What LQ? HQ?
#2
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:39 PM
#3
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:44 PM
HQ = High Quality
Usually the video files with the higher MBs have better quality... it can depend also on how the person ripped & encoded the file. But 700 MB files for Korean series and others are usually close to DVD quality rips. =)
#5
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:51 PM
#6
Posted 02 November 2005 - 09:58 PM
If you're just looking for Korean drama rips, 700MB AVI's are good
ASFs are terrible.
#7
Posted 03 November 2005 - 12:51 AM
i usually prefer the DivX or XviD DVDRips though because they're dramatically smaller (compared to 5-9 GB) whilst keeping a fairly high standard of quality...
yeah as happyroach said, it depends on the codec... also depends on who encodes it and whether they're good at adjusting the codec settings
Posts must be 20 characters or longer. Do not bypass the swear filter.
Please argue your point without generalizing or name-calling.
#8
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:37 AM
#9
Posted 03 November 2005 - 01:41 AM
And all these Chinese people rip things in Real. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY ASD;FLKJ
#10
Posted 03 November 2005 - 08:05 AM
The thing about it is its soo hard to convert that makes it so annoying.
#11
Posted 03 November 2005 - 08:23 AM
Haven't used Real Player or Real Alternative for few years now.
I refuse to watch REAL contents.
#12
Posted 03 November 2005 - 11:08 AM
.avi stands for Audio Video Interleave. it's a format windows adopted as a means of simplifying their media markets during the release of Windows 95.
Most recognized, Divx and Xvid use the .avi extension due to it's high compression rate, and extremely high resolution capabilities. ^__^
.RAW, .ISO, .VOB, .MDM are formats that are uncompressed from their original content. For example, if a camcorder was recording video...it would be considered .raw; since it is directly writing it to the film...without any post processing. fun huh? This format uses the least amount of CPU since it requires almost no decompression, commonly associated with .avi or real media audio/video
It's true, ALL of these formats are capable of 1:1 ratio quality that .avi usually gets; but the data rate of transfer is usually soo bloody high it's not worth it; not to mention the load on your CPU if you don't have the latest video card with video post processing. (such as nVidia's Pure Video technology :consult your video card makers' manual:)
As specified before, LQ and HQ are different audio bitrates.
(Common rates are 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 320)
As soon as you reach 160kbps, however; it is EXTREMELY difficult to even distuinguish the difference of higher bitrates even at VERY LOUD VOLUMES. the only difference is...I guess psychological.
As it stands right now, .avi remains the standard in audio and video. But at higher definitions, such as "HIGH DEFINITION", Windows Media Video (.WMV) and Divx's HIGH DEFINITION (.avi) are practically equal, with an edge if you have a nVidia card...with pure video and using .wmv

And all will be explained in good time.
#14
Posted 03 November 2005 - 04:58 PM
You should copy and paste that into the video/audio codec sticky at the top.
It does a nice job of summarizing the formats in a logical and easily comprehensible manner.
#15
Posted 03 November 2005 - 05:56 PM
#16
Posted 03 November 2005 - 07:51 PM
I deal with technology all the time...and I am usually helping my friends with this kind of stuff...I'm 18 years old and a super geek; so i guess that comes naturally.
as for it being well written...it's because I've written stuff like this for a long time. I even wrote a paper on it for my english class...but I failed it because the paper was supposed to be about significant authors of the 21st century...yeah...nice...

And all will be explained in good time.
#17
Posted 03 November 2005 - 07:56 PM
Im 20 and im skilled at confusing people. When it comes to computers I confuse people even more.
I doubt its copied because it feels like regurgitated information grabbed from many sources. I just know if I tried that it would be like my attempts to explain things to people. Ill get the O_oa look
#18
Posted 03 November 2005 - 08:06 PM
it's kind of like spaming...like that guy who questioned my post. ...off topic bumping? I joined yesterday...I really like this forum. it seems to have a lot of nice people.
is there anything else that needs to be discussed?....I think I am a little lost as to the direction that tangent took me to. Sometimes when I type about technology...i end up...going into entire histories of technologies that are totally irrevalent to the topic in question. You can't talk about processors until you explain the history of semi conductors...ugh..here I go again.

And all will be explained in good time.
#20
Posted 03 November 2005 - 10:16 PM
Hippo!? awwww your picture is really cute. I have to turn my head though...for some reason crooked images freak me out.
^__^

And all will be explained in good time.





















