I can't think of a more stupidly entitled group than...

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
...Videophile pirates whining about how the super popular ~2GB 1080p Bluray rips doesn't look and sound as good as the actual Bluray on their so-claimed $10,000 AV setups. Calling it "complete crap" even though it is still a million times above Youtube "HD" quality. Let's forget about how this whole thing is piracy to begin with.

Second place goes to a related crowd insisting XVID videos because they like running ancient hardware. Dude, it's fvcking 2010s. Get along with the times. WTH you mean by you can't afford a $40 BD player and don't like better quality per bitrate?
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
...Videophile pirates whining about how the super popular ~2GB 1080p Bluray rips doesn't look and sound as good as the actual Bluray on their so-claimed $10,000 AV setups. Calling it "complete crap" even though it is still a million times above Youtube "HD" quality. Let's forget about how this whole thing is piracy to begin with.
A 2GB rip of any video is god-awful. A YouTube rip may actually be better; 2GB/film translates into ~2Mb/sec, which is a lower bitrate than what YouTube uses. If you're going to steal something, steal something that actually has a degree of quality to it.:p

Second place goes to a related crowd insisting XVID videos because they like running ancient hardware. Dude, it's fvcking 2010s. Get along with the times. WTH you mean by you can't afford a $40 BD player and don't like better quality per bitrate?
I still can't fathom how XviD is around in 2013 when everything bigger than a watch (scratch that, now watches can play H.264) has the ability to decode H.264. H.264 is the most successful video codec ever; MPEG-4 ASP never had this level of hardware and software penetration, and MPEG-2, though widely used in HDTV and DVD, was still never this widely used over so many products.
 
Last edited:

bearxor

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2001
6,605
3
81
I don't disagree with you. If they have super fancy HT setup then they should have no issue buying the BR's.

I know what I download isn't BR quality. But I don't bitch about it. If I really cared I'd buy a BR player.

And yes, XviD needs to DIAF
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
XviD and DviX LOL
a time I'm glad is long gong.

That's the same time frame as my MP3 CDs and hunting down compatible portable CD players and decks for the car. :D
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
A 2GB rip of any video is god-awful. A YouTube rip may actually be better; 2GB/film translates into ~2Mb/sec, which is a lower bitrate than what YouTube uses. If you're going to steal something, steal something that actually has a degree of quality to it.:p

I disagre here. AFAIK, comparing raw bitrate is pretty apples and oranges even on the same X264 encoder as video quality is very dependent on the optimal the settings are used, let alone with the lousier encoder that is used in Youtube. Those 2GB rips from a particular group looks pretty darn impressive for the size, ~6GB rips looks only slighty better, and certainly much, much better than Youtube.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
A 2GB rip of any video is god-awful. A YouTube rip may actually be better; 2GB/film translates into ~2Mb/sec, which is a lower bitrate than what YouTube uses. If you're going to steal something, steal something that actually has a degree of quality to it.:p

I still can't fathom how XviD is around in 2013 when everything bigger than a watch (scratch that, now watches can play H.264) has the ability to decode H.264. H.264 is the most successful video codec ever; MPEG-4 ASP never had this level of hardware and software penetration, and MPEG-2, though widely used in HDTV and DVD, was still never this widely used over so many products.

Some people hate 128 mp3s, but they are fine to me. I have 1gb movies that look pretty decent, 2gb really quite nice. I am sure on a huge quality system the shortcomings become quite obvious though.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,981
8,219
126
A 2GB rip of any video is god-awful. A YouTube rip may actually be better; 2GB/film translates into ~2Mb/sec, which is a lower bitrate than what YouTube uses. If you're going to steal something, steal something that actually has a degree of quality to it.:p

I still can't fathom how XviD is around in 2013 when everything bigger than a watch (scratch that, now watches can play H.264) has the ability to decode H.264. H.264 is the most successful video codec ever; MPEG-4 ASP never had this level of hardware and software penetration, and MPEG-2, though widely used in HDTV and DVD, was still never this widely used over so many products.

I prefer libre formats, and small sizes. I watch very little video, so something about Youtube size is perfect, and mkv is icing on the cake. If it's actually on Youtbe, I prefer webm. For music, I prefer downloading flac, but that's only because I can transfer it to my preferred 256kb ogg.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Some people hate 128 mp3s, but they are fine to me. I have 1gb movies that look pretty decent, 2gb really quite nice. I am sure on a huge quality system the shortcomings become quite obvious though.

128Kbps MP3s. Is this 1999?
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
128Kbps MP3s. Is this 1999?

Some streaming services aren't much better than that, or are exactly the same.

So, many people are still used to that.
It's a reason why, for streaming, Xbox Music (Zune was such a better name) and Spotify are the only services I can recommend since better quality is an option. Spotify can stream and "cache" up to 320kbps-MP3 comparable though it is in a custom Ogg-Vorbis-based format iirc. Xbox Music, or at least the Zune desktop application and service (the Win8 and mobile apps I haven't worked much with, initially there were major limitations and no syncing with my ZuneHD), can download/purchase 320Kbps MP3s, or, with DRM, high bitrate WMA. Not entirely sure about streaming bitrate options, however.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,981
8,219
126
Some streaming services aren't much better than that, or are exactly the same.

