|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Help Section If you have technical problems or questions then post or look for answers here. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
February 3rd, 2017, 01:04 AM | #11 |
Porn Archeologist
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 12,714
Thanks: 92,252
Thanked 241,294 Times in 12,746 Posts
|
Some members already reduce as far as they can before quality loss becomes apparent
because of uploading limitations or simply to keep the files available to free downloaders because of filehost restrictions. The TV forums about usually have 3-4 different sizes to cover all bases If you dont have up to date hardware the upper end is waste of bandwidth Theres a good article here talking about the new codec versus the old h264 H265 is reducing the size of files by some margin The cost would seem to be its forward looking H.265 benchmarked: Does the next-generation video codec live up to expectations? By Joel Hruska on July 23, 2013 https://www.extremetech.com/computin...o-expectations |
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to buttsie For This Useful Post: |
February 4th, 2017, 05:57 PM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Land o' Lake-Effect
Posts: 5,348
Thanks: 5,911
Thanked 113,476 Times in 5,360 Posts
|
Quote:
I rip MP3s at 320 ("preset insane") for the same reason. If I need to "re-inflate" them (convert them back to WAV files) for editing, then I have lost very little of the original. I remember ripping Viva Las Vegas at 2000, and then again at 3000, and the difference was striking. So I went to 4000! It is Ann-Margret, after all! On the theory that too much is never enough, I rarely go below 5000 now, unless the only device I will play it on is my phone.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last edited by rlg118; February 4th, 2017 at 06:02 PM.. |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to rlg118 For This Useful Post: |
February 5th, 2017, 12:21 AM | #13 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
But with Viva Las Vegas, that's a big Hollywood flick so I'm sure the people who produced, maybe remastered, the movie/DVD did in fact make it at a high enough quality that ripping it at 3000 (or more) was worth it, and you could notice the crisp quality. But it's not so much the case with a low budget porn movie from 1998. By the way, sorry I know this is a topic on h.264, but we've diverted a bit anyway, so allow me a quick separate question, still on topic of aspect ratios and all that. I've always wondered and wanted to know this, but I don't want to start a whole new thread for this. Does anyone know what the default aspect ratio was for VHS movies (adult, Hollywood, whatever) back in the day? In other words, DVDs back in the days of full screen 4:3, had a common aspect ratio of 640 by 480, because it was the perfect frame for those old school TVs I previously referenced. But, what was the common aspect ratio on a VHS? Was it, generally, also 640x480, or something lower? I'm curious because when I rip VHS, since it isn't digital and there's no way of obtaining the specs (is that the right word?), it gives no mention of what the actual aspect ratio is, and I have to wing it and size it myself. |
|
February 5th, 2017, 01:13 AM | #14 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Land o' Lake-Effect
Posts: 5,348
Thanks: 5,911
Thanked 113,476 Times in 5,360 Posts
|
Quote:
I think your AR on the VHS tapes is still 4x3. At least most TV shows were shot that way. It's a good starting point, at any rate.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rlg118 For This Useful Post: |
February 5th, 2017, 08:55 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 157
Thanks: 940
Thanked 1,634 Times in 147 Posts
|
Quote:
http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/vhs_capture.html |
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Billiwog For This Useful Post: |
February 5th, 2017, 12:53 PM | #16 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Last edited by 31D1; February 5th, 2017 at 12:54 PM.. Reason: *352x240 |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post: |
February 5th, 2017, 04:38 PM | #17 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'm probably the only one obsessed with VHS conversion and resolutions at this point, the rest of you all are probably like, "dude, what's with the VCR?" But, maybe to try and tie it in with one of the original points to this thread, formats, converting, aspect ratios, video bit rates, and resolutions are difficult to try and harness when it comes to crafting a crisp, clear and beautiful DVD rip, at a fair, but good quality, file size. Imagine the difficulty when it deals with VHS (to rip all those vintage, OOP goodies we may have).
Doing some more reading, it appears the 352x240 resolution, being the standard go-to for VHS, is debatable. And I'm sure SP and SLP come into play as well, something that slipped my mind. Apparently some say VHS can, and should, be ripped at 720x540, which shocked me. But, again, it probably depends on how long ago the VHS tape was produced. I'm not sure that for a VHS tape from 1983, 720x540 would be appropriate. And then the whole issue of how many bit rates to use also comes into play. It's a confusion. Not a big deal, and fun to keep discovering if anything, but confusing nonetheless. Just some recently ripped VHS stills: LEFT is 352x240, RIGHT is 640x480 Since it's a still image, it looks the same (except one's smaller framed), but in motion maybe people can notice a difference. But, still, looking at that 352x240 video on a computer is so funny and shocking, what with our widescreen, high def screens of today. Even on an old TV I don't know how that resolution managed to look good. Alright, I'm done. Fascinating reads if anyone is interested: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/c...cr-record.html https://www.photography-forums.com/t...olution.38983/ http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/1...n-352x240-NTSC Mind you, the discussions in these links are from 2002-2003. Still an interesting to read and travel back through time, though. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post: |
February 5th, 2017, 10:53 PM | #18 |
Grand Vizier
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ruraltania
Posts: 3,219
Thanks: 35,652
Thanked 35,615 Times in 3,211 Posts
|
I haven't bothered keeping much old material from the 70s and 80s unless it was shot on film and has been re-released. A few classics are available in HD quality, but VHS material generally looks awful, especially 4.3 on a 16.9 2K screen. As for downloads, I just don't bother unless its 720, or ideally 1280. So the idea of keeping a large collection of poor quality old material is now a non-starter for me.
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CARLTON BROWN For This Useful Post: |
February 12th, 2017, 06:50 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Far Away
Posts: 176
Thanks: 691
Thanked 626 Times in 156 Posts
|
Hi I have found a small and effective encoder (not mine) here is the link for it:
http://www.h264encoder.com/ it converts all formats to stream friendly h264 type maybe you uploaders find useful. |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bkemadu For This Useful Post: |
January 9th, 2019, 11:31 PM | #20 | |
Grand Vizier
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ruraltania
Posts: 3,219
Thanks: 35,652
Thanked 35,615 Times in 3,211 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|