h264 is supposed to be a _better_ codec!
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
can only be a good thing since it is a better (more efficient) video
compression scheme and there's far too much traffic on the internet as it
is.
However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly efficient
codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've seen a
fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was a
larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it to
make a larger video file?
I just don't get it...
Stainless Steel Rat
"Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihat...@rogers.com>
wrote:
> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly efficient
> codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've seen a
> fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was a
> larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it to
> make a larger video file?
> I just don't get it...
Because the off-air recordings are MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264). The fansub
group put the original recordings (sans commercials) into Matroska or
similar containers with "soft" subtitles without transcoding the video
to a lower bit rate. That's just a guess but it is something I would do.
--
Rat <rat...@newsguy.com> \ That and five bucks will get you a
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ small coffee at Starbucks
Redkanary
I've finally caught up, they spring a new one on us and I've got to go
hunting for a new player or new codecs again.
I dislike softsubs in general. Part of the great thing about fansubs
is the ability to fast-forward through filler episodes at 4X speed and
still be able to catch everything by speed-reading. Doesn't work when
the script speed isn't synched, and the subtitles wind up piling up on
top of each other.
I'm currently REALLY ticked off at AnimeYuki, which insists on
full-screen by default. I can't get any of their MKV files to play,
not even with the VLC player.
Grrr.
- Red
Farix
Because AVC allows them to encode that "supercool" HDTV format instead
of using the standard widescreen SDTV format that the XviD encodings are in.
Farix
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Stainless Steel Rat
Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Because AVC allows them to encode that "supercool" HDTV format instead
> of using the standard widescreen SDTV format that the XviD encodings are in.
Both MPEG-4 Part 2 (XviD) and Part 10 (H.264) are capable of encoding
and playback at high definition resolutions.
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Farix" <dhstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11606217...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:
>> Some fansub groups are moving to h.264 as their codec of choice.
>> This can only be a good thing since it is a better (more efficient)
>> video compression scheme and there's far too much traffic on the
>> internet as it is.
>> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly
>> efficient codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've
>> seen a fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the
>> latter was a larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec
>> and you use it to make a larger video file?
>> I just don't get it...
>
> Because AVC allows them to encode that "supercool" HDTV format instead of
> using the standard widescreen SDTV format that the XviD encodings are in.
If that were true, I would actually support that decision!
Unfortunately, the h.264 movie I downloaded (just to try out) was in
widescreen SDTV, just like the XviD version, I expect. So, I am still at a
loss as to why they would make the more advanced codec version the larger
one...
As an aside, can anyone recommend me an HDTV h.264 anime episode to try
out? I'm dying to know what anime looks like in HDTV, especially if it's
1080p!
Thank you...
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Redkanary" <redk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160619942.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not happy with the format change, as usual. Every time I feel like
> I've finally caught up, they spring a new one on us and I've got to go
> hunting for a new player or new codecs again.
I don't find that this happens enough for the mild inconvenience of
installing a new codec to bother me and it definitely doesn't out weigh the
advantages of a new codec. I just wish they would actually take advantage
of the new codecs like, say, a smaller file size!?
> I dislike softsubs in general. Part of the great thing about fansubs
> is the ability to fast-forward through filler episodes at 4X speed and
> still be able to catch everything by speed-reading. Doesn't work when
> the script speed isn't synched, and the subtitles wind up piling up on
> top of each other.
I hope you know that this is just your personal neurosis and that the
vast majority of people don't actually watch their TV like this...
Softsubs produce more flexable and higher quality video and are, thus, a
good idea.
Personally, I just don't watch the filler. Why waste the bandwidth?
> I'm currently REALLY ticked off at AnimeYuki, which insists on
> full-screen by default. I can't get any of their MKV files to play,
> not even with the VLC player.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Care to elaborate?
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Stainless Steel Rat" <rat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ndh004-...@peorth.rgo.gweep.net...
> In article <tYfXg.88385$5O2....@fe09.news.easynews.com>,
> "Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihat...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly
>> efficient
>> codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've seen a
>> fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was
>> a
>> larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it
>> to
>> make a larger video file?
>> I just don't get it...
>
> Because the off-air recordings are MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264). The fansub
> group put the original recordings (sans commercials) into Matroska or
> similar containers with "soft" subtitles without transcoding the video
> to a lower bit rate. That's just a guess but it is something I would do.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that the h.264 versions
I'm seeing are the fansub raws with softsubs overlaying them, in an attempt
to forgo a re-encoding?
Redkanary
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:
> vast majority of people don't actually watch their TV like this...
> Softsubs produce more flexable and higher quality video and are, thus, a
> good idea.
> Personally, I just don't watch the filler. Why waste the bandwidth?
But its's not TV. It's a fansub.
I agree that the video quality's better, but the subtitles uniformly
suck eggs. I don't know if it's my player settings or something, but I
get skinny white san-serif font that's difficult to read in normal
circumstances and impossible on lighter backgrounds.
I suspect I have some codec or other missing since my ability to even
get the files to open correctly seems to be about 50/50. But Gspot
only works for .avi files and I'm not about to go and re-download
*everything* again.
And I like filler. Sometimes I just want it to go *faster.*
- Red
ender
Morality wrote:
> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly efficient
> codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've seen a
> fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was a
> larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it to
> make a larger video file?
Probably because the H264 version is 720p or even 1080p.
--
< ender ><><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>◊<><><><><><><>< e at ena dot si >
Because 10 billion years' time is so fragile, so ephemeral... it arouses
such a bittersweet, almost heartbreaking fondness.
ender
> I'm currently REALLY ticked off at AnimeYuki, which insists on
> full-screen by default. I can't get any of their MKV files to play,
> not even with the VLC player.
If you're using VLC, blame them for having a bad excuse for subtitle
renderer (subtitles piling on top of eachother is exactly the kind of
problem it has). If you aren't on Windows (and can't use DirectShow-based
players), use mplayer, which recently got a very nice subtitle renderer.
ender
Shinsen-subs release Le Chevalier D'Eon in 1080p. Note that to play it,
you'll need a powerhouse - on Windows, the only way to play it back
smoothly is to use a dual-core CPU and CoreAVC decoder, which can utilise
both cores (with ffdshow, the image often lags).
Dan
"Redkanary" <redk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160619942.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> full-screen by default. I can't get any of their MKV files to play,
> not even with the VLC player.
You guys oughta try out storm codec pak. I used to install codec seperately
and sometimes it's hit and miss since some use mixed codec. Then used
VLC...resource hog and doesn't work all the time either. Stumble upon storm
codec and used it in my notebook since I figure doesn't hurt to try. Man it
works great with every format. Save you alot work&time install codecs
seperately too. No spyware/adware/..etc like when you download the official
divx codec.(not sure about now, they used to have those right?)
Megane
"Redkanary" <redk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not happy with the format change, as usual. Every time I feel like
> I've finally caught up, they spring a new one on us and I've got to go
> hunting for a new player or new codecs again.
s/player/CPU/ (and/or graphics card)
The combo of H264 + HD can be really demanding on both the CPU and the
graphics card, especially when you combine it with down-conversion to a
lower-resolution screen. Some graphics cards can't even handle video
wider than 1024 pixels. And when it gets behind, the picture FREEZES
for multiple seconds at a time.
Unlike the fansubbers who apparently (and I've ranted about this before)
think people only watch digisubs on their computer while sitting alone
in their basement, I have mine hooked up to a TV set to allow group
viewing, using a DVI input that only goes 640x480, but is still much
better than S-video. When I do watch on a computer monitor, I simply
hit the 2X mode.
Seriously, HD may be OOH! Shiny!, but it's not like anime was high
enough quality to really need HD in the first place. How many times
have you gone into a video room at a convention and thought "gee, that
picture is awful"? And it's, what, 15 frames per second anyhow? It's
all lines and flat colors (and now gradients with computerized cel art),
so it's not like there's much that NEEDS that resolution anyhow. The
only reason it's going HD is because television in general is going HD.
