What’s the deal with low bitrates?

[Ninja-Trix]

Now I’m not going to name names, mostly because I’ve seen several editors do this, but why are there so many fan edits that seem to have a significantly lower bitrate than the source? I mean, I get not doing insane bitrates like 40MBPS but I’ve encountered edits of 1080p movies compressed to less than DVD’s bitrate. If you’re cramming an HD film to fit on a single layer DVD, you’re compressing it too much. And yet, I haven’t heard anyone else complaining about this. In fact, someone complained to me that my edits are too large because I try to maintain the source quality and end up it edits that take up over three times as much space as an edit of similar length from a different source.
Basically, why, if fanedits are meant to create the best versions of a film, are we butchering the bitrate along the way? The site itself states to keep a high bitrate to ensure you maintain video fidelity. I just don’t get it.

 

[The Scribbling Man]

Approved edits with an HD source shouldn't look shoddy. If they do, say so in your IFDB review. There aren't enough honest reviews around IMO.

As to why, I think in most cases it's probably due to an inferior process for getting the source into an editable state. It's quite common for people to use handbrake for getting a file off disc. But no matter what setting you use, it still compresses, and then they will compress again through their NLE once finished. Ideally, you only want one stage of compression, and you want to maintain complete control over that.

 

[Ninja-Trix]

I always rip raw MKV then convert with FFMPEG to not compromise visual fidelity. Then, when my edit is finished, I output at 20MBPS to create a high quality video. Even though many Blu-rays can get a higher bitrate of 30-40MBPS, I find the 20 is indistinguishable for most people and have even received comments on how people notice zero downgrade in the visuals.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

Also, not everyone has the bandwidth to download or upload huge files. Sources may also be from iTunes or Amazon which are at bitrates of 6-12mbps. Industry standard is that range for HD streaming.
As for your comment about preserving the full fidelity possible with larger encodings, I'll admit that I personally don't download those unless I know the file is up to snuff in terms of quality editing. As implied above, not many people review the actual editing, rather it seems that they review their relationship with a faneditor or the goal of the edit rather than the editing itself. If an edit still needs work or isn't at a polished state, I personally don't want the 25+gb file. That's a large reason why I don't release full size files myself. My edits aren't in a state that I don't yet want to mess with them more. They're done, but they could be better. If an edit is at it's peak in terms of what I feel can be accomplished with it, then I'll do a full render to match the source as best as possible. Until that time, out of respect for those who are downloading my edits, I match the streaming bitrate standard. I do feel that streamijg industry standard for bitrate and size should be a baseline standard though. That's just me though. Btw, not talking as a staff here.

 

[lapis molari]

Fanedits which I see as replacement for the original, I like in high bitrate.
Those that I watch as a complement to the original, I prefer a medium bitrate that saves some space on my harddrive.

Of course video bitrate isn't the only variable for quality:
- Low audio bitrate diminishes my enjoyment of an edit with lots of SFX or where clarity of dialog suffers.
- It matters which source you use (some 4K discs look so much better than their older blu-rays, that medium bitrate video, down-convertered to 1080p, looks better than the full bitrate blu-ray).

And there's the time and cost barrier: not every editor can afford a blazing fast, plenty disc capacity, computer. I remember the frustration when renders took all night, then to find the next day that a 1 frame audio glitch required a re-render.

I short: I agree that low bitrates can be disappointing. If it's an oversight, editors should up their game. But if it's a decision (for whatever reason that's relevant to the editor), I respect that.

 

[Gieferg]

I make all my edits as 22-23 GB blu-rays for my personal use, but sharing only 8-12 GB files.
When I said once that Blu-ray version (23 GB file) was available, not even one person asked for it.

And since I am using free GD acounts, the file can't be bigger than 15 GB and that probably won't change anytime soon.

 

[Eyepainter]

I find that anything above 20gb is a lot to ask for, and I speak as the owner of both a 1tb computer and a 1tb laptop. When I plan to watch a fanedit, I usually store it (and a lot of other fanedits) in a 128gb USB flash drive, so I can watch it on my 1080p HDTV. Usually, most fanedits I run into range from 5-15gb, maybe a little more, and for me, that's good enough.

I also think it helps to walk in the viewer's shoes as well. I've had a few e-mails from people who couldn't download anything past 15gb, because either the site wouldn't let them, or the file was just too big for their computers. Most blu-ray discs can get away with 30-40gb, because, well, they're on a disc. Fanedits aren't always stored that way, and for most people, trying to burn a bunch of BD-R's is too much of a luxury. So, the cheaper alternative is to download them, and later buy something storage related to put them in (like a flash drive, as I already mentioned, or an SD card. Take your pick).

