jmtorres | Questionaire

I'll download up to 100mb if it's a vidder I really like - and sometimes, if I love a vid and didn't download the highest quality version first, I'll do back and download the big version for safe keeping. I feel it's best though, if you're gonna have big files, to offer a smaller option - because some people are still on dial-up and some people have download limits (like me).

I'm trying to hit some happy medium, not max out the scale *G*

I think, depending on the length of your vid, 70 is a good tops, and then offer a smaller quality version. That's what I do if vid hit 70. If it's somewhere in the 40s, 50s, I don't really care.

But it goes with the footage quality too - something with more colors, sharper movement, will require bigger files so that your vid doesn't feel the side effects.

So I like to play - try out different sizes until I have one that I'm still pleased with the quality while the size is low.

I strongly prefer .avi or .divx files, but if the vid is only available in some other format I will probably download it anyway. And then grumble because my .avi tagging program won't open it.

I am seeing that avis and divx lead the pack here.

I'm just as likely to download the vid off of youtube if I like it well enough.

...I probably had some quality snob bias showing in my questions.

12mbps is about the practical max here (supposedly 25) and our download limits are not generous. (For $100/month I get a miserable 25G, which I share with 2 teenagers). So I won't do vids over 30MB unless I adore everything the vidder has ever done before. I won't do it for a vidder I don't know.

Oh - I meant to say, I really resent that the tech has moved so that you can't do a good-looking vid under 70MB. Before Real Player became evil, I used to do very watchable vids for the princely sum of 10MB.

I dunno, I think what we've come to view as acceptable has changed as well. Part of the reason I'm asking this is that I look back at old encodes I did and they look like crap anymore.

Oh - I meant to say, I really resent that the tech has moved so that you can't do a good-looking vid under 70MB.

Really? A goodly portion of this year's vividcon vids were in the range of 30-45 MB, as far as I can remember. And they were plenty high quality.

A good majority of those vids were compressed with xvid, which, if you sort out how to encode a vid with it, works beautifully I've found, and there's no need to have a vid over 40 MB unless you've got a gigantic file, screen-wise (like 800 x 450 or something crazy) or super widescreen.

You obviously don't know how to encode then. I'm not trying to be mean or anything but I can defiantly get a video thats 5 1/2 minutes to less then 70mb using Xvid and it looks good.

You obviously

Or was perhaps engaging in hyperbole? or has different standards than you?

A little less condescension, a little more slack, son.

sorry, like I said, it wasn't meant to be mean. If you're going to say, "you can't do a good-looking vid under 70MB" then there is obviously something is wrong with what you're doing as many, many other people who encode can and have been for years making videos less then 70mb and making them look good. You are either letting what ever program you use to encode do all the work for you or you don't understand or know how to make a good encode at a smaller size. That doesn't make you an idiot or bad, just means you don't know everything.

And if you want to talk about standards (and i assume here that you are saying mine are low), they said they could get a very watchable video at 10mb yet claim you can't make a good looking video less then 70mb with newer codecs, i don't buy it. Give me a 4-5min video at 640x480 thats 10mb and tell me it doesn't look like crap. And if you can, then why the hell are we using what we are using now?

(and i assume here that you are saying mine are low),

In general you're assuming a lot and I wish you wouldn't. Are you capable of writing about your experiences without saying that other people's experiences are invalid? If so, then sharing what has worked for you would be a friendly thing to do. If not, stop arguing and get out of my journal.

I'm not assuming anyone's experiences are invalid, i never said such a thing or intended such. For all i know, there might be some miracle codec out there that can give me that 10mb video. I don't know, which is why i asked for someone to provide it. I'm also not perfect, I'm sure there's somethign wrong with how I'm doing it and I could get much better results. All i'm saying is that If they, based on their experiences with encoding, say they cannot make a video thats less then 70mb look good, then they should think about re-evaluate what they are doing, that's all. I thought it was a naive thing to say.

I would love to share what i've been doing but I don't have a base as to what Deslea's method is. I'm not gona go around telling people you have to use this method and only this method. I don't want people telling me that so I wont do it. I've been using divx/xvid for 8+ years with good results. Thats my way of doing it. A lot of people like using h264 now and there are still a lot of people who like wmv and realmedia (which is a great codec btw). If I knew what they did I could suggest different settings, a new approach, or a whole new method entirely. For all i know they're using Indeo video.

I'm not assuming anyone's experiences are invalid, i never said such a thing or intended such.

Then can you please be a little more careful about your wording? Phrases like "You obviously don't know how to encode then" are not respectful. Saying that you're not trying to be mean does not excuse you. Or try this one on for size: "That doesn't make you an idiot or bad, just means you don't know everything." How much did you know about her system or my system or what we're doing with vidding before you started informing us that you knew better? Because here you say your problem is that you don't know enough about

deslea's system to have a conversation. How about, instead of assuming she didn't know what she was doing, you ask? "I use X, I do X, it has produced X results for me, have you ever tried that? What system/programs/codecs do you use? Maybe I could help you find a program or codec that would work better." That would be a hell of a lot less confrontational than you don't know what you're doing.

Again, i'm sorry, I said that already. I should've been less arrogant.

I don't need to know anything about someone if they start making factual comments. At the cost of maybe sounding more arrogant then I already have been, yes I do feel like I know better, base on deslea's comment, I do. If i go around spouting that, "due to current leaps in health care no one lives to be 70 years old, I remember when people used to live to 90." Are you not going to tell me i'm wrong and say i should re-evaluate that statement? Probably (albeit nicer then me though -_-). Some would probably call me an idiot. It's a naive statement that makes no sense at all. Advances in health care help us live longer. Advances in encoding technology have helped us make file sizes smaller. So the comment didn't make any sense at all.

I really resent that the tech has moved so that you can't do a good-looking vid under 70MB

Anyone who knows anything about the current tech knows that this is a completely false statement with no grounds. It honestly makes no sense unless the person who said it doesn't know that much about encoding or isn't familiar with the current trends (which very well may be the issue). Even if they knew more then I did, the statement is still false. I'll be the first to say that I, by no means, know everything, but I sure as hell know enough to realize that statement is makes no sense. If the comment came with more details like, frame size and frame rate, then there are grounds to that statement. A 5 minute live action video at 848x480 (24fps) would be difficult to get under 70mb with xvid. See, I never said "you can't" which I would agree with. Maybe it's possible, i don't know, i haven't tried it recently. But saying you can't is naive.

I was saying that I don't know enough to give any feedback. I only help those who ask for it because 90% of the people I do help have very little knowledge about how these things work and don't care how it works. They also have their own methods of doing things and don't want to change them. So, if someone makes an obviously false statement, I will tell them they are wrong. If they want clarification, I'll give it to them, if they ask. Otherwise, I let them try and figure it out on their own. This isn't someone's belief system, it's a proven system that can be manipulated to get better results. There are no absolutes when it comes to encoding as the technology changes everyday and compression gets better and better.

Just wanted to express my apology once more. I'm sorry I came off as so arrogant and disrespectful. I should've read my own words before hitting that post comment button. I will try better in the future. All i wanted to do was help by expressing that yes, you can get vids less then 70mb and they will still look good and that they should think about how they are doing it and maybe find another way or ask for help (maybe even those exact words would've worked much better). i just said it in a manner that was condescending and rude... so, i'm sorry. Take it, or leave it.

I don't need to know anything about someone if they start making factual comments.

We're in the land of value judgement, it's all solid opinion. People are not wrong just because you disagree with them. Moreso if you're not sure what they mean in the first place.

As much as you felt the need to disclaim it, thank you for the apology.

People are not wrong just because you disagree with them.

Yeap, I completely agree. I've let my experiences with difficult people cloud my reasoning and judgment in this case.

I have a pack of about twenty different codecs and I can't get Premiere to come up with anything decent for what I consider to be a reasonable size for download. If you'd like to direct me to a tutorial that might help me, I would consider that constructive. *shrug*

As for the 10MB thing, I explained above that it was very possible to convert to something decent at 640x480 for 10-12MB with RealPlayer (or rather RealProducer). However, that was prior to RealPlayer's descent into adware, spyware, and arguably malware. I would not dream of creating in a format that required use of malware to play.