I don't see HD as being a significant improvement, compared to
progressive-scan DVD resolution with component or RGB video. It's just
another opportunity for fansubbers to wave their dick around, especially
considering how the "HD" is sometimes an up-conversion, which even the
fansubbers may not know because the raw was up-converted (like in the
case of Kamichu).
These days the HDTVs you see in stores are blowing people away simply
because the old NTSC they've had for years was so crappy. I don't even
bother to watch HDTV in HD any more, as 480p component is just fine, and
I don't get the annoying scan changes when I change channels (my HDTV is
a 4:3 CRT).
> I dislike softsubs in general. Part of the great thing about fansubs
> is the ability to fast-forward through filler episodes at 4X speed and
> still be able to catch everything by speed-reading. Doesn't work when
> the script speed isn't synched, and the subtitles wind up piling up on
> top of each other.
Not to mention how the quality of softsubs depends entirely on what is
generating the subtitles. VLC not only has inferior text quality (in
particular almost no drop-shadows, and buggy line breaks), but you have
to specify the point size, which means that if you don't change it when
you view an HD video with softsubs, you'll get itty-bitty text.
Megane
wrote:
> "Redkanary" <redk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160619942.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm currently REALLY ticked off at AnimeYuki, which insists on
> > full-screen by default. I can't get any of their MKV files to play,
> > not even with the VLC player.
>
> You guys oughta try out storm codec pak.
The main reason I'm a VLC user (and presumably Redkanary as well) is
because I got tired of the codec wars, where the "l33t" subbers would
use the codec-of-the-week, sometimes enabling the latest features in
beta versions of encoders that would totally fuck up on all earlier
decoders (like smearing junk all over the screen).
First it was K-Lite.
Then it was CCCP.
Now there's a L00K! N00! codec pack?
See what I mean? There's l33t-wars even in codec packs.
Megane
"Redkanary" <redk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality wrote:
> > I hope you know that this is just your personal neurosis and that the
> > vast majority of people don't actually watch their TV like this...
> > Softsubs produce more flexable and higher quality video and are, thus, a
> > good idea.
> > Personally, I just don't watch the filler. Why waste the bandwidth?
>
> But its's not TV. It's a fansub.
>
> I agree that the video quality's better, but the subtitles uniformly
> suck eggs. I don't know if it's my player settings or something, but I
> get skinny white san-serif font that's difficult to read in normal
> circumstances and impossible on lighter backgrounds.
It's VLC. VLC doesn't use external codecs, they're all built in, so
codec packs won't help.
And its subtitle renderer SUCKS BASKETBALLS THROUGH A COFFEE STIRRER.
Either find hardsubs or DON'T USE VLC.
(or wait for the R1 DVD or learn enough Japanese to watch raws - I've
done both, but the latter was mostly because there have been series
where I didn't want to wait the few days for someone to sub it)
I'm secretly hoping that the current generation of softsub-weenie
digisubbers figures out why there weren't many scripts released
publically back in the era of hard-subbed digisubs.
It's because the bootleggers love having those nice pre-timed scripts
that they can rip off. And they don't even have to bother to make an
Engrish translation from their Chinese translation.
Megane
> Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that the h.264 versions
> I'm seeing are the fansub raws with softsubs overlaying them, in an attempt
> to forgo a re-encoding?
What else do softsubs do but overlay a raw?
Score another point for hardsubs.
Of course they still have to re-encode when the raw is one of those
screwy WMV9+AAC raws that they just loooooove in Japan these days.
Josef Drexler
> Shinsen-subs release Le Chevalier D'Eon in 1080p.
But is that genuine 1080p or upscaled? Does the show even air in 1080p?
Would be the first one that does, I think... and in fact a large number of
720p fansubs are also simply upscaled. What a way to pointlessly waste
bandwidth.
--
Josef Drexler | http://jdrexler.com/home/
---------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Please help Conserve Gravity | Email address is *valid*.
Play Chess, not Basketball. | Don't remove the "nospam" part.
ender
> What else do softsubs do but overlay a raw?
Even for softsubbed releases, the video is filtered and reencoded, simply
because raws are crap. Either they're WMV, or they're 120FPS, or there are
(de)interlacing artifacts, or (most often) all of above. Plus, most
softsubbed releases still include hardsubbed signs and karaoke (often done
with something like AfterFX; even when karaoke isn't, vsfilter is too slow
to allow karaoke rendering at decent speeds).
ender
> It's because the bootleggers love having those nice pre-timed scripts
> that they can rip off. And they don't even have to bother to make an
> Engrish translation from their Chinese translation.
Nowadays, there are OCR programs that read hardcoded subtitles off video
(accurately enough for any bootlegger), so that isn't much of a reason
anyway. Besides, at least some of the groups who release softsubs
(according to their own words), don't care about what happens to the
subtitles once the release is out.
ender
> Then it was CCCP.
> Now there's a L00K! N00! codec pack?
CCCP is still around, and still being worked on.
ender
> ender wrote:
>> Shinsen-subs release Le Chevalier D'Eon in 1080p.
> But is that genuine 1080p or upscaled? Does the show even air in 1080p?
I'm fairly sure that it isn't upscaled - the lines are much sharper than
with any 720p release, and there are details that wouldn't be visible with
720p (I have a LCD that does 1920x1200, so this is easy to see).
> Would be the first one that does, I think... and in fact a large number of
> 720p fansubs are also simply upscaled. What a way to pointlessly waste
> bandwidth.
AnY's Chevalier episode 2 720p looks like it's upscaled from SD, since it's
all blurry, and looks much worse than the 1080p release resized to the same
resolution.
Phil Yff
When you compare compression schemes 'bang for the buck', you're comparing
quality and performance against bit rate. The ITU-T H.264 standard or the
ISO/IEC 14496-10 MPEG-4 Part 10 standard generally provides higher quality
at lower bit rates. XviD is also an MPEG-4 codec but does provide the same
wide range of technical features that H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 does.
With regards to the file size, make sure you're comparing apples to apples.
The group may have used the superior codec for the higher quality video.
Mata ato de,
Phil Yff
Phil Yff
>
> Seriously, HD may be OOH! Shiny!, but it's not like anime was high
> enough quality to really need HD in the first place.
>
feast.
Phil Yff
> In article <11606217...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>,
> Farix <dhstr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Because AVC allows them to encode that "supercool" HDTV format instead
>> of using the standard widescreen SDTV format that the XviD encodings are in.
>
> Both MPEG-4 Part 2 (XviD) and Part 10 (H.264) are capable of encoding
> and playback at high definition resolutions.
However, H.264 has more advanced profiles.
Phil Yff
>
> that they can rip off. And they don't even have to bother to make an
> Engrish translation from their Chinese translation.
By bootlegger, it sounds like you're referring to someone other than the
fan subber. It would seem to me that sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. If fan subbers can make use of someone's copy righted intellectual
property, they can hardly complain if someone rips off their non-copy
righted material.
I'm not being moralistic here. I enjoy fan subs as much as you do.
However, it is not fan subbers who are being ripped off by boot leggers, it
it the original owner of the intellectual property.
Phil Yff
>
I like softsubs as a matter of principle. They should be the format of
choice for people who want to watch video in a language other than the
original. The ideal video format should support multiple audio and video
tracks so the viewer can select the appropriate choice.
Most of your complaints seem to focus on how well a softsub is done. I
couldn't agree with you more. Most fansubbers either don't have the
resources or the technical know-how to produce a high quality softsub.
Phil Yff
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:52:46 -0500, Megane wrote:
>
>> What else do softsubs do but overlay a raw?
>
> Even for softsubbed releases, the video is filtered and reencoded, simply
> because raws are crap. Either they're WMV, or they're 120FPS, or there are
> (de)interlacing artifacts, or (most often) all of above. Plus, most
> softsubbed releases still include hardsubbed signs and karaoke (often done
> with something like AfterFX; even when karaoke isn't, vsfilter is too slow
> to allow karaoke rendering at decent speeds).
