PDA

View Full Version : Traders Den Sharing Standards (Video)


u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-12, 12:04 PM
Why does Traders Den ALLOW DVD sharing?

Which in the video world is the eqivelent(sp) of what MP3 is to Audio

Compressed....Lossy....Poor Quality

Rather than embracing the advances in codec and compression that have taken place over the last 20 years

I'm not saying stop sharing DVD's, it is a widely used format

But the reality is there are much better alternatives for high quality storage of Video data in smaller file sizes(H264 and Divx)

I can compress a 28 gig(2h14m) raw DV file to H264 or Divx and create a virtual clone of the original DV that will have a file size under 3 gigs

There are Divx comptible DVD players that will play these files to your TV and even programs to create DVD style menu's and chapters, and it will look better than ANY mpeg2 DVD would

If you are going to argue DVD is better because DVD is what we have always done then maybe you should throw your computer out the window and go back to using, telephones, facsimile machines and USPS mail for communication

Discuss

chazuke
2008-09-12, 03:25 PM
Your point is neither completely true nor completely false.

Some truth, in that what may be an "inflated" file size of a DVD. Inflated is however not the same as lossy or compressed. Some part of the data inflation can be attributed to the supporting of the DVD to run as you are used to it, like insert and autostart + menu + other convenient extras. Another part of the inflated data are, indeed, renounceable/empty bits, containing no information actually used in the playback. Some DVDs are indeed compressed, especially ones generated from mini-dv masters. Better qualities would in such case be desirable.

I second the core and conclusion: The DVD is a miserable format. More disadvantages, other than just matters of compression. It is a typical example of music industry product/inventions with all its garbage aspects such as copy protection and regional restriction. Big BS. Likewise the audio CD & 16bit/44.1kHz. Both, DVD and CD, already history IMO.

Limulus
2008-09-12, 04:04 PM
itunes is the future then? :lol4:

DVD(5) is VERY nice for video about 65min - analog or digital sources. with video bitrates around 8000 + LPCM audio you get kinda a clone of your DV tape.

its different with the higher definitions off course where you loose resolution when converting to DVD.

audio 16/44......well, this is still ok but such a fucking old standard from the early/mid 80s, i never got why the industry never pushed higher audio standards that much that consumers would follow immediately - exspecially in times where quality gets better and better over the years.

vladsmythe
2008-09-12, 04:05 PM
Is DivX allowed? If so, I'll never upload a DVD again! Please will a mod here give the
thumb's up".

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-12, 08:40 PM
Divx is not allowed
that is the rub

Limulus:

65m of video @<hidden> 8000kbps and lpcm audio would be somewhere around 5-6 gigs

i can get similar quality both audio and video in a file about 1/5th the size, that is the point

and even at 8000kbps i can see loss, especially in frame analyses but not wih h264 and divx at stream rates of 2500 and up

better quality, 1/3 the size, whats the problem?

U2Lynne
2008-09-12, 08:44 PM
Video standards and any changes to them here are up to the Video Mods. They are currently writing up rules for HD Video on the site (first draft here - HD Video BitTorrent Seeding Policy (http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_hdrules)). I don't think they will be changing things to allow DivX.


(Hi Michael!)

Five
2008-09-12, 10:29 PM
I'm an audio guy, so the way I look at it is we're tied to the legacy 16/44.1 even tho I would guess that the majority of downloaded shows here never ever get burned to audio cdr.

24bit is starting to show up more and more... but not that much for some reason. I think a lot of ppl have trouble understanding new things, and get confused by 24bit.

so DVD is similar... we could just trade around raw unauthored files but we need some kind of an anchor here. blu ray discs will start showing up and wait until all those "EXCFUZE ME HOW TO BURN IT??? DOWNLOAD IS BROKEN" kind of posts.

so can you demonstrate this quality difference to impress the video cats here? I'm curious to see the diff.

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-13, 04:48 PM
so can you demonstrate this quality difference to impress the video cats here? I'm curious to see the diff.


if divx can import into Vegas then i can do a side by side comparison of mpeg2 dvd and divx, i will chekc tonight

Limulus
2008-09-14, 06:47 AM
Divx is not allowed
that is the rub

Limulus:

65m of video @<hidden> 8000kbps and lpcm audio would be somewhere around 5-6 gigs

i can get similar quality both audio and video in a file about 1/5th the size, that is the point

and even at 8000kbps i can see loss, especially in frame analyses but not wih h264 and divx at stream rates of 2500 and up

better quality, 1/3 the size, whats the problem?

