While looking for benefits of mkv over avi, I came across a post where someone mentioned how movie files floating around P2P are so small, yet so good in quality. I have noticed that too in the past, but never bothered digging into it.
I wonder if any smart brainy figured out a preset that can get you similar size quality at a smaller video size. I would love to have that preset.
Plus, if anyone knows, will such encoding take lot longer time?
Thanks in advance.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Rule #1: Every movie compresses differently based on its contents: some more easily & efficiently, some less so.
Rule #2: Quality is truly "in the eye of the beholder", so people's understanding of what is acceptable quality varies GREATLY. What some people (including those who might be uploading & downloading from p2p sites) consider to be quite "good" in quality, others would find totally unacceptable garbage. Then there's also varying levels of acceptable moments (IOW, for some purposes, that a clip exists at all might make it acceptable enough).
Presets of the kind you are talking about would never work (see Rule #1)
There are some settings that make a particular codec more or less efficiently able to compress a particular KIND of content, but there is always a downside (e.g. more complex, longer time to encode and/or decode, dropping compatibility with certain classes of players, sacrificing some other feature or some other content element, etc). IOW, if you got it to work the way you want it to, it most definitely ought to take longer. How much longer is too variable to even describe.
Hmm...Benefits of MKV over AVI?
1. Open source, so no legal or financial entanglements with implementation
2. Compatible with certain advanced features of certain advanced codecs
3. Lower percentage overhead (but both are miniscule)
4. More adept at accommodating future feature expansion (and documenting it in a standardized way, with the metadata/tagging).
Downside (MKV not as good as AVI)?
1. Not as common in legacy PCs & devices, and not likely to be as ubiquitous in the near future (both the format and apps that work with it)
2. Open source, so only driving force/champion is consumer demand, lessening corporate buy-in (with the added burden of malleable standards governance & troubleshooting)
3. Is rarely used end-to-end throughout the production chain, which perpetuates it's 2nd class status
Other than those, I don't see ANY difference between the 2. Both support 99% of the popular codecs out there (both A & V), both support multiple streams (of A & V), both have sporadic support for subtitles/menus/chapters, both have had varying amounts of implementation compliance.
quality at a smaller video size
So some p2p gurus compromise somewhere in between, and some select one out of two.
When ever you come across good quality, may be a result of first rip-n-encode for HQ source.
In all subsequent encodes, different artifacts are clearly visible.
The rest is covered in details in previous reply.
Last edited by enim; 28th Feb 2014 at 10:22.
Generally comparing MKV and AVI is comparing apples and oranges. MKV containers can hold almost anything (I don't know what they can't hold, but maybe there is something). AVI is a bit more restrictive. But when you talk MKV and AVI about internet downloads, you're not comparing the same thing. Usually this is what the terms really mean.
AVI - Divx or Xvid video with MP3 or AC3 audio. Some small chance of DTS audio with anything else probably not working on standalone hardware players.
MKV - H.264 video with AAC or AC3 audio. Some small chance of DTS audio. Deviations in audio or video from what I just mentioned may not be supported at all on standalone hardware players although the MKV spec does allow them.
In fact, you can easily wrap Divx/Xvid video and AC3 audio in an MKV container, but I defy you to find a standalone hardware device that will play it. The term "standalone hardware player" does NOT mean PC. It means a BluRay or DVD player, streaming media player, etc.
H.264 compresses better than Divx/Xvid meaning that you can get smaller files for the same quality as Divx/Xvid. Additionally some of those internet downloads are reduced to smaller resolution (ie. BluRay downsized to standard definition) which can help make the smaller bit rates (and thus smaller file size) look OK. As pointed out by Cornucopia, everybody's definition of quality varies a lot. Animation compresses much more efficiently than live action and drama with little action compresses better than a kung fu movie, for example. Some of the well known file sharers use custom filtering to sharpen and such and this makes most people perceive it to be of higher quality, but it can introduce some very minor flaws that some people go nuts about. So there's no "one size fits all" preset because some people are VERY sensitive (read the posts here regularly to see what I mean) to flaws that 99% of the population cannot even detect in video and it's just not worth the headache of having these people bitch about how much the preset "sucks". And believe me, if you read the posts here you will understand that we have some members who are so picky, I honestly feel sorry for them. I'm not sure that it's even possible to make a video at all that they can't find a flaw in. What a way to live your life. Plus, something that makes anime look fantastic may not be so great for live action, and so on.
If you're a fan of horror movies, then undoubtedly, for the realization of its goal of reducing the file size, you will need 10bit codec.
I sought two months of excellent quality, and now I have two presets 8/10bit. Better to study the behavior of the encoder, and choose settings for your favorite
oh yeah .... there is little nuance, developers change / enhance / may worsen code - that is already leading to changes in behavior coding / quality, then preset can become obsolete / become useless!
Last edited by Gravitator; 28th Feb 2014 at 10:43.
Better to study the behavior of the encoder, and choose settings for your favorite
but if you know that defaults just brings you good result , that good compression/ playability ratio, good to know weakness of codec, x264 pixelating in gradients and dark areas is enough to know
it is Urban myth to look for best settings,
there is right filtering for specific footage, best resize, best deinterlace, using different bitrates, filtering, different filters for different parts of movie, not to mess up telecine footage etc. etc., , ..., simply doing things right preparing footage before encoding, and sometimes it is so time consuming that it is not much efficient anyway
Those really small p2p files you've read about may look good on your phone, but otherwise they're not good quality. You can always find what you'd like to hear on the web.
If you want to fiind the settings on those files, open them in mediainfo. There should be settings listed unless the encoder blocked them. Then find an encoder that'll accept them as arguments.
P2P streaming TV today evolves/moves these guys > acestream.org
Last edited by Gravitator; 28th Feb 2014 at 13:15.
In fact, the way the Divx HD+ specs read, they kind of imply a Divx HD+ certified device would have to play Divx/Xvid video in an MKV. http://www.divx.com/files/DivX-Profiles_Tech-Specs.pdf
It'd be pretty odd if a DivX HD+ certified device was limited to playing DivX video in an AVI when it's MKV capable.
Last edited by hello_hello; 28th Feb 2014 at 16:32.
My sony bdp-s380 which is 3 years old plays xxid in mkv.I think,therefore i am a hamster.