I suspect that when the raws are of poor quality that they are enhanced
before the subbing and not after. So, a hardsub still adds an additional
encoding and hence a degradation of quality to the production.
I like karaoke and some signs have their value. Although both can be done
as an additional stream, I agree with you that the resources of the average
fan subber do not lend themselves to high-end techniques and that the
original video has to be edited. What I don't like is when I see a fansub
emblazoned with a huge sign that says something to the effect "Presented by
Under-the-Table Fansubs" in larger lettering and more glaring colors than
the info on the original producers. If the fansubbers want to publicize
themselves, it is far more appropriate to do so in a soft sub.
Susan Davis
> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly efficient
> codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size!
Because we use it to provide higher-quality video for the same file
size? The h264 version of _Simoun_, for example, contains 62% more data
than the XviD version....
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net> "When you truly possess all you have been
and done, you are fierce with reality."
-- Florida Scott-Maxwell
Redkanary
minorty of fansub watchers who can actually tell the difference. The
rest of us are still wondering why the filesize is always 200K+ and why
playing them requires maxing out our processor speeds. Not everyone
has a top-of-the-line machine, and not everyone's all that tech savvy,
and what are improvements to you can often be a *hassle* for us.
This isn't a new problem. I remember when Xvid first came out, my old
laptop simply couldn't handle it, and I had to re-encode every frickin'
file before I could watch anything. People were actually passing
around tutorials about how to circumvent the new codec, and I'm
dreading another round of this.
At least AnY puts out LQ versions, and a lot of the distribution-only
sites have started re-encoding to .rmvb for space concerns. And I find
it very ironic that Youtube's turned out to be such a popular
distribution mechanism.
I apologize for the bitchiness of the ranting, but these are
long-simmering frustrations. Much love to the fansubbers. Just wish
you guys would think a little more about user-friendliness.
- Red
Megane
wrote:
> Plus, most
> softsubbed releases still include hardsubbed signs and karaoke (often done
> with something like AfterFX; even when karaoke isn't, vsfilter is too slow
> to allow karaoke rendering at decent speeds).
UGH!
To me, the whole point of soft subbing is that you can turn the subs OFF
completely to see the original, or to choose a language from more than
one sets of softsubs (can't choose hardsubbed sign languages).
What we really need is a bitmap softsub format, sort of like what DVD
uses, only without the stupid 3-color limitation. Then there would be
no problems with softsub codec X displaying things right, but softsub
codec Y has glitches. (and things would be easier for the R1 ripper
weenies too)
There would also be no worrying about limitations of softsubbing in
general, as the karaoke effects (which I think are mostly nothing but
dick waving anyhow, and often make the lyrics LESS readable) can be
directly embedded in a bitmap format.
Megane
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:39:53 -0500, Megane wrote:
>
> > Then it was CCCP.
> > Now there's a L00K! N00! codec pack?
>
> CCCP is still around, and still being worked on.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm mostly a Mac user (my only PC
in regular use is the W2K box hooked up to the TV), and Winderz codec
packs didn't help me much for watching videos on my laptop.
Now they only just barely help since I got a MacBook Pro, and video
playback inside of a VM seems to work, at least for SD video. But
that's only one computer out of half a dozen.
ender
> I suspect that when the raws are of poor quality that they are enhanced
> before the subbing and not after. So, a hardsub still adds an additional
> encoding and hence a degradation of quality to the production.
I occasionally work in a fansubbing group, and the difference from raw and
the final encode is huge - at least when the encoder knows what he's doing.
Yes, reencoding does cause slight further degradation, but the MPEG
artifacts are one of the rare things that typically aren't a problem with
raws.
ender
> No, they don't have the desire to provide them.
It's a bit of both, but also one of the more important reasons is probably
that the minority of leechers that don't want to change from AVI files is
very vocal.
ender
> You know, I think the high quality argument only works with a small
> minorty of fansub watchers who can actually tell the difference.
Unless you're watching on a 15" monitor, you should be able to tell the
difference between SD and HD encode easily (as long as the HD encode isn't
just an enlarged SD encode).
Megane
Phil Yff <phil...@adelphia.net> wrote:
Well, if all you want is a "visual feast", then fine. But to watch it
in HD, I would need both CPU power and display size, and that pretty
much limits me to my laptop. My W2K system only displays 640x480, and
my dual 1GHz G4 is deep in a room where I rarely sit in front of it,
instead using VNC or SSH to control it and the two Blue & White G3s
sitting next to it.
Also, my eyes are over 40 years old, with lots of floaters, and my
glasses are about five years old, with scratches and gouges in the
lenses. So even my eyes aren't HD any more, and I certainly have no
interest in pausing the video, getting up real close to the screen, and
saying "LOOK! I CAN SEE HER NOSE HAIRS!"
Instead, I prefer the simple things, like writing and plot, and the
first half-dozen or so episodes completely failed to impress me. In
fact, I even found it boring. As the saying goes, "You can't polish a
turd, Beavis."
And I must be in the minority, since Hollywood keeps churning out
"visual feasts" which are little more than a bunch of special effects
strung together by obligatory dialogue. Need I point out that I haven't
even seen Star Wars Ep. 1-3 yet?
Also, before posting the message you replied to, I deleted "except when
it's CGI", because _most_ anime (at least 90%) isn't CGI-heavy like the
.hack series, and really doesn't have any useful detail that HD would
reveal, and I thought that would be overly pedantic. Apparently I
underestimated the level of pedantry that was necessary here.
ender
> To me, the whole point of soft subbing is that you can turn the subs OFF
> completely to see the original, or to choose a language from more than
> one sets of softsubs (can't choose hardsubbed sign languages).
Well, many encoders prefer softsubs because hardsubs need quite a lot of
space to encode, and the edges are still full of ringing.
> What we really need is a bitmap softsub format, sort of like what DVD
> uses, only without the stupid 3-color limitation. Then there would be
> no problems with softsub codec X displaying things right, but softsub
> codec Y has glitches. (and things would be easier for the R1 ripper
> weenies too)
I actually know somebody who started working on this, but the project has
been on hold for a while now.
ender
> Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm mostly a Mac user (my only PC
> in regular use is the W2K box hooked up to the TV), and Winderz codec
> packs didn't help me much for watching videos on my laptop.
Have you tried recent mplayer builds? They have fairly good support for
styled subtitles now.
Phil Yff
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:53:14 -0400, Phil Yff wrote:
>
>> I suspect that when the raws are of poor quality that they are enhanced
>> before the subbing and not after. So, a hardsub still adds an additional
>> encoding and hence a degradation of quality to the production.
>
> I occasionally work in a fansubbing group, and the difference from raw and
> the final encode is huge - at least when the encoder knows what he's doing.
> Yes, reencoding does cause slight further degradation, but the MPEG
> artifacts are one of the rare things that typically aren't a problem with
> raws.
Just out of curiosity, why aren't you able to get high quality raws?
Theoretically, you would expect the fansubber to concentrate on translation
and adding the sub tracks and leave it up to the provider of the raws to
deliver high quality source material.
Phil Yff
> What we really need is a bitmap softsub format, sort of like what DVD
> uses, only without the stupid 3-color limitation. Then there would be
> no problems with softsub codec X displaying things right, but softsub
> codec Y has glitches. (and things would be easier for the R1 ripper
> weenies too)
>
Advanced SubStation Alpha (ASS) is a very sophisticated softsub format that
supports sign, fonts, colors, karaoke, etc. The drawback is that very few
software media players and container formats fully support it. Also, the
more sophisticated the video file you want to play back, the more computer
power you need.
Phil Yff
> Phil Yff wrote on [Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:31:46 -0400]:
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:48:53 -0500, Megane wrote:
>>>
>>> It's because the bootleggers love having those nice pre-timed scripts
>>> that they can rip off. And they don't even have to bother to make an
>>> Engrish translation from their Chinese translation.
