Which video format WILL you prefer when buying it online? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#1

Which video format WILL you prefer when buying it online?

06-26-2003, 03:42 AM

We are planning to sell video content online. I wonder will you prefer higher resolution (and at the same time much bigger file size) than MPEG-1 with its shitty 352x240 limitations?

What do you think about 640x480 in a Quicktime MPEG-4, cause with a Quicktime it is very easy to convert to any other format.
Tags: None
Brown Bear

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 4982
Share

Post
#2

06-26-2003, 03:43 AM

MPEG-1 is limited to 352x240?

Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#3

06-26-2003, 03:46 AM

Yep,
NTSC - 352x240
PAL - 352x288
Comment
Reak

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Mar 2003

Posts: 17920
Share

Post
#4

06-26-2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Brown Bear
MPEG-1 is limited to 352x240?

yes why?
Comment
gothweb

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2002

Posts: 8849
Share

Post
#5

06-26-2003, 03:58 AM

Isn't PAL 640 x 480?

Photos by Ian X.: Distinctive photos of goth babes.
Blood Money:Your traffic, my sites, our money.
MojoHost: Still the best.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#6

06-26-2003, 04:02 AM

Check this out:
http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/frame/resea...g/mpegfaq.html

But I still didn't get the answers, only questions Do you need better resolution and if so in which format?
Comment
Brown Bear

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 4982
Share

Post
#7

06-26-2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by AlanM
Yep,
NTSC - 352x240
PAL - 352x288

There is a difference between NTSC and MPEG-1

It's possible to make MPEG-1 files at bigger resolutions than 352x240

Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#8

06-26-2003, 04:10 AM

Yes, but it will be useless.
Comment
Brown Bear

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 4982
Share

Post
#9

06-26-2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by AlanM
Yes, but it will be useless.

Depends how high the bitrate is that you encode it in. But I think 352x240 encoded at a high bitrate is good. Users can always do the view ---> zoom ---> 200% thing if they wanna see it bigger, but then again, most surfers are dumber than shit so they wouldn't know how to do that.

Surrender all your independent thinking and Click Here for re-programming.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#10

06-26-2003, 04:22 AM

But if you are encoding with Windows Media Encoder at higher resolutions, 352x240 will not be enough for it.
Comment
Sassyass

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 1101
Share

Post
#11

06-26-2003, 05:42 AM

You are not limited to 352x240.
I will quote from the source you just used to say that you are.

Copied from
http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/frame/resea...g/mpegfaq.html

Can MPEG-1 encode higher sample rates than 352x240x30 ?
Yes. The MPEG-1 syntax permits sampling dimensions as high as 4095 x 4095 x 60 frames per second. The MPEG most people think of as "MPEG-1" is actually a kind of subset known as Constrained Parameters Bitstream (CPB).

I would suggest that you go buy Sorenson?s Codec package and see exactly what you can do with Mpeg-1. This post makes you look uneducated in the art of video encoding and is not good for your new business venture.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#12

06-26-2003, 06:00 AM

You are wrong!

The first:
"The coded video rate is limited to 1.862 Mbit/sec." If you will go further at the same bit rates MPEG-2 quality will be much better, so as I already said it is totally useless to make higher resolution in MPEG-1 streams.

The second:
Sorenson is based on MPEG-4 technology and mostly aimed for QuickTime encoding, not for MPEG-1.

And the last thing:
I was asking about the possibility to buy DVD MPEG-2 (MPEG-4) quality videos at the price of MPEG-1. So as I see nobody is interested in it.

It looks like you are totally newbie to video encoding
Comment
Sassyass

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2002

Posts: 1101
Share

Post
#13

06-26-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by AlanM
You are wrong!

The first:
"The coded video rate is limited to 1.862 Mbit/sec." If you will go further at the same bit rates MPEG-2 quality will be much better, so as I already said it is totally useless to make higher resolution in MPEG-1 streams.

The second:
Sorenson is based on MPEG-4 technology and mostly aimed for QuickTime encoding, not for MPEG-1.

And the last thing:
I was asking about the possibility to buy DVD MPEG-2 (MPEG-4) quality videos at the price of MPEG-1. So as I see nobody is interested in it.

It looks like you are totally newbie to video encoding

ok.
Your right.
I know not what I speak.
Comment
notjoe

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 5599
Share

Post
#14

06-26-2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by AlanM
You are wrong!

The first:
"The coded video rate is limited to 1.862 Mbit/sec." If you will go further at the same bit rates MPEG-2 quality will be much better, so as I already said it is totally useless to make higher resolution in MPEG-1 streams.

The second:
Sorenson is based on MPEG-4 technology and mostly aimed for QuickTime encoding, not for MPEG-1.

And the last thing:
I was asking about the possibility to buy DVD MPEG-2 (MPEG-4) quality videos at the price of MPEG-1. So as I see nobody is interested in it.

It looks like you are totally newbie to video encoding

1) You're confused my son. The ONLY reason anyone uses mpeg-1 anymore isnt because of its amazing quality or impressive compression but because that it is the most widely supported format on the net.

The only advantage to mpeg-2 for what you're doing is giving people who wish to re-encode their own shit a decent copy to work with but when it comes to end-user support, forget it.

2) Sorenson does/can compress Mpeg-1 compatiable files which are still just as widely supported and isnt solely based on Mpeg-4, maybe you're thinking of Sorenson v3.

For the most part an mpeg compressor is a mpeg compressor but some programs tend to do it better. Oh, and yes you can go over 352x240, but i dont see how that is useless.
Comment
Ketadream

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 1373
Share

Post
#15

06-26-2003, 08:25 AM

Alan ummm.....
ummm.....

Oh nevermind....

SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.
Comment
DiVo

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 153
Share

Post
#16

06-26-2003, 08:57 AM

Alan,

What type and lenght of content are you working with? also what kind of terms/security are you wanting to setup?

Are you looking to setup these vids inside a subscription site or setup a subwscription to a set of movies (i.e. you can watch 10 of these 100 clips a week, but you can watch them as many times as necessary) Are you looking to stream or download or progressive download with DRM?

I may not know a lot of answers, but I know a lot of questions.

AIM - DivXVOD
ICQ - 3370081
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#17

06-26-2003, 09:03 AM

Even if you are always encoding to 320x240 with MPEG-1 the quality will be much better when the source has the higher bitrate.

But even now people are starting to rent online DivX videos with true DVD resolution.

High broadband surfers are ready to pay more for the quality.
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#18

06-26-2003, 09:10 AM

short videos, 10-20 minutes - it will be around 200 Mb each

i am developing several small paysites now and such clips will available for download inside members area, without any protection (like drm)

as for me i am sure that most adult videos will be downloaded from net (not purchased offline), sure not tomorrow, but VERY soon
Comment
KBPimped

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 86
Share

Post
#19

07-05-2003, 04:48 PM

Did you say you were or were not going to use DRM on the files?
Comment
AlanM

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2003

Posts: 245
Share

Post
#20

07-05-2003, 05:50 PM

I am not going to use DRM.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...