The.Big.Bang.Theory.S06E10.The.Fish.Guts.Displ...XVID-AVIGUY.avi
- Type:
- Video > TV shows
- Files:
- 1
- Size:
- 139.56 MB
- Info:
- IMDB
- Spoken language(s):
- English
- Uploaded:
- Dec 7, 2012
- By:
- MP4SUX
Pre-Screened to be free of pixelation or other errors . ========= IMDB.com/title/tt0898266/ Release Name: The.Big.Bang.Theory.S06E10.The.Fish.Guts.Displacement.HDTV.XVID-AVIGUY.avi . From AVIGUY: Release Date.: 2012-12-06 Release Size: 139 Mb Run Time.......: 21:39 Resolution.....: 624x352 Video Codec...: XVID AVI Video Bitrate..: 768 Kbps Audio: MP3 128 Kbps 48KHz CBR
What is your obsession with 768 kbps? What a random number to choose for a video bitrate, is it because it was one of the old DSL standards?
There's nothing wrong with still using the xvid codec for new releases, even in late 2012, but you must supply it with a sufficient bitrate.
There's 4 target audiences for tv releases: mainstream (x264 at 720x404), hd (x264 at 720p), msd (x264 at 480p and heavy compression) and legacy (xvid @ 1027 kbps).
x264 is far superior at minimizing artifacts at low bitrates, so aiming for low filesize xvid videos makes little sense. Who is this for? Legacy people who don't care about image quality? Is that a thing?
There's nothing wrong with still using the xvid codec for new releases, even in late 2012, but you must supply it with a sufficient bitrate.
There's 4 target audiences for tv releases: mainstream (x264 at 720x404), hd (x264 at 720p), msd (x264 at 480p and heavy compression) and legacy (xvid @ 1027 kbps).
x264 is far superior at minimizing artifacts at low bitrates, so aiming for low filesize xvid videos makes little sense. Who is this for? Legacy people who don't care about image quality? Is that a thing?
MP4SUX at 2012-12-07 18:58 CET:
trace535:
Experts are soooo cute, they think they can bend reality to their will. And they show up here like clockwork once or twice a month to bestow their wisdom.
Yes, I'm terribly old-school, I can think in Hex & Binary. You will note that what you consider the standard bit rate (1024) is really Hex 400 (4*256) and Binary (0100 0000). And you will further note that 768 is hex 300 (3*256) and binary (0011 0000). Not an obsession, really - just good common sense to speak to a computer in its own language.
I and all my viewers truly find 768 to be an entirely sufficient bit rate according to the glowing accolades from a great many people who aren't nearly as expert as you.
Just because you can make up names for "target demographics" (at least use the right terminology - sheesh) doesn't mean people have to shoe-horn themselves into one of them.
I have my niche and my "target demographics" and if it's all the same to you, we're doing just fine - thank you very much (and the door is just to your right - don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out).
BetaMax was far superior to VHS and it got them nothing.
But down to brass tax as it were.
I'm happy doing what I'm doing and a sufficient number of people seem to like what I do so I'm going to keep doing it. Unless you've got a rather large and regular paycheck attached to your advice, I'll consider it worth what I paid for it.
Now, as I see it, you have two choices:
1) as the "strict consturctionist" XVID-o-phile you seem to be, I think you'd be much better served with the offerings of AFG as they seem to agree with you entirely. You'll find them through the door on your right. The receptionist will help you and they are always polite.
2) You can do what you insist is "the right way" of doing things, offer them up here and take my poor amateur ass to task and run me out of Dodge in utter shame at my pitiful portable picnic player of a presentation (it's a movie reference).
So, I explained 1024 & 768 - how about you give a shot at what the heck 1027 is supposed to represent, you being against random numbers and all.
I've explained the XVID over x264 and so have my loyal followers until we're all blue in the face. But it comes down to one simple word:
Compatibility.
Experts are soooo cute, they think they can bend reality to their will. And they show up here like clockwork once or twice a month to bestow their wisdom.
Yes, I'm terribly old-school, I can think in Hex & Binary. You will note that what you consider the standard bit rate (1024) is really Hex 400 (4*256) and Binary (0100 0000). And you will further note that 768 is hex 300 (3*256) and binary (0011 0000). Not an obsession, really - just good common sense to speak to a computer in its own language.
I and all my viewers truly find 768 to be an entirely sufficient bit rate according to the glowing accolades from a great many people who aren't nearly as expert as you.