>>
>> By bootlegger, it sounds like you're referring to someone other than the
>> fan subber. It would seem to me that sauce for the goose is sauce for the
>> gander. If fan subbers can make use of someone's copy righted intellectual
>> property, they can hardly complain if someone rips off their non-copy
>> righted material.
>
> So, it's OK for others to make money from volunteer work provided by a
> third party in your eyes? Fansubbers aren't in it for cash, they can
> complain about whatever they want when it comes to their translations
> being used in a way they didn't provide them for.
I didn't say it was OK. I pointed out that the people who use fansubs are
doing the same thing the fansubbers are doing to the intellectual property
owners. The difference is that the intellectual property owners enjoy the
protection of the law whereas fansubbers do not.
Phil Yff
>
> in regular use is the W2K box hooked up to the TV), and Winderz codec
> packs didn't help me much for watching videos on my laptop.
>
> Now they only just barely help since I got a MacBook Pro, and video
> playback inside of a VM seems to work, at least for SD video. But
> that's only one computer out of half a dozen.
Not to get in another Mac vs PC debate. I just need to vent. In the
nineties the best media players were on the Mac. Today, they are on the
PC. I think of my Mac as a multi-media platform. I can't understand why I
now have better players on my less multi-media friendly PC. I suspect it
is because Apple has been ignoring other protocols in order to push their
proprietary formats.
Phil Yff
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:20:04 -0500, Megane wrote:
>
>> Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention that I'm mostly a Mac user (my only PC
>> in regular use is the W2K box hooked up to the TV), and Winderz codec
>> packs didn't help me much for watching videos on my laptop.
>
> Have you tried recent mplayer builds? They have fairly good support for
> styled subtitles now.
Currently mplayer provides only partial SSA and ASS. I'm waiting for the
version that will provide full support.
Phil Yff
I must say I preferred .Hack//Sign to .Hack//Roots and neither fully lived
up to its potential. I like the concept but I think both series could have
done a better job with it.
I mentioned .Hack because it's one of the few anime series I've seen in an
HD broadcast. Stand Alone Complex (1st and 2nd Gig) uses some
sophisticated CGI but I haven't seen it in HD versions.
The real bottom line is that technology is evolving rapidly. Developers
like to exploit it. In both US and Japan HDTV is going to replace
conventional TV in the next few years. Like you, plot and character are
the most important elements. However, many people who have recently
invested in HDTV are going to want to enjoy their investment and will
select shows based on how well they exploit the HDTV standards. The
developers know this.
ender
> Just out of curiosity, why aren't you able to get high quality raws?
Usually because there aren't any (though maybe I got influenced by our
encoder a bit too much regarding this).
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"ender" <ec...@arnes.si> wrote in message
news:nckm6jm7...@ender.ena.si...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:26:01 GMT, Just Another Victim of the Ambient
> Morality wrote:
>
>> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly
>> efficient
>> fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was
>> a
>> larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it
>> to
>> make a larger video file?
>
> Probably because the H264 version is 720p or even 1080p.
Sadly, this has proven not to be the case. I don't know if it's a
higher resolution than the XviD version (since I didn't download it) but it
certainly is not HD. So, what could they possibly be thinking?
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Phil Yff" <phil...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1qn72zbfv306z.1m0uizzhk466u$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:26:01 GMT, Just Another Victim of the Ambient
> Morality wrote:
>
>> This
>> can only be a good thing since it is a better (more efficient) video
>> compression scheme and there's far too much traffic on the internet as
>> it
>> is.
>> However, if you're going to make the switch to such a highly
>> efficient
>> codec, why the hell wouldn't you decrease the file size! I've seen a
>> fansub group release a series in both XviD and h.264 and the latter was
>> a
>> larger file! What the hell is that? It's a better codec and you use it
>> to
>> make a larger video file?
>
> With regards to the file size, make sure you're comparing apples to
> apples.
> The group may have used the superior codec for the higher quality video.
The larger file sized version will surely be at a higher quality...
I'm willing to assume that. My question is why would they release two
different versions with two different codecs of differing qualities?
When you release only two versions with differing codecs, I'm assuming
that you're transitioning to new technology. In which case, you'd think
that the two would have comparable quality with the newer technology
offering a smaller filesize...
Phil Yff
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:46:31 -0400, Phil Yff wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, why aren't you able to get high quality raws?
>
> Usually because there aren't any (though maybe I got influenced by our
> encoder a bit too much regarding this).
I see. So you have someone responsible for the encoding who is separate
from the people using the subtitling software. You even imply that your
encoder enjoys enhancing low quality source material.
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
I can't speak for him, but as a sometimes working video professional,
bad encodes make me cry. And not in the "Lord thank you for short
skirts" kinda joy-tears either.
A little part of me dies inside every time I see artifacting in a 720p
or 1080p encode. :-(
>Mata ato de,
>
>Phil Yff
--
2006.09.22 - Abe vs. the fish of Crum Creek!
Abe: 11
Fish: 8
Redworms: -19
Megane
Phil Yff <phil...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Not to get in another Mac vs PC debate. I just need to vent. In the
> nineties the best media players were on the Mac. Today, they are on the
> PC. I think of my Mac as a multi-media platform. I can't understand why I
> now have better players on my less multi-media friendly PC. I suspect it
> is because Apple has been ignoring other protocols in order to push their
> proprietary formats.
Huh? The problems have been 1) _Microsoft's_ proprietary formats, for
which they would not provide a Quicktime codec (although they do so
grudgingly now from their recent buyout of the Flip4Mac codecs), and 2)
non-standard codecs, particularly one derived from a Microsoft
proprietary format, that being DivX. And apparently DivX abused the AVI
standard sufficiently (I believe it was how it handled MP3 audio) in a
way that Apple refused to support in Quicktime for many years. Because
(surprise!) it not only wasn't standard, but broke one.
And don't forget Matroshka, which basically came out of nowhere,
attempting to fix problems with AVI (the need for subtitle streams)
which Quicktime's container format had long ago solved.
Why am I putting so much importantance into the word "standard"?
Because if they're going to the trouble of making a real, supported
product, they need a standard based on a specification, not the DivX
flavor of the week that doesn't work with last month's players.
And then there are those open-sores containers/codecs, like OGG, which
(in the anime world) it seems only the R1 DVD ripper pirates care about.
I'm too lazy to check their licensing, but if they're GPL (rather than
LGPL or BSD), that viral license pretty much forbids their inclusion in
anything that is going to come from Apple.
Can you understand why now? And could you tell me exactly which of
"their proprietary formats" Apple has been pushing? MPEG-4? H.264?
ender
> I see. So you have someone responsible for the encoding who is separate
> from the people using the subtitling software.
In a fansubbing group, the encoder is usually separate from the type setter
(who "uses" the subtitling software) and translator.
> You even imply that your
> encoder enjoys enhancing low quality source material.
Enjoys? Not really, but you can't release the raw as-it-is, without at
least trying to improve the picture. We'd be all happy if you could just
take the raw, slap the signs on and encode, but the real world is far from
that.
ender
> non-standard codecs, particularly one derived from a Microsoft
> proprietary format, that being DivX.
DivX ;-) 3.11 alpha was a hacked version of the MS-MPEGv4 codec (a
non-standard implementation of the MPEG4 simple profile). DivX 4 was a
complete rewrite from scratch, and it's ISO MPEG4 compliant since (IIRC)
DivX 4.02.
> And apparently DivX abused the AVI
> standard sufficiently (I believe it was how it handled MP3 audio) in a
> way that Apple refused to support in Quicktime for many years.
DivX uses hacks to get B-frames to work in the AVI container, and MP3 audio
uses hacks to get VBR to work, too.
> And don't forget Matroshka, which basically came out of nowhere,
> attempting to fix problems with AVI (the need for subtitle streams)
> which Quicktime's container format had long ago solved.
