I have noticed that when I play the original files from StasyQVR they play slowly or jerky. I wonder if it has to do with them being a MOV file and deo player doesn't do that as well. I say that because I have a RTX 3090 card and I also use another player "virtual home theater" which even with super sampling set to 4 doesn't even slow it down a bit.
Poor playback of StasyQ original MOV videos
- Edited
I have that problem too. I tried remuxing one clip to mp4 instead of mov, but that didn't help. I think the problem is the codec, "MPEG-4 Visual". I don't know exactly what that is, but it's not one of the usual codecs (H.264/AVC or HEVC). I'll probably reencode them to HEVC at some point, at a higher bitrate than SLR uses.
- Edited
gurphh MPEG-4 Visual is a very old codec and the predecessor of H.264/AVC. It's from the 90s of the last century and widely known for DivX/XVid in the AVI container. It's based on H.263 which was introduced for videoconferencing in 1995/1996. I assume that today H.265/HEVC can deliver the same quality at 1/5 of the bitrate/size of MPEG-4 Visual.
Samsonite121 Since you seem pretty knowledgeable regarding video formats, do you think realistically I can get the same quality from the H.265 file that is offered? I have tried to compare them side by side so many times but the mind can play tricks on you and it's really tough to tell if it's basically the same or you are getting that tiny bit of clarity extra with the original format.
- Edited
dazmaster If SLR is really using this original file in MPEG-4 Visual as base for reencoding into H.264/H.265 you will get almost the same quality by a fraction of the filesize of the original file. Almost only because every reencoding will lose a fraction of the original information. It's the same as if you dubbed audio tapes (cassettes) in the analogue times.
On the other hand we have to reach out to StasyQVR that they should master their work in H.265 as you get the most quality out of that codec.
- Edited
If they fix the player
There's nothing to fix. The player will play whatever Windows Media Foundation will play and has the codec for. Asuming you're on windows 8/10 ( Windows Media Player doesn't use WMF. Movies & TV does. )
Sadly:
Why not just use the h265? It's a lot smaller and there shouldn't be any quality loss.
dazmaster I just compared one of these videos too (original vs SLR's encode), and you can definitely see an improvement in the original clip, but it's small. In another (not StasyQ) comparison I did, the difference was much bigger. You can often see a difference in skin texture, for example, and skin texture is important to me. The StazyQ videos sadly don't have much much of it, though.
- Edited
gurphh
you do have to take into account the display capabilities. The small displays in the headsets don't have the same color and lux range as most (decent) displays & TV's.
I was more talking about artefacts/blocking/banding. The h265 codec has a lot more blocks, sizes and forms to work with than h263, and waaaay more vectors* that it should be an identical copy, given you don't make the encoding settings awful on purpose 
Change in color, blur will depend a lot on the filters used. But this goes for the decoding as well. You can play the same video on two different decoders, on the same display, and it can look different.
If you ever been shopping locally for a TV/display that are all playing the exact same channel, you will likely know what I'm talking about.
Vectors*
- Think of it as trying to reach the other side of a chessboard with different chess pieces.
Where h263 is a knight
h264 is a bishop
h265 is a queen.
- Edited
Rakly3 In my test (which wasn't done in VR), I got a definite loss of detail for all quality settings I tried with the x265 encoder, using default settings, and 'crf' to determine quality. It did preserve detail better and better with decreasing crf value (i.e. increasing quality), but even when the bitrate exceeded the original's 90 Mbps there was still a very noticeable loss of detail. I'd guess the main reason for this is that encoder is spending lots of bits trying to copy the compression artifacts of the original.
13 days later
They have the hottest girls by far but watching their videos is hard to stomach from the constant movement. Not sure they understand how nauseating that is.
JeffBSLR I've been working on getting them to slow down. The movement however particularly the hovering overhead is a huge plus for me and for others. While I understand it may cause nausea for some, it truly gives a sensational feeling that is hard to find. I find it quite stimulating when done properly
Just chiming in here... I like to download the "Original" files as often as possible, and I really enjoy StasyQ's content because of their models. I think there are some improvements they could do, camera/directing wise, but that's a different story.
Anyways, regarding the mov files, I am in agreement with the others here. The Original file cannot play well (or at all) in DeoVR or SLR on my PC with a 3080 GPU. It's definitely something with this codec that makes it problematic, and I really don't know why StasyQ decided to start delivering source files with this codec? It's the only file that I've ever had difficult playing in my headset.
Because StasyQ videos often use natural light, there are a lot of shadows, and the lower bitrate of the h265 file does not cut it. @Rakly3 / @doublevr can you please try to convince StasyQ to change their delivery specs? And I know this is asking too much, but any possible way they can redeliver all their previous mov files? A few of us have tried mentioning this in the comment section of the video but they never respond. Thank you
g2kbuffetboy I communicate directly with them every week. I have brought this to their attention, but will bring it up again. After a lot of mental struggle with this I think the quality of the encoded is sufficient for what it is. In a couple years these will all be historical artifacts we wonder why we spent so much energy on
18 days later
dazmaster Yeah just feedback there, when the camera moves very slowly and not side to side or at curving angles it is tolerable. Some of the original videos just make me want to pull the headset off.
If you do talk to them regularly, let them know that their shooting quality and sets are very good, and the girls are always incredibly hot. If any of the girls have (or can be) shot at the same quality but with hardcore that would be phenomenal - and with minimal touching from the male performer. Nothing takes me out of getting immersed in a scene as much as when the guy's hands not only get grabby (natural instinct but VR videos aren't meant for that) but when they basically never take their hands away.
2 months later
JeffBSLR dazmaster @g2kbuffetboy ... chiming in as well to say StasyQ just went "hardcore" on Viva la VivaQ with some finger rubbing at around 7:50 mark. That's the first time I've noticed and I think it worked well. It's a nice addition if they decide to do more. Not to mention the regular extended ass views that have been exceptional, filling "InTheCrack" fetishes.