Just because you can make up names for "target demographics" (at least use the right terminology - sheesh) doesn't mean people have to shoe-horn themselves into one of them.
I have my niche and my "target demographics" and if it's all the same to you, we're doing just fine - thank you very much (and the door is just to your right - don't let it hit you in the ass on the way out).
BetaMax was far superior to VHS and it got them nothing.
But down to brass tax as it were.
I'm happy doing what I'm doing and a sufficient number of people seem to like what I do so I'm going to keep doing it. Unless you've got a rather large and regular paycheck attached to your advice, I'll consider it worth what I paid for it.
Now, as I see it, you have two choices:
1) as the "strict consturctionist" XVID-o-phile you seem to be, I think you'd be much better served with the offerings of AFG as they seem to agree with you entirely. You'll find them through the door on your right. The receptionist will help you and they are always polite.
2) You can do what you insist is "the right way" of doing things, offer them up here and take my poor amateur ass to task and run me out of Dodge in utter shame at my pitiful portable picnic player of a presentation (it's a movie reference).
So, I explained 1024 & 768 - how about you give a shot at what the heck 1027 is supposed to represent, you being against random numbers and all.
I've explained the XVID over x264 and so have my loyal followers until we're all blue in the face. But it comes down to one simple word:
Compatibility.
MP4SUX at 2012-12-07 19:13 CET:
trace535:
Just realized your the same guy doing this odd hit-and-run where you bestow your wisdom, move on and never look back and NEVER engage in actual conversation. Which says a lot about why you're so hard to take seriously.
I guess I'm gonna have to create a stock response for every time you do this.
People might get the wrong headed idea that you know what you're talking about.
You won't see this, but you're not really who these words are for, now are you?
heh
AVIGUY
Just realized your the same guy doing this odd hit-and-run where you bestow your wisdom, move on and never look back and NEVER engage in actual conversation. Which says a lot about why you're so hard to take seriously.
I guess I'm gonna have to create a stock response for every time you do this.
People might get the wrong headed idea that you know what you're talking about.
You won't see this, but you're not really who these words are for, now are you?
heh
AVIGUY
AVIGUY please continue the good work
Of course xvid is about compatibility, as there IS no other reason to still be releasing with this most venerable codec as of December 2012. However, my criteria for acceptable video quality is that it must be reasonably indistinguishable to the human eye from the source material at ANY given resolution.
Since you are using 75% of the bitrate actually required for xvid at 360p perhaps you should reduce the resolution accordingly to 312p (bit of math: 0.8667 squared is 0.75) so that people will not be tricked into downloading something blocky and blurry.
As for the 1027 kbps, I was being a bit "ironic", if you heard of such a concept, as ettv seems to just copy the same boilerplate description for all AFG releases, without checking out the actual avg bitrate of each particular file, because it would be of course a labor intensive waste of time.
Since you are using 75% of the bitrate actually required for xvid at 360p perhaps you should reduce the resolution accordingly to 312p (bit of math: 0.8667 squared is 0.75) so that people will not be tricked into downloading something blocky and blurry.
As for the 1027 kbps, I was being a bit "ironic", if you heard of such a concept, as ettv seems to just copy the same boilerplate description for all AFG releases, without checking out the actual avg bitrate of each particular file, because it would be of course a labor intensive waste of time.
MP4SUX at 2012-12-08 15:10 CET:
trace535:
768 is the perfect bit rate for *my* 640x360 (or 624x352) resolution videos.
The vote was 1-0, I won by a landslide.
AVIGUY
768 is the perfect bit rate for *my* 640x360 (or 624x352) resolution videos.
The vote was 1-0, I won by a landslide.
AVIGUY
Hey listen, I remember encoding mpeg4 video back in the early 2000s at 480x360, and the minimal bitrate I used was 768 kbps, so don't tell me it's ok to use that same bitrate for 640x360.
Your niche is irrelevant.
Your niche is irrelevant.
"Your niche is irrelevant."
Seeders: 144
Irrelevant?
MP4SUX,
thank you for your service to our country
yarrr
Seeders: 144
Irrelevant?
MP4SUX,
thank you for your service to our country
yarrr
MP4SUX at 2012-12-09 02:11 CET:
Adule:
I don't directly mention it enough, but when someone such as you go out of your way to show support, it means the world to me. Assures me during my verbal (writing?) sparring matches that I'm on the right track.