But what subtitle streams are they (can you use SRT or SSA/ASS)? Also, is
there official support for chapters (AFAIK, the only way to get chapters to
work with MP4 is to use Nero's non-standard extension). Can you use Vorbis
audio in MP4? These are all problems that MKV solves here and now.
> Because if they're going to the trouble of making a real, supported
> product, they need a standard based on a specification, not the DivX
> flavor of the week that doesn't work with last month's players.
Surprisingly, DivX (with it's AVI hacks) is supported on more hardware
players than MP4 (and QuickTime) are...
> And then there are those open-sores containers/codecs, like OGG, which
> (in the anime world) it seems only the R1 DVD ripper pirates care about.
> I'm too lazy to check their licensing, but if they're GPL (rather than
> LGPL or BSD), that viral license pretty much forbids their inclusion in
> anything that is going to come from Apple.
At least learn to spell properly if you're too lazy to check the facts, and
have to spread unsubstantial FUD around.
ender
Morality wrote:
> Sadly, this has proven not to be the case. I don't know if it's a
> higher resolution than the XviD version (since I didn't download it) but it
> certainly is not HD. So, what could they possibly be thinking?
How can you be sure it's not HD if you haven't downloaded it?
(Of course, it's possible that the encoder's thinking goes something like
this: "I'll produce a high quality H264 version with a bit bigger file
size, and an XviD version for the whiners, but I'll punish them by
intentionally making it look worse - by sacrificing the file size" -
knowing a few encoders, I wouldn't actually be surprised if this was the
case.)
ender
If the XviD version is SD, that's usually in 640x368, meaning 235.520
pixels per frame. A 720p HD version is 1280x720, or 921.600 pixels per
frame, meaning almost 4 times the SD version (or almost 9 times for the
1080p). Do the bigger file sizes for H264 still look too big now?
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:34:45 GMT, Just Another Victim of the Ambient
> Morality wrote:
>
>> Sadly, this has proven not to be the case. I don't know if it's a
>> higher resolution than the XviD version (since I didn't download it) but
>> it
>> certainly is not HD. So, what could they possibly be thinking?
>
> How can you be sure it's not HD if you haven't downloaded it?
You parsed my sentence incorrectly. I haven't downloaded the XviD
version, so I don't know if the h.264 version has a higher resolution. I
did download the h.264 version, so I know that it's not HD...
> (Of course, it's possible that the encoder's thinking goes something like
> this: "I'll produce a high quality H264 version with a bit bigger file
> size, and an XviD version for the whiners, but I'll punish them by
> intentionally making it look worse - by sacrificing the file size" -
> knowing a few encoders, I wouldn't actually be surprised if this was the
> case.)
I asked this question on a message board (animesuki.org) and,
apparently, this is the case. I think this reasoning is crazy, myself...
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:44:05 GMT, Just Another Victim of the Ambient
> Morality wrote:
>
>> When you release only two versions with differing codecs, I'm
>> assuming
>> that you're transitioning to new technology. In which case, you'd think
>> that the two would have comparable quality with the newer technology
>> offering a smaller filesize...
>
> If the XviD version is SD, that's usually in 640x368, meaning 235.520
> pixels per frame. A 720p HD version is 1280x720, or 921.600 pixels per
> frame, meaning almost 4 times the SD version (or almost 9 times for the
> 1080p). Do the bigger file sizes for H264 still look too big now?
Well, my particular movie is 704x396. While this is bigger than your
claim of 640x368 being typical SD (widescreen) resolution, I think we can
both agree that it doesn't rise to the level of HD. In conclusion, the
bigger file sizes for h.264 do "still look too big!"
Phil Yff
>
> I can't speak for him, but as a sometimes working video professional,
> bad encodes make me cry. And not in the "Lord thank you for short
> skirts" kinda joy-tears either.
>
> A little part of me dies inside every time I see artifacting in a 720p
> or 1080p encode. :-(
I had just assumed that if you have the right video capture equipment that
you automatically are providing quality almost as good as the source.
Since many TV shows are now HDTV, I would think the raw would be a capture
off a very high quality HDTV source. Most of what I watch are raws
recorded by the TV networks on DVD. Although they are high quality, the
DVD resolution is lower than that of HDTV. I was under the impression that
the bittorrent material approximated the resolution of HDTV but from what
you are saying, apparently that is not the case.
Phil Yff
>
> attempting to fix problems with AVI (the need for subtitle streams)
> which Quicktime's container format had long ago solved.
>
> Why am I putting so much importantance into the word "standard"?
> Because if they're going to the trouble of making a real, supported
> product, they need a standard based on a specification, not the DivX
> flavor of the week that doesn't work with last month's players.
A proprietary format by definition cannot be a standard. Quicktime can
refer to both the player and the container format. As a container format,
it is very good. As a player, it sucks, because its proprietary nature
makes it a restrictive and feature poor product. The free version of
mplayer beats the pants off the $30 QuickTime Pro for the Macintosh.
Quicktime did not fix AVI. AVI is an obsolete format developed by
Microsoft in the early nineties. The AVI format, in itself, does not
support soft subtitles, although some players using workarounds are able to
incorporate that capability. Matroska is one of several container formats
that was designed from the ground up to support multiple audio and video
streams (to include multiple sophisticated soft subtitles). An MP4,
Quicktime Container File, Ogg, or Matroska container format is
intrinsically better than AVI regardless of how well it has been altered to
accommodate advanced features.
The Quicktime file format has advantages and disadvantages over the
alternatives listed above. Among its advantages is a decoupled
architecture that permits editing on the fly. The main disadvantage of
Quicktime is that few players support it. By the way, this is the same
main disadvantage that Matroska has.
Many complaints attributed to container formats are actually problems
associated with how well or poorly the media player supports the container
format.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:15:55 -0500, Megane wrote:
> >
> > And don't forget Matroshka, which basically came out of nowhere,
> > attempting to fix problems with AVI (the need for subtitle streams)
> > which Quicktime's container format had long ago solved.
> >
> > Why am I putting so much importantance into the word "standard"?
> > Because if they're going to the trouble of making a real, supported
> > product, they need a standard based on a specification, not the DivX
> > flavor of the week that doesn't work with last month's players.
>
> A proprietary format by definition cannot be a standard. Quicktime can
> refer to both the player and the container format. As a container format,
> it is very good. As a player, it sucks, because its proprietary nature
> makes it a restrictive and feature poor product. The free version of
> mplayer beats the pants off the $30 QuickTime Pro for the Macintosh.
>
> Quicktime did not fix AVI. AVI is an obsolete format developed by
> Microsoft in the early nineties. The AVI format, in itself, does not
> support soft subtitles, although some players using workarounds are able to
>
Some people say otherwise. Which is it?
http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html
And what's up with AVI 2.0 that's way back a decade ago?
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ LostRune+sig [at] UofR [dot] net
| ( _| | http://www.uofr.net/~lostrune/
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/\___|__| |__|___| \ ___|
Stainless Steel Rat
Phil Yff <phil...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I had just assumed that if you have the right video capture equipment that
> you automatically are providing quality almost as good as the source.
Actually, HDTV capture devices don't have any encoder in them at all.
They feed the MPEG-2 streams directly to whatever program spools the
data to disk. A "raw" capture will be exactly what was broadcast
(modulo reception errors).
Here's the big gotcha: commercial DVDs use roughly half of the available
bandwidth. That leaves a lot of room for adaptive encoders to deal with
scenes that are difficult to encode. HDTV 720p/60fps and 1080i/30fps
use roughly 90% of the available ATSC bandwidth. That leaves very
little room for those difficult scenes. DVD-Video can look a heck of a
lot better at its native resolution than HDTV.
--
Rat <rat...@newsguy.com> \ That and five bucks will get you a
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ small coffee at Starbucks
ender
> The AVI format, in itself, does not
> support soft subtitles, although some players using workarounds are able to
> incorporate that capability.