65min lpcm normally should make it, but ok, lets take 63min with 8000video and lpcm. the result is an outmaxed DVD(5) around 4,3gb.
it surely depends on the source material and transfer but ANY encoding will suffer the outcome quality, period. the trick is to circulate only quality outmaxed dvds. dvds are as common as audio cdrs and very cheap, thats most likely the main problem for people not accepting "similar" quality on different or new or to-be-upgraded equipment.

Al FS
2008-09-14, 03:04 PM
Just my 2c

DVD is cheap. DVD is common. DVD is fine.
CD is cheap. CD is common. CD if fine.

If we were to start doing things differently now either half the new works will be inaccessible to half or more of the community. Like said, even 24 bit has become a problem. And Blu-ray discs will cause more confusion, etc.

Why must everyone be so picky. Is it really gonna matter to put an old VHS onto an HD-DVD?! What, you want to be able to pick out more noise on the footage?

I personally think we should keep it where it's at until HD Formats are more mainstream. ($700+ blu-ray and high priced HD-DVD players alike are not in people's budget, let alone the media and burners for it. ESPECIALLY with the shitty economy.)

As for the DivX, people may start putting up LOSSY DivX and what do we do then? How will we really know?

Let's keep our standards for now.

(Ok, more like a $1 but, sorry...)

KoolKat
2008-09-15, 06:28 AM
i can get similar quality both audio and video in a file about 1/5th the size, that is the point


Nope..that's the point!!

K_K

AAR.oner
2008-09-15, 06:39 AM
DivX is not gonna happen here...simple as that

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-15, 11:43 AM
DivX is not gonna happen here...simple as that

We should go back to snail mail trading of VHS and VCD, unknown source Cdr and maybe even tape trading audio

ahhh those were the days

I havent seen one valid argument in this thread against Divx or H264, people just regurgitate the 'lossy' argument or the 'dvd is what everyone is familiar with' argument

The REALITY is that DVD mpeg2 is the LOSSY format based on a codec that is 15 or 20 years old

YES you can encode a 2 hour show at 8000kbps with lpcm audio onto a dual layer disc(8 gigs) and get VERY good quality audio and video as compared to the master source. The point is you can ALSO encode the same source to Divx, MKV or H264 at around 2 to 3 gigs(1 gig per hour or higher) and get Similar or better quality than the dvd version.

I started out using H264 for archival and backup purposes, Hard drives were so cheap and codecs had advanced that it just made sense versus storing mindv tapes that could be damaged or have play back issues

Now my complete U2 collection, over 100 DV masters and DV clones fit on a 500 gig hard drive, with 200 gigs to spare

Use an inexpensive cable to connect my laptop to my TV and I can watch any of them on my TV in virtually perfect quality

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-15, 11:46 AM
(Hi Michael!)

(Hi Lynne!)

I liked your other avatar better ;)

at least you still have it on U2T :D

pawel
2008-09-15, 12:54 PM
I have never watched a DivX video which is not pixelated on a TV larger than 30''. Tests demonstrates (http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/mpeg-4_avc_h264_2007_en.html)that there is no benefit of using DivX in comparison with other MPEG-4 encoders, which are part now of Blu-ray standard. H.264 is allowed here (high definition, BD), including .ts container.

Read about DivX legal stuff - it's idiotic hence it never get such commercial market as MPEG-x or H.264. I expect it will be dead after H.264 get more software support at the consumer level.

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-15, 02:10 PM
I have never watched a DivX video which is not pixelated on a TV larger than 30''. Tests demonstrates (http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/mpeg-4_avc_h264_2007_en.html)that there is no benefit of using DivX in comparison with other MPEG-4 encoders, which are part now of Blu-ray standard. H.264 is allowed here (high definition, BD), including .ts container.

Read about DivX legal stuff - it's idiotic hence it never get such commercial market as MPEG-x or H.264. I expect it will be dead after H.264 get more software support at the consumer level.