 

[Possessed]

I always release two versions, a compressed version that's about 3 to 4 gb and a bd25 version. I know some people would want the movie without the rest of the disc but I don't want to use any more storage space than I have to, and the authoring program I use doesn't split it up so one could easily just open the .iso and extract the m2ts file without having to go through any "ripping" programs if they wanted. Or they could also mount the. Iso and use handbrake to convert it to a halfway in between if that suits their means. (You can do this directly in handbrake on discs that don't have commercial encryption) I used to keep the compressed version at 720p to compensate for the lower bitrate, but video compression has gotten so efficient these days I've recently decided it was okay to up it to 1080p.


Also the thread title made me think Jerry Seinfeld had gotten into fanedits.

 

[SIUse]

Tricky topic and i definitely can see points @DigModiFicaTion @lapis molari and @Gieferg made.
I personally work with a compressed file in my NLE but only while i‘m editing, once i render i use the source file as a source.
When i render out of my NLE it’s always a huge file with a minimum of compression (several hundred GB), which will then be encoded via SVT-AV1 to around 12-20 Gb with a video bitrate of 20 Mbps in average. New tech regarding compression is helpful to keep me a file small with minimal, non-perceptable loss or same quality in terms of video.

 

[Ninja-Trix]

When i render out of my NLE it’s always a huge file with a minimum of compression (several hundred GB), which will then be encoded via SVT-AV1 to around 12-20 Gb with a video bitrate of 20 Mbps in average.

I honestly feel that 20MBPS is the sweet spot. I’ve always output my edits at that rate and have never received complaints about the video quality, only the files being too large.

 

[Possessed]

Indeed, the bluray versions of my edits are right around 20 Mbps as well.

 

[tremault]

I think it's important to keep in mind that DVD is an OLD standard. software technology has moved on. something like h265 is leaps and bounds beyond DVD in terms of how much visual fidelity you can achieve in a particular file size.
comparing a 4gb h265 movie to a 4gb DVD movie is completely unfair.
Bluray is certainly more advanced than DVD, but that is h264 level and is generally made to be as close to non lossy as they can, while taking advantage of the size of the media. what is important is, look at the video and judge with your eyes.

 

[DigModiFicaTion]

I think it's important to keep in mind that DVD is an OLD standard. software technology has moved on. something like h265 is leaps and bounds beyond DVD in terms of how much visual fidelity you can achieve in a particular file size.
comparing a 4gb h265 movie to a 4gb DVD movie is completely unfair.
Bluray is certainly more advanced than DVD, but that is h264 level and is generally made to be as close to non lossy as they can, while taking advantage of the size of the media. what is important is, look at the video and judge with your eyes.

 

[Ninja-Trix]

I’d be fine if we had more h265 edits, due to it being half the size of h264, but there’s far too many edits that seem overly compressed and file size is not the only issue.

 

[hbenthow]

My viewpoint is that when it comes to fanedits, I'm often looking for something to effectively replace the original for me and be my go-to version. Thus, when the video quality is significantly lower than the source material, I'm disappointed.

 

[Eyepainter]

I’d be fine if we had more h265 edits, due to it being half the size of h264, but there’s far too many edits that seem overly compressed and file size is not the only issue.

I would love to upload in h.265 If I could, but I think the codec is still too new at this point. Almost none of my tech can play h.265 files. At one point, I couldn't even play an h.265 file on VLC! Fortunately, my VLC player is now equipped with the latest updates, although I haven't tested an h.265 file on VLC since then.

I do think h.265 is "better," and I can see the appeal even without having watched one. It's just not widely accessible for most people right now. h.264, on the other hand, is in pretty much everything, even most cell phones! So, on that basis, there isn't much reason to go beyond h.264 until (hopefully) h.265 becomes the new standard.

 

[tremault]

I would love to upload in h.265 If I could, but I think the codec is still too new at this point. Almost none of my tech can play h.265 files. At one point, I couldn't even play an h.265 file on VLC! Fortunately, my VLC player is now equipped with the latest updates, although I haven't tested an h.265 file on VLC since then.

I just provide both. an h264 at 4Mbps and an h265 at 3.2Mbps I can't tell the difference between these encodes and my master render.

 

[Ninja-Trix]

I just provide both. an h264 at 4Mbps and an h265 at 3.2Mbps I can't tell the difference between these encodes and my master render.

I understand some people not being able to tell the difference, but a trained eye like mine can tell the difference between 28MBPS and 36MBPS. I just wondered why I kept finding edits from people that are meant to replace previous versions yet were inferior in visual fidelity.

 

[Gieferg]

It's not always about bitrates. I've seen 20 GB edits of movies under 2 hours that looked badly compressed.

 

[tremault]

It's not always about bitrates. I've seen 20 GB edits of movies under 2 hours that looked badly compressed.

That's very true. Even aside from the codec used, there is also the amount of CPU you use for the encode. a fast encode of an MPEG2 movie at 5gb will look pretty bad, but a very slow two pass encode of an hevc movie at 5GB can look fantastic. @Ninja-Trix I'd be perfectly happy to do two encodes at my normal quality and just a bit higher. if you can honestly see the difference then i will doff my cap.