Actually, it's quite easy to add softsubs to AVI files, and AFAIK, it's
even standarized. Just only a few splitters actually support reading such
subs (AFAIK, both Gabest's AVI splitter [included in Media Player Classic]
and Haali's Matroska Splitter [which also supports AVI] support those files
fine).
> The Quicktime file format has advantages and disadvantages over the
> alternatives listed above.
MP4 is just slightly changed QuickTime format.
ender
Morality wrote:
> Well, my particular movie is 704x396. While this is bigger than your
> claim of 640x368 being typical SD (widescreen) resolution, I think we can
> both agree that it doesn't rise to the level of HD. In conclusion, the
> bigger file sizes for h.264 do "still look too big!"
704*396 = 278.784
1280*720 = 921.600
921600/278784 ≈ 3,31 → still more than 3 times the pixels of SD
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:56:13 GMT, Just Another Victim of the Ambient
> Morality wrote:
>
>> Well, my particular movie is 704x396. While this is bigger than
>> your
>> claim of 640x368 being typical SD (widescreen) resolution, I think we
>> can
>> both agree that it doesn't rise to the level of HD. In conclusion, the
>> bigger file sizes for h.264 do "still look too big!"
>
> 704*396 = 278.784
> 1280*720 = 921.600
You are still misunderstanding me...
The h.264 movie is 704x396, so it _can't_ be HD, yet it is bigger than
the XviD file, which is the part that doesn't make sense to me....
Dave
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:15:55 -0500, Megane wrote:
>
>> And don't forget Matroshka, which basically came out of nowhere,
>> attempting to fix problems with AVI (the need for subtitle streams)
>> which Quicktime's container format had long ago solved.
>
> But what subtitle streams are they (can you use SRT or SSA/ASS)? Also,
> is there official support for chapters (AFAIK, the only way to get
> chapters to work with MP4 is to use Nero's non-standard extension). Can
> you use Vorbis audio in MP4? These are all problems that MKV solves
> here and now.
Only TTXT can be used in MP4, which from what I understand can't do
nearly what ASS can, and there's pretty much a total lack of support
for even its most basic features. QTText can be used in .mov, which
doesn't have all of TTXT's features, but can actually be fully rendered
by QuickTime (probably not anything else, though.) As far as I know,
theofficial way to put chapters in .mp4 using some sort of program
controls, but there's no real support for that. Chapters in .mov are
fully defined by the spec.
>> And then there are those open-sores containers/codecs, like OGG, which
>> (in the anime world) it seems only the R1 DVD ripper pirates care
>> about. I'm too lazy to check their licensing, but if they're GPL
>> (rather than LGPL or BSD), that viral license pretty much forbids their
>> inclusion in anything that is going to come from Apple.
Official Xiph libraries for OGG/Vorbis support are BSD, and their
QuickTime plugin is LGPL. Official Matroska libraries
(libmatroska/libebml) are LGPL, and MatroskaQT is as well. Though
there's no chance of Apple or Microsoft including support for these
formats, simply because they cater to big media companies, which care
not a whit for formats without industry backing.
Phil Yff
>
> MP4 is just slightly changed QuickTime format.
MP4 Part 14, though based on the QuickTime format, has incorporated quite a
few features that are not available in the QuickTime format.
Phil Yff
>> Quicktime did not fix AVI. AVI is an obsolete format developed by
>> Microsoft in the early nineties. The AVI format, in itself, does not
>> support soft subtitles, although some players using workarounds are able to
>>
>
> Some people say otherwise. Which is it?
>
> http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html
>
> And what's up with AVI 2.0 that's way back a decade ago?
>
AVI came out in 1992. "AVI 2.0" came out in 1996. I think this site
supports my contention that AVI is less capable than some of the more
recent formats. Although there are some very sophisticated hacks that can
make AVI files emulate the more advanced formats, they add overhead to the
player. I believe the only reason AVI files proliferate today is because
of the dominance of Microsoft. Again, you have proprietary interests
impeding the technically optimal solutions that use an open standards based
architecture.
Phil Yff
>
> Enjoys? Not really, but you can't release the raw as-it-is, without at
> least trying to improve the picture. We'd be all happy if you could just
> take the raw, slap the signs on and encode, but the real world is far from
> that.
Or, better yet, starting with and HD quality raw, keep the raw as-is and
add all translations (subtitles, signs, karaoke, voice tracks, etc.) as
separate streams. I'm trying to understand the disconnects between the
hypothetical and the practical.
Phil Yff
> But what subtitle streams are they (can you use SRT or SSA/ASS)? Also, is
> there official support for chapters (AFAIK, the only way to get chapters to
> work with MP4 is to use Nero's non-standard extension). Can you use Vorbis
> audio in MP4? These are all problems that MKV solves here and now.
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post commending Matroska for its
subtitle, chapter, and audio streaming support. Someone responded asking
if I was trying to antagonize the newsgroup because the anime community was
pissed off at fansubbers who used .mkv files. I'm glad to see there is at
least one proponent.
I would like the container format to provide the viewer with as much
flexibility as possible - multiple subtitle choices (including turning
subtitles off), multiple voice tracks allowing more than one dub track, and
chapters. Matroska, IMHO, provides the best subtitle support of all the
container formats, it supports all audio and video formats, provides full
chapter support, and the icing on the cake is the technical specs are in
the public domain.
Admittedly, many media players currently do not support it or do not
support it fully; however, there are some viable choices that are available
as a free download including the CCCP pack. If one is going to be watching
a fair amount of subtitled video, one should invest a moderate effort in
acquiring a media player or players that support the container formats and
codecs used to deliver the video.
Stainless Steel Rat
"Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihat...@rogers.com>
wrote:
> You are still misunderstanding me...
> The h.264 movie is 704x396, so it _can't_ be HD, yet it is bigger than
I think that you don't really understand what "HD" really means. It's
more than just resolution. The HDTV broadcast standards (technically
ATSC) supports resolution UP TO 1920x1080. So yes it COULD be HD if it
meets all of the other ATSC standards criteria. Technically, neither
XviD nor H.264 do, but that's an entirely different issue.
> the XviD file, which is the part that doesn't make sense to me....
XviD and H.264 are implementations of the same standards: MPEG-4. XviD
is MPEG-4 Part 2; H.264 is MPEG-4 Part 10. Given the same source video
stream, an MPEG-4 Part 2 encode at 768Kbit/s will be the same size (give
or take a few bytes) as an MPEG-4 Part 10 encode at 768Kbit/s.
Let me repeat that: given the same resolution, length and encoding bit
rate, XviD files will be approximately the same size as H.264 files. If
one file is significantly larger than the other then it means that it is
longer, it is higher resolution, it is encoded at a higher bit rate, or
any combination of the three.
There is one other factor that can affect final file size: audio.
Audio takes up space, too, and that affects file size. For example, the
XviD file might have intensity encoded (joint) stereo MP3 audio at
112Kbit/s while the H.264 file might have stereo AAC audio at 96Kbit/s
per channel. The AAC channels will probably take up more space than the
MP3 channels and make the H.264 file larger.
That should give you enough information to figure out for yourself the
technical reasons why a file is larger than you expect it to be.
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
You didn't yet answer my questions. ;)
Laters. =)
STan
Abraham Evangelista
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:05:30 +0200, ender wrote:
I may be way off base here, but aren't the HD raws being broadcast as
MPEG2 streams? Sending HD quality MPEG2 is hideously impractical,
thus the frequent recompression to WMV9, or any other number of H.264
MPEG4 variants.
I'd absolutely hate to download an MPEG2 compressed HD raw. It'd
saturate my pipe for weeks!
>Mata ato de,
>
>Phil Yff
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Phil Yff" <phil...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:33io4ynathvu$.ybj7fwx0mdw.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:23:46 +0200, ender wrote:
>
>> But what subtitle streams are they (can you use SRT or SSA/ASS)? Also,
>> is
>> there official support for chapters (AFAIK, the only way to get chapters
>> to
>> work with MP4 is to use Nero's non-standard extension). Can you use
>> Vorbis
>> audio in MP4? These are all problems that MKV solves here and now.
