Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum

Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Information & Help Forum > Help Section

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Meet Our Girls Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
Help Section If you have technical problems or questions then post or look for answers here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2017, 01:04 AM   #11
buttsie
Porn Archeologist
 
buttsie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 9,107
Thanks: 51,941
Thanked 146,909 Times in 9,241 Posts
buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+buttsie 750000+
Default

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
__________________
Your Babe of The Day-Female Only (Maximum 5 Images)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
buttsie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to buttsie For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2017, 05:57 PM   #12
rlg118
Veteran Member
 
rlg118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Land o' Lake-Effect
Posts: 4,397
Thanks: 4,998
Thanked 76,799 Times in 4,363 Posts
rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 31D1 View Post
6000 is a lot. Well, you know what the thing is though, if you are specializing in older material, there's really no real reason to be in any range higher than 4000 kbps (maybe 3500). Going that high does you no good because the actual DVD you're ripping (if it's say from 1997 or 2000) didn't have that high of a production anyway.
You're right - it is overkill. My view is that since compression can never add, only take away, from something which is already compressed, then I want as much of it as I can get.

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.
__________________
ROMEO LIMA GOLF ONE-ONE-EIGHT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by rlg118; 02-04-2017 at 06:02 PM..
rlg118 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rlg118 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 12:21 AM   #13
31D1
Senior Member
 
31D1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 281
Thanks: 671
Thanked 2,626 Times in 281 Posts
31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlg118 View Post
You're right - it is overkill. My view is that since compression can never add, only take away, from something which is already compressed, then I want as much of it as I can get.

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.
Now see music I do, like you, rip it at MP3/320. I want my music as HQ as possible, but I do try to avoid wav or flac. Those sizes are massive.

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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
31D1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2017, 01:13 AM   #14
rlg118
Veteran Member
 
rlg118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Land o' Lake-Effect
Posts: 4,397
Thanks: 4,998
Thanked 76,799 Times in 4,363 Posts
rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+rlg118 350000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 31D1 View Post
But it's not so much the case with a low budget porn movie from 1998.
Copy that.

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.
__________________
ROMEO LIMA GOLF ONE-ONE-EIGHT


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rlg118 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rlg118 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 08:55 AM   #15
Billiwog
Member
 
Billiwog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 53
Thanks: 345
Thanked 496 Times in 52 Posts
Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+Billiwog 2500+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 31D1 View Post
DVDs back in the days of full screen 4:3, had a common aspect ratio of 640 by 480 (...) what was the common aspect ratio on a VHS? Was it, generally, also 640x480, or something lower?
You're getting aspect ratio mixed up with resolution (640x480 is a resolution.) See if the following page answers your question.

http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/vhs_capture.html
Billiwog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Billiwog For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 12:53 PM   #16
31D1
Senior Member
 
31D1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 281
Thanks: 671
Thanked 2,626 Times in 281 Posts
31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billiwog View Post
You're getting aspect ratio mixed up with resolution (640x480 is a resolution.) See if the following page answers your question.

http://www.divx-digest.com/articles/vhs_capture.html
yeah sorry about that, resolution was on my tongue and in my head, but I don't know why I said aspect ratio (I was reading a lot on AR at the time of my writing that, guess I got it mixed up). That was actually helpful. As I guessed, the standard, basic resolution of VHS seems to be extremely low, at 352x240.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by 31D1; 02-05-2017 at 12:54 PM.. Reason: *352x240
31D1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to 31D1 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 04:38 PM   #17
31D1
Senior Member
 
31D1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 281
Thanks: 671
Thanked 2,626 Times in 281 Posts
31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+31D1 10000+
Default

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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
31D1 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 31D1 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-05-2017, 10:53 PM   #18
CARLTON BROWN
Vintage Member
 
CARLTON BROWN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Urbania
Posts: 1,158
Thanks: 10,869
Thanked 10,078 Times in 1,141 Posts
CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+CARLTON BROWN 50000+
Default

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.
CARLTON BROWN is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CARLTON BROWN For This Useful Post:
Old 02-12-2017, 06:50 AM   #19
bkemadu
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Thanks: 62
Thanked 142 Times in 44 Posts
bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+bkemadu 500+
Default

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.
bkemadu is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:51 PM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.