So, many people are still used to that.
It's a reason why, for streaming, Xbox Music (Zune was such a better name) and Spotify are the only services I can recommend since better quality is an option. Spotify can stream and "cache" up to 320kbps-MP3 comparable though it is in a custom Ogg-Vorbis-based format iirc. Xbox Music, or at least the Zune desktop application and service (the Win8 and mobile apps I haven't worked much with, initially there were major limitations and no syncing with my ZuneHD), can download/purchase 320Kbps MP3s, or, with DRM, high bitrate WMA. Not entirely sure about streaming bitrate options, however.

People are spoiled. One of my favorite online radio stations is 64kbs, and it sounds fine. I was using their 32kbs stream, but it went down awhile ago, and I haven't checked if it started working again.

http://tess.fast-serv.com:8570/
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
128Kbps MP3s. Is this 1999?

For MP3 128 kbps in 1999 isn't the same as 128 kbps with modern LAME. The latter is going to kill the former and sound very good by consumer standards.

At least with MP3 we can encode using LAME @ 192-320kbps VBR and sound transparent to 99.9% of users. Xvid has no reason to exist these days.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,828
37
91
...Videophile pirates whining about how the super popular ~2GB 1080p Bluray rips doesn't look and sound as good as the actual Bluray on their so-claimed $10,000 AV setups. Calling it "complete crap" even though it is still a million times above Youtube "HD" quality. Let's forget about how this whole thing is piracy to begin with.

Second place goes to a related crowd insisting XVID videos because they like running ancient hardware. Dude, it's fvcking 2010s. Get along with the times. WTH you mean by you can't afford a $40 BD player and don't like better quality per bitrate?

Where exactly are you seeing pirates with $10k equipment complaining at?
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,024
5,905
126
my whole setup is more than that and i can tell you that a 2gb bluray rip will look like complete ass on it. :p

it will be watchable but it will look bad. hell i had to watch Old Boy on amazon prime in SD on there and it was kind of painful to watch, but i stuck through it.

but that said, i don't bitch about rips or anything, because i only watch blurays on it pretty much. well, and football and some tv shows. you can definitely tell a pretty big difference between a 720p and 1080p video on a 10 foot screen though.

oh and imo, it is the sound difference that is worse than the video difference among different sources. i'd rather have a 480p video with dts-hd sound than a 1080p video with no 5.1 audio.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
People are spoiled. One of my favorite online radio stations is 64kbs, and it sounds fine. I was using their 32kbs stream, but it went down awhile ago, and I haven't checked if it started working again.

http://tess.fast-serv.com:8570/

Voice requires very little bitrate to sound good. It is music/special effects that suffer from a low bitrate (Especially areas with very high or very low tones).

That said, almost everything would benefit if we started replacing MP3s with AAC. In all of the reviews/studies that I've seen AAC beats the pants off of MP3s.

I would also be happy if we switched over to vorbis, however, that has much less support and usually does par/worse than AAC (but better than MP3s)
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,981
8,219
126
W00t! This thread made me remember I hooked my optical drives up a few weeks ago. My previous technique for ripping CDs was to find a file locker, or torrent; hopefully in a decent bitrate. Now listening to Davey Spillane in 256kbs ogg glory. I had looked for this online a few months ago, but couldn't find it.

lj8Ud9I.jpg
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
A 2GB rip of any video is god-awful. A YouTube rip may actually be better; 2GB/film translates into ~2Mb/sec, which is a lower bitrate than what YouTube uses. If you're going to steal something, steal something that actually has a degree of quality to it.:p

I still can't fathom how XviD is around in 2013 when everything bigger than a watch (scratch that, now watches can play H.264) has the ability to decode H.264. H.264 is the most successful video codec ever; MPEG-4 ASP never had this level of hardware and software penetration, and MPEG-2, though widely used in HDTV and DVD, was still never this widely used over so many products.

+1
 

phucheneh

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2012
7,306
5
0
I thought it was an evolutionary thing. DivX -> Xvid -> h.264 ?

Everything that's an *.avi extension still gets labeled DivX. All I know if that 720p, in whatever format, seems to need anywhere from 1-2GB an hour to look acceptable. Decent 1080p seems more like 4GB...sometimes it seems like I'd rather just do my own upscaling on 720p than bother with bigger 1080p video with shitty compression.
 

EliteRetard

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2006
6,490
1,021
136
Is it bad that I have no idea what you guys are talking about?

OK I guess I do know what an MP3 is.
But you all say it's bad now?

2GB movies? Aren't DVD's 4.7GB? Max 640x480 resolution?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,079
136
you will rarely meet a group so vehement as one arguing for their right to other people's stuff.

Democrats and Pirates are the same ilk.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Is it bad that I have no idea what you guys are talking about?

OK I guess I do know what an MP3 is.
But you all say it's bad now?

2GB movies? Aren't DVD's 4.7GB? Max 640x480 resolution?

Most feature length films on DVD are between 4-6GB, using dual layer discs.

With modern compression, video can look very good. Netflix apparently used 3.8Mbit/s for their HD streams. SuperHD is supposedly 6Mbit/s. It looks pretty decent at that rate. Not quite as good as Bluray but good enough.