| Re: ATTN Rely - Your request - <- Awesome RIB, thanks! |
|
| RIB (rib@rack.com) |
2015/04/15 10:23 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newspeer1.nac.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder2.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!81.171.118.64.MISMATCH!peer04.fr7!news.highwinds-media.com!peer03.am1!peering.am1!npeersf04.am4!fx24.fr7.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RIB <rib@rack.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.documentaries
Subject: Re: ATTN Rely - Your request - <- Awesome RIB, thanks!
X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v6.5 Beta 6 (http://www.newsleecher.com)
References: <foosiah7fg9ke7r8uemi77rruq7uiboaqk@4ax.com>
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <fgwXw.133933$8q6.125552@fx24.fr7>
X-Complaints-To: http://www.newsleecher.com/support/
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:23:39 UTC
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 16:23:39 GMT
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3640343991
X-Received-Bytes: 2567
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.documentaries:2923
In reply to "Knotty Bitz" who wrote the following:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 07:56:50 GMT, RIB <rib@rack.com> wrote:
>
> > You are welcome.
> >
> > I've managed to get the file size down to about 650 megs for the AVIs But
> > strangely I can't go much smaller than that for H.264
> >
> > The files on the DVD9s are way too big for the quality of the clips which
> > means
> > it's very difficult to get a good size/quality ratio. I swear this is done
> > on
> > purpose.
> >
> > I'll post one of each when I have more time and then you can tell me if you
> > are
> > interested in the rest.
> >
> > RIB.
>
> My prediction of 2/3 smaller was based on doing the one episode, which
> happened to compress well. I was probably too optimistic. ;-)
>
> You know, it probably shouldn't be surprising when we consider that
> 50% or more consists of old archival footage - raw, unprocessed, noisy
> material, and lots of it taken from analog TV. In fact, I've seen
> docs get larger not smaller for this reason. I cranked the xvids
> through HB at CRF 23 and got an average of 534 MB per ep. If I'd gone
> for CRF 24, the average might have slipped under 500. And that was for
> resolution of 640x480. You're probably going for the max (PAL)
> resolution, closer vto 720x576. Therefore, if I had the original
> DVD-9s, I'd go for the better resolution, use a setting of CRF 24, and
> accept what resulted with the filesize.
>
> BTW I misspokie yesterday. I said that the original poster did the
> audio at 81Kbps. I must have had a brain fart. When I looked again it
> was actually 192K stereo.
>
> KB
---------------------------------------------------
I did do a trial with a CRF of 24 and thought it looked pretty good although the
resulting file was about 800 megs. I'll play around with it a bit and post what
I think is the best quality over size. I'm sure you'll let me know if it's crap
:-)
RIB.
|
|
|