View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
xo Site Admin
Joined: 09 Feb 2002 Posts: 466 Location: Los Angeles [comcast]
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2002 7:54 pm Post subject: The magic number is 175! |
|
|
Or 233. Or 140. Or 116.
You know what I mean- target file sizes so an even multiple of episodes will fit snugly on a CD. 4x175 gets you 700 MB- nice! Etc.
What is it with all of these encodes that are ~200MB??? Please, if you can't make it 175MB, just jack up the quality so that it's closer to 233.
People doing movies seem to understand this - thank you all for the 702.3 MB files! Why can't the others? Am I the only one that actually burns stuff onto CD, and like to have sets of eps from one title on them?
I actually prefer smaller (6x116 - ahhhh) but competition betwixt fansub groups and general insanity seem to rule the day...
That's my grumpy-old-man post for today. Sorry for being such an ingrate.
-xo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2002 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: The magic number is 175! |
|
|
No need to apologize for being crochety, old man!
I agree, 175MB is juust perfect. At that size, the video quality is quite good too - I would almost say too high.
Bigger file sizes means less credibility as a preview (fansub) medium, more CDR purchases, higher bandwidth usage etc. It's lose-lose. When I see people crying for higher video quality, I think it's pretty obvious they don't intent to ever buy the show.
And with the Canada recordable media levy going up even higher... ugh. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
(inc)
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 356 Location: San Diego
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2002 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hee. Good ol 175. As it happens, that was the target _average_ (key word) from the start on the Kenshin posts and usually held except for the final few episodes of the Kyoto Arc, where more BW seemed necessary. The last four that I just posted came in much lower due to directing style and the large amount of black. Ep 70 is ~130M (!!), and, with divx3 l/m, I couldnt have forced it much larger with the same resolution. I figure it just gives people room to stick in the credits. ;-)
(inc) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
earthdark
Joined: 21 Feb 2002 Posts: 73
|
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2002 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Target sizes can be hard to reach sometimes, especially on episodes with lots of moving background. That said, I do try to keep my encodes under 175... most of the time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Keikai
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 178 Location: Miami, FL
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
earthdark wrote: | Target sizes can be hard to reach sometimes, especially on episodes with lots of moving background. That said, I do try to keep my encodes under 175... most of the time. |
Ever since I started using Gordian Knot w/ DivX4 I've found it amazingly easy to get rips to be within 0-5M of a target. Admittedly, the content can cause it to be a bit tougher, but when I expect that I just target a tiny bit lower. Of course, GKnot is not to everyone's tastes, but I thought I'd mention it for those who haven't tried it yet. Doom9's tutorial will get you started but I've found that system a bit less efficient than it could be, thanks to some help from Orqy.
Now this only applies to straight DVD rips w/ subs. The subtitlers working on raw material have a tougher job at hand. Oh and this wasn't targetted at ED, who likely knows much more about ripping than myself, I just thought I'd mention it for any passers-by. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xo Site Admin
Joined: 09 Feb 2002 Posts: 466 Location: Los Angeles [comcast]
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aye, target sizes are just that, just a target and it sucks to miss. Especially when you're miss high on a SVCD encode that took 30 hours. That sucked :p.
Still, for Divx stuff I'm seeing, it seems like some groups aren't trying too hard. My methodology was to shoot for 170 MB for the first ep in a set. Depending on how close that turned out, I might adjust up or down for the next. And so on. Going for 175 on average for the set. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
earthdark
Joined: 21 Feb 2002 Posts: 73
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh, encoding an episode ten times, 5 hours each is not fun :P |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Melchior
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 190 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: The magic number is 175! |
|
|
Gorunova wrote: | Bigger file sizes means less credibility as a preview (fansub) medium, more CDR purchases, higher bandwidth usage etc. It's lose-lose. When I see people crying for higher video quality, I think it's pretty obvious they don't intent to ever buy the show.
And with the Canada recordable media levy going up even higher... ugh. |
Yep. Personally I have to agree with xo that 6*116 was nice-- it gave perfectly reasonable quality (it was good, but not *too* good that you'd think not to buy the DVD). 175 MB gives really nice quality, and I'm surprised that people push for higher quality still-- I've found that with 230MB files, I can compress them down to about 170MB or so with no noticeable quality loss-- just using the Temporal Smoother in VirtualDub. Takes about 40 mionutes per ep.
