoded in divx?
I have full length (2 hour) movies which are around 700mb and still better quality than most (if not all) of these eve videos.
I notice some people are encoding into .mkv files, which I guess is a start.
Have you compared your divx/xvid movies to 720p h264 movies? The difference is huge, and yes the files are larger. Most people got the bandwidth to download decent sized files. I fraps in 1680x1050, and dont wanna resize it down to some low resolution where you cant read the text or see the nice effects(I like explosions mmkay?!)
If you dont like the filesize, dont download them. I prefer videos to have high quality and dont care if the files are large. Feel a bit sorry for chribba though, but I think he'll manage. :)
Videos |
AlleyKat
Gallente
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Saraah Leeown
Seriously, why don't people use the divx codec and virtualdub to turn their 400+mb 16 min clip into a much more palatable 40 mb clip?
Because it costs money, and most people do not want to pay money for something which another company provides for free, like WMV or MKV?
One of the reasons Chribba has that preview window prior to downloads, is for the very reason you have mentioned - maybe this will help you.
AK.
EVE-ONLINE VIDEO-MAKING TUTORIALS |
Fortune Mitford
Sardaukar Sietch Tabr
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:56:00 -
[12]
in addition it takes EFFORRRRTTT
|
adriaans
Amarr
Ankaa.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 00:59:00 -
[13]
it also fails 99% of the *** time
-sig-
Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Prometheus Exenthal
MKV > DivX.
My only concern is people who encode their movies without adjusting bitrates.
MKV and DivX are not even the same category of technologies. MKV is a contained format, which can hold any particular colelction of video and audio streams. DivX is a method of encoding video.
You can put a DivX video stream in a MKV container if you like. But I see no way to say "MKV > DivX"
New Prospector Class |
taylor04
Caldari
Digital assassins
G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 16:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: civari
Because bigger is in fact better..
Videos wont look nice and crispy with a 40mb divx file. I see most people try to encode in h264, that reduces size and is a excellent codec.
what this man said
|
Margulus
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 05:05:00 -
[16]
Simply stated:
wmv9 is compatible and available (every windows box can do it, natively, without additional config or effort). It's actually far superior to DivX in compression and quality when measured in similar file sizes. It's easy, free, and in most cases the option offered most commonly by windows platform video editors.
h.264/x264 is an excellent modern compression method. Surpassingly high quality, smaller filesize. The caveat is that to get super high quality out of a small file, you must encode under level 4 or unrestricted profiling. This basically means that a majority of PC's not made within the last 1.5 years or so will have issues playing it back smoothly. More modern video cards are starting to incorporate decoding assistance functions, but in the main, it remains an option (in high proflie at least) only for people with good hardware.
The other issue with h.264/x264 comes with the actual encoding. Not only does it take a considerable order of magnitude longer, it's also far less user friendly. Very few video editing platforms support output directly to a high profile h.264 format, so you must convert into it, and it requires decent knowledge of digital video concepts like colorspace, decimation, and fps concepts of both your original format and output target format.
The other issue I hear most about is the loss of audio to video synch when converting to h.264, most commonly when converting from wmv9. A quick tip for people who are trying to do a convert, you need to be sure you tell your script to force the DirectShow (in the case of wmv9)to render all source frames at the target fps, as wmv will occasionally drop framerates to save from having to render things like blackouts and the like which incidentally is where the desynch comes from. in an avisynth script, this is accomplished with the following:
DirectShowSource("c:\...\...\somevid.wmv",fps=[actual target fps],convertfps=true,audio=false)
This tells the encoder to load the wmv via the DirectShow grapher, that the intended fps is xxx, and that it should force the framerate output to match the intended framerate, with no audio rendering. This solves 90% of synch issues.
Sorry for the length
 tl;dr= DivX is crap, wmv9 is ok and common, h.264 rocks hard if you can hack it, random tips at the end |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.02 16:30:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Margulus
The other issue I hear most about is the loss of audio to video synch when converting to h.264, most commonly when converting from wmv9. A quick tip for people who are trying to do a convert, you need to be sure you tell your script to force the DirectShow (in the case of wmv9)to render all source frames at the target fps, as wmv will occasionally drop framerates to save from having to render things like blackouts and the like which incidentally is where the desynch comes from. in an avisynth script, this is accomplished with the following:
DirectShowSource("c:\...\...\somevid.wmv",fps=[actual target fps],convertfps=true,audio=false)
This tells the encoder to load the wmv via the DirectShow grapher, that the intended fps is xxx, and that it should force the framerate output to match the intended framerate, with no audio rendering. This solves 90% of synch issues.
Sorry for the length
tl;dr= DivX is crap, wmv9 is ok and common, h.264 rocks hard if you can hack it, random tips at the end
Eh, I'm having a bit another problem with StaxRip atm - somehow it says it can't determine the framerate and crashes as soon as I add the source file. What the hell? 
And .avs file is always being created afterwards anyway - how can it help exactly?
---
|
Wussie
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.02 18:51:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Wussie on 02/12/2008 18:52:42
has the OP got any experience in XviD / DivX encoding? I'm an XviD fan myself but to say it results in 'smaller then x264' files with 'near lossles' quality is pushing it. In no way can you compare compressing a hollywood movie/TV show to compressing EVE (or any game's) footage. Game footage generally has more fidelty, contrast and motion, three things hard to manage for a video codec.
If you're going for filesize -> x264
If you're going for compatibility -> wmv
If you're going for low compression time and don't care for output filesize -> xvid
lovesauce |
Jim Hazard
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 03:22:00 -
[19]
Well.. some videos really are to big for their quality, i totally have to agree there. But if you want to shrink a 16 minute clip down to 40MB you will barely be able to see anything.The audiostream alone would take up that much space.
If you still want to reduce the filesize on a video xvid is a pretty nice codec to do it. Just do some multipass rendering and you can get the file size down a bit without losing much quality.
Run the "1st pass" in a decent quality and reduce it a little bit while running the "2nd pass" to reduce the file size, but never run the "1st pass" with lower quality settings.
|
Dannerkongen
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 05:21:00 -
[20]
AutoGK
try this boys and girls.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |