Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Adron on September 26, 2003, 01:05 PM
What about all the 700 meg 75 minute divx movies?

I don't know.  I hate divx.  I'm sure one can find better compression ratios for movies, but that is like the upper limit people have on counter-strike movies.  I think it is in part because of the fast action sequences.

Quote from: kamakazie on September 26, 2003, 02:38 PM

Quote from: Adron on September 26, 2003, 01:05 PM
What about all the 700 meg 75 minute divx movies?

I don't know.  I hate divx.  I'm sure one can find better compression ratios for movies, but that is like the upper limit people have on counter-strike movies.  I think it is in part because of the fast action sequences.

What's wrong with DivX?

The big filesize is for a few reasons:

-The program I use to render the video produces large file sizes simply due to the way it renders each frame (Vegas Video)

-DivX isn't the best for compression... WMV is good, I hear, but it's pretty complicated and when I tried encoding in WMV it never worked. DivX isn't too bad though.

-I just noticed I'm not using any codec for my audio, it's uncompressed. I don't have any good codecs and the best I can do right now is 56kbps mp3 which sounds like total crap. I'll try to find an Mp3 encoder.

Edit: I can't find a good codec to encode MP3s. If anyone knows one, please tell me.

You should encode audio as AC3 rather than MP3. If you want MP3, the best I know is Lame MP3. (Dunno any encoders though.)

What is the performance of AC3 vs MP3 vs say OGG or other supposedly good alternative codecs?

I love DivX stuff, I download 2 hour DivX movies all the time.  Usually I have to download a 1.5 gig version and wait until someone re-encodes it, then I can delete that one and get the 700 meg version.  Takes half the space and I rarely notice a real quality difference.

Quote from: Adron on September 28, 2003, 05:10 AM
What is the performance of AC3 vs MP3 vs say OGG or other supposedly good alternative codecs?

Supposedly, AC3 enjoys being in sync with the video more than MP3 does. Dunno about OGG.

Quote from: Soul Taker on September 28, 2003, 05:36 AM
I love DivX stuff, I download 2 hour DivX movies all the time.  Usually I have to download a 1.5 gig version and wait until someone re-encodes it, then I can delete that one and get the 700 meg version.  Takes half the space and I rarely notice a real quality difference.

Depends on the length of the movie. 1-1.5 hours in 700mb is great, 2-2.5 hours in 700mb is less than great (but still ok), 3+ hours really needs 1.4gb or so.

Quote from: Soul Taker on September 28, 2003, 05:36 AM
I love DivX stuff, I download 2 hour DivX movies all the time.  Usually I have to download a 1.5 gig version and wait until someone re-encodes it, then I can delete that one and get the 700 meg version.  Takes half the space and I rarely notice a real quality difference.

You *could* also learn to reencode them yourself....

Quote from: Yoni on September 28, 2003, 08:11 AM

Quote from: Adron on September 28, 2003, 05:10 AM
What is the performance of AC3 vs MP3 vs say OGG or other supposedly good alternative codecs?

Supposedly, AC3 enjoys being in sync with the video more than MP3 does. Dunno about OGG.

AC3 tracks tend to be encoded on a dvd in higher bitrates than MP3 tracks in divx movies typically are. Could they be reencoded to a lower AC3 bitrate and get the same or better quality as an MP3 of that bitrate?

Quote from: Adron on September 28, 2003, 08:30 AM

Quote from: Soul Taker on September 28, 2003, 05:36 AM
I love DivX stuff, I download 2 hour DivX movies all the time.  Usually I have to download a 1.5 gig version and wait until someone re-encodes it, then I can delete that one and get the 700 meg version.  Takes half the space and I rarely notice a real quality difference.

You *could* also learn to reencode them yourself....

This is true, however on my very old system (and my only system), it would take a very long time and I'm not willing to lose what little performance I have for an extended period.

Quote from: Soul Taker on September 28, 2003, 08:44 AM

Quote from: Adron on September 28, 2003, 08:30 AM

Quote from: Soul Taker on September 28, 2003, 05:36 AM
I love DivX stuff, I download 2 hour DivX movies all the time.  Usually I have to download a 1.5 gig version and wait until someone re-encodes it, then I can delete that one and get the 700 meg version.  Takes half the space and I rarely notice a real quality difference.

You *could* also learn to reencode them yourself....

This is true, however on my very old system (and my only system), it would take a very long time and I'm not willing to lose what little performance I have for an extended period.

Do it overnight.. surely your computer can't be in use 24/7!

I have a 500, and I can encode a movie in ~2-3 hours.

Quote from: iago on September 29, 2003, 05:37 PM

I have a 500, and I can encode a movie in ~2-3 hours.

That's nice. I thought it would be much less than realtime on any P3. Skywing: How long did your encoding take? Not more than 2-3 hours?

Quote from: Adron on September 30, 2003, 11:39 AM

Quote from: iago on September 29, 2003, 05:37 PM

I have a 500, and I can encode a movie in ~2-3 hours.

That's nice. I thought it would be much less than realtime on any P3. Skywing: How long did your encoding take? Not more than 2-3 hours?

It took about 2.5 hours for each pass, and then about 5-10 minutes to mux the final video with the audio.
I don't think iago is using very good compression if he can 'compress' a movie that fast on a 500MHz.

Actually, I think I was converting from .avi->.mpg, now that I think about it.. similar, though!

Haha, not all that similar in performance, but similar in spirit i suppose.