Ugh, the CDR levy. Since most stores have by now sold off their remaining 2001 stock, prices on CDRs are going up since they're now getting hit with the 21 cent levy that was imposed in December, as opposed to only 5 cents for 2001. Damn. Oh well, all it means is that short trips south of the border will be made all the more worthwile! Circuit City in Bellingham, here I come!
Hmmm... I can't remember exactly why I was going to rant about this for a little bit in the first place, so I'll stop here... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xo Site Admin
Joined: 09 Feb 2002 Posts: 466 Location: Los Angeles [comcast]
|
Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2002 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just watched Boys Be eps 1-3, posted ca. late 2000. The were 30-35 MB each and were totally watchable. Text was completely legible, picture was adequate (artifacts were pervasive but not distractingly so to my eyes). The only thing that sort of distracted me was the translation, which had a lot of typos and awkward sentence structures.
The funny part is this: I had planned on watching the Golden Boy eps from a month or so ago, posted by dream-anime in divx5, clocking in around 220-240 MB each. I couldn't watch it. My Celeron 500 apparently can't keep up - stuttered and stalled like mad and audio desynched. So I watched Boys Be instead.
I can't get over how good those Boys Be eps looked for 30MB!
-xo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chung
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 Posts: 79 Location: North Carolina, USA
|
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2002 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I got those Boys Be eps a while back.. was loving the fact that I could fit all 13eps on 2 CDs.. as opposed to 3/CD now.. kinda harsh to me.. I like 4/CD much better.. One thing about being that small on file size, that gets me, is everything looks a little washed.. almost low color like.. or over smoothed.. don't know how I want to put it. 4/CD would be nice.. I like quality.. but 6/CD is great. I liked how Melchior put it.. it's a good ratio. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Highspar
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 27 Location: London, Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2002 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a friend of mine who is yet another linux guru, and a command line cd burner, came up with a little perl script to sort through a directory and come up with an optimal grouping of files to fill a cd. If there is interest I'll post the perl script, provided I can get his permission to do so. Don't think this will work on windows, sorry guys.
Personally, I love the program, I don't need to really think about sorting though my directory trying to compile a cd with 3 eps that don't quite fill the cd, leaving 80 or 90 megs free. Now, I'm lucky if I have 2 or 3 megs free. Though, this isn't for the people that like to keep series together.
Anyways, I'll check back here in a few days to see if anyone wants it, if Jiyu let's me post it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
xo Site Admin
Joined: 09 Feb 2002 Posts: 466 Location: Los Angeles [comcast]
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2002 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Highspar wrote: | Well, a friend of mine who is yet another linux guru, and a command line cd burner, came up with a little perl script to sort through a directory and come up with an optimal grouping of files to fill a cd. |
I've totally been thinking of doing this! Please post and save me (others) the work!
One reason I haven't done so already is because I do as Melchior described elsewhere and like to clump titles together (hence my orignal tirade - I like to fill up CDs with just one title) but I'm sure it'll help out.
The other reason is trying to think out the algorithm made my head spin.
-xo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Keikai
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 178 Location: Miami, FL
|
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2002 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For Windows users, there's a decent program for doing grouping like that for burning called "Burn to the Brim". It's buggy as can be, but was far more useful than similar apps that I tried. It's got some decent functionality for grouping but I haven't tried it. I don't use it for anime, as I like to control my groupings, but its been great for other things.
I was actually writing an app called "Shoehorn" to do this when I stumbled on BTTB. I had worked the whole thing out except the best fit algorithm (which is 90% of the program, IMO). I wasn't happy with those I had found and I wasn't going to reinvent the wheel. BTTB is amazing at fitting things. I'd love a peek at just the fitting algorithm for it. I assume it's a best fit of some sort but it seems to work remarkably well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gorunova
Joined: 10 Feb 2002 Posts: 318 Location: Burnaby, B.C., Canada
|
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2002 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keikai wrote: |
BTTB is amazing at fitting things. I'd love a peek at just the fitting algorithm for it. I assume it's a best fit of some sort but it seems to work remarkably well. |
It's probably just trying every combination and selecting the one with the least free space left over. That's guaranteed to get you the best result, but it's an exponential algorithm, meaning as the number of files increases, the run time blows up hideously.
There are more efficient ways of doing it, but they aren't guaranteed to give you the best possible answer. That will usually find very good answers though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Onakra
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 89 Location: Geldrop, Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2002 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keikai wrote: | I'd love a peek at just the fitting algorithm for it. |
The source for the new version is at the project site:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/bttb/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|