Thank YOU very much,
AVIGUY
I don't directly mention it enough, but when someone such as you go out of your way to show support, it means the world to me. Assures me during my verbal (writing?) sparring matches that I'm on the right track.
Thank YOU very much,
AVIGUY
MP4SUX at 2012-12-09 13:50 CET:
5981430042537:
That phrase is usually reserved for our young fighting wo/men in war time and while it may seem like a war with "trace535", well ...
I once had a three your old come up and kick me in the shin. It was the cutest damn thing I'd ever seen. So angry and yet so ineffectual. "trace535" is a lot like that. What you must understand is that s/he is operating on ROM (ReadOnlyMemory) - not capable of storing new or contrary information. The conversation is really for the many who read and never post (I was once like that), which is most people most of the time. There is reason and there is dictum. The only people I know around here like that are visiting royalty from "The Scene" when they deign to send their minions who are very long on proclaiming the nature of reality and very short on two-way communication. They know best and will freely tell you so.
Say, you don't think "trace535" is a spy for them, do you? I mean, do any of you hang out in places you've deemed "irrelevant"? And yet still here. Must be my sparkling personality.
Must correct your phrase for another reason - "in service to our Solar System" ... as I've mentioned before, broadbanding from my secret base on the far side of the moon. Great WiFi up here. Much more lavish than that cramped Yellow Submarine off the coast of San Pedro CA where I had to reside pre-internet.
The really cool thing is all these comments are written in stone. I once heard of a guy who asked nicely in the forums to delete a regretful comment, but it's just a rumor.
I'm having the time of my life and just having a discourse in public is worth the time it takes to wallow in my irrelevant niche.
Did anyone notice that "trace535" didn't understand why I'd use a "random" number like 768 until just confessing to using it so very long ago? I wonder where "535" comes from ...
Life is a Minestrone, served up with Parmeson Cheese.
Please give my 272p 192K videos a look see. They're Great!
AVIGUY
That phrase is usually reserved for our young fighting wo/men in war time and while it may seem like a war with "trace535", well ...
I once had a three your old come up and kick me in the shin. It was the cutest damn thing I'd ever seen. So angry and yet so ineffectual. "trace535" is a lot like that. What you must understand is that s/he is operating on ROM (ReadOnlyMemory) - not capable of storing new or contrary information. The conversation is really for the many who read and never post (I was once like that), which is most people most of the time. There is reason and there is dictum. The only people I know around here like that are visiting royalty from "The Scene" when they deign to send their minions who are very long on proclaiming the nature of reality and very short on two-way communication. They know best and will freely tell you so.
Say, you don't think "trace535" is a spy for them, do you? I mean, do any of you hang out in places you've deemed "irrelevant"? And yet still here. Must be my sparkling personality.
Must correct your phrase for another reason - "in service to our Solar System" ... as I've mentioned before, broadbanding from my secret base on the far side of the moon. Great WiFi up here. Much more lavish than that cramped Yellow Submarine off the coast of San Pedro CA where I had to reside pre-internet.
The really cool thing is all these comments are written in stone. I once heard of a guy who asked nicely in the forums to delete a regretful comment, but it's just a rumor.
I'm having the time of my life and just having a discourse in public is worth the time it takes to wallow in my irrelevant niche.
Did anyone notice that "trace535" didn't understand why I'd use a "random" number like 768 until just confessing to using it so very long ago? I wonder where "535" comes from ...
Life is a Minestrone, served up with Parmeson Cheese.
Please give my 272p 192K videos a look see. They're Great!
AVIGUY
MP4SUX at 2012-12-09 16:05 CET:
trace535:
A quick IQ test.
What do you think of the people who don't believe what you're saying?
Keep in mind that they are the ONLY people watching what you write here.
Except I did invite a kindred spirit of yours, one "rmekdaschi" over on:
Battlestar.Galactica.Blood.And.Chrome.S01E09.WEB-DL.XviD-AVIGUY
Or you could go say hi, swap notes, form a club.
AVIGUY
A quick IQ test.
What do you think of the people who don't believe what you're saying?
Keep in mind that they are the ONLY people watching what you write here.
Except I did invite a kindred spirit of yours, one "rmekdaschi" over on:
Battlestar.Galactica.Blood.And.Chrome.S01E09.WEB-DL.XviD-AVIGUY
Or you could go say hi, swap notes, form a club.