>
> A couple of months ago, I wrote a post commending Matroska for its
> subtitle, chapter, and audio streaming support. Someone responded asking
> if I was trying to antagonize the newsgroup because the anime community
> was
> pissed off at fansubbers who used .mkv files. I'm glad to see there is
> at
> least one proponent.
Well, if it makes you feel better, I don't mind .mkv files, either...
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Stainless Steel Rat" <rat...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:aqjd04-...@peorth.rgo.gweep.net...
> In article <fORYg.158051$5O2....@fe09.news.easynews.com>,
> "Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality" <ihat...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You are still misunderstanding me...
>> The h.264 movie is 704x396, so it _can't_ be HD, yet it is bigger
>> than
>
> I think that you don't really understand what "HD" really means. It's
> more than just resolution. The HDTV broadcast standards (technically
> ATSC) supports resolution UP TO 1920x1080. So yes it COULD be HD if it
> meets all of the other ATSC standards criteria. Technically, neither
> XviD nor H.264 do, but that's an entirely different issue.
I don't really see what you're getting at, here. Both XviD and H.264
can be used to encode progressive video at HD resolutions and, as viewers
of fansubs, that's all we're concerned with. The argument in this thread
has been whether the larger sized video file had a higher resolution.
Specifically, whether it was of HD resolution. What "HD" might mean beyond
this isn't the issue, here...
> XviD and H.264 are implementations of the same standards: MPEG-4. XviD
> is MPEG-4 Part 2; H.264 is MPEG-4 Part 10. Given the same source video
> stream, an MPEG-4 Part 2 encode at 768Kbit/s will be the same size (give
> or take a few bytes) as an MPEG-4 Part 10 encode at 768Kbit/s.
Which weighs more, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?
Obviously, if you encode the same source at the same bitrate, you'll get
the same file size (excluding the idiosyncratic properties of the codec).
It's unclear why you think there's any confusion over this...
XviD and H.264 are implementations of different parts of the same
standard, MPEG-4. I'm not sure why you brought this up as it is not
relevant to the discussion at hand...
> Let me repeat that: given the same resolution, length and encoding bit
> rate, XviD files will be approximately the same size as H.264 files. If
> one file is significantly larger than the other then it means that it is
> longer, it is higher resolution, it is encoded at a higher bit rate, or
> any combination of the three.
This is obviously true.
In my case, they have chosen to use a higher bitrate. My question is
why?
> There is one other factor that can affect final file size: audio.
Good point. I just checked and they use 128kbp/s audio for the H.264
file. I'd be surprised if they used less for the XviD version...
> That should give you enough information to figure out for yourself the
> technical reasons why a file is larger than you expect it to be.
You've misunderstood my post, entirely.
I understand, empirically, why the H.264 file is bigger than its XviD
counterpart. They chose to use a higher bitrate for the encoding. In
fact, throughout this entire discussion, I had thought that this was a
given.
My question is, motivationally, why is the higher efficiency codec file
bigger? In other words, why did they choose a higher bitrate for the codec
that can better handle lower bitrates than the one they used for lower
bitrates?
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
"Abraham Evangelista" <da...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dpv8j2pe870qe2ded...@4ax.com...
>
> I may be way off base here, but aren't the HD raws being broadcast as
> MPEG2 streams? Sending HD quality MPEG2 is hideously impractical,
> thus the frequent recompression to WMV9, or any other number of H.264
> MPEG4 variants.
>
> I'd absolutely hate to download an MPEG2 compressed HD raw. It'd
> saturate my pipe for weeks!
I woudn't want to download such large files, either.
However, people do routinely download them. All the HD-DVD and Blu-ray
DVD discs that have come out, so far (that I have seen), have been using
MPEG2 for their video encoding and people have been trading them over the
internet via BitTorrent and Usenet...
Abraham Evangelista
WOW. Okay, if that's true that really puts the technology into
perspective. I was under the impression that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD
were MPEG4 based formats. Trading HD sized MPEG2 raws just seems so
impractical!
ender
> A couple of months ago, I wrote a post commending Matroska for its
> subtitle, chapter, and audio streaming support. Someone responded asking
> if I was trying to antagonize the newsgroup because the anime community was
> pissed off at fansubbers who used .mkv files. I'm glad to see there is at
> least one proponent.
There are several of us actually, and as you can see, the number of fansubs
released as MKV (and MP4) is growing. (just as side-info, the first fansubs
I've seen in MKV date back to october 2003 [Ani-Kraze's Scrapped Princess,
with softsubs], and the first MP4 fansub I've seen is from May 2003
[Toriyamaworld's Naruto]).
ender
> I think that you don't really understand what "HD" really means.
He understood what I meant by HD (a file with resolution higher than that
of normal [SD] TV broadcast).
Phil Yff
That's one of the disconnects between the hypothetical and the practical.
Blue-ray and HD-DVD are two formats designed to handle that type of file
size. Now, if you want to download over the internet, there are some
issues relating to transfer and storage. That's why we need commercial
solutions that provide good performance for the price. Take Bittorent for
example. As a peer to peer transfer protocol, it only works if you have
lots of peers, especially seeders. Without anyone to ensure quality of
performance, only the most popular torrents have the necessary peers to
support it. However, a properly supported transfer protocol can give you
extremely rapid downloads providing you have good broadband access to the
internet.
Phil Yff
> Mon, 16 Oct 2006 6:43pm-0400, Phil Yff <phil...@adelphia.net>:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:42:19 GMT, S.t.A.n.L.e.E wrote:
>>
>>>> Quicktime did not fix AVI. AVI is an obsolete format developed by
>>>> Microsoft in the early nineties. The AVI format, in itself, does not
>>>> support soft subtitles, although some players using workarounds are able to
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some people say otherwise. Which is it?
>>>
>>> http://www.alexander-noe.com/video/amg/en_myths.html
>>>
>>> And what's up with AVI 2.0 that's way back a decade ago?
>>
>> AVI came out in 1992. "AVI 2.0" came out in 1996. I think this site
>> supports my contention that AVI is less capable than some of the more
>> recent formats. Although there are some very sophisticated hacks that can
>> make AVI files emulate the more advanced formats, they add overhead to the
>> player. I believe the only reason AVI files proliferate today is because
>> of the dominance of Microsoft. Again, you have proprietary interests
>> impeding the technically optimal solutions that use an open standards based
>> architecture.
>>
>
> You didn't yet answer my questions. ;)
>
Using hacks, AVI supports chapter stops, soft subtitles, and multiple video
and audio formats. Is that what you were asking about?
Stainless Steel Rat
wrote:
> He understood what I meant by HD (a file with resolution higher than that
> of normal [SD] TV broadcast).
That's not what HD means. HD is more than resolution.
Stainless Steel Rat
> I don't really see what you're getting at, here. Both XviD and H.264
> can be used to encode progressive video at HD resolutions and, as viewers
> of fansubs, that's all we're concerned with.
First, progressive video at HD resolutions does not equal "HDTV", but
that's an entirely different, highly technical discussion not relevant
for this group.
Second, some of us are more concerned with visual quality than absolute
resolution. I would rather have a good looking 720x480 or 720x576 video
than a crappy looking 1280x720 video.
> The argument in this thread
> has been whether the larger sized video file had a higher resolution.
You never said so we cannot answer that beyond "maybe". It might. It
might not. We don't know because we don't have the files in question
for comparison.
> Specifically, whether it was of HD resolution. What "HD" might mean beyond
> this isn't the issue, here...
Exactly.
> Which weighs more, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?
> Obviously, if you encode the same source at the same bitrate, you'll get
> the same file size (excluding the idiosyncratic properties of the codec).
> It's unclear why you think there's any confusion over this...