It's generally a bad idea to use premiere for any final encoding. I guess it doesn't handle some of them correctly. I haven't had any horrible experiences before but I've heard others mention it. The general consensus is to export from premiere using uncompressed or something lossless like Huffyuv or lagarith (i use huffyuv personally) then bring that into another program (like virtualdub) to encode you're distribution version. Usually when you have one program handle everything for you, you run into problems. use premiere for editing and leave the encoding to a prorgam that specializes in it ;)

as for tutorials:

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/xvid.html

following that to the letter will probably give you good results with xvid but I can't confirm it since I haven't looked over that version of the guide yet (i used it when the guide first came out so i don't imagine much has changed. Doing a quick look over it looks very similar.).

http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtechbeta/zarx264gui.html

This should be fine for h264.

the guides might be more catered to amvs but the same concepts can be applied to vidding as well... encoding is encoding.

ok, take 2:

actually, mresundance put it much better then I could. Generally on average I think most videos are about 3-4 minutes long right? And at a fairly normal frame size around 640x480 (for full screen), you can make a nice xvid encode at about 40mb. That all depends on if the source is really grainy or has macro blocks, if you use effects, and how much action there is going on, all of which will make the file size larger. Some will say you could get better results with h264 as well because it does a better job with noise and grain plus just better compression overall but I don't know enough about it to really make a good encode. I have better results with xvid still so thats what i use until h264 becomes more refined and streamlined for the average user (and faster... the thing is slow).

I love h264, but as a Mac user I have yet to find a tool that will let me use that codec in an .avi container. FCP and quicktime, where I do the bulk of my work, only let me use h264 in a .mov or .mp4 wrapper. I've played around with some freeware like Mpeg Streamclip but I can't get the avi/h264 combo out of anything. What tools do you use? If you're windows, do any of your tools swing both ways?

for h264 i hear its best to use mp4 for the container, i really don't know why though. I think part of that has to do with the trend in using other audio codecs like AAC and AC3 which don't work in avi, or well for the matter. Also is seems encoding and container trends follow the anime and dvd ripping crowed so they want to have subtitles and menus and all that jazz. You see a lot of the newer technologies catering to those areas. I see a lot of people using mkv as well but not as much for vidding/amv work. Actually, one of the reasons i stick to xvid is because i can use the avi container. Its a lot easier for users who aren't as tech savy to play. In this age of broadband most of the people who are going to watch my work can afford an extra 10mb or so (or what ever the difference might be between xvid and h264).

Personally, i use mp4 when I do h264 encoding... it seems to be the standard and most h264 encoding tools will use it as well. If you absolutely must use h264 in an avi, I believe the x264 project has a vfw (video for windows) version that you can use in virtualdub.

I pretty much stick to virtualdub for all my encoding needs. mpeg2 it's tmpeg or qenc and then if i have to do h264 then I'll either use MeGUI or ZarxGUI. Speaking of ZarxGUI, if you've used it (windows based). It uses x264 as the encoding engine and I guess they updated it fairly recently. Zarxrax has been modifying it and mentioned to me that he was able to get some really good results using the newer version of x264 with the default settings. I'm actually tempted give it a try when he finishes his modifications because the last time I used it I didn't have much luck.

I always prefer to watch a streaming version first (unless its people I know whos vids I like), then if its enjoyable I go for the HQ D/L. But only if I really enjoyed the vid then will I use upwards of 60+ meg download & as long as I have enough bandwidth left for the month.

It also the way I offer my own vids. I offer a decent quality stream & one high quality AVI version (usually around the 50-70 meg size).

I think if you work on the 10-15 meg per minute of vid (at around a 640 width resoultion) you can achieve good looking results. Work towards the 15 meg end if your source is 4:3 -> as its more video/picture/real estate to encode. I myself tend to go a little higher than that even for 16:9 vids.

A standard 350MB episode rip is running at about 8MB per minute. I feel... mildly ridiculous hitting a higher rate than that.

Well, the visual quality of every single frame is much more important for a vid than for an episode.

Apart from what the person above me said, its also encoded at that rate more because its convienient file size, as in you could burn 2 episodes to a CD.

And some scenes with lots of visual information (explosions, etc) can get some heavy blockiness to them or the blacks can look pretty awful.

I did the not-so-helpful selection of everything, max, and min, because if it's a vidder I know or an intro that seems intriguing I'll download just about anything and give it a try. I'm a vid h0r like that.

i tend to download videos that look relevant to my interests no matter what the container/compression....

however I've been coming to realize that sometimes people would rather preview a video before downloading it, so I try to offer a streaming alternative as well, but those are always at the risk of being taken down...

I prefer to have some kind of streaming option available, so I can preview a vid. If I like it, I download. If I don't, I don't have to download.

I strongly prefer avi and/or wmv. People who do mp4 or like a Real Media file format annoy the crap out of me, to be honest, because both of those are rare formats for a vid to my mind, and don't always work with certain software/media players.

As for maximum size . . . I will download something that's 100 MB for a vidder or vid I really like. But if not, I think trying to keep a 3 to 4 minute vid in the range of 20 to 40 MB is not impossible, and recommended, in fact. It's also a good idea to offer a smaller size, because some people, as milly noted, are on dial up or have download limits. This is also another reason streaming sites are a good idea.

I'll download pretty much anything, and I prefer downloads to streaming. A streaming video could disappear at any time, so if I like the vid, I want a copy on my hard drive.

To that end, I'll jump through just about any hoop in terms of size and format. This extends down as well as up: if a crappy YouTube rip is the only way to have my very own copy, I'll go there, and when it comes to better quality files, I really can't distinguish between "acceptable" and "great."

From the other perspective, I was nervous about making my first few vids (made in WMM, natch) available as WMVs, because I'd been told how much people *hate* that format. Wish I could remember where I read that, because since then I've been seeing WMVs everywhere, and not a lot of complaints. (I still switched over to AVIs, though.)

The thing I don't like about .wmv is that they don't make the player for Mac anymore and probably never will. So every single .wmv file out there, I can't watch.

Try VLC player - it works on a Mac, is open source, legal and free, and will play .wmv files - although not awesomely, it will play them.

VLC is a great player in general and I haven't yet found a type of file it won't play, though I had to do some minor codec searching to get it to work with .ogm files. But hey, those files are uberrare.

There's a codec called flip 4 mac--with it, quicktime can now handle wmvs.

Awesomal! Thank you. I use MPlayer for everything else, but it won't usually play wmv files (but it may be it won't *stream* wmv files. hm, she said.) I know I can't 'watch now' those movies on netflix, for example.

I will and have downloaded 100MB+ vids because I am a total whore for picture quality. I usually upload mine at 50MB or 30MB for shorter ones. I think a vid longer than 2 minutes and less than 20MB is probably going to be of lower quality than I prefer, but if I like it I'll still watch it--I have plenty of older vids in teeny-tiny formats that I still adore. Also, streaming is good for previewing but it drives me INSANE when it's the only available format. People! Don't let your megaupload links expire! I want to love your vid! ...sorry, soapbox moment. *g*

I prefer avi/divx and files between 20-50 mb but I'll download any video if I'm interested in it. I may delete it afterwards if its 100 mb and not that great but I'll still check it out.

I'm not entirely truthful. If .wmv is the only option, I'll download it, but I vastly prefer .avi and .divx.

I rarely actually use streaming sites unless I'm making a playlist of recs for other people. Most of the time when I run across a vid, I'm not in an environment where I can watch it streaming, so I prefer to have the file that I can throw at VLC later when I'm offline.

I like to watch a vid streaming first and decide if it is worthy of downloading. I usually don't download a vid blindly unless I know the vidder's work. I'm a quality snob so I usually go for the highest download size if I really like the vid. I'm not picky about formats but I prefer avi.

Questionaire

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(op hat off, yay actual content discussion)

Re: (op hat off, yay actual content discussion)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject