eztv.wf | eztvstatus.org
Search title:  
TV Packs only
 
💬

Video size

Join the conversation
🏠 Forum » General » Video size
Posted at 14/12/2007, 15:45
#72183
is there a specific technical reason why most 350mb releases are usually
640x352?.assuming its meant to be 1/4 of 720p rip, res should be 640x360, so
aspect is off, if only by abit.

are those few lines simply lost from variable ripping, or encoding, or is it the
broadcasters?.do all other size releases have perfect 16x9 ratio?.

perhaps a few pixels doesn't really affect viewing experience, but the way
they're consistently cropped/resized out seems odd.
Posted at 14/12/2007, 16:13
#72191
i think the scene rules require both the width and height
to be exact multiples of 16:

352/16 = 22

so a tiny bit is cropped to satisfy.
Posted at 14/12/2007, 22:15
#72249
✎ Quote by imzadi
with the advent of 16:10 (compared to 16:9) widescreen lcd's how
will this
affect things, if at all?


your still loosing abit of image info from lost pixels, regardless if display is
conformed to aspect ratio.

Posted at 17/12/2007, 13:29
#72571
✎ Quote by n3l87
i'll start off by saying, i don't know 100%.

but my guess is that after a few groups released their rips, the scene rules
were created around the settings that were used, and became something called
standards. standards are often created this way, and, as most standards, are
followed to the letter. there are some groups that do use other settings for
videos, but they are mostly shunned by the other li'l kids in the scene. the
acceptable standards for video rips are on -- h ttp://www.aboutthescene.com

the 350mb rips are done first, and the other ones are done at a seperate time,
often by a different group, so they are actually two different caps, which means
that a 350mb one could possibly be better then the higher grade one (because of
dropped frames, commercial cuts, etc)

to ask "why?" at this point would be moot. it's not ever going to change unless
another standard becomes better and more practical. with the standards the way
they are now, you get a near perfect 350mb rip out of it. which is what they
want. if you want better, you could always figure out how to rip it yourself
from the data streams.


standards are there, i know, but i only asked about one in particular, not
asking to criticize it.

the question has already been answered anyways, stop trying to make this into
more than it needs, especially with your rudeness and sarcasm.
Posted at 18/12/2007, 09:17
#72697
✎ Quote by numaris
rogerses are you saying you answered the question


??, no, i asked it, someone else answered, i think thats obvious.

anyway,does anyone know why that 16x standard was created anyway?.what is the
benefit of using it, instead of just orginal aspect, is it just formality?.

Posted at 18/12/2007, 17:37
#72749
✎ Quote by n3l87
it's mainly to do with compression and how computers deal with
data.

16 bit is better then 8 bit, which is better then 4 bit, which is better then 2
bit, which is ultimately better then 1 bit.

but 32 bit would increase the compression time and the size of the file.

original aspect from a tv would likely create files that were 5-6 gb in length.


what?, i didn't say original resolution, as to just use the large 720p files.
but it seems dubious to crop a few lines from a perfectly good sized, 16x9
video.

and i get pcs basically use multiples of 16 for some reason, what with 32 bit
and 64 bit cpus, but how does that relate to a video file having a resolution
being a multiple of 16?.

Posted at 18/12/2007, 18:06
#72753
✎ Quote by n3l87
actually, it's to do with the bits and bytes themselves.

the cpu in a pc works by using machine code (binary) which is comprised of 2
options, off or on (0 or 1). one 0 or 1 is called a bit. 8 sequences of 0 or 1
is called a byte. so therefore, binary bytes are in factors of 8.
(h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/binary_numeral_system
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/binary_data )

for practical use, all of the hardware goes up by multiples of 8 as well. and
any software that uses the processor heavily (compression utils, etc) have to be
aware of this fact, so they also do things in factors of 8 for the best result.
of course, a factor of 16 bits would create an even better compression. that's
why they have to crop a bit of the resolution to create a perfect factor of 16.

you can't have a number that is only 22.5 factors of 16, since the computer
won't be able to read it. it'll have loose bits all over the place and you'll
have a giant memory leak to clean up (meaning, your ram would be flooded with
useless data, causing either a reboot, or if it's really old ram, it'll cook
itself in the case).


32 and 64 bit cpus have nothing to do with how it deals with video compression.
it's the program they use to actually do the compression that affect the bit
rate of the video.

the difference between 32 and 64 bit cpus is their physical processing
capabilities (multitasking). and 32/64 refers to their bus size on the
motherboard.


wow, and you say you didn't know a 100%.anyway thanks, i think i got the jist
of that.so compression quality and time would be affected if it wasn't
16x, 'cause of the how the software works.

ssl  EZTV RSS EZTV Status | EZTV API | upload Upload | DMCA: [email protected]