View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
I have a movie that is 1.4 GB, but only 1h 30min long and the quality isn't even average. Is there anyway to re-encode the movie so it doesn't take up that much HDD space? (Yes, I know that it will take many hours...)
Size: 1,4 GBs
Video Codec: DIVXMPG4 V3
Sound: MPEG Layer-3,160 kBit/s, 48,000 Hz, Stereo
640 x 480, 133325 pics, 25.000 pics/sec, 268 kB/sec, DIVXMPG4 V3
(I guess there isn't much to do with it, but its worth a chance)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27
-
-
You can re-encode using the same DivX codec, but hit configure and change the data rate, the default is 3000 change to 500 and see what the quality is like, see if you can lower this number further without quality loss.
Also the audio is MPEG Layer-3,160 kBit/s, 48,000 Hz, Stereo
see if you can compress the MP3 down by lowering the kbit/s or even convert to Mono ?
90 Minuet DVD rips using this codec are usually around 700Mb -
What I would do with that is produce a 1-CD non-standard VCD. First I would save out the uncompressed wav and convert to 44,100Hz using VirtualDub. Then I would load the standard PAL VCD template and then the unlock template, saving it as a new template. I would then use the project wizard, loading the new template and the avi and wav. I would then reduce the audio bitrate to 160, alter the rate control mode to 2-pass VBR (max bitrate=1300, min bitrate=350, average bitrate=1000, + enable padding). Then adjust the av bitrate to fill an 80 minute CD. The resultant mpg I would burn as a VCD with Nero.
Bear in mind not all DVD players will play non-standard VCD. But many will. 8) -
thanks banjazzer
-
Isn't that sticking your tongue out?Originally Posted by jangofeitthanks banjazzer
-
BTW: How can I see the "Data Rate" on a DivX?
Is it on the properties on the file in windows? (It says 268 kB/sec.... huh)
Oh
(.....)I opened the AVI in VirtualDub to get the "AVI Information"(.....) -
Why on earth would you want to convert it to a VCD mpeg just to reduce its size for hard drive storage...
-
Because it's a 1.4GB movie, 90 minutes long, and of below average quality. There is no reason at all to take up 2 disks, or 2 disks' worth of space on your HD. It would seem a prime candidate for a 1-CD VCD. 8)
-
So your saying a VCD mpeg is going to be much smaller than a DivX file with the same quality
-
I'm saying that a 700 MB VCD with approximately the same quality is going to be smaller than 1.4GB. Probably by 700MB or so.
If the quality is below average there is no reason to go above VCD resolution. On the other hand, if you are complete idiot, you can make a 4-CD SVCD set, which will still have the same crap quality, but it will have kept you off the streets for a while.
I have a movie that is 1.4 GB, but only 1h 30min long and the quality isn't even average. -
Whats the best way if I just want to convert the audio to 44100Hz or even 22050Hz? I guess 22050Hz is bad quality tho
Can somebody make a simple guid for me, but it needs to include how to find out what bitrate i should use -
original postOriginally Posted by banjazzerI'm saying that a 700 MB VCD with approximately the same quality is going to be smaller than 1.4GB. Probably by 700MB or so. If the quality is below average there is no reason to go above VCD resolution. On the other hand, if you are complete idiot, you can make a 4-CD SVCD set, which will still have the same crap quality, but it will have kept you off the streets for a while.
I have a movie that is 1.4 GB, but only 1h 30min long and the quality isn't even average.
HDD Space, nothing about making a VCD out of itIs there anyway to re-encode the movie so it doesn't take up that much HDD space? (Yes, I know that it will take many hours...)
-
So, anyone?Originally Posted by jangofeitWhats the best way if I just want to convert the audio to 44100Hz or even 22050Hz? I guess 22050Hz is bad quality tho
Can somebody make a simple guid for me, but it needs to include how to find out what bitrate i should use -
He said he wanted to re-encode to take up less disk space. I said he may as well re-encode to a 1-CD VCD, which would take up half the space. Since the quality of the DivX was below average, a VCD would quite likely not look any worse. That way he could play it on a PC or thru a TV, which might show up less of the material's shortcomings. Frankly it's possible that it's not worth re-encoding. 8)Originally Posted by KingJohn
-
Gargantuan Gigs...
There certainly should be. I have rarely seen DivX files this big however. Usually only files captured with an uncompressed codec will reach such heights in file size. Honestly, I've never liked the DIVXMPG4 V3 codec, it always seems to do weird things. I suggest you convert it to DivX 4.12 or 5.02 if possible.Originally Posted by jangofeit
Hmmm... Something here doesn't make sense... At 160 Kilobits per second audio and 268 Kilobits per second video, a 90 minute AVI file should be around 282 megabytes. Are you sure these are the correct numbers? I am concerned by the way you wrote "MPEG Layer-3,160 kBit/s".... Is this MP3 at 160, or MP3 at 3,160 instead?Originally Posted by jangofeit
Nah, that makes no sense either... Judging by the 1.4 GB file size, your video would have to be something like 1960 Kilobits per second or higher. It's almost as if something is artificially increasing the size of your file, if your given numbers are correct. Can you load the file into VirtualDub and check it's properties (File | Information...) there? That might help us out a bit more, as it should be more detailed than what you see in Windows Explorer.
NOTE: You might try doing a direct stream copy of video ONLY in VirtualDub. If the resulting new file is much smaller, you know the problem is your audio, not the video.]
HUN-YA!
Akai Rounin -
ok, Akai Rounin, here is a screenshot of the info from VirtualDub:
http://hjem.sol.no/rthorel/avi.jpg [Use "Save Target As..."]
Thanks for all the help I get
-
Oklie Doklie Then...
A total of 576 key frames over approximately 90 minutes of video... 576 divided by 90 yields 6.4 key frames per minute, roughly one every ten seconds... Seems to fall in line with the tradition of one key frame every 300 frames or so...
Of those 576 key frames, the smallest was 2004 K - but is that Kilobits or Kilobytes...? Hmmmm... Their average size was 21145 K... The largest one(s) were 66593 K... The total size of all 576 key frames combined was 11895 K...? Waitasec! That doesn't make sense either... ~*GRUMBLE*~ So... Those other numbers must be RAW bits, no K at all...
Make that Minimum - 2004 bits, Average - 21145 bits, Max - 66593 bits for the key frames. 250.4 bytes, 2643.125 bytes and 8324 bytes, respectively. I think... Overall the key frames came to 11895 Kilobytes. Not much really, just about 11 megabytes.
Learning from that, the delta frame sizes are... Minimum - 287 bits, Average - 10113 bits, Maximum - 88772 bits. That translates to 35.875 bytes, 1264.125 bytes and 11096.5 bytes respectively. Overall the delta frames made up 1,311,111 Kilobytes. That is a whole bunch, 1280.38~ MB, or 1.25 GB - ~*WAY*~ too much for a 90 minute file. This is your problem, the video MUST be resampled.
Oh, but at what rate? That, is the question, eh? Well, start with your favorite DivX bitrate calculator and work from there. I reiterate, "At 160 Kilobits per second audio and 268 Kilobits per second video, a 90 minute AVI file should be around 282 megabytes. Are you sure these are the correct numbers?"
You said that the video quality was below average... If it were intended to be less than 300 MB in size for 90 minutes of video, it is considerably below average. So there is no point really in trying to fill even the space of a 650 MB CD-R with this content. Giving benefit of the doubt, you could aim to have a final file size under 400 MB.
Specifically, around 350 MB and you should experience no quality loss whatsoever. Once more, use DivX 4.12 or 5.02 and a video CBR of around 370 Kilobits per second. A Direct Stream Copy of the original audio should suffice, though you might output a separate WAV file and use that as the source instead. Good luck!
Unta Glebin Gloutin Globin,
Akai Rounin, The Cyber Sage -
thanks man, you rock!
-
So !!, we eventually get to saving out the AVI using a DivX codec ?Specifically, around 350 MB and you should experience no quality loss whatsoever. Once more, use DivX 4.12 or 5.02 and a video CBR of around 370 Kilobits per second. A Direct Stream Copy of the original audio should suffice, though you might output a separate WAV file and use that as the source instead. Good luck!
My original post
With the only diference of using Divx 4/5 instead of the original. Why so much waffle to get to the same thingYou can re-encode using the same DivX codec, but hit configure and change the data rate, the default is 3000 change to 500 and see what the quality is like, see if you can lower this number further without quality loss.
-
Partly because you thought your solution would be superior to a 1-CD VCD. In the case of a below-average DivX this would quite likely not be the case. 8)
-
Because the DivX is below average does not mean you want to make it any worse than it is.
To make a file smaller bit for bit without loosing the already bad quality, the DivX AVI will be much smaller than any mpeg1. By the time you have reduced a mpeg1 down to the same size as a DivX the quality would be a lot worse. -
That does not follow at all. A VBR VCD frequently has better quality than a larger standard VCD because it makes use of higher bitrates where necessary. And unless you keep everything on HD there is no particular advantage to having the re-encoded file less than CD-size. If the DivX is noticably worse than average, which is apparently the case, encoding to VCD rather than re-encoding to DivX will hardly be inferior, except in your mind. The quality of the source means the resolution of VCD is not a problem here.
Since we are both talking hypothetically, as neither of us has access to the original, I cannot demonstrate you are talking tosh. So we'll just have to leave it there.
BTW I do encode to DivX, VCD and SVCD, frequently from DVD, so I do know the difference between them. I am also well aware of the limitations imposed by resolution. I also know that in many cases it is not worth re-encoding from DivX because of the shoddy source material, which is the biggest limitation of all. Although some DivX is near-DVD quality, much that I have seen is not, and is decidedly shoddy! In fact in these cases, often the best thing to do is to delete them. At the very least, dodgy material is best watched on a small TV, from a distance. Try that with your DivX. 8) -
What ?In fact in these cases, often the best thing to do is to delete them
Having spent a lot of time downiding them, trying to extract the WAV, making a meg1, the leased you can do is make a VCD out of them... Then throw it away 8) -
The idea was to, as they say in algebra, "show my work" as it were. To continue with cliche, I wanted to teach the man to fish, if you don't mind. I used to teach computer aided drafting at the college level. One thing you learn as a teacher is to remember how you learned and pass that process on to your students. If someone asks "Why?" it helps a lot to be able to answer in a satisfactory manner. That way they understand that you really do know what you are talking about.Originally Posted by KingJohnWhy so much waffle to get to the same thing
HUN-YA!
Akai Rounin
[Who realizes this was a rhetorical question, but really hates rhetorical questions...] -
I agree, thats why we have so many help guides on this site, and thats why nobody reads them
People want short, sharp answers 8) -
Precisely. The instant you give those short, sharp answers, they simply ask more short, sharp questions. After hearing the same questions oh, the billionth time or so, it gets a bit tedious. If only they'd listen to the full explanation all the way through just once, some of those short, sharp questions could be avoided.Originally Posted by KingJohnI agree, thats why we have so many help guides on this site, and thats why nobody reads them
People want short, sharp answers 8)
HUN-YA!
Akai Rounin
"Listen Without Prejudice" - George Michael -
Na, you could write a book, but when its read there will always be more questions. Better to wait to see what those questions are, as they are never the same ones from the same people
Quote
Visit Homepage