Confuzing 425 MB

AML · May 15, 2006

You?ll note that this rip is once again 350MB. We will actually be sticking with this filesize. After running tests on the 425MB format, Vuk has reported that the quality increase is like 1%, i.e. not worth the increase in filesize. So all of you on limited bandwidth connections, fell free to rejoice.

How an extra 75 MB can up the quality by only 1%?
Can someone explain how on earth this could be? :? :?

I'm sure that XviD codec with an extra 75 MB will give much more than a one bloody percent increase in video quality.

jensked · May 15, 2006

To enhance the discussion:

350mb -> 5,8mb per minute
425mb -> 7mb per minute

That's 22% more space per minute or per second.

mmap · May 15, 2006

Especially since the UKnova rips about that size have a noticably better quality...

VUK · May 15, 2006

the source is not good enough to be any better,

think the res would need to be higher and higher mb too, but when compared at full screen i could not tell them appart

AML · May 15, 2006

Tomorrow I shall finish uploading my own 400 MB recode of the 700 MB rip.
Question is, how good (or bad) 400 MB recode can be if you compare it to 350 MB rip.

I will post the DL links here tomorrow.
Hope that theres gonna be at least one person who will DL it and give us he's honest judgement. 8)

Remember, this is only an experiment, made just to find out how big is the gap in the quality between 400 recode and 350 rip. 8)

VUK · May 15, 2006

tomorrow i will post samples of 350 and 425

Viper007Bond · May 15, 2006

TechZ · May 16, 2006

VUK said:
tomorrow i will post samples of 350 and 425

Thanks

Hop on chat sometime

Yury · May 16, 2006

http://www.hhi.fraunhofer.de/german/bs/HiCon/example.htm

When the camera pans a lot like in TG and 5G, this might be of some use.
I have it set up on my pc and have played with it and it makes some good results. It's a marginal quality increase, but if you don't want to up the filesize, this might help make things look better.

AML · May 16, 2006

VUK · May 16, 2006

here:

http://www.aooo30.dsl.pipex.com/tg/Top_Gear-2006.05.14_350_512x288.avi
http://www.aooo30.dsl.pipex.com/tg/Top_Gear-2006.05.14_425_512x288.avi
http://www.aooo30.dsl.pipex.com/tg/Top_Gear-2006.05.14_425_576x320.avi

right click save as...

the sound is off but thats not relevant

AML · May 16, 2006

OK, here are mine samples, sory mate that they are not the same sections of the newest TG episode but I haven't recoded it yet.

Sample 1 http://www.sendspace.com/file/1fzhd9
Sample 2 http://www.sendspace.com/file/vl4aku

Now we need an independent adjudicator.

Oh, and VUK I would like to say something if I may.
Isn't the 288px too much?
I've analised your series 6 rips and they were stretched verticaly by 6 pixels.
So maybe you can fix it in the next rips. :roll:

8)

ESPNSTI · May 16, 2006

Aston Martin Lagonda said:
Isn't the 288px too much?
I've analised your series 6 rips and they were stretched verticaly by 6 pixels.

??? 512x288 is perfect 16x9 ratio.

VUK · May 16, 2006

ESPNSTI said:
Aston Martin Lagonda said:

Isn't the 288px too much?
I've analised your series 6 rips and they were stretched verticaly by 6 pixels.

Click to expand...

??? 512x288 is perfect 16x9 ratio.

true but i do crop so it may be little streched but that only noticable is you use a RULER lol

Overheat · May 16, 2006

I'd like to see 640x360 rips or perhaps even full on 720x405 rips - but I think I might be in the minority here

AML · May 17, 2006

VUK said:
but that only noticable is you use a RULER lol

Not exactly. 8)

512x288
http://img113.imageshack.**/img113/1083/13cp.th.jpg

512x282
http://img386.imageshack.**/img386/43/28pp.th.jpg

Maybe this example isn't a perfect one but it shows the scale of the problem.

Renesis · May 17, 2006

I'd like to see 16:10 videos to fill up my screen

Buba · May 17, 2006

You could use the + a couple of time in Bsplayer, but then I guess you are joking... ;-)

sns2015 · May 18, 2006

Aston Martin Lagonda said:
VUK said:

but that only noticable is you use a RULER lol

Click to expand...

Not exactly. 8)

512x288
http://img113.imageshack.**/img113/1083/13cp.th.jpg

512x282
http://img386.imageshack.**/img386/43/28pp.th.jpg

Maybe this example isn't a perfect one but it shows the scale of the problem.

What really matters is that mathematically 512x288 is a true 16:9 ratio. Also, 288 is a mod16 resolution (meaning absolute best compression possible). And one more thing is that when using 288 as the vertical resolution it is exactly 1/2 of the source vertical resolution which means de-interlacing algorithms become optional and mostly unnecessary. (Assuming PAL animorphic widescreen is the source)

Just to help clarify some things there.

Renesis · May 18, 2006

Buba said:
You could use the + a couple of time in Bsplayer, but then I guess you are joking...

who, me?

well

1. I don't have BS player
2. I'd rather have black bars and no distortion
3. My screen really is 16:10, no PC monitors I know of are 16:9

Confuzing 425 MB

aka Aston Martin Lagonda

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

aka Aston Martin Lagonda

Active Member

Chicken Nugget Connoisseur

Captain Internet

New Member

aka Aston Martin Lagonda

Active Member

aka Aston Martin Lagonda

.

Active Member

Forum Addict

aka Aston Martin Lagonda

Lazier than Viper

Wants Rick Astley's Babies

Member

Lazier than Viper