That may be and is why we chose H264 for the archiving but I chose Divx becuase I wanted to try DIvx Author which sounded cool since it claimed to offer DVD like menu's and chapters and there are Divx compatible DVD players on the market now

After having problems with Divx Author and with getting help I have basically chucked the idea of using divx for now

I would assume your standard deff 'anything' (h264, divx, mpeg2 mpeg4....) looks pixelated when blown up onto a 30" HDTV

AAR.oner
2008-09-15, 04:18 PM
I havent seen one valid argument in this thread against Divx or H264, people just regurgitate the 'lossy' argument or the 'dvd is what everyone is familiar with' argument



1. of course mpeg2 is lossy, all video is lossy! the deal w/ DivX is that, you have such wide range of quality based on codecs/settings--that range from DVD-like quality down to youtube-looking shite...to moderate that here in order to assure nothing but the best would be far too much work...and i challenge you to show an example of SD material converted using DivX that looks better than high bitrate mpeg2, as you said

2. whether you like it or not -- the mpeg2 format IS the standard world-wide, not just something "everyone is familiar with"...while DivX is a word i bet 98% of the world has never heard of...whether or not you have a problem with mpeg2 ain't really gonna change it now is it?

3. as has been pointed out, h.264 is now allowed here for HD content [not SD>h.264]...so we aren't locked to mpeg2 by any means...but we aren't gonna be a smorgasboard either

4. just because you have the money/knowledge to set up a media center and stream various format video files from yer comp to yer TV doesn't mean everyone else does...and although this might change one day down the road, the fact is someone like yerself is still the vast minority...the rest of the world uses DVD

saltman
2008-09-15, 07:01 PM
Not to mention Xvid is better than divx. and 6 months from now some other crappy format will come along and be better for tiny videos on your iphone.


I think the issues have been beaten to death and I don't need to reiterate or summarize now. SD footage is best suited for mpeg2 and DVD. whether it's from low bitrate sources, VHS, tv rips, etc.... or DV cameras. (at this time) DVD is small enough that bandwidth is not a problem for most users. And this site is not about download as fast as you can. It's about downloading the best possible source. Divx is not better than DVD. period. It looks like crap on a TV. esp. bad on an HDTV. Why split the history of all the material currently traded here and esp. for some transient second rate codec.

HD is a tough one at this point. The GBs are very high for high quality and bandwidth is an issue. I think you will find our standards are trying to deal with this fact. We allow many formats at this point since there is no industry standard and bitrates are such a big deal.

KoolKat
2008-09-16, 12:13 PM
better quality than the dvd version.


Never in a trillion years will that be the case.
As DivX agree ,from the start the concept was solely a space saving idea & the quality was to get close to DvD......but never to DvD quality.Only a shallow person would think that possible.

You say yourself on many occasions "similar"....THAT is the point & THAT is the more than valid argument.Loss--ier.

You argue that mpeg2 is lossy and shoot it was an even lossier codec by admission of the makers of it.
So i don't see your argument really as you talk in a hypicrytical fashion about hypocricy.
Basically ,using DivX as your platform for a case ,you are trying to wipe shit off of the wall with used toilet paper.

DivX better quality indeed......should've gone to spec-savers chap.

AAR.oner
2008-09-17, 08:49 AM
you are trying to wipe shit off of the wall with used toilet paper.



:roflol: :roflol: :clap: :clap:

you've got a way with werds KK, top form!

KustMichaels
2008-09-17, 05:15 PM
Why does Traders Den ALLOW DVD sharing?

Which in the video world is the eqivelent(sp) of what MP3 is to Audio

Not really. DVD Mpeg2 is the industry standard for commercial distribution, which is something that can't be said about MP3s.
If you are looking for a video equivalent for MP3s I say it's a well-encoded 512x288 H264.

Besides, any digital audio is compressed. You are transfering a infinitely complex analog audio wave into a finite digital value space. I hate to break this to you, but even the source video is compressed before the DVD. In my case I am compressing a HD Mpeg2 based TS into Mpeg2 based VOBs. What do you expect us to film with? Movie cameras? REDs? Vipers? 35mm film?

I'm not saying stop sharing DVD's, it is a widely used format

Of course you say that, what's the point of this thread then?

But the reality is there are much better alternatives for high quality storage of Video data in smaller file sizes(H264 and Divx)

It is indeed true that H264 will reproduce the quality of a DVD at a smaller file size. However, in reality H264 encoding is a science on itself while Mpeg2 encoding has become a one-click adventure over the years.

Why are you implying DVDs look bad? Did you watch a commercial DVD recently? Encoded in the right way Mpeg2 compression is not too bad. The largest influence on your encoding result is the source material, nothing else.
Above 6 MBit/s there is hardly any encoding app that won't produce good looking results.

For some people upscaling is an issue. Scaling a SD DVD up to a large screen vs. scaling a H264 up is not really an issue, DVD upscalers are extremely good these days.

There are Divx comptible DVD players that will play these files to your TV and even programs to create DVD style menu's and chapters, and it will look better than ANY mpeg2 DVD would

The installed base of DivX ready players can not be seriously compared to the base of DVD players. And by the way, DivX has never been more dead, given that DivX is moving to H264 in the future and given that stage6 is down.
Menu and chapter authoring is a friggin joke in DivX, I couldn't even name a single app that does that. Besides, DVD authoring apps for free are everywhere, why should I look for something else?

What do you think I should do?
My original recordings are ~30 GB in size. I produce a SD DVD and can be sure everyone is able to play it. I'd love to produce a HD H264 and handle data sets to people. But truth is people are so f****n dump they won't be able to handle them. What player do I need? Why does my stand alone player not take them? Can I play them on my PlayStation 3? How do I rip a mobile version for my iPod from this one?

I'd love to produce a BR D but Apple won't give us the tools.

And again, I don't know a workflow on the Mac. What am I supposed to do, convert my HD stuff to 80 GB files, buy an expensive encoding app and then still have no menu and chapters + the problems described above?

AAR.oner
2008-09-17, 06:29 PM
well spoken :clap:



if i could afford the developing/transfer costs, i'd be taping with an Arri S16...unfortunately, us low-class folk are confined to miniDV ;)

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-18, 01:32 PM
Kust, DVD is great for people who want simple and easy, and it produces a reasonable quality result

some people want a better result than DVD mpeg2 offers and in smaller file sizes because we do know how to do those things that the 'dumb' masses dont

And as far as how to share the HDV content you are filming H264 compression is a great option, until others become less expensive, I have compressed my U2 HDV masters from 2005/2006 to H264 and all my 2 hour shows are less that 8 gigs and look great, virtual clones of the masters

I shared those shows as 2 disc DVDs last year and they looked good too

I have shared both H264 and Divx files on u2torrents with little or no playback issues for the people there, sadly the reality is i suspect 90% of the people watch little or non of the show, they watch small parts usually on their PC's

Progress is marked by change

I am defineately not saying stop sharing DVDs, it is the standard now, but in 5-10 years DVDs will be as dead as VHS is now

I dont need a $700 Bluray player/burner when I can get a terrabyte hard drive for a few hundred and a cable to hook my computer to my TV for $20

With H264 compression I now have my complete U2 DV/clone/HDV collection on a 500 gig drive with 200 gigs to spare, that is over 200 hours of content, 100 shows(angles), from 1987-2006, and in virtually DV/master/HDV quality with no detectable loss of quality

That is the future, and in that world high quality compressed H264 makes more sense than DVD

But there are still people like my Uncle who own a Betamax VCR and watch his old movies on it 'because the quality is better than VHS', and in 10 years there will still be people with standard deff TVs and DVD players, either for economic or nostalgic reasons

KoolKat
2008-09-19, 05:02 AM
:roflol: :roflol: :clap: :clap:

you've got a way with werds KK, top form!

hehe..yeah ,some statements have a nice ring to them eh.

K_K

(I don't think u2rmw is reading any replies though.Seems convinced that lossy is the way forward.Never mind).

You have the same mindset as the developers of DivX u2 ,similar in less.Not the same at the best.
THAT is not the way forward...that's lazy with space saving as the main point.Their original concept.NOT the quality of content.
Every thing you type is for choosing lossy .......you have no case or argument.You are arguing for space saving...that's it.

Right ,i'm off to watch the new Chilis vid in pure page by page sketch-pad animation.I can get 2 shows in 1 pad you know & don't forget each page is a complete frame so it's progressive not interlaced.Now that's quality :lol4:
Hmmmm ,now if i bought a book i could get 5......:lol4:

u2rulesmyworld
2008-09-19, 12:28 PM
(I don't think u2rmw is reading any replies though.Seems convinced that lossy is the way forward.Never mind).


i have read all the comments and all compression standards are lossy by definition

Spending anymore time on this subject is pointless, a few people have posted intelligent responses in here especially regarding the shortcomings of Divx.

But there have been alot of ignorant post too

ahhhh gotta love the internet

KoolKat
2008-09-20, 04:43 PM
But there have been alot of ignorant post too


I agree..but ask a silly question eh , & to back that up with nothing ,well what did you expect?

K_K