Re-encoded garbage - Page 4

**mucowag** · January 5th, 2018, 10:35 PM

My preferred host link is still active.
Ok I had done some work on the original, but effectively a repost on joke file.

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t34...oman-1965.html

**QWS** · January 5th, 2018, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicago

I thought there is a rule stating you are not allowed to take someone else' s file and repost them if they are already on a preferred host? I wonder what the mods say if brought to their attention.

This "one" splitted movie and post splitted scenes on cash host!

**andrito** · January 6th, 2018, 03:48 PM

So, from what I'm getting by this thread, an original video downloaded is 'reconverted' into something else, up-scaled into a 16x9 frame from a 4x3 original. So the 4x3 original has black boarders on the sides to fit the 16x9 screen. So the image is reformatted to this ratio. Then the movie is split up into sepearate scenes or tracks. Then its uploaded into a different host file service. I've seen now where a 4x3 source has been "matted" into a 16x9 image so the top and bottom of the video are cut off! lol.
Re encoding an already encoded file source is useless. The quality will drop in sound and picture. The file size may even increase with its bad encoding. And, of course someone thinking that they've downloaded something newly encoded from a better source are just getting the same old file again, only "up-scaled" or in a different container file format and its really not any better then the first time. Plus they have wasted either money to pay for the premium service for the file hoster for its speed, or they have wasted time in waiting for the slow download time. Taking a lot of time and a lot of effort in the process.
This is where l coined the phrase "rampant duplication". You see the same video or photo uploaded over and over and over again. You see it in a different file format (mp4, mkv, avi,) and think it may be taken from a better source.
The same applies to audio. You see a flac file (free lossless audio codec) and download it, thinking it is taken direct from CD or an hd source, when actually, what someone has done is taken their low res mp3, ac3, aac and "up-scaled" into flac. So the high res format you have is really a low res upscale. Total garbage. The only way you can really tell if its actually a true flac is to check its frequency in a program like audacity's frequency analyzer and actually see if it goes up to 44.1hz, 48khz, 96khz, etc. If its stuck in a certain frequency range you can just bet its a reformatted, up-scaled audio file.
As far as detecting a video files frame rate and encoding to see if its taken from an original source, then you'd maybe use mediainfo to see if its got some tagging to show where it may have originated, but that doesn't mean it hasn't actually gone through any further encoding from other formats beforehand. The most popular video programs I've come across are virtualdub, virtualdubmod, dvdfab, handbrake, dvdshirk, dvd-decryptor, divx, xvid to name only afew.
As for knowing if you have a true video version of a film/scene I guess it's when you make it yourself. Sad to say. And the rule of thumb for me has always been if I get a video never alter it. Don't attempt to re-encode it to "make it look better" cause you're gonna lose quality in the attempt.
I guess this isn't a critique of for a solution, just my 2 cents and my ideas on the situation from a technical side.

**buttsie** · January 6th, 2018, 10:08 PM

What your going to find is those that want a scene from movie
wont care so much about top quality if it means they avoid the unwanted scenes
and wasted bandwidth

Streaming is littered with butchered flv , mkv & mp4 files compared to the avi wmv originals

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicago

I thought there is a rule stating you are not allowed to take someone else' s file and repost them if they are already on a preferred host? I wonder what the mods say if brought to their attention.

Section to section will have their own take on it

Theres obviously a desire for solo scenes just as there was a want of having full picture sets & magazine scans on imagehosts instead of filehosts
so non-collectors could pick & choose individual pics/scans.

The very least should be a quote or link back to the original like these 2 from 5/6 years ago..from avi to wmv with ms video maker - reduced size

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...1&postcount=42
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...2&postcount=49

If we're talking truly awful quality you cant beat a 1.5gb avi/wmv movie
reduced to a 256mb mkv - like watching the moon landing

**mucowag** · January 7th, 2018, 12:12 AM

I re-encode stuff all the time, it's quick and easy, and if you do it properly there is
little, if any, noticeable difference in quality. I use AVC free, surprisingly powerful.
It's usually to get it to 4:3 mp4 so it can the be edited with no black borders.

However the issue here is not the crap re-encoding as such, but the splitting, and
re-hosting on shitty cash file hosters.

**QWS** · January 7th, 2018, 12:00 PM

**mucowag** · January 7th, 2018, 11:36 PM

Without giving a tutorial on how to re-encode correctly, the poster obviously has no
idea how to do it.

But back to my original point, a 1Gb file split into 8 x 100+ Mb chunks means more$$$$.

I have also seen on the forum, split files, even though the cash host allows bigger
files, so it could have been posted as one single file.

**Omnidirector** · January 8th, 2018, 01:44 AM

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but why re-encode? Let's say we have 1.2 GB file, beautifully encoded with h.264 codec, with multiple scenes, originally encoded from a DVD.

Why not to use Avidemux and simply cut / crop WITHOUT re-encoding anything? There's no quality loss at all in this case. You simply split it into multiple scenes.

However, if the originally encoded and compressed content, already available on VEF, is being further re-encoded and compressed, for the sole purpose to make $$$, I don't think it's a good idea for the community.

Jenny48549 · January 8th, 2018, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnidirector

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but why re-encode? Let's say we have 1.2 GB file, beautifully encoded with h.264 codec, with multiple scenes, originally encoded from a DVD.

Why not to use Avidemux and simply cut / crop WITHOUT re-encoding anything? There's no quality loss at all in this case. You simply split it into multiple scenes.

However, if the originally encoded and compressed content, already available on VEF, is being further re-encoded and compressed, for the sole purpose to make $$$, I don't think it's a good idea for the community.

These guys reencode to increase the file size of the clip download. Some hosts pay more depending on the size of the files downloaded and it also drives premium account sales as the larger files are more difficult to download successfully.

**QWS** · January 8th, 2018, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnidirector

Maybe I'm missing a point here, but why re-encode?

As i write earlier, only with one thing:

"It's very simple - he just tries to give out his posts for something exclusive and not posted everywhere and this extra step just gives him money - scenes looks like a "VODRip" and one button converter at very fast preset encoding time ~ 5 min per scene, maybe less"

January 6th, 2018, 03:48 PM	#33
andrito Vintage Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 611 Thanks: 3,318 Thanked 23,901 Times in 606 Posts	File Garbage - Rampant Duplication So, from what I'm getting by this thread, an original video downloaded is 'reconverted' into something else, up-scaled into a 16x9 frame from a 4x3 original. So the 4x3 original has black boarders on the sides to fit the 16x9 screen. So the image is reformatted to this ratio. Then the movie is split up into sepearate scenes or tracks. Then its uploaded into a different host file service. I've seen now where a 4x3 source has been "matted" into a 16x9 image so the top and bottom of the video are cut off! lol. Re encoding an already encoded file source is useless. The quality will drop in sound and picture. The file size may even increase with its bad encoding. And, of course someone thinking that they've downloaded something newly encoded from a better source are just getting the same old file again, only "up-scaled" or in a different container file format and its really not any better then the first time. Plus they have wasted either money to pay for the premium service for the file hoster for its speed, or they have wasted time in waiting for the slow download time. Taking a lot of time and a lot of effort in the process. This is where l coined the phrase "rampant duplication". You see the same video or photo uploaded over and over and over again. You see it in a different file format (mp4, mkv, avi,) and think it may be taken from a better source. The same applies to audio. You see a flac file (free lossless audio codec) and download it, thinking it is taken direct from CD or an hd source, when actually, what someone has done is taken their low res mp3, ac3, aac and "up-scaled" into flac. So the high res format you have is really a low res upscale. Total garbage. The only way you can really tell if its actually a true flac is to check its frequency in a program like audacity's frequency analyzer and actually see if it goes up to 44.1hz, 48khz, 96khz, etc. If its stuck in a certain frequency range you can just bet its a reformatted, up-scaled audio file. As far as detecting a video files frame rate and encoding to see if its taken from an original source, then you'd maybe use mediainfo to see if its got some tagging to show where it may have originated, but that doesn't mean it hasn't actually gone through any further encoding from other formats beforehand. The most popular video programs I've come across are virtualdub, virtualdubmod, dvdfab, handbrake, dvdshirk, dvd-decryptor, divx, xvid to name only afew. As for knowing if you have a true video version of a film/scene I guess it's when you make it yourself. Sad to say. And the rule of thumb for me has always been if I get a video never alter it. Don't attempt to re-encode it to "make it look better" cause you're gonna lose quality in the attempt. I guess this isn't a critique of for a solution, just my 2 cents and my ideas on the situation from a technical side. __________________ "But first I want you to bring this to Dario. I really feel good about it. You made me look better than ever. Please bring it to Dario first" - Zara Whites to John Stagliano in "Buttman's Ultimate Workout"

January 8th, 2018, 01:44 AM	#38
Omnidirector Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,696 Thanks: 37,480 Thanked 79,140 Times in 2,685 Posts	Maybe I'm missing a point here, but why re-encode? Let's say we have 1.2 GB file, beautifully encoded with h.264 codec, with multiple scenes, originally encoded from a DVD. Why not to use Avidemux and simply cut / crop WITHOUT re-encoding anything? There's no quality loss at all in this case. You simply split it into multiple scenes. However, if the originally encoded and compressed content, already available on VEF, is being further re-encoded and compressed, for the sole purpose to make $$$, I don't think it's a good idea for the community. Last edited by Omnidirector; January 8th, 2018 at 01:53 AM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

January 5th, 2018, 10:35 PM	#31
mucowag Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,011 Thanks: 3,100 Thanked 22,187 Times in 983 Posts	My preferred host link is still active. Ok I had done some work on the original, but effectively a repost on joke file. http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/t34...oman-1965.html

January 7th, 2018, 12:12 AM	#35
mucowag Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,011 Thanks: 3,100 Thanked 22,187 Times in 983 Posts	I re-encode stuff all the time, it's quick and easy, and if you do it properly there is little, if any, noticeable difference in quality. I use AVC free, surprisingly powerful. It's usually to get it to 4:3 mp4 so it can the be edited with no black borders. However the issue here is not the crap re-encoding as such, but the splitting, and re-hosting on shitty cash file hosters.

January 7th, 2018, 12:00 PM	#36
QWS Moderator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 6,347 Thanks: 15,053 Thanked 270,379 Times in 6,440 Posts	OK! But what you think about this: http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...22&postcount=6 - NTSC source file (576 x 432 @ 29.970 fps) transform (via one button video converter) into 720 x 576 @ 25.000 fps upscaled garbage with jerking video (wrong fps conversion result) ? http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...8&postcount=71 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=181 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=182 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...6&postcount=99 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=183 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...4&postcount=87 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=180 http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...4&postcount=72

January 7th, 2018, 11:36 PM	#37
mucowag Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,011 Thanks: 3,100 Thanked 22,187 Times in 983 Posts	Without giving a tutorial on how to re-encode correctly, the poster obviously has no idea how to do it. But back to my original point, a 1Gb file split into 8 x 100+ Mb chunks means more$$$$. I have also seen on the forum, split files, even though the cash host allows bigger files, so it could have been posted as one single file.