this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023

17 points (94.7% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54577 readers

307 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

WEB-DL Quality Question (lemmy.fmhy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hello - I need some help understanding something. I'm looking at two WEB-DL files from reputable groups that are identical in nearly all ways (see details below), except one file is noticeably larger than the other (2.8GB vs 3.47GB, for example). I thought WEB-DL's should be the same size if they're from the same source (AMZN in this instance), so I'm a little confused as to why there's such a disparity in size when all else appears equal.

Any idea's what could explain the difference in file size here? I'm assuming the FLUX file is older based on when it was first uploaded vs the NTb one. Could this have something to do with it?

Bonus question: Which file would you choose in this situation?

(1) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-NTb

FileSize......: 2.80 GiB
Duration......: 42 min 35 s
Video.........: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 9 197 kb/s
Audio.........: English Dolby Digital Plus | 2 CH @ 224 kb/s
Subtitle......: English / English.

(2) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP.2.0.H.264-FLUX

FileSize......: 3.47 GiB
Duration......: 42 min 12 s
Video.........: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 11.3 Mb/s
Audio.........: English Dolby Digital Plus | 2 CH @ 224 kb/s
Subtitle......: English.

Edit: Thanks for all the replies! For anyone who stumbles upon this later on with a similar question, there's some really great replies in the comments below worth checking out. In my case, the file size difference was due to the difference in bitrate, where the bitrate differential is likely due to either (A) the region where the AMZN WEB-DL occurred (with different regions having different bitrates), or (B) the release group modifying the bitrate to fit a specific need (like limiting the file size). Knowing both release groups here tend to prioritize quality, I'm guessing the region is likely the main driver in the difference in bitrate size.

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] godless@latte.isnot.coffee 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The date of the upload doesn't matter. What matters is the bitrate given.

9 197 kb/s vs. 11.3 Mb/s means that the FLUX release is packing >20% more image data into the file, so the picture will look crisper, contains more visual information, and is less compressed in general.

Depending on your display you might not actually notice the difference, but on a good, large HD panel you will be able to spot differences here and there, particularly when it comes to fast change of scenes, swift light/dark changes, and rapid movements.

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That makes sense and helps to conceptualize the impact of the bitrate difference. I guess I was under the impression that bitrate would be set at the source and not by the release group, but seems I may have been wrong in that assumption. Thanks for the info!

[–] godless@latte.isnot.coffee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The source defines the bitrate at which it is streaming, which sets the theoretical maximum. The release group then decides if and how much they want to compress the file.

Theoretical maximum because the release group could go above spec, but that wouldn't add any benefits.

[–] mammut@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Unless the meaning of the term has changed, WEB-DL are not re-encoded by the group. WEB-DL is meant to indicate a "lossless" copy of the stream. (Obviously not literally lossless, since no video streaming service is streaming lossless, but lossless relative to the original stream).

[–] chftyrol@feddit.it 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hi, the difference in size you are seeing is because of the different video bitrates. The Ntb one has a slightly lower bitrate, so for videos that are about the same duration, this translates to a lighter file.

Whether or not you could perceive the difference amounts to your sensibility and experience with this kind of things as well as to your monitor.

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotcha. Any idea why the bitrate would be different on a WEB-DL from the same source? I figured bitrate would remain the same if the file is being downloaded and DRM stripped, with all else (source, resolution, etc...) remaining equal.

[–] lodion@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Streaming providers are known to have different bitrates in different regions.

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Oh, good call. I didn't even consider that!

[–] Fastjur@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Flux is considered a good quality group so I would go for that one: https://trash-guides.info/Sonarr/Sonarr-Release-Profile-RegEx/

Edit: just realized that ntb is also in that exact list. In that case go for the highest bitrate for better quality. Thus the flux one.

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thanks for the reply and the link! I agree, based on everything I'm learning in this thread, seems like the FLUX version is the way to go for the added bitrate.

[–] webjukebox@mujico.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(1) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-NTb

FileSize…: 2.80 GiB Video…: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 9 197 kb/s

(2) 1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP.2.0.H.264-FLUX

FileSize…: 3.47 GiB Video…: High@L4 | 1920x1080 @ 11.3 Mb/s

Bitrate, every group use different encode.

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ohh, I didn't realize the release groups would set the bitrate. I figured that was set at the source. But that makes sense. Thanks for helping to clear this up! I was at a loss trying to connect the dots on the size differential here.

[–] webjukebox@mujico.org 3 points 1 year ago

Different groups specialize in different target audiences. Some seek the highest quality, others want not to exceed a certain number of gigabytes, etc.

[–] frank@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My guess is the source file is the same sorce file, but some groups process the file to cut down the file size.

[–] Monomate@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If there's some re-encoding, would the file still be considerd "WEB-DL" at this point?

[–] veroxii@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wouldn't the raw unaltered stream be a webrip rather than a web dl?

[–] Monomate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

"Rip" implies re-enconding. Web-DL is the exact video stream as it is transmited, without any further re-encondings by the release group. Unless I'm wrong...?

[–] blixo@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Process, meaning like encode? Or can it be processed in other ways that doesn't alter the quality?

I noticed that the smaller file is longer, interestingly enough. So there does appear to be some level of trimming I'm assuming, but I wouldn't have expected the longer file to be the smaller one.

load more comments