I was just making sure that the successive point about the technical
reasons why one file is larger than the other was clear. All other
things being equal, you'll get approximately the same size files.
Change one or more of those things and you'll get different size files.
> XviD and H.264 are implementations of different parts of the same
> standard, MPEG-4. I'm not sure why you brought this up as it is not
> relevant to the discussion at hand...
Again, just for clarity about the successive points.
> This is obviously true.
> In my case, they have chosen to use a higher bitrate. My question is
> why?
Maybe they didn't. Perhaps the two files were encoded at the same video
bit rates but different audio formats and bit rates. If the encoders
did choose to use different video bit rates then you'll have to ask them
why because we don't know why. It might not be a rational decision. It
might be a rational decision but we do not know the criteria. If you
really, desperately want to know the non-technical reason why then you
have to ask whoever did the encodes.
Stainless Steel Rat
Abraham Evangelista <da...@verizon.net> wrote:
> WOW. Okay, if that's true that really puts the technology into
> perspective. I was under the impression that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD
> were MPEG4 based formats. Trading HD sized MPEG2 raws just seems so
> impractical!
Yes and no. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specifications mandate MPEG-2,
MPEG-4 Part 10 (AVC/H.264) and SMTPE 421M (VC-1 (WMV9)). The first
generation of Blu-Ray discs are MPEG-2 probably because the players
would consume too much electrical power decoding MPEG-4 or VC-1 video.
ender
> The first
> generation of Blu-Ray discs are MPEG-2 probably because the players
> would consume too much electrical power decoding MPEG-4 or VC-1 video.
What the hell? What will happen with these players once H264 or VC-1 discs
come out?
ender
> That's not what HD means. HD is more than resolution.
I know. But for the purpose of what was being discussed in this thread,
that meaning of HD doesn't matter.
Phil Yff
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:35:01 GMT, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> The first
>> generation of Blu-Ray discs are MPEG-2 probably because the players
>> would consume too much electrical power decoding MPEG-4 or VC-1 video.
>
> What the hell? What will happen with these players once H264 or VC-1 discs
> come out?
We're getting to the point that we don't need discs. Bandwidth and memory
devices are getting to the point that you don't need a player with a motor
spinning a disk.
Phil Yff
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:35:32 -0400, Phil Yff wrote:
>
>> A couple of months ago, I wrote a post commending Matroska for its
>> subtitle, chapter, and audio streaming support. Someone responded asking
>> if I was trying to antagonize the newsgroup because the anime community was
>> pissed off at fansubbers who used .mkv files. I'm glad to see there is at
>> least one proponent.
>
> There are several of us actually, and as you can see, the number of fansubs
> released as MKV (and MP4) is growing. (just as side-info, the first fansubs
> I've seen in MKV date back to october 2003 [Ani-Kraze's Scrapped Princess,
> with softsubs], and the first MP4 fansub I've seen is from May 2003
> [Toriyamaworld's Naruto]).
Many, possibly most of the anime being broadcast now is close captioned.
Are the fan subbers using the CC track to help with the translation. If
so, are they using any technology to assist them?
In spite of the fact that much of broadcast TV is closed captioned, the
region 2 DVDs (with a few exceptions) do not include Japanese subtitles.
To a Japanese language student, closed captions or Japanese subtitles are
invaluable. In the US, before closed caption decoders became standard on
mid to large size TVs, more closed caption decoders were sold to people
learning English as a second language than were sold to the hearing
impaired. The ability to read and listen to the dialog simultaneously
gives a big boost to comprehension. Additionally, the language student is
practicing both reading and listening skills simultaneously in a manner
that is superior to practicing each one by itself.
Stainless Steel Rat
wrote:
> What the hell? What will happen with these players once H264 or VC-1 discs
> come out?
They'll consume more electrical power than the second and third
generation players and probably run very hot. Welcome to the world of
early adoption. :)
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
So, it's not built-in? So, what did AVI 2.0 bring then?
And do players support AVI 2.0?
Megane
Stainless Steel Rat <rat...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <svetb3qtvl5t$.d...@ender.ena.si>, ender <ec...@arnes.si>
> wrote:
>
> > What the hell? What will happen with these players once H264 or VC-1 discs
> > come out?
>
> They'll consume more electrical power than the second and third
> generation players and probably run very hot. Welcome to the world of
> early adoption. :)
Sounds like the PS3 is already going to run hot enough as it is.
Farix
As far as bandwidth goes, it will still be another 10 years before that
would be practical.
Farix
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Just Another Victim of the Ambient Morality
I would have thought so, too, had I not seen these files offered for
download, myself.
HD-DVD and Blu-ray allow for a variety of encoding formats, unlike DVD
which specifies MPEG-2 only. It just so happens that the first generation
of HD format discs have all been encoded using MPEG-2. Why this would be,
I don't know. I presume it's just because the industry is already well
versed in the technology (because of DVDs) and they don't feel that a
transition to another encoder is worth the effort. Perhaps they don't feel
that the average consumer would truly notice the difference...
ender
> As far as bandwidth goes, it will still be another 10 years before that
> would be practical.
10 and 20Mbit lines are already very affordable, so I'd give it 2-3 years
at most...
ender
> Many, possibly most of the anime being broadcast now is close captioned.
> Are the fan subbers using the CC track to help with the translation. If
> so, are they using any technology to assist them?
I don't think I've ever seen a raw with CC included, so I don't think that
the translators use them.
> In the US, before closed caption decoders became standard on
> mid to large size TVs, more closed caption decoders were sold to people
> learning English as a second language than were sold to the hearing
> impaired.
In Europe, there's no CC, instead we have Teletext (also called Videotext),
which is also sometimes used for subtitling. As far as I know, there's no
equipment that would let you capture the teletext stream while capturing
video though, so those subtitles can only be viewed on the actual
broadcast.
ender
> So, it's not built-in? So, what did AVI 2.0 bring then?
AFAIK, the main change was support for files larger than 2GB. I don't know
if the original AVI specification supported more than a single audio
stream, or if that was added in 2.0 though.
> And do players support AVI 2.0?
They do, although for certain features, you'll need an alternate splitter.
Farix
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:05:27 -0400, Farix wrote:
>
>> As far as bandwidth goes, it will still be another 10 years before that
>> would be practical.
>
> 10 and 20Mbit lines are already very affordable, so I'd give it 2-3 years
> at most...
>
companies aren't that interested anymore in expanding/improving
brandband service. Things are so bad that the industry flunked its last
checkup with 1/3 on broadband, 1/3 on "narrowband" (dial-up and ISDN
lines), and 1/3 with no Internet connection at all.
http://www.freepress.net/docs/bbrc2-final.pdf
Phil Yff
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:18:41 -0400, Phil Yff wrote:
>
>> Many, possibly most of the anime being broadcast now is close captioned.
>> Are the fan subbers using the CC track to help with the translation. If
>> so, are they using any technology to assist them?
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a raw with CC included, so I don't think that
> the translators use them.
When you see 放送字幕 (housou jimaku – broadcast subtitles; i.e. closed
captions) in a square box two characters by two characters, the show is
closed captioned. By definition closed captions are a separate feed, as
you probably know. That’s why they are called closed. They are not open
to people without decoders. You thus have to make a separate effort to
capture the closed captions.
>> In the US, before closed caption decoders became standard on
>> mid to large size TVs, more closed caption decoders were sold to people
>> learning English as a second language than were sold to the hearing
>> impaired.
>
> In Europe, there's no CC, instead we have Teletext (also called Videotext),
> which is also sometimes used for subtitling. As far as I know, there's no
> equipment that would let you capture the teletext stream while capturing
> video though, so those subtitles can only be viewed on the actual
> broadcast.
It sounds like what is used in the US and Japan to announce storm and
earthquake warnings. Is it always on or do you need a decoder. Either
way, I believe the information can be captured. In the US, for example,
broadcast studios get a feed from the National weather service. They
capture it and inject it in their programming. That's why you don't get
flash flood warnings during commercials.