Quality vs. Compression

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:11 pm

aielI_Ileia wrote:
Jace101 wrote: (though i zipped it up to 59MBs)
You uploaded a zipped file? That's a no-no. Naughty! Naughty!

No, s/he made an indirect link to it.

Ileia · Post by **Ileia** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:18 pm

Scintilla wrote:
aielI_Ileia wrote:
Jace101 wrote: (though i zipped it up to 59MBs)
You uploaded a zipped file? That's a no-no. Naughty! Naughty!
No, s/he made an indirect link to it.

Ah. Well then. All is forgiven.

Pie Row Maniac · Post by **Pie Row Maniac** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:00 am

I'll do as much as I can for good video quality while keeping it under a moderate amount of megs, which varies depending on the length of the video.

JaddziaDax · Post by **JaddziaDax** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:39 am

i cant encode worth a crap, i use .wmv and the quality and file size all seem to work out for me...

THATS RIGHT I CANT ENCODE WORTH A CRAP!!!

lol.. but I think i mentioned this on another forum lol.. and my journal.

devilmaykickass · Post by **devilmaykickass** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:53 am

madbunny wrote:For me file size if irrelevant.

Then why even bother compressing?

Keeper of Hellfire · Post by **Keeper of Hellfire** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 4:33 am

Jace101 wrote:With my AMV that I posted on this site is 72MBs (though i zipped it up to 59MBs) and runs for 5 mintues and 5 seconds. Is that too large?

In first attempt, no. Around 15MB/min is acceptable for a high quality AMV. But it depends on many things. With that size it should have screen resolution of 640x480, fast edits and a good number of effects. A hint that in your case could have been done a little more compression is that it zipped that well, assuming you have used a MPEG4 codec. If you compress to the point before the compression gets visual remarkable, the resulting vid is nearly uncompressible for further compressions like zip. This is of course valid too if you cross that point and the vid becomes crap.

Jace101 · Post by **Jace101** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:52 am

Thanks for the info Keepter of Hellfire.

madbunny · Post by **madbunny** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:28 am

devilmaykickass wrote:
madbunny wrote:For me file size if irrelevant.
Then why even bother compressing?

Plenty of reasons; storage, playback and compatibility.

I should probably have said that size 'within reason' is irrelevant. I'm not going to be downloading any 4 gig huffyuv files just to watch Naruto go one more round, but on the other hand I have no problem downloading files that are a couple hundred meg if I think real effort went into making the video.

Does that make more sense to you?

SuperFusion · Post by **SuperFusion** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:36 am

To tell you the truth, that sounds like the typical broadband user response. You have the speed to download huge files within seconds, what the hell do you care if the filesize is large even though the compression could've been better. I, as a 56k'er, knows how long it takes to download files that are 70mbs. While you only lose, what, 30 seconds of your life downloading that file? We lose hours. No matter how much effort you put into that AMV, the least you can do is show courtesy to the members who have slow internet connections and make your filesize reasonable. (ie)A 3 minute AMV shouldn't be 60mbs.

Pie Row Maniac · Post by **Pie Row Maniac** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:29 pm

Fusion brings up a good point. Broadband use has grown expotentially (ooh big word) but there are still a large amount of dial-up users out there who can't afford broadband, aren't in range and other reasons that don't come to me at this moment. Yet these guys love their AMVs and I'd rather not deny them the oppurtunity to download my videos because I want to be so strict on the video quality. Like I mentioned earlier, I strive to find a moderate balance of the two.