Jump to content


Photo

File size


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 28 November 2019 - 04:33 PM

but again, you seem to be doing this to prove a point rather than its how a normal person would use it.

 

And from my testing (i'm currently on the other side of the world from my server) it takes no longer to start a file that is 29Gb in size from time =0 than it does to start the same movies from the middle using a chapter or resume marker. so i don't really understand the point

 

 

well then with all due respect you must be old or sitting a long way from your tv. a) it stands to reason that of course quality is reduced when the file size is reduced, its not packed with air :) B) i can tell you from my own testing that i have never seen a conversion that i have been truly happy with in terms of quality. the drop may vary from very slight to quite significant but i've never had a conversion i've been 100% happy with. I tried to do exactly what you are doing last year, couldnt find a way of converting that i was happy with. thought about it for a while and decided that given we are headed to larger and larger screens there was just no point in converting given the cheapness of HD space, the cost of conversion (if you have one of those smart plugs that can report power usage its very interesting to watch how much more is consumed by the cpu running at 100% for extended periods of time is, i did this) and the loss of quality on conversion

Not as old as you might think, but I do know a few things about encryption and compression along with file formats. Not exactly a guru when it comes to video and audio. However i do know especially in the computing world there are many ways to represent data, some take far less room than others. Then there is also the human limitation. Fact is when talking 1080 most people wont notice a pixel or 5 that are out of place, dead or incorrect there has to be pretty large problems for someone to notice unless someone is staring and looking for an issue at the screen and there is no real motion or change of scenary. I suspect your notice of quality is likely the placebo effect, or bad configuration. The science behind all this basically says you have to be far closer than what most people are to get un-noticable quality differance. Scroll down to the bottom to see the chart: https://www.forbes.c...v/#34752dd24db7 if you have a 75 inch 4k tv you need to be under 5 feet from it to get full benefit. I doubt anyone with a tv that big sits that close hell would the whole tv even be in your field of vision?



#22 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 28 November 2019 - 04:43 PM

Also, i am still using those incredibly "underpowered" mi box 3 devices which now that emby made some corrections a while back can now direct play live tv without issue. Funny that hu?



#23 Spaceboy OFFLINE  

Spaceboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 4019 posts
  • Local time: 05:55 PM

Posted 28 November 2019 - 04:44 PM

Not as old as you might think, but I do know a few things about encryption and compression along with file formats. Not exactly a guru when it comes to video and audio. However i do know especially in the computing world there are many ways to represent data, some take far less room than others. Then there is also the human limitation. Fact is when talking 1080 most people wont notice a pixel or 5 that are out of place, dead or incorrect there has to be pretty large problems for someone to notice unless someone is staring and looking for an issue at the screen and there is no real motion or change of scenary. I suspect your notice of quality is likely the placebo effect, or bad configuration. The science behind all this basically says you have to be far closer than what most people are to get un-noticable quality differance. Scroll down to the bottom to see the chart: https://www.forbes.c...v/#34752dd24db7 if you have a 75 inch 4k tv you need to be under 5 feet from it to get full benefit. I doubt anyone with a tv that big sits that close hell would the whole tv even be in your field of vision?

ok but even then its a personal opinion on something that doesnt matter because if you start the movie from a chapter in the middle of the movie there is no buffering.

 

actually you are getting a smaller file but at a cost of conversion. can't be bothered to compare the price per byte saved against the cost of conversion but you are not making a convincing argument

 

but each to their own. you want to convert at a cost, i want to buy more drive space at a cost. no biggie


Edited by Spaceboy, 28 November 2019 - 04:45 PM.


#24 Deathsquirrel OFFLINE  

Deathsquirrel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 2020 posts
  • Local time: 09:55 AM

Posted 28 November 2019 - 11:27 PM

i can tell you from my own testing that i have never seen a conversion that i have been truly happy with in terms of quality. the drop may vary from very slight to quite significant but i've never had a conversion i've been 100% happy with. I tried to do exactly what you are doing last year, couldnt find a way of converting that i was happy with.

 

I've done conversions I'm happy with but the settings are different for every movie I rip.  There are no universal settings.  Hell, there aren't a few settings that I can cycle through for testing.  It's trial and error, and error, and error.  It's not worth it.  I switched to full rips and just buy more drives.  Drives aren't any more expensive than shelves used to be before I moved to binders.


  • Spaceboy likes this

#25 Spaceboy OFFLINE  

Spaceboy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 4019 posts
  • Local time: 05:55 PM

Posted 29 November 2019 - 07:30 AM

I've done conversions I'm happy with but the settings are different for every movie I rip. There are no universal settings. Hell, there aren't a few settings that I can cycle through for testing. It's trial and error, and error, and error. It's not worth it. I switched to full rips and just buy more drives. Drives aren't any more expensive than shelves used to be before I moved to binders.

true, I think that is also the issue. Unless I have time to check each converted file I wouldn’t be happy to delete the original. As I have like 80tb of movies that’s never going to happen

#26 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 02 December 2019 - 05:46 PM

what quality did you select?

So luke, curious, why is it when i use hardware acceleration the file size increases but when I dont the file size decreases as expected?



#27 Luke OFFLINE  

Luke

    System Architect

  • Administrators
  • 142525 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 12:56 PM

But it's still under 1.5 mbps, correct?



#28 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 02:26 PM

But it's still under 1.5 mbps, correct?

Settings wise they were both identical except the larger file was from having hardware acceleration on.

Sent from my moto g(6) play using Tapatalk

#29 Luke OFFLINE  

Luke

    System Architect

  • Administrators
  • 142525 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 02:27 PM

I mean the bitrate of the converted file once it was completed.



#30 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 08:52 PM

I mean the bitrate of the converted file once it was completed.

I did not check that and i already deleted it.

I dont suppose that is mentioned in the log?


Edited by tdiguy, 03 December 2019 - 08:53 PM.


#31 Luke OFFLINE  

Luke

    System Architect

  • Administrators
  • 142525 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 09:24 PM

Yes you'll see the bitrate throughout the log.

#32 tdiguy OFFLINE  

tdiguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 1164 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 03 December 2019 - 10:07 PM

Yes you'll see the bitrate throughout the log.

Ok, so in the log i found this: BitRate":518260 I take it that means that with hardware acceleration on it is not honoring the 1.5mbps setting?

The bitrate for the one with hardware acceleration off is: BitRate":1305856,

Which is significantly higher but the file is significantly smaller..


Edited by tdiguy, 03 December 2019 - 10:13 PM.


#33 Luke OFFLINE  

Luke

    System Architect

  • Administrators
  • 142525 posts
  • Local time: 12:55 PM

Posted 04 December 2019 - 12:55 AM

Sounds like that value came from the source and not the output.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users