AVIGUY
The reason why I thought of 768 kbps as a DSL bandwidth was because I used to have one of those, and I couldn't really think at first of any other place where I had seen that specific bandwidth number used extensively. I actually had to got dig into my archived stuff from ten years ago to find out what bitrate I used to rip star trek episodes from dvd (at 480x360) and it turns out to have been 768 kbps, which I had completely forgotten about. What do you know.
Ok, next question:
Since you insist on using constant bitrates instead of constant quality, shouldn't you differentiate between sitcoms/talkshows which are mostly static and have very few high motion scenes with significant "screen business" and the action/drama shows which do? Why one low rate for everything, without taking into account the nature of the shows that you are encoding?
Ok, next question:
Since you insist on using constant bitrates instead of constant quality, shouldn't you differentiate between sitcoms/talkshows which are mostly static and have very few high motion scenes with significant "screen business" and the action/drama shows which do? Why one low rate for everything, without taking into account the nature of the shows that you are encoding?
MP4SUX at 2012-12-10 02:08 CET:
trace535:
Thanks for clearing up the 768 conundrum.
In point of fact, I DO encode *some* talk shows in less resolution/bitrate/size
I call them Minis - 272p, 200K-400K. 30-110MB (RTWBM, Overtime & Talking Dead).
Currently absorbed in my "XIII.The.Series.S02E01-E13" project. So far, the 1536K versions are six times the size and three times as popular as the 192K Minis - both released at the same time.
And my serious question for you is:
You're not a fan of what I do. You don't honestly think you can supplant your opinion for *my* CAREFULLY considered decisions about *my* parameters for creating *my* files.
So, you just got the "gadfly spirit" in you, or what?
I mean, there are lots of places I consider personally "irrelevant". You can tell because I never go there. Like Fox News. Tried, but can't stand the idiocy there. Rich people proving that old people are gullible.
What keeps you here? You don't strike me as the type to want to upset all these nice people by trashing what they've come here specifically to see. I mean the bottom line is in the numbers. If I were truly doing it wrong (as you insist), then nobody would be downloading my stuff (and giving me great accolades along the way). Yes, I only get into the thousands on occasion (see tonight's "HomeLand" if the past three weeks are any gauge) and certainly not nearly the numbers that "The Scene" RGs garner, but they've been a decade in the making and my earliest efforts are about six months old now [and I'm just one person on a residential ADSL2+ Annex-M line]. Just looked and my oldest current encode is "Louie.S03E01" (June 29th), which I started out using x264 (768K), before realizing the incompatibility of the codec for many AVI fans.
Give me time, like I said - it's a niche. Pushing the paradigm is slow, hard but rewarding work.
AVIGUY
Thanks for clearing up the 768 conundrum.
In point of fact, I DO encode *some* talk shows in less resolution/bitrate/size
I call them Minis - 272p, 200K-400K. 30-110MB (RTWBM, Overtime & Talking Dead).
Currently absorbed in my "XIII.The.Series.S02E01-E13" project. So far, the 1536K versions are six times the size and three times as popular as the 192K Minis - both released at the same time.
And my serious question for you is:
You're not a fan of what I do. You don't honestly think you can supplant your opinion for *my* CAREFULLY considered decisions about *my* parameters for creating *my* files.
So, you just got the "gadfly spirit" in you, or what?
I mean, there are lots of places I consider personally "irrelevant". You can tell because I never go there. Like Fox News. Tried, but can't stand the idiocy there. Rich people proving that old people are gullible.
What keeps you here? You don't strike me as the type to want to upset all these nice people by trashing what they've come here specifically to see. I mean the bottom line is in the numbers. If I were truly doing it wrong (as you insist), then nobody would be downloading my stuff (and giving me great accolades along the way). Yes, I only get into the thousands on occasion (see tonight's "HomeLand" if the past three weeks are any gauge) and certainly not nearly the numbers that "The Scene" RGs garner, but they've been a decade in the making and my earliest efforts are about six months old now [and I'm just one person on a residential ADSL2+ Annex-M line]. Just looked and my oldest current encode is "Louie.S03E01" (June 29th), which I started out using x264 (768K), before realizing the incompatibility of the codec for many AVI fans.
Give me time, like I said - it's a niche. Pushing the paradigm is slow, hard but rewarding work.
AVIGUY
This discussion no